[This message has been forwarded to the list by List Admin] At 17:24 20/07/2001, you wrote: >From: "Eggleston, Alan (Senator)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: FW: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 1 >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:23:22 +1000 >-----Original Message----- >From: Eggleston, Alan (Senator) >Sent: Friday, 20 July 2001 11:58 AM >To: 'Sue Cooper' >Subject: RE: Independent Midwives > > >I have replied to a number of the emails received today on this issue >following the distribution of the first email and thank you for your >courtesy in distributing the others. The reference to 1701 was a >typographical error and was meant to be 1901 implying that things have >changed a lot in the last 100 years. My point simply is that the insurance >industry decision reflects the higher level of public expectation of all >medical outcomes in contemporary Australia and the fact that this is now a >litigious society second only to the USA where enormous damages are awarded >which the insurance industry has to bear. There would seem to be no simple >solution except to meet the training reqirements acceptable to the insurance >industry in terms of minimization of liability . > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sue Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, 20 July 2001 11:11 AM >To: Eggleston, Alan (Senator) >Subject: Re: Independent Midwives > > >Seems someone did the distributing for me. I also sent on your further >replies, I am about fact and honesty, not deciet. > >I agree that the interests of the unborn child are of paramount importance. >It is argued that this does not generally mean the bright and unhostile >surroundings of a hospital environment. Any birthplace carries risk >regardless of place. I, for one, would not give birth without necessary >technologies near by, others might, and that is their choice. > >Thank you for your more 'discussion' based emails, they are far more >appealing and alot more worthy of respect. > >Sue Cooper > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Eggleston, Alan (Senator) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: 'Sue Cooper' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Friday, July 20, 2001 1:08 PM >Subject: RE: Independent Midwives > > > >I do not dispute the arguement about choice , however the interests of the > >unborn child also deserve full consideration and that implies a ready > >availability of modern medical services to manage complications which may > >adversely affect the child. Clearly that is the view of the insurance > >industry in this matter. > > > >You have obviously broadcast the initial reply to your email . I trust you > >will have the courtesy to distribute the further ones as well. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Sue Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2001 7:09 PM > >To: Eggleston, Alan (Senator) > >Subject: Re: Independent Midwives > > > > > >I don't doubt for one second that obstetricians are a valuable asset to a > >percentage of pregnancies and birth, and that serious complications can > >occur during pregnancy and labour. My point is that all women and their > >families should have a choice, and an informed one, as to who their > >caregiver will be. Midwives play a huge role and as I am sure you are aware > >they should be the main care giver, and an obstetrician used when a problem > >arises. Independent midwives are used at home, in hospital and in birthing > >centres. > > > >The best outcome would be for midwives and obstetricians to work together, > >as they do, successfully, in other countries. > > > >Some women would prefer a high tech pregnancy and birth with all of the mod > >cons, others would prefer a more in depth pregnancy and birth. Aren't all > >women entitled their own informed choice? > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Eggleston, Alan (Senator) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: 'Sue Cooper' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:26 PM > >Subject: RE: Independent Midwives > > > > > >>The flaw in your arguement is that serious obstetric complications can > >occur > >>without warning and the insurance industry has clearly come to the > >>conclusion that the risk element is such that the industry is not in a > >>position to cover the risk. > >> > >>The trend over many years has been towards specialist management of > >>obstetrics in a hospital setting and as I am sure you would know these >days > >>not many GPs are involved in managing labour and of those who are almost > >all > >>have post graduate training and qualifications in obstetrics which is > >>required because of the higher standard of knowledge and expertise >regarded > >>as necessary in this day and age. I am sure you would not dispute that > >>obestricshas undergone > >>enormous changes since the 1960s and the expectations of the community >have > >>risen with respect to outcomes in medicine in general , not just > >Obstetrics. > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Sue Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2001 1:25 PM > >>To: Eggleston, Alan (Senator) > >>Subject: Re: Independent Midwives > >> > >> > >>This reply just goes to show your obvious lack of knowledge on the >subject. > >>Would you go to an Ear Nose and Throat surgeon if you had a cold? or a GP? > >>That is what midwives are. Obstericians are only supposed to be used for > >>problems. > >> > >>I would also like to point out that independent midwives do births in > >>hospitals and birth centres aswell, you are obviously of the incorrect > >>assumption that they only do them on the side of the road. > >> > >>Thank you for your reply, it will go nicely tagged onto the bottom of my > >>next group of letters to the media. > >> > >>Sue Cooper > >> > >> > >>-----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. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > ------------------------- Kim Hunter Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution http://www.steptwo.com.au/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
