Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Intrapartum Care pp 1–23Cite as

The place of birth

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Midwifery Practice ((MIPRA))

Abstract

These statements, both made by committees set up to investigate and make recommendations on the maternity services and separated by a period of 36 years, help to illustrate the enormous change that has taken place in the way in which childbirth is viewed. In the first quotation childbirth is viewed as a ‘normal’ process experienced by ‘healthy women’. The second statement on the other hand portrays a view of childbirth as a pathological process in which medical intervention may well be required.

It is clearly unsatisfactory to base the provision of maternity beds solely on obstetric needs; preferences, home conditions, and domestic ties must be taken into account. The maternity services cater in the main for healthy women going through a normal physiological process; their needs, therefore, are more complex than those of the sick, where the clinical aspect is all-important.

(Joint Committee of the RCOG and the Population Investigation Committee 1948)

As unforseen complications can occur in any birth, every mother should be encouraged to have her baby in a maternity unit where emergency facilities are readily available.

(Maternity Services Advisory Committee 1984)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aiment E A J, Barr A, Reid M, Reid J J A 1967 Normal confinement: a domiciliary and hospital study. British Medical Journal 2: 530–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford J R 1978 Policies for maternity care in England and Wales: too fast too far? In: Kitzinger S, Davis J (eds) The place of birth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron S L, Thomson A M, Philips P R 1977 Home and hospital confinement in Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1960–1969. British Journal of Obstetricts and Gynaecology 84: 401–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Black N 1982 Do general practitioner deliveries constitute a perinatal mortality risk? British Medical Journal 284: 488–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brody H, Thompson J R 1981 The maximum strategy in modern obstetrics. Journal of Family Practice 12: 977–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Butler N R, Alberman E D 1969 Perinatal problems. Livingstone, Edinburgh, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Caetano D F 1975 The relationship of medical specialization (obstetricians and general practitioners) to complications in pregnancy and delivery, birth injury and malformation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 123: 221–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell R 1979 A study of selected aspects of the change in the place of confinement with particular reference to Plymouth. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Plymouth Polytechnic

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell R, Macdonald Davies I, Macfarlane A 1982 Perinatal mortality and place of delivery. Population Trends 28: 9–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell R, Macdonald Davies I, Macfarlane A, Beral V 1984 Home births in England and Wales; perinatal mortality according to intended place of delivery. British Medical Journal 289: 721–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell R, Macfarlane A 1987 Where to be born? The debate and the evidence. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan M, Madeley R J 1985 Home deliveries in Nottingham 1980–81. Public Health 99: 307–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cavenagh A J M, Phillips K M, Sheridan B, Williams E M J 1984 Contribution of isolated general practitioner maternity units. British Medical Journal 288: 1438–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers I, Zlosnik J E, Johns K A, Campbell H 1976 Obstetric practice and outcome of pregnancy in Cardiff residents 1965–1973. British Medical Journal 1: 735–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers I, Macfarlane A J 1980 Interpretation of perinatal statistics. In Wharton B (ed) Topics in perinatal medicine. Pitman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain G, Phillip E, Howlett B, Masters K 1978 British Births 1970, Volume 2, Obstetric Care. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain R, Chamberlain G, Hewlett B, Claireaux A 1975 British births 1970, volume 1, the first week of life. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Damstra-Wijmenga S M I 1984 Home confinement: the positive results in Holland. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 34: 425–30

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • DHSS 1970 Domiciliary midwifery and maternity bed needs (Peel Report) HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferster G, Pethybridge R 1973 The costs of a local maternity care system. Hospital and Health Services Review July: 243–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint C, Poulengeris P, Grant A 1989 The ‘Know Your Midwife scheme’ — a randomised trial of continuity of care by a team of midwives. Midwifery 5: 11–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer J G, Ashford A 1972 Trends in perinatal and neonatal mortality in England and Wales 1960–9. British Journal of Preventive Social Medicine 26: 1–9

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett T, House W, Lowe S W 1987 Outcome of women booked into an isolated general practitioner maternity unit over eight years. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 37: 488–90

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gillie O 1980 Hospital v home childbirth row looms. Sunday Times 16 November: 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray A M, Steele R 1981 The economics of specialist and general practitioner maternity units. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 31: 586–92

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe W O, Richman J 1974 Maternal attitudes to unintended home confinements. A case study of the effects of a hospital strike upon domiciliary confinements. Practitioner 212: 845–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon I, Elias Jones T F 1960 The place of confinement: home or hospital? The mother’s preference. British Medical Journal 52: 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansard 1987 House of Commons. Parliamentary Debates 121, col 910: W

    Google Scholar 

  • Heady J A, Daly C, Morris J N 1955 Social and biological factors in infant mortality II. Variations of mortality with mother’s age and parity. Lancet ii: 395–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Heady J A, Morris J N 1956 Social and biological factors in infant mortality VI. Mothers who have their babies in hospitals and nursing homes. British Journal of Preventive Social Medicine 10: 97–106

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hemminki E 1985 Perinatal mortality distributed by type of hospital in the central hospital district of Helsinki, Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine 13: 113–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holdsworth J 1989 The role of the general practitioner in intrapartum obstetric care. Unpublished General Practice project. Sheffield University Medical School

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Social Services Committee (HC) 1980 Perinatal and neonatal mortality. Second report from the Social Services Committee, Sessions 1979–80, Vol I: Cmnd. 663–1. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson C K 1968 Domiciliary obstetrics in a groups practice. Practitioner 201: 816–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • James R 1977a Letter to New Society 39: 248

    Google Scholar 

  • James D K 1977b Patients transferred in labour from general practitioner maternity units. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 27: 414–18

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Population Investigation Committee 1948 Maternity in Great Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger S, Davis J A 1978 The Place of Birth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Lloyd I, Redman C, Bull M, Turnbull A C 1980 A comparison of a sample of low-risk women delivering in two systems of care — shared care (consultant team) and community care (integrated general practice [GP] unit). Paper presented at Pregnancy Care for the 1980s held at the Royal Society of Medicine, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Lloyd I, Redman C, Bull M Turnbull A C 1983 A comparison of low risk pregnant women booked for delivery in two systems of care. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 90: 118–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Elbourne D, Lloyd I 1985 Booking for maternity care, a comparison of two systems. Occasional paper 31. RCGP, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Zander L 1989 Role of the family practitioner in maternity care. In Chalmers I, Enkin M, Kierse M (eds) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lievaart M, de Jong P A 1982 Neonatal morbidity in deliveries conducted by midwives and gynaecologists. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 114: 376–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilford R J 1987 Clinical experimentation in obstetrics. British Medical Journal 295: 1298–1300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lumley J 1988 The safety of small maternity hospitals in Victoria 1982–84. Community Health studies. XII (4): 386–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald Davies I 1980 Perinatal and infant death rates: social and biological factors. Population Trends 19: 19–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Maternity Services Advisory Committee 1984 Maternity Care in Action Part II Care during childbirth (intrapartum care): a guide to good practice and a plan for action. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehl L E 1978 The outcome of home delivery: research in the United States. In Kitzinger S, Davis J A (eds) The place of birth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan B M, Bulpitt C, Clifton P, Lewis P J 1984 The consumers’ attitude to obstetric care. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 91: 624–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Health 1920 Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 1919–1920. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugford M 1988 Economies of scale and low risk maternity care: what is the evidence. Unpublished paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy J F, Dauncey M, Gray O P, Chalmers I 1984 Planned and unplanned deliveries at home: implications of a changing ratio. British Medical Journal 288: 1429–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien M 1978 Home and hospital confinement: a comparison of the experiences of mothers having home and hospital confinements. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 28: 460–66

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • OPCS Monitor 1988 Infant and perinatal mortality 1986: Birthweight, DH3 88 / 1. Government Statistical Service, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees H G St M 1961 A domiciliary obstetric practice 1948–58. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 4: 47–71

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt R A, Deinken J, Shoemack P 1985 Is obstetrics safe in small hospitals? Evidence from New Zealand’s Regionalised Perinatal System. Lancet ii: 429–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal College of Midwives 1987 Towards a healthy nation. RCM, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutter P 1964 Domiciliary midwifery — is it justifiable. Lancet ii: 1228–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax S 1983 Report of the Commission of Inquiry into South Australian Hospitals. South Australian Health Commission, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherjon S 1986 A comparison between the organisation of obstetrics in Denmark and the Netherlands. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 93: 684–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz E 1990 The engineering of childbirth: a new obstetric programme as reflected in British obstetric textbooks, 1960–1980. In: Garcia J, Kilpatrick R, Richards M (eds) The politics of maternity care. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Senn S J Unpublished analyses

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw G B S 1906 Preface to ‘The Doctor’s Dilemma’. Constable, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shearer J M L 1985 Five year prospective survey of risk of booking for home birth. British Medical Journal 291: 1478–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shepperdson B 1983 Home or hospital birth? A study of women’s attitudes. Health Visitor 56: 405–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A 1986 Maternity Services: the consumer’s view. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 36: 157–60

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor G W, Edgar W, Taylor B A, Neal D G 1980 How safe is general practitioner obstetrics? Lancet ii: 1287–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Tew M 1978 The case against hospital deliveries: the statistical evidence. In Kitzinger S, Davis J A (eds) The place of birth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tew M 1981 Effects of scientific obstetrics on perinatal mortality. Health and Social Services Journal 91: 444–46

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tew M 1985a Place of birth and perinatal mortality. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 35: 390–4

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tew M 1985b Home births: we have the technology. Nursing Times 81 (47): 22–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tew M 1986 Do obstetric interventions make births safer? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 93: 659–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tew M 1987 Is home birth less safe? Paper presented at the First International Conference on Home Birth, October 24th and 25th, Wembley Conference Centre, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Treffers P E, Laan R 1986 Regional perinatal mortality and regional hospitalisation at delivery in the Netherlands. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 93: 690–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Woodall J 1968 No place like home. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 61: 1032–34

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Young G 1987 Are isolated maternity units run by general practitioners dangerous? British Medical Journal 294: 744–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Suggested further reading

  • Campbell R, Macfarlane A 1987 Where to be born? The debate and the evidence. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tew M 1985 Place of birth and perinatal mortality. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 35: 390–94

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia J, Kilpatrick R, Richards M P 1990 The politics of maternity care. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein M, Zander L 1989 The role of the family practitioner in maternity care. In Chalmers I, Enkins M, Kierse M (eds) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Rona Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Southwest College of Health Studies, University of Plymouth, UK

    Valerie Levy MPhil RM RGN MTD

Copyright information

© 1990 Rona Campbell

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Campbell, R. (1990). The place of birth. In: Alexander, J., Levy, V., Roch, S. (eds) Intrapartum Care. Midwifery Practice. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20981-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20981-1_1

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-333-51370-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-20981-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation