Felicity,
I think it's a great idea to have the Senate Submissions available but remember that
the Senate Committee must give permission for them to be published first. To do so
without permission is contempt of Parliament.
Cheers,
David
>>> Felicity Croker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/09/1999 >>>
Joy,
Your response to the news item should hopefully clarify 'midwifery care'.
All the best with the Senate Inquiry.
Do you think it would be a useful resource to have the senate submissions
on the OzMid or ACMI websites? They are well researched and could provide a
useful resource to midwives and consumer groups seeking evidence based
information.
Cheers
Felicity
At 06:04 PM 09/07/1999 +1000, you wrote:
>Dear Sally and all
>I can't answer either of these questions.
>The Age medical reporter Victoria Button got a piece about the Inquiry into
>page 3 of today's paper (Tues). She gave particular focus to Jane Fisher's
>claims that caesareans are linked to an increased incidence in certain
>psychological disorders, and that subsequent pregnancies may reactivate the
>condition.
>The article reported that:
>"The Australian College of Midwives called for a funding reform to allow
>midwifery at all births."
>
>I have written to Victoria Button with the following comment:
>
>will attempt to briefly explain why.
>
>All (or almost all) women giving birth in Australia probably do have
>midwifery care. The problem is that the woman (consumer) is not able, under
>current funding arrangements, to choose a midwife. Very few women are
>attended by a known midwife. The concept of partnership between each woman
>and her known midwife is central to the woman centred philosophy of
>midwifery. Birth is not an illness. A midwife is not a nurse.
>
>Funding for both public and private midwifery care is available only through
>hospitals - which are controlled by doctors who do not understand midwifery
>care. Public funding for all births includes a 'medical' component, but the
>midwifery care is treated as part of the service. Antenatal care is
>frequently provided in the community by doctors, and the funding is through
>Federal government Medicare. Most of these doctors do not have anything to
>do with the birth. Those who are involved in the birth do so through the
>private hospital system, and rely on midwives to attend their clients
>through labour, and call them in time to catch the baby. Of course, if there
>are complications, that specialist is called to provide expert care. However
>there is evidence that the involvement of specialists as primary carers may
>indeed be a factor in increasing the likelihood of medical intervention.
>This is one of the main issues that the Senate committee is attempting to
>address.
>
>Ten years ago New Zealand changed from a system of hospital based maternity
>funding, similar to ours, to a system over which the woman has choice and
>control. The woman may choose a lead maternity carer, either a GP doctor, a
>specialist obstetrician, or a midwife, and this is covered by government
>funding. The committee was particularly interested in the changes in
>maternity care in New Zealand. A recent report quoted in our submission,
>Maternity Care Provider and Outcomes, NZCOM 1998, in which the perinatal
>mortality rate (number of babies who die) for births under a midwife lead
>maternity carer was 3.6/1000, compared with 11.5/1000 for GP/midwife shared,
>and 14.9/1000 for O&G/Midwife shared, was given a lot of attention. This
>evidence suggests that it is extremely safe to choose midwifery care. The
>only midwives in our country who work with a similar degree of independence
>to our colleagues in NZ are homebirth midwives, and perhaps a few in birth
>centres.
>
>Women are eager to maintain control over their bodies and lives, especially
>at a time of personal intimacy such as the birth of a baby. You did not stay
>for the presentation by Maternity Coalition, but I would encourage you to
>read their submission. I wish you every success in your efforts as a medical
>reporter, that you will be objective, and present a true picture of the
>issues you address.
>
>Yours sincerely
>
>Joy Johnston>
>
>:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sally Tracy
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 1999 9:55
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Senate Inquiry
>
>
> dear Joy
> many thanks for this briefing. I am going to represent AMAP on the 14th
>Sept in Sydney. I need some feedback on two points.
>a.. Does anybody have the latest reference for the spending on
>ultrasound technology as part of the maternity budget? I have several
>references but I want to be absolutely sure...they all look so
>unbelievably high!
>a.. what constitutes 'early discharge' in the majority of practices? I
>have conflicting definitions to hand. And when is a woman eligible for
>visits by a community midwife, after discharge from hospital?
> Many thanks in anticipati
