To the Editor: The article by de Costa and Robson1 is a timely reminder that the ideology and politics surrounding maternity services could have an adverse impact on Australia’s excellent record as one of the safest countries in the world in which to be born.2 de Costa and Robson highlighted continuity of care as the attribute of antenatal supervision and birthing that women value most highly, and they quote evidence of the safe care provided by a midwife or general practitioner in a “low-tech” environment.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Rural Doctors Association of Australia, Kingston, ACT.
- 1. de Costa CM, Robson S. Throwing out the baby with the spa water? Med J Aust 2004; 181: 438-440. <MJA full text>
- 2. Laws PJ, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2001. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, 2004.
- 3. Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, et al. The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004; 170: 1678-1686.
- 4. United Medical Protection and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Obstetric claims review May 2004. Melbourne: UMP and RANZCOG, 2004.
- 5. Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, College of Family Physicians of Canada and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Rural obstetrics: joint position paper on rural maternity care. Can J Rural Med 1998; 3(2): 75.