The Sunday Times reported yesterday reported that five NHS trusts currently offer moxibustion to women in childbirth for breech babies, i.e. babies presenting upside down. Moxibustion is a form of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) where mugwort is burned close to acupuncture points. The idea is that this procedure would stimulate the acupuncture point similar to the more common way using needle insertion. The fifth toe is viewed as the best traditional acupuncture point for breech presentation, and the treatment is said to turn the baby in the uterus so that it can be delivered more easily.
At least four NHS trusts are offering acupuncture and reflexology with aromatherapy to help women with delayed pregnancies, while 15 NHS trusts offer hypnobirthing classes. Some women are asked to pay fees of up to £140 for it. These treatments are supposed to relax the mother in the hope that this will speed up the process of childbirth.
The Nice guidelines on maternity care say the NHS should not offer acupuncture, acupressure, or hypnosis unless specifically requested by women. The reason for the Nice warning is simple: there is no convincing evidence that these therapies are effective.
Campaigner Catherine Roy who compiled the list of treatments said: “To one degree or another, the Royal College of Midwives, the Care Quality Commission and parts of the NHS support these pseudoscientific treatments.
“They are seen as innocuous but they carry risks, can delay medical help and participate in an anti-medicalisation stance specific to ‘normal birth’ ideology and maternity care. Nice guidelines are clear that they should not be offered by clinicians for treatment. NHS England must ensure that pseudoscience and non-evidence based treatments are removed from NHS maternity care.”
Birte Harlev-Lam, executive director of the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), said: “We want every woman to have as positive an experience during pregnancy, labour, birth and the postnatal period as possible — and, most importantly, we want that experience to be safe. That is why we recommend all maternity services to follow Nice guidance and for midwives to practise in line with the code set out by the Nursing and Midwifery Council.”
A spokeswoman for Nice said it was reviewing its maternity guidelines. NHS national clinical director for maternity and women’s health, Dr Matthew Jolly, said: “All NHS services are expected to offer safe and personalised clinical care and local NHS areas should commission core maternity services using the latest NICE and clinical guidance. NHS trusts are under no obligation to provide complementary or alternative therapies on top of evidence-based clinical care, but where they do in response to the wishes of mothers it is vital that the highest standards of safety are maintained.”
On this blog, we have repeatedly discussed the strange love affair of midwives with so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), for instance, here. In 2012, we published a summary of 19 surveys on the subject. It showed that the prevalence of SCAM use varied but was often close to 100%. Much of it did not seem to be supported by strong evidence for efficacy. We concluded that most midwives seem to use SCAM. As not all SCAMs are without risks, the issue should be debated openly. Today, there is plenty more evidence to show that the advice of midwives regarding SCAM is not just not evidence-based but also often dangerous. This, of course, begs the question: when will the professional organizations of midwifery do something about it?
The article also mentioned the injection of water for low back pain in labour. Have you looked at the quality of evidence for this practice? There seems to be quite a lot of studies.
I reviewed the evidence quite a while ago and found the evidence to be much more convincing than for SCAM.
So The Sunday Times article is wrong about water injections? Did you publish your review?
1) The Sunday Times article is wrong about water injections?
2) Did you publish your review?
Only briefly mentioned it in our book (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Desktop-Guide-Complementary-Alternative-Medicine/dp/0723433836/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1PC3GA6NBMZ4M&keywords=ernst+edzard%2C+the+desktop+guide&qid=1669632277&s=digital-text&sprefix=ernst+edzard+the+desktop+guide%2Cdigital-text%2C69&sr=1-1)
and in a more general review (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15295342/)
The current SR is also encouraging: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19459860/
Thanks Edzard. I’m curious about the mechanism of action.
Maybe the box of water injectables used for the trial was dropped and well shaken.
Injection of water for no discernible purpose is ‘Aquapuncture’ and, like acupuncture is nought but a theatrical placebo.
‘Acus’ is Latin for a needle.
The Greek is ‘balone’.
‘Balonetherapy’ is apposite and says it all.