Thank God there are some who support us, they are just not vocal
enough. Without the support of the Cairns OB's Mareeba would be
history. 
Cheers
Judy

--- wump fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As a newcomer to Australia from the UK - it seems that the obs
> are behaving 
> like threatened children.
> 
> Firstly, their stats can flawed. Other developed countries
> have also looked 
> at the evidence and concluded that midwife-led,
> community-based care is 
> effective, efficient and safe. For example, the UK is moving
> towards a 
> midwifery-led birth centre model based on research about what
> women want and 
> what is safe.
> 
> Secondly, even if midwifery-led birth is unsafe (which it is
> not). Surely 
> women's right to choose this option should be maintained. 
> Women should be 
> able to access a wide range of birth options from independent
> mws to 
> elective c-section. Interesting that a woman's right to opt
> for an elective 
> c-section/induction is upheld by the obs despite the wealth of
> research 
> demonstrating it is not the safest choice for mother or baby.
> However, they 
> want to block a woman's right to choose midwifery-led care
> based on safety 
> claims. Is this about safety or power?
> 
> I am deeply disturbed by the amount of hostility directed at
> mws by obs. We 
> should be working together - mw being the experts in
> physiological birth, 
> and obs being the experts in complicated birth.
> 
> Rachel
> 
> 
> >From: "Sally-Anne Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Subject: [ozmidwifery] Fw: 'Higher risk' in midwife
> deliveries 
> >(http://theaustralian.com.au report)
> >Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:23:49 +1000
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Sally
> >To: Sally-Anne Brown
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:11 AM
> >Subject: 'Higher risk' in midwife deliveries
> (http://theaustralian.com.au 
> >report)
> >
> >
> >       Sally ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) suggested you might be
> interested in this 
> >http://theaustralian.com.au report.
> >
> >
> >             'Higher risk' in midwife deliveries
> >             Adam Cresswell, Health editor
> >             30 August 2005
> >
> >             THE safety of midwife-led birthing units has
> been doubted and 
> >the most reliable evidence suggests babies born in such
> centres are 85 per 
> >cent more likely to die during or shortly after birth,
> compared with babies 
> >born in major hospitals.
> >
> >
> >             Leading obstetrician Andrew Pesce said yesterday
> that a review 
> >by the international Cochrane Collaboration - considered the
> best source of 
> >evidence for medical claims - found that home-like settings
> for births were 
> >associated with "modest benefits".
> >
> >             Dr Pesce said these benefits included higher
> rates of 
> >breastfeeding, more satisfied mothers and slightly higher
> rates of 
> >spontaneous vaginal childbirth (as opposed to surgical
> deliveries).
> >
> >             However, the Sydney-based Dr Pesce - who is also
> secretary of 
> >the industrial lobby group the National Association of
> Specialist 
> >Obstetricians and Gynaecologists - said the review, published
> late last 
> >year, also found babies born in home-like settings such as
> midwife-run 
> >centres ran an 85 per cent higher risk of death around the
> time of 
> >childbirth. However, the overall rate is still very low -
> about eight 
> >babies in 1000 live births in 2002, according to the
> Australian Bureau of 
> >Statistics.
> >
> >             Dr Pesce also said studies that midwives
> sometimes used to 
> >back up their safety claims were scientifically inferior,
> usually because 
> >their subjects were not randomised - an accepted technique to
> remove bias.
> >
> >             "Everybody says it's been shown to be safe - but
> it's not. 
> >It's been shown to be reasonably safe, but without question
> there's a worry 
> >about increased risk of perinatal mortality," he said.
> >
> >             "There's a positive effect (of birthing
> centres), but it's a 
> >lot lower than you would be led to believe by people who
> advocate this 
> >model."
> >
> >             Kathleen Fahy, professor of midwifery at the
> University of 
> >Newcastle, said Dr Pesce was using the Cochrane deaths data
> "to imply that 
> >something is significant when it isn't".
> >
> >             "What's going on here is a desire to prevent
> midwives from 
> >practising their profession, and using safety to do so," she
> said.
> >
> >             Sally Tracy, associate professor of midwifery
> practice 
> >development at the University of Technology Sydney, said she
> had recently 
> >finalised a study using data from more than 1million
> Australian births, 
> >which would be published shortly in a major medical journal.
> >
> >             Although prevented under medical journal
> requirements from 
> >discussing the findings before publication, she said the
> results were 
> >positive for midwife centres.
> >
> >             In an article to be published next month in
> NASOG's 
> >newsletter, Dr Pesce - who also represents obstetricians and
> gynaecologists 
> >on the Australian Medical Association's federal council -
> said the Cochrane 
> >review looked at the results of six different trials,
> together involving 
> >8677 women.
> >
> >             The review found birth centre care was
> associated with 
> >"modest" reductions in some medical interventions, such as
> episiotomies - 
> >where a cut is made in the perineum to assist birth and
> prevent 
> >uncontrolled tearing.
> >
> >             However, Dr Pesce wrote that the study found
> higher perineal 
> >lacerations in midwife care, so the overall rate of injury in
> that area was 
> >similar.
> >
> >             "In summary, there is now good-quality evidence
> of higher risk 
> >of perinatal death in birth centres, with only modest
> reductions in some 
> >medical interventions," he wrote.
> >
> >
> >             Click here to sign
> >             up for daily headlines
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release
> Date: 22/08/2005
> 
> 
> >Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release
> Date: 22/08/2005
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free
> newsletters! 
> http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
> 
> --
> This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
> Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or
> unsubscribe.
> 



        

        
                
____________________________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full 
Actor Database. 
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Reply via email to