Dear ljg (I notice you still do not give us a name), Obviously this list is a forum for all people and both you and I probably feel 'at risk' of exposing ourselves. I know I do.
Homebirth, and those people and midwives (and whatever you may wish to call me) who support the families who choose to give birth at home, have been called sanctimonious, pretentious, and many other things on this list for stating their philosophies. Homebirth is only a choice for a very small number of families in Australia because of the lack of support and fear which pervades our society around childbirth. This does not invalidate our choice, but surely does place us in a position of being 'bullied' by those who hold the mainstream opinion. There is safety in being mainstream, but the mainstream philosophy of medicalised childbirth and its subsequent disempowering of too many women and harm to too many babies, does not support the philosphy by which I live my life. I have no judgement about how you live or birth or who you accept as your birth carers. Sue Cookson NB The changes to the Nurses Acts which are under way in quite a few states at present, will most likely be used to control even further the way in which independent midwives can practise - like in Vic where they can be penalised for working without PI insurance, but noone can provide PI insurance for them to work with. Great system!! All up, what do the women do?? > Dear Denise > The difference is we are not in a developing country - I am well aware of > the improtant roles TBAs/lay midwives etc play for the women in these > countries !! In Australia, until the law changes, to call oneself > a "midwife" one must meet the requirements whether we agree with it or not. > Having read much about TBAs I am also well aware that they have required > education from trained professionals to improve perinatal mortality and > morbidity rates in these countries (described by Kitzinger in "The Midwife > Challenge"). > > I totally agree that we can all learn from each other, I feel that I didn't > quite get my thoughts across on this issue as well as I had wished. I again > agree that these amazing women should have prior experience acknowledged, > and they should be readily accepted into B Mid programmes - I was not aware > that this wasn't happening (and find it quite ludicrous that it's not to be > honest) As my argument is that as a profession, we must have standards to > protect women and their babies; then to accept traditional midwives into > these programmes, can only increase safe choices for women. > > On the subject of Ina May Gaskin - yes the ICM definition does exclude these > women - in an interview I read recently with Ina May she was quoted as > saying she believed that "certification is one important way of helping the > public to know that the certified (direct-entry) midwife has passed an > examination created by experienced, knowledge midwives and that she has > demonstrated her mastery of requisite midwifery skills.....) > www.wearsthebaby.com/articles/inamay. > This is my argument that without any > "formal" proof of a midwives abilities then how do we be sure she is a safe > practitioner ? Doesn't it prevent Josephine Bloggs from down the road > deciding oneday that she'll become a midwife, and with minimal experience, > start attending women in childbirth - having "done" a few births with an > experienced midwife she goes out on her own, thinking everything is great, > as most birth normally ! Then she gets the flat baby or the PPH etc - (this > is what I meant in my previous post, this was not directed at experienced > lay midwives.) This is why we have the laws we do - call it control or > whatever you like - and obviously some of these laws are not particulary > current - Qld Gov is reviewing the Nursing Act at the moment - so everyone > should pop in a submission and tell 'em what you want. > ljg > > > -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
