Thought this reply would be of interest to the list
Marie Heath
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
----- Original Message -----
From: Sue Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Marie Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: Fw: Independent Midwives
> And this.... :(
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eggleston, Alan (Senator) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 'Sue Cooper' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thursday, July 19, 2001 2:44 PM
> Subject: RE: Independent Midwives
>
>
> >YOU SHOULD THANK THE LORD YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY COMPLICATIONS SUCH AS A
> >SHOULDER DYSTOCIA OR A HAEMORAGE ... WOMEN HAVE REWPONSIBILITY TO THE
> UNBORN
> >CHILD TO ENSURE THAT THE SERVICES OF MODERN MEDICAL SKILLS AND TECHNOLOGY
> >ARE AVAILABLE IF NEEDED.
> >
> >THE INSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID BT DOCTORS ENGAGED IN OBSTETRICS ARE SO HIGH
> >BECAUSE THE ELEMENT OF RISK IS SUCH THAT IF THERE IS ANY SUGGESTION OF
> >SUBSTANDARD SERVICE COURTS WILL AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
> >
> >IF MIDWIVES WANT TO PRACTISE IN THE MODERN WORLD THEY SHOULD DO MEDICINE
,
> >BECOME DOCTORS AND TRAIN AS OBSTETRECIANS.
> >
> >THIS IS 2001 NOT 1701.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Sue Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2001 5:03 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Independent Midwives
> >
> >
> >
> >To Federal Politician,
> >
> >I have utilised the professional services of two different independent
> >midwives during my last three pregnancies and subsequent births.
> >I felt completely comfortable and secure in the level of skill and
> expertise
> >displayed by both midwives.
> >
> >I am deeply saddened and outraged at the recent decision of the Guild
> >Insurance agency to cease their professional indemnity cover on
independent
> >midwives.
> >
> >This ill-considered decision is going to have an immediate effect on the
> >quality of care given to women during pregnancy and before and after the
> >birth. It will force women to pay for the services of an obstetrician,
> whose
> >specialised skills will not likely even be required.
> >
> >Independent midwives offer an invaluable service to families to give
birth
> >in hospitals, birth centres and at home with a continuity of care,
> something
> >not presently available in the public system. They care before, during
and
> >after the womanize pregnancy and are a tower of strength whenever they
are
> >needed. They often go above and beyond the 'job' to ensure that their
> >clients receive the best possible care. They do this job for the love of
it
> >and this shows in the continuity of care that women and their families
> >receive during a monumental time in their lives.
> >
> >Many countries understand the importance of midwives within the
community.
> >Here is a small sample of some of them.
> >
> >*In Britain the government set up a group called the Cumberledge
> >Committee who reported in 1993, whilst looking at obstetrics:
> >
> >"...found no evidence to support the medical paradigm for maternity
> >care for most women and recommended that all the care
> >for pregnant women should be provided by midwives"
> >
> >*In British Columbia, Netherlands and New Zealand midwives are the
> >primary care givers to healthy pregnant women and their babies from early
> >pregnancy, labour, birth and an average of six weeks postpartum.
> >
> >*Midwives attend approximately 70 percent of births in Western Europe.
> >
> >The World Health Organisation (WHO) believes that midwives in private
> >practise are a valuable part of pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood and
> >should be available to any family wishing to use one. The WHO also
> >believe that the Dutch system of care is the ideal system of its kind for
> >pregnant woman and their families. This is because independent midwives
> >care for the pregnancy, labour, birth and postpartum period and the
> >obstetrician is only used as was intended, as a specialist for high risk
> >pregnancies.
> >
> >In relation to independent midwives and the homebirth option the National
> >Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) state that they:
> >
> >"... recommend[s] that hospitals develop mechanisms for accreditation of
> >visiting midwives and delineation of clinical privileges for registered
> >independent midwives as is currently done for medical practitioners.
> >This would enable midwives to continue attending a client (in accordance
> >with hospital protocols) in the event of a transfer to hospital and would
> >promote co-ordination and professional liaison between hospitals and
> >independent midwives"
> >
> >Would this not mean that the NHMRC would like to ensure that women and
> their
> >families still have this choice available to them if wanted?
> >
> >There are plenty of families who choose to have an independent midwife
for
> a
> >hospital or birthing centre birth. Paying for the continuity of care from
> >a midwife for the whole of the pregnancy, birth and post natal period is
> >something many families see as invaluable. Not having to worry about
shift
> >changes and/or substitue carers is great peace of mind in the middle of
> >labour. Why should women and their families not have this option if they
> >want it?
> >
> >This problem needs to be addressed immediately! Independent midwives will
> be
> >left with two options. To cease their practices and halt the freedom of
> >choice for pregnant women, or to continue to practice without insurance,
> >which of course is a huge risk, not only to the midwives, but to the
family
> >who may have suffered.
> >
> >Intervention is needed from state and federal government to continue this
> >invaluable service. That independent midwives are going to be left with
no
> >cover is disgraceful. Is it not possible for the government to step in
and
> >arrange cover for the midwives? Why are they not included with other
health
> >care professionals on medicare? Are midwives not the the "GP's" of
> >childbirth? These questions are valid ones and ones that are repeatedely
> >asked by those involved with independent midwives as either colleagues
> >or clients.
> >
> >I am not having any more children, but I would be most upset to learn
that
> >the independent midwives had to cease their practices, and therefore
their
> >livelihoods, because of a rash decision by Guild Insurance that does not
> >seem to based on logic or proven risk. It would be a tragedy if other
> >families could not experience the same joy that my family and many others
> >have already experienced due to the care and attention of an independent
> >midwife.
> >
> >Suzanne Cooper
> >Ph: (02) 4845 1040
> >PO Box 65
> >Gunning NSW 2581
> >
> >FACT SHEET
> >
> >Birth is not an illness. Internationally accepted best practice
> >standards for optimal maternity services promote care by a known
> >midwife during pregnancy, birth, and early parenting. This is fundamental
> >to the definition of a midwife: one who provides primary care for women
> >throughout the pregnancy and birth, and who collaborates with other
> >practitioners (such as obstetric specialists) when a woman requires
> >specialist or secondary levels of care.
> >
> >* The focus of the midwife's care is the woman, as an individual. The
> >wellbeing and safety of the woman and her baby are paramount, and data
> >from Australian and international reporting support midwifery care as
> >protecting the safety of the woman and child.
> >
> >* Australian women have very limited access to the optimal standard of
> >care. This is due to many social and professional factors, including t
> >he progressive medicalisation of pregnancy and birth over many years,
> >together with the government funding monopoly that supports medical
> >primary care and excludes most midwifery options of care.
> >
> >* A recent Australian Society of Independent Midwives (ASIM) survey of
> >members revealed most of the membership was insured with Guild; two
> >have been without insurance since their policies expired recently, and
the
> >rest will gradually become uninsured as their policies expire. A small
> >proportion of ASIM midwives are insured with ANF (Australian Nursing
> >Federation) Victoria and so far they are unaffected. There were five
> >members who carried no professional insurance whatsoever.
> >
> >
> >
>
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
