The Current Controversy in Childbirth Care

A Consultant’s Viewpoint
  • Richard L. Cohen


Because young adults of childbearing age are exposed almost daily to opinions and “data” from the proponents of the various childbirth schools of thought (whether in the electronic and print media or through family and social contacts), there tends to be a sense of uncertainty about what is best for them and their infant-to-be. How they arrive at decisions about what kind of care is most appropriate for them has been discussed in the preceding chapter. Many of the arguments have become so emotionally charged that the mental health consultant may find a more dispassionate (if that is possible) exposition of the issues useful in working with families and caregivers. That is the basic purpose of this chapter. As is often the case, it is best to begin by letting the actors in the “drama” speak for themselves. The following are verbatim excerpts from tape-recorded interviews that I have conducted over the past few years.


Fetal Heart Rate Home Birth Current Controversy Fetal Monitoring Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Burchell RC: Predelivery removal of pubic hair. Obstet Gynecol 24: 271–273, 1964.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kantor HI, Rember R, Tabio P: Value of shaving the pudendal-perineal area in delivery. Obstet Gynecol 25: 509–512, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banta HD, Thacker SB: Costs and Benefits of Electronic Fetal Monitoring: A Review of the Literature. Washington, D.C., Office of Health, Statistics and Technology, National Center for Health Services Research, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haverkamp A, et al : The evaluation of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in high risk pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 125:310–320, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haverkamp A, et al: A controlled trial of the differential effects of intrapartum fetal monitoring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 134: 399–412, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelly VC, Kulkarni D: Experiences with fetal monitoring in a community hospital. Obstet Gynecol 41: 818–824, June 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freeman RK: The clinical value of antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring, in Gluck L (ed): Modern Perinatal Medicine. Chicago, Yearbook Medical Publishers, 1974, pp 163–178.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu DTY, Blackwell RJ, Tukel S: The relevance of antenatal and intrapartum fetal heart rate patterns to fetal outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 85: 270–277, April 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dalton K, Dawson A, Gough N: Long distance telemetry of fetal heart rate from patients’ homes using public telephone network. Br Med J May 1983, p 1545.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mehl LE: Complications of home birth. Birth and Family J 24: 123–131, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mehl LE: Statistical outcomes of home delivery: Comparison to similarly selected hospital deliveries. Presented at the First Annual Meeting of the National Association of Parents and Professionals for Safe Alternatives in Childbirth, Washington, DC, May 1976.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehl LE: Outcomes of elective home births: A series of 1146 cases. J Reprod Med 19: 281–290, November 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Millinaire C: BIRTH. New York: Harmony Books, 1974.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oakley A: Women confined: Towards a sociology of childbirth. New York, Schocken Books, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arms S: Immaculate Deception. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corea G: The Hidden Malpractice: How American Medicine Mistreats Women. New York: Jove Books, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stewart D, Stewart L: 21st Century Obstetrics Now, Vols 1 and 2. Chapel Hill, NC, NAPSAC, Inc 1977.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stewart D, Stewart L: Safe Alternatives in Childbirth. Chapel Hill, NC, NAPSAC, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Institute of Medicine and National Research Council: Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chard T, Richards M (eds): Benefits and Hazards of the New Obstetrics, Clinics in Developmental Medicine, ed 64. London, William Heinemann Medical Books, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adamson GD, Gare DJ: Home or hospital births? JAMA 243: 1732–1736, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feinbloom RI: A proposed alliance of midwives and family practitioners in the care of low risk pregnant women. BIRTH 13: 109–113, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friedman, EA: The obstetrician’s dilemma: How much fetal monitoring and cesarean section is enough? New Engl J Med 315: 641–643, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and ClinicUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations