Natural birth advocate cleared of incompetence

Press, 26 July 1986, Page 33

Natural birth advocate cleared of incompetence

By HUGH BARLOW NZPA staff correspondent London A leading obstetrician whose advocacy of natural childbirth led to her suspension and sparked a big debate in Britain on the rights of pregnant women has been cleared of professional incompetence. Dr Wendy Savage, who worked at Gisborne’s Cook Hospital in the 1970 s and was active in the movement to liberalise New Zealand’s abortion laws, lost her jobs as a consultant and as a senior lecturer at London Hospital 15 months ago after complaints by her head of department and her colleagues. Professor Geddes Grudzinkas picked five of 800 cases she had dealt with and said each time her reluctance to deliver babies by caesarean section seriously endangered lives. One of the children was stillborn, another died eight days after being

born but the other three were normal. However, an official six-week inquiry headed by a barrister said Dr Savage acted properly in each case. It concluded that her patients were not exposed to unnecessary risks and that there was nothing to suggest she failed to meet the standards required of a consultant obstetrician or a lecturer. It added: “The characteristics of Mrs Savage’s practice are care and consideration for the patient.”

The judgment was hailed as a victory by campaigners who want the option of natural childbirth available in all public hospitals.

Along with doctors, midwives, nurses and more than 1000 other supporters they celebrated by marching through the unfashionable East End of London to the headquarters of the local health authority which ordered Dr Savage's suspension.

The authority would not comment until it had had time to study the report fully. Dr Savage told reporters: “With a bit of luck I hope to be back at work soon after that. I feel completely vindicated.” The inquiry considered 58 separate allegations against the obstetrician and said only four were valid, but even those did not constitute incompetence.

"I admitted to most of the things they criticised me for at the time. I accept I did go close to the bounds of normal practice,” Dr Savage said.

“But really, it is the reduction in funding of the National Health Service and the reduction in funding of universities which is responsible for some of the problems which led to my suspension, because when doctors are overworked they don’t always think about things as clearly as they should.”

Dr Savage’s supporters believe political differences between her and her male colleagues led to her removal. As a campaigner for public sector health care she criticised those of her colleagues who had private practices. They also favoured hightech birth methods and wanted to centralise local maternity and abortion services. Dr Savage resolutely opposed centralisation as being against the interests of pregnant women. Patients say she often gave ante-natal care in their G.P.’s surgeries to save them bus journeys and long waits in hospital clinics. The Savage case highlighted the continuing debate in Britain on the merits of different birth methods. The focus is now expected to shift to her colleagues and superiors who felt it necessary to use such extreme procedures to remove a prominent and popular advocate of natural birth from her job.