Maternity Hospitals

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31316, 11 March 1967, Page 12

Maternity Hospitals

Sif,—A physiotherapist and my husband attended the births of both of our children. To the hospitals which would deny doctors the right to decide their fitness to be present in the theatre, I would like to present the following points: The physiotherapist is present to carry months of ante-natal training to its natural conclusion. It is hardly sensible to exclude trained people when the hospital staff shortage is so acute. The husband’s co-oper-ation with his wife is an invaluable support to her efforts and has the noticeable result of deepening the marriage relationships. The delivery of the baby is the most vivid and natural introduction to fatherhood a man can have. These things have to be experienced to be really understood.—Yours, etc., (Mrs) P. J. CLARK. March 10, 1967.

Sir, —“Competent” appears to have missed the whole point. Perhaps her three difficult births would have become three easy straightforward ones with physiotherapy training and a natural childbirth delivery. Let the “Competents” of Christchurch go ahead alone and have their difficult births, but please let us have our husbands and physiotherapists and our wonderfully safe and easy deliveries.—Yours, etc. D. BRUCE.

Pendarves, March 10, 1967.

Sir,—lt is distressing to find two of our hospitals reversing their previously enlightened policy and banning husbands from the maternity theatres. Few women today approach childbirth ignorant of the means of dealing with its physical demands through controlled breathing and relaxation. But too often, in the unfamiliar atmosphere of the hospital, emotional tension can rise to a point where it nullifies ante-natal training, making childbirth an ordeal instead of a joy. The presence of an understanding husband can reduce tension and encourage the wife to put into practice the techniques learnt previously; so her labour becomes easier and the birth a greater joy for being shared. Surely we can expect some explanation from the hospitals concerned, if only for the benefit of those who have booked into their maternity wards, expecting to have their husbands present at the birth of their children and now to be disappointed.—Yours, etc., E H P March 9, 1967.

Sir,—The extreme concern shown by the British Medical Association branch in the city and the English authority. Dr. J. A. Stallworthy, alone, should be a guiding factor for the welfare of the mother and child. If a person’s religion forbids the use of drugs, is that person going to be denied the physiotherapist’s assistance and husband's support for natural childbirth?— Yours, etc., A.B. March 10, 1967.

Sir, —If the presence of husbands at their wives’ confinements were made compulsory, what an outcry there would be! What a demand to have them excluded!—Yours, etc. PIPE DOWN. March 10, 1967 [This correspondence is now closed.—Ed., “The Press.”] Aid To Vietnam

Sir, —If U Thant, de Gaulle, Anthony Eden. Norman Kirk and the Kennedys are all wrong, and there is bo way out in Vietnam but increasing destruction, then it is up to New Zealand to do more than make an obsequious, token effort. To pull our weight with America on a population basis, we should have 8000 conscripts in South Vietnam now, with more to come later. Anything less would seem to be “welshing.”—Yours, etc., VARIAN J. WILSON. March 9, 1967.

Sir,—ln defending our further contribution to the Vietnam war the Prime Minister says, “North Vietnam and the Viet Cong show no evidence that they are prepared to seek a genuine peace settlement” The fact is, rather, that whenever North Vietnam

shows evidence that it is ready to talk, the United States at once steps up the war. Further, North Vietnam cannot negotiate on behalf of tile N.L.F. (Viet Cong) who cany the major burden of the war in the South, yet the N.L.F. have never been asked to negotiate. When it is not the enemy but the enemy’s ally who is asked to talk it is obvious that the “peace offensive” is nothing more than propaganda for home consumption. Had New Zealand used its presence in Vietnam as a diplomatic lever, attempting to persuade the United States to look for a genuine negotiated settlement with the N.L.F., there might have been something to say for it But we have now shown ourselves simply compliant to every whim of American foreign policy, no matter how brutal, immoral, and discredited in the eyes of the world. —Yours, etc., C. K. STEAD. March 8,1967.

Sir,—The suggestion that the 1966 election gave the Government a mandate for its policy of military aid for Vietnam is a misapprehension. All commentators of that election, on radio and in the press, conceded that Vietnam was not the central issue, but that voters made their choice on local issues. The electors mostly voted for the same party they had voted for in previous elections. Yours, etc..

SETH NEWELL. March 10, 1967.