[This message has been forwarded to the list by List Admin] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:41:45 -0700 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission >from ["Eggleston, Alan (Senator)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > > >I suggest that you read the other emails involved in this discussion rather >than just the one circulated. My point is that the insurance industry >decision is a reflection of the fact that public expectations of all medical >outcome are now so high and so is the expectation of regulatory "duty of >care " , that the insurance industry is simply reflecting that reality in >their decision regarding insurance cover for midwives. Things have changed >in the last 100 years (1701 was a typographical error .. I meant 1901 ) and >as you would know there has been a revolution in Obstetrics since the 1960s >. I am not doing anything more than pointing out that that the industry >decision is understandable in terms of current Australian conditions with >the enormously high damages now being awarded for adverse obstetric outcomes >which the insurance industry has to bear.I also feel very strongly that the >interests of the unborn child must be given full consideration and that >no-one has the moral right to put the interests of the child at risk >especially preventable risk . > >-----Original Message----- >From: Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, 20 July 2001 6:38 AM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; >'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: substandard service > > ><ANY SUGGESTION OF SUBSTANDARD SERVICE> >Senator Eggleston >This is an outrageous claim (see your message below). Is it the position >of the government that midwives provide a substandard service? That >midwives attending births on their own responsibility are more likely to >encounter complications and (implied) deaths and morbidity than if they are >attended by people under the instruction of obstetricians? > >The position you have outlined is unsupportable. National and >international evidence that is accepted as professional best practice >supports the midwife as primary caregiver, with access to specialist >services when required. > >I encourage you to speak with the bodies with responsibility for >registering midwives to practice in Australia, and the Australian College >of Midwives. Even the College representing obstetricians would, I believe, >point out the unsupportable and damaging nature of your statement. > >Yours truly, >Joy Johnston MIDWIFE >25 Eley Rd Blackburn South Vic 3130 >Tel: 03 9808 9614 >Fax: 03 9808 3611 >M: 04111 90448 > > > > -----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. ------------------------- 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.
