
28/07/2025
Do we need more technology in the birth space?
You’ve probably seen this in the news — a new fetal monitoring device being hailed as a breakthrough.
It claims to detect distress more accurately than CTG. But it has to be attached directly to the baby’s head once the membranes have ruptured — a significant intervention that’s not being talked about clearly enough.
Has it been properly trialled? Is there strong evidence that it improves outcomes? Or are we repeating history — introducing a device and calling it progress without asking the hard questions first?
I’m not anti-tech. But I don’t see how adding another intervention solves the problem of too many interventions.
The funding used for this could have easily been allocated to better pay and safer conditions for midwives, or subsidised training for students.
What really worries me is the risk that this will be recommended for everyone, in the name of “improving outcomes,” with little thought for the consequences of intervening without a clinical need.
And let’s not ignore the impact on care: the more screens, alarms and devices we introduce, the more midwives are pulled away from the women they’re there to support.
Is more technology what’s really missing in birth?
Or is it time, trust, and continuity of care?
Yes, technology can save lives — when it’s truly needed. But for most women, better outcomes come from less interference, not more.
Let’s not lose sight of that in the rush to innovate.
🔗 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-22/fetal-monitoring-device-hailed-as-breakthrough/105558390