THERE is nothing so natural as a woman choosing to have a child at home.
And there is nothing so unnatural as a legal system that would make it difficult, and perhaps impossible, for that to happen safely.
The Ballarat Maternity Coalition insists that assisted home births will be virtually outlawed if the Federal Government goes ahead with a plan to make it mandatory for midwives in private practice to have professional indemnity insurance from midway through next year.
And, given that insurance companies are refusing to provide that protection, the BMC says it will put them out of business.
Now I have no great opinion about the merits of home birth versus hospital birth. I guess, if I were married, I'd want my wife in a bloody great hospital surrounded by dozens of professionals, and every possible drug you or she could imagine.
And in a perfect world I guess I'd be outside with my mates, a box of cigars and possibly some whisky to take the edge off the nerves, although I'm not sure if blokes get away with that stuff anymore.
However if someone decides they want a home birth, with help from a midwife, then good luck to them. That should be their right to choose, not some bureaucrat's from Canberra.
There are two aspects about this that need to be seriously looked at.
The first is, who the hell is anyone to make a decision that practically tells a woman where she should have a child, and with help from whom?
Women have been having home births (usually quite safely) for thousands of years before the term "indemnity insurance" was even invented.
But the bigger question is, what kind of a society do we live in where people can sue others for their own decisions and their own mistakes?
In the case of the maternity coalition, it comes down to the government saying midwifes must have insurance because, if something goes wrong at a home birth, the mother and/or father can sue.
And that's why insurance companies are loath to cover this kind of work. Because history says such insurance payouts are a litigation lawyer's ultimate fantasy.
Instead of addressing the real problem _ (a) that people make decisions and when it turns out badly they want to blame someone else, and (b) that some judges encourage that lack of responsibility by issuing ridiculous compensation payouts _ some egghead has decided to make the
most natural way to give birth a legal nightmare.
There is a simple answer, an answer that is so simple there must be something wrong with it that I can't work out.
How about we come up with a simple form that, if a person wants to have a home birth, or go bungee jumping, or play football, or ride a goat, they accept responsibility for that decision and waive the right to sue?
And make it a legally binding document. Want a home birth? Then simply sign. Don't want to sign? Then go to the public hospital with its government-backed indemnity insurance.
Either way, accept responsibility for the decision.
While the future of the midwives is a very important part of this (especially for them), the issue is far greater.
It's about our right to choose our own level of risk.
We should have the right to make whatever decision we want involving our own safety. And, to bastardise a phrase from American writer P.J O'Rourke, with it should come a responsibility to accept the consequences.
For those who don't want to accept the risk, fair enough. That's what insurance is all about.
But ultimately, many of the most wonderful and exciting things we can do _ driving a fine car on a winding road, walking through a forest, hurling abuse at Collingwood supporters, even falling in love _ involve risk.
Should we be forced to seek out indemnity insurance on all these things? I think not.
You know I'm right about this.
Email a friend