There is a real need for balance in maternity care. Very occasionally, things can go horribly wrong, which means that vigilance is a vital midwifery skill and we can be very grateful for the array of tools, tests, interventions and pharmaceuticals that are occasionally life-saving. But on the other side of the seesaw, the vast majority of births will – especially if allowed to unfold physiologically and without undue interference of all the kinds described in the last sentence – progress well to a happy, healthy conclusion for all concerned. If we apply too little vigilance and/or eschew intervention where it is truly warranted, we may end up with high rates of unwarranted intervention, iatrogenic morbidity, unhappy mums, unsettled babies and all manner of unwanted and perhaps sometimes unknown knock-on effects, which can be emotional and social as well as physical.
The concept of balance can also be considered in relation to the knowledge that we use to underpin decision-making and practice, and the enormous difficulty with achieving the balance described above is that this is not an exact science. In fact, it’s not really a science at all. It’s an art which involves juggling different kinds of partial knowledge and bits of information which are often taken out of context and then trying to work out how to deal with the huge gaps of what we don’t know. Some of this knowledge might come from research and then some will come from other sources, such as expert opinion. Both, and every other kind of knowledge we generate or use, have advantages and disadvantages.
A good example of a situation which requires balance in both of the dimensions described above is that of obstetric cholestasis, also known as intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP). There is very little research evidence available to underpin recommendations, and so there is a significant reliance on expert opinion as a form of knowledge. I absolutely acknowledge the concerns that exist about this condition, yet I also see an increasing tendency to intervene in the pregnancies of women who may be affected by this without perhaps having as much knowledge as might be ideal. A more recent study can be seen here. This intervention, as I noted near the beginning of this post, can increase the likelihood of other problems, which then necessitates consideration of which way the seesaw is moving.
I have spent years researching and writing about areas in which practice recommendations have become almost cemented in place without us really having done enough research to know if they are the right recommendations, or to know whether other possibilities exist. It only takes a few years after such foundations are cemented before the idea of carrying out additional research (which, in the case of the kind of trial that is deemed necessary in some circles to provide adequate evidence, necessitates removing the now-accepted intervention from those in the control group) is deemed unethical. There is always a danger that we create guidelines without engaging clear thinking.
So often, I end up thinking that this all comes down to humility. Within a society that puts a high value on expertise, it is very difficult for professionals in any field to admit that they don’t know something, and yet, if we were all truthful, ‘we don’t know’ would be the most commonly uttered phrase in maternity care encounters.
If you’d like to stay up-to-date with birth-related research and thinking, make sure you’re subscribed to our free newsletter list, which means you’ll get Sara’s monthly Birth Information Update. Or come and join us in an online course!
Geenes V, Chappell LC, Seed PT et al (2013). Association of severe intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with adverse pregnancy outcomes: A prospective population-based case-control study. Hepatology, 15 July 2013. Online ahead of print.