Dear Friends, I was very annoyed at the comments made by Guild Insurance in the Sydney Morning Herald earlier this week that midwifery (and by implication home birth) was "a very litigious area". Nothing could be further from the truth, and I don't think we should allow Guild to think that it can get away with such statements unchallenged. To do so simply allows people to continue happily in their view that birth is a dangerous thing to do. Below is a letter that I sent to Guild Insurance. I wish to invite you to send a letter in a similar vein to the company. But as with all good lobbying efforts, whether to politicians or businesses, please don't directly copy my letter. Use it as a foundation by all means, but put some of your own ideas and words into it, and that way they cannot discount the many voices they hear. With best wishes to all activists, David Vernon ------------------------------------------ Mr Brian Benger National Manager Guild Insurance Locked Bag 7 HAWTHORN VIC 3122 12 July 2001 Dear Mr Benger, I am writing to express my dismay and disgust at the decision by Guild Insurance to cease insuring independent midwives. Given the company�s proud history of insuring health professionals, I was shocked to read in the media of your decision. I assume that when you made this decision, you were fully aware that you were not only effectively putting 80+ professionals out of work, but you were also penalizing some 800+ Australian families per year by forcing them to utilize the birth services or hospitals, or even worse, forcing them to birth without professional support. I understand from a report in The Sydney Morning Herald that your General Manager, Mr David Brown stated that independent midwifery is a highly "litigious area." I wonder what proof Mr Brown has for this statement. It is common knowledge that obstetricians are sued on a seemingly regular basis, but independent midwives are very rarely taken to court. It is also well known amongst the midwifery profession and obstetric circles (and demonstrated by statistics) that accredited independent midwives provide the safest form of birth assistance to women, and therefore Mr Brown�s statement is demonstrably false. Given that it is unlikely the risk of litigation is an issue, what reason does Guild have for abandoning its support of birthing women? Companies do not only have a responsibility to their shareholders but they also have social obligations to the society in which they operate. It is abhorrent that Guild does not recognize this. I urge you to reconsider your decision. I look forward to hearing from you your views on ceasing to support birthing women. I will provide a copy of your answer to the relevant professional bodies. Yours sincerely David Vernon -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
