Hi Kathleen et al I'm off to strengthen the Auditor General's Office - for about 18 months. I'll stay on the list (I think) so should still be around for the gossip. Now, the issues in submissions to the Senate enquiry: 1. "medical control birth for low risk women" makes it sound like an indulgence with "birth" clearly under the ownership of the medical people. We have to change that assumption and, in our language, put birth back in the woman's body under her power. So I suggest we use words like "There is evidence that the treatment of birth as a process and the management of birth as a process within institutions results on increased mortality and morbidity for women giving birth." Women are citizens of Australia and, like users of public services throughout the nation, require the services to meet OUR needs. (Note personalise it to US as women not to THEM as women) Current maternity services are designed in collaboration by the medical nursing and management professions as if the woman is an inert part of an industrial process. This Frederick Winslow Taylor approach to birthing is archaic and harmful. Evidence indicates that this treatment of women as passive recipients of a process outside their control or direction that is applied to the most sensitive and intimate part of our bodies is akin to criminal assault. There is no justification for the application of old concepts of industrial process management to our bodies. (Give Tew's work here). Cite all the reviews and enquiries and their recommendations. The basic problem is - what happens if we let go of the assumption of birth as process that can be controlled by professionals???? What would it look like for women in Australia if the way we give birth is something assumed to be decided by us???? Firstly, it puts the onus on health care team practitioners to market their services to women. The current maternity services are basically the entrenched monopoly of a service delivered by an elite professional group without reference to the people for whom the service is designed. This runs counter to the recent reforms in financial management in the public sector and counter to the basic customer service focus of private and public sectors alike that has occured in the last 25 years. Secondly, it puts the onus on the health care worker to have competencies appropriate to each woman's needs. At the moment, the "low risk" etc classification assumes the woman must fit the criteria. In reality, the practitioner must have the skills to serve the woman. The system must find the appropriately trained practitioner to serve each woman. The tiered hospital approach is a fairly gross attempt to address this need. Question it!!! Maternity services must change if we, as a society, are to venerate and respect the women who are our mothers. Give examples of how other cultures treat birthing women and new mothers. Ours gives them 1 week off work (mostly unpaid) and tells them to get back to work. It's inhuman and barbaric. Point this out. In our use of language, "Giving birth" must be personalised to the women. If we accept the assumption of birth as process to be managed by professional, then we cannot progress. Identify the underlying needs of health professionals that the current design of maternity services is serving - name them and show how the choices made are now inappropriate and harmful. Ask that the professional's needs be met another way. Demand that women's needs be considered in the design, control and evaluation of maternity services. Give some solutions. Good luck Cheers! Kerry Kerry McGovern Kerry McGovern & Associates E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HomePage: www.kerrymcgovern.com.au ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
