Fire away...

http://www.harktheherald.com/modules...le&sid= 45910

Midwife bill editorial

The Daily Herald

Midwife bill
is no real fix
Rep. Jackie Biskupski is again seeking to get state sanction for low-end
midwives.

The Salt Lake City Democrat's attempt failed last year to give the
so-called "direct entry" midwives state licensing. Direct entry means
they skip state certification and go directly into practice after
completing a light training program.

This year's bill would allow these midwives (who, unlike certified nurse
midwives, have little formal medical training) to be licensed under the
state Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, though
licensing is not required. The bill would also establish standards by
which these midwives can administer some medications. Currently,
direct-entry midwives are not allowed to administer drugs and do not
have hospital privileges.

Biskupski's plan would require a midwife to inform a patient of her
credentials and what her backup plan is in case an emergency arises
during childbirth.

The bill would be an improvement over the status quo. Parents who want
to use a midwife would know if he or she has been properly trained at a
medical school or was certified through some institution of lesser
credibility. And there would be one governing body watching midwife
activities.

As we've said before, it is foolhardy to forsake a hospital with its
personnel who are trained to respond to emergencies and who have modern
technology close at hand. But some people do it nonetheless. Home
delivery seems warm and fuzzy to them -- as if a newborn baby really
cares. We venture to guess that what matters most to a newborn is a warm
blanket and a mother's breast, in that order.

It should be noted that many hospital birthing rooms are cozy and
comfortable these days, too. Some are as welcoming as home -- and there
are actual doctors nearby.

The most important question is safety. Childbirth is not without medical
risks, and in fact can be highly risky. And it's not just a risk to the
baby: There are two lives at stake -- mother and child. If things go
wrong (and they can, no matter how thoroughly the mother's been
screened), you need trained medical personnel to be right there, not
waiting for you at the emergency room door 30 minutes after a midwife
figures out things aren't working as planned.

We're not living in the pioneer era anymore, when hospitals were rare
and most births were assisted by midwives. One need only look at infant
mortality rates in the past two centuries to see the benefits of medical
technology. Far fewer children die at birth today. In 1910, 190 infants
per 1,000 died at birth. By 1940, the number dropped to 47. In 2001 it
was only 6.8 per 1,000.

While Biskupski's bill would legitimize midwives who currently dispense
medication illegally, it would not do much to improve the safety
factors. It would not require training from an accredited medical
school, for example. It would just require midwives to reveal their
training to parents as part of an informed consent document.

The midwives would be under the supervision of a single state agency,
the licensing division, which will only investigate someone if there's a
complaint. In the case of a medical practitioner, a lot of people may
suffer before a complaint reaches the state level.

This is not to say that there is no place for midwives in the 21st
century. There are certified nurse-midwives with medical training who
can assist in a delivery. Some even work in concert with obstetricians
and have hospital privileges, creating a team that can look out for the
best interests of mother and child.

With a certified nurse-midwives, there's greater accountability. They're
not only state licensed but are also registered nurses who are
accountable to doctors and hospitals. They have the training to do what
is truly best for both patients, even if it means admitting that a
situation exceeds the scope of their training and that a doctor is required.

The alleged psychological benefits of home birth seem overstated. While
the idea is quaint and heart-warming at one level, it should be viewed
as the emergency option -- little better than a birth in a taxi cab. The
physical safety of mother and child should be the paramount concern.
They'll soon get over whatever coldness comes with a hospital.

The Legislature should amend Biskupski's bill to more aggressively
protect the innocent.

"As we've said before, it is foolhardy to forsake a hospital with its
personnel who are trained to respond to emergencies and who have modern
technology close at hand. But some people do it nonetheless. Home
delivery seems warm and fuzzy to them -- as if a newborn baby really
cares. We venture to guess that what matters most to a newborn is a warm
blanket and a mother's breast, in that order."

Morons...warm and fuzy? Yeah that's why we choose homebirth over
hospital for the warm fuzzies...nothing to do with birth outcomes,
safety, or infant and maternal well being /sigh

Andrea

As we've said before, it is foolhardy to forsake a hospital with its
personnel who are trained to respond to emergencies and who have modern
technology close at hand. But some people do it nonetheless. Home delivery
seems warm and fuzzy to them -- as if a newborn baby really cares. We
venture to guess that what matters most to a newborn is a warm blanket and
a mother's breast, in that order.

erm, why not breast first, even in hospital!

We're not living in the pioneer era anymore, when hospitals were rare and
most births were assisted by midwives. One need only look at infant
mortality rates in the past two centuries to see the benefits of medical
technology. Far fewer children die at birth today. In 1910, 190 infants
per 1,000 died at birth. By 1940, the number dropped to 47. In 2001 it was
only 6.8 per 1,000.

so can someone explain why in many other countries where births are attended
by midwives routines there are lower death rates?

"Unadulterated Me" wrote in message
...
http://www.harktheherald.com/modules...le&sid= 45910

Midwife bill editorial
snip

AAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!

banging head on monitor

Jenrose

"erm, why not breast first, even in hospital!"

Yeah! After ds's head was born, the nurse stripped off my hospital
gown, and he went straight from birth canal to my arms and breasts. I
don't remember exactly when dh cut the cord, but it seemed like it was
a long time later.

After reading this article, I have to admit to having been overly
optimistic about attitudes toward homebirth. This is a writer who
*thinks* they're pro-midwife . . . or at least, pro-CNM who can "assist
in a delivery." uh-huh?

Still not having the baby in my apartment, though!
Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:08:36 +1300, Unadulterated Me
wrote:

http://www.harktheherald.com/modules...le&sid= 45910

Midwife bill editorial
Arrrrrgh.

Have you posted this to ukmidwifery A?

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
EDD 11th March 2005 (another boy!)

"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
news:1106739349.57798997eccd9d3abb7cce645a4a1075@t eranews...
As we've said before, it is foolhardy to forsake a hospital with its
personnel who are trained to respond to emergencies and who have modern
technology close at hand. But some people do it nonetheless. Home
delivery
seems warm and fuzzy to them -- as if a newborn baby really cares. We
venture to guess that what matters most to a newborn is a warm blanket
and
a mother's breast, in that order.

erm, why not breast first, even in hospital!

I can't see what its shouldn't be "mother's breast *then* warm blanked
draped around bubs and Mum".

Research at a local hospital here has shown what many of us know to be
true - that skin to skin contact between mother and baby for at least half
an hour as soon as possible after delivery increases bf rates significantly.
Amanda