or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › The price of being the best.....is having to BE the best - Or: On how to make Homebirth even safer (Initial quote by Terry Pratchett)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The price of being the best.....is having to BE the best - Or: On how to make Homebirth even... - Page 5

post #81 of 107
Thread Starter 

Not much time right now, so I'm kinda grabbing the next best statistics. Feel free to do some more research on your own:

 

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/germany_statistics.html

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa.html

 

And a more visual version:

 

Maternal mortaliy

 

US 17/1000

Germany 7/1000

 

http://chartsbin.com/view/lac

 

neonatal mortality

 

US 4/1000

Germany 2/1000

 

http://chartsbin.com/view/1451

post #82 of 107

Just real quick, the maternal mortality rate should be out of 100,000 rather than out of 1,000. Otherwise we would have a much higher maternal mortality rate than neonatal mortality rate.

 

Even still, there is sooooooo much room for improvement. <sigh>
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanna View Post

Not much time right now, so I'm kinda grabbing the next best statistics. Feel free to do some more research on your own:

 


 

Maternal mortaliy

 

US 17/1000

Germany 7/1000

 

http://chartsbin.com/view/lac

 

post #83 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwifeErika View Post

Just real quick, the maternal mortality rate should be out of 100,000 rather than out of 1,000. Otherwise we would have a much higher maternal mortality rate than neonatal mortality rate.

 

Even still, there is sooooooo much room for improvement. <sigh>
 


Dang, I was in such a hurry, I managed to misquote the site. Thanks for catching that. Of course numbers are per 100,000!

 

post #84 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim L Mosny CPM View Post

A PEP Process application is as rigorously reviewed by the staff at the NARM Application Office as a MEAC Process application.

 

As a NARM PEP mentor (CPM since 1999), I can tell you that mentors must verify by a witness signature, the competency of a

myriad of necessary skills (41 pages of skills criteria) preformed by the PEP applicant to meet entry-level proficiency.

 

Both the PEP and MEAC applicant have to have their skills verified twice during the evaluation process for their training.

 

Both the PEP and MEAC applicant have to take the SAME written exam.

 

PEP is the ideal, first line of education/training to CPM, with MEAC considered to be equivalent to PEP.

"All certification candidates must demonstrate the essential competencies identified by the NARM Job Analysis, either through completion of the Portfolio Evaluation Process or through a route determined by NARM as equivalent."


Thanks for the input!

 

To give us a little bit more insight, is there a pdf of the 41 pages skills criteria somewhere? I browsed the NARM website and couldn't find it.

 

And what does the written exam look like? Especially concerning emergencies and safety? Could you maybe post a few example questions?

 

Thanks again!

post #85 of 107
Thread Starter 

Just came across this article on how hospitals are striving to make birth safer.

 

Mentions some intersting strategies, which might also be transferrable to homebirth:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703300904576178691176871546.html

 

 

post #86 of 107

thanks!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanna View Post

Not much time right now, so I'm kinda grabbing the next best statistics. Feel free to do some more research on your own:

 

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/germany_statistics.html

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa.html

 

And a more visual version:

 

Maternal mortaliy

 

US 17/1000

Germany 7/1000

 

http://chartsbin.com/view/lac

 

neonatal mortality

 

US 4/1000

Germany 2/1000

 

http://chartsbin.com/view/1451



 

post #87 of 107

http://narm.org/entry-level-applicants/entry-level-download-application-files/

 

The CIB gives a ton of information about the entire process and also contains a few sample questions. It is a long exam. That is what I remember best about it :)

 

If you go down the page, you can download the application which then gives lists of all the skills one must get signed off on. Everything gets signed off by a preceptor and then you must either have a second midwife (who you do not have a working relationship with) sign off on all the skills again or you take a skills exam (again, with a midwife you do not have a working relationship with and has been qualified to do the skills exam). Once you get through that process and it is all approved and such then one can go on to taking the written exam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanna View Post




Thanks for the input!

 

To give us a little bit more insight, is there a pdf of the 41 pages skills criteria somewhere? I browsed the NARM website and couldn't find it.

 

And what does the written exam look like? Especially concerning emergencies and safety? Could you maybe post a few example questions?

 

Thanks again!



 

post #88 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwifeErika View Post

http://narm.org/entry-level-applicants/entry-level-download-application-files/

 

The CIB gives a ton of information about the entire process and also contains a few sample questions. It is a long exam. That is what I remember best about it :)

 

If you go down the page, you can download the application which then gives lists of all the skills one must get signed off on. Everything gets signed off by a preceptor and then you must either have a second midwife (who you do not have a working relationship with) sign off on all the skills again or you take a skills exam (again, with a midwife you do not have a working relationship with and has been qualified to do the skills exam). Once you get through that process and it is all approved and such then one can go on to taking the written exam.


 


Thank you!

post #89 of 107

But still -- an OB resident at the closest hospital to me will attend on the order of 500 births during their 4 year residency before being able to call themselves an OB.

 

A CPM?  40 before being able to call themselves a CPM.

 

I am curious as to how the OB Board Exams compare to the CPM exam (as to birth/neonate stuff).

post #90 of 107


Right, but women are not under the mistaken impression they are hiring an OB when they hire a CPM. The training is different as is the scope of practice. The difference in scope of practice, alone, justifies all that additional birth and surgical experience. They are different jobs.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane93 View Post

But still -- an OB resident at the closest hospital to me will attend on the order of 500 births during their 4 year residency before being able to call themselves an OB.

 

A CPM?  40 before being able to call themselves a CPM.

 

I am curious as to how the OB Board Exams compare to the CPM exam (as to birth/neonate stuff).



 

post #91 of 107
Thread Starter 

 

Taking a look at the current education of CPM's. Part I

 

I wanted to know more about how CPM's are actually trained and certified. Midwife Erika was kind enough to post a link to the Candidate Information Bulletin over at NARM (= the folks that test and certify CPMs) so I could look it up:

 

http://narm.org/entry-level-applicants/entry-level-download-application-files/

 

It's got 78 pages and so I won't be able to go through it all in one go, but I'll read up on it bit by bit and post the parts I find interesting, together with my thoughts.

 

For everybody stumbling new into this thread: Yep, I'm biased and skeptical and not a midwife or an OB and I know it. I'd be delighted if you read up on the CIB too and shared your point of view, so anyboy reading this thread can get a more balanced picture. wink1.gif

 

Page 5

 

On how a future CPM may acquire her knowledge:

 

"Certified Professional Midwife (CPM) may be educated through a variety of routes, including

  • programs accredited by the Midwifery Education Accreditation Council (MEAC)
  • the American Midwifery Certification Board (AMCB)
  • apprenticeship education
  • and self-study"

 

This is the first part I have a major problem with. Apprenticeship to just ONE midwife will expose a future CPM to only a limited set of knowledge and experience. OB's train with a wide variety of other doctors and they also get a look at other specialties, so they are exposed to a broader range of practices and know-how. Not saying a CPM would have to rival a doctor in that area, but darn, a midwife should be exposed to more than just ONE other midwife (I suspect some of them do…but probably not all of them).

Come to think of it, doing a stint at the hospital would be a GREAT idea. They'd get a better feel for medical procedures and emergency situations. I know I had to do a stint at the hospital here in Germany for my EMT training, and I learned a TON that I wouldn't have learned otherwise.

 

Hospital's a good place to practice putting i.v.'s in too.  I know putting an i.v. in is a skill a midwife has to learn and she needs to prove she knows how to do it…but (question to the midwives out there) how much does she actually get to practice that skill? And how often does she have to re-train in order to keep fit in that skill? Trying to put in an i.v. in a mom whose blood-pressure is crashing is NOT a good time to practice putting in i.v.' s when the last i.v. you put in was 5 years ago….

 

Also: Self-study? Sorry, but I find that one totally unacceptable. Of course EVERYBODY has to do a LOT of studying on their own. But as a main means of acquiring knowledge, it is severely lacking. If you misunderstand something or if you fail to make an important connection between different things that you've learned, there HAS to be someone to correct and assist you.

 

And YES, I know study is only part of it. CPM's are examined and tested afterwards. But a test can only do so much and I know tons of people who studied and crammed hard for tests, only to forget most of what they learned in a few weeks afterwards.

 

Education has to be SOLID if it is to hold water for emergencies and the years to come.

 

 

Page 6

 

"NARM recognizes that the education of a Certified Professional Midwife (CPM) is composed of didactic and clinical experience. The clinical component of the educational process must be at least one year in duration and equivalent to 1350 clinical contact hours under the supervision of one or more preceptors. The average apprenticeship which includes didactic and clinical training typically lasts three to five years. The clinical experience includes prenatal, intrapartal, postpartal, and newborn care by a student midwife under supervision."

 

1350 hours of clinical contact is very, very little. A doctor who's only training to be an OB will work about 80 hours if not more per WEEK in the first year (internship) alone.

 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/education-faq/part2/section-4.html

 

Which basically means that, where clinical experience is concerned, an OB in training will have more clinical experience in 18 weeks of working than a CPM gets in 3 to 5 years. (I know it can be just one year…but the average is still 3-5 years…).

 

I feel that CPM's need more clinical experience in those 3-5 years than just 1350 hours. Not as much an OB does, but still….1350 hours (=18 weeks clinical contact) seems very little, especially considering that most of that time will NOT be spent handling emergencies.

 

 

post #92 of 107
Thread Starter 

 

Just came across this post that some of you might find interesting too. It's the insight of an affiliated Bradley Method Natural Childbirth teacher in Northern California, sharing her view on the necessity of improving the safety of midwife attended births:

 

http://mamabirth.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-natural-birth-community-must-not.html

 

post #93 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Right of Passage View Post

How would being exposed to altered and interferred with birth teach midwives what normal birth looks like? If they never see it, they'll never recognize it. If you learn to always yank on a baby's head during birth you'll think not doing so was some sort of flawed birth. Seeing normal birth is what teaches normal birth. Just like a normal penis is an intact one, yet if you only see circumcised penises the intact one looks wrong and you have to fix it. Or breastfeeding is what's normal, but if you only see bottlefeeding, it's breastfeeding that's wrong. I could go on and on.

 

I think the point is that while midwives definitely have to learn how to handle "normal" births from other midwives, they also have to learn how emergencies are handled: pre-eclampsia, placentia praevia, post-partum hemorrhage, cord prolapse, shoulder dystocia, neonatal resucitation, how to put an i.v. in, how to recognize shock and fetal distres....and all these are things they are MUCH more likely to learn at a hospital than at a "normal" homebirth.

 

As a side note I think the NARM exam is very entry level at a minimum. I don't understand what having a bachelors proves for a midwife. And yes, a&p, microbiology, etc are things midwives should be very knowledgable about, but passing a class doesn't mean the student has retained the material.

 

...and THAT's why I think that CPM's need very rigorous exams and frequent re-certification.

 

And what clinical work would a midwife need? .... I'm racking my brain to understand how applying casts, assisting in surgery, etc is relavent to midwifery. 

 

The things you mentioned are NOT the ones a midwife should be required to learn how to handle at a hospital. I find though that learning how all the "abnormal" and emergency stuff that can come up during a pregnancy or during birth however IS something a good midwife needs to know.

 

... What NEEDS to happen is parents need to be the primary caregivers, midwives and doctors need to follow parent's orders.

 

This sounds VERY unrealistic to me.

 

Becoming a midwife or an OB takes YEARS of study. INTENSE study.

 

And a parent (who usually has to hold down a job besides) is supposed to aquire that kind of knowledge in less than 9 months?

 

And to a degree where that parent can actually JUDGE the skill and care level of other people who spent years learning and practicing in that field?

 

And so they can direct OB's / midwives in the care they are to give?

 

Sorry, but that is NOT feasible.

 

People hire professionals (ranging from car mechanics to lawyers, midwives and doctors) because professionals are expected to have expertise and experience in that area that lay people DO NOT and which lay people CANNOT HOPE to aquire in a reasonable amount of time and with a reasonable amount of effort.

 

To me, the credo that "parents need to take responsbility" to the extent that they need to be able to tell a good midwife from a bad one (but which might be quite good at portraying herself as "good") looks a lot like victim blaming.

 

In my ears "Well, if she didn't want her baby to die during birth, she should have done a better job at checking her midwife's credentials" sounds a LOT like "Well, if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that short skirt".

 

You don't ask a woman to "own" their rape....and you shouldn't ask a grieving mother to "own" the death of her child at the hands of a negligent midwife.

 

(Strangely enough, this kind of "victim blaming" is something both homebirth advocates AND homebirth opponents do, and this baffles me to no end.)

 


 

 

post #94 of 107

You missed the point. This has nothing to do with victim blaming, and I'm actually offended.

The birth, pregnancy, and baby belong to mom. Many doctors and midwives step in like birth and pregnancy belong to them and they are the ultimate decision makers. This is WRONG. Mom is the true care provider, no one can gestate her baby for her, no one can force her body to absorb the nutrients in her food, or the exchange of oxygen/co2 in her lungs, no one can make her placenta provide everything the baby needs except what her body naturally does. Women have been taught to distrust their intuition and connections with their babies and bodies and instead trust the "professionals" and put the responsiblity entirely hands of "professionals." This is really unfair to doctors and midwives.  Doctors and MWs need to play their role as hired consultants, they are experts in what can go wrong(doctors moreso than MWs), they are experts in technology that is available, and a select few are actually experts in normal(typically MWs). Their information is invaluable.

 

The difference in the professionals you speak of is they deal with man made problems, not physiology. My body cannot naturally produce a living will or rental agreement for example, it can however grow and birth a baby without intervention. Women need to take back their role as primary care giver, as the rule setter, as the decision maker. For example just today a dear friend had a urine culture come back positive for GBS, the doctor she saw called her and told her "you have nothing to worry about, we won't let you deliver vaginally anyway" when did it become doctor's choice (at 10 weeks!) that it would be cesarean delivery? She put her foot down, took her records, and fired the doctor. (It was a last straw, they also labeled her high risk because of her age, she's 29)

Add to that how often is it shared that women are fustrated they weren't heard, that they thought something was wrong, but the doctor didn't think so, so nothing was done and things turned out bad. Why are the decision makers(moms) ignored? Why are the rule setters(moms) told nothing was wrong? Shouldn't worries be investigated? If a pregnant woman says something feels wrong, shouldn't a health care consultant be thorough enough to rule out something being wrong or validate mom's feelings when they do find that something was wrong?


Edited by Right of Passage - 8/22/11 at 11:36pm
post #95 of 107

Kanna, I wanted to juxtapose and address two points that you made.

 

First:

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Kanna View Post
 

Not much time right now, so I'm kinda grabbing the next best statistics. Feel free to do some more research on your own:

 


Maternal mortaliy

 

US 17/1000

Germany 7/1000

 

http://chartsbin.com/view/lac

 

neonatal mortality

 

US 4/1000

Germany 2/1000

 

http://chartsbin.com/view/1451

 

The second quote comes in the context of responding to why you care so much about this issue:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanna View Post


Because I accidentally stumbled across a few stories of HB deaths in the US and they seriously upset me, especially since stuff like that is virtually unheard of over here

 

 

 

Did you know that 0.67% of babies in the U.S. are born in homebirths?  Yet the stats you cite show that neonatal mortality is DOUBLE in the U.S. what it is in Germany!  I understand your concern about that fact. I'm concerned, too, as is anybody with a conscience. 

 

I already explained in Post #107 of our previous thread that our system is set up so that those scary homebirth anecdotes that you saw make the newspaper....and preventable neonatal deaths in hospitals never will. 

 

So consider this: If every homebirthed baby in the U.S.--100% of that 0.67%--died as a result of a CPM-attended homebirth, it wouldn't come CLOSE to explaining that inexcusable 4/100,000 statistic.  (Doctors will often get defensive and explain this away by blaming the victims; we childbearing women are all old and fat and poor and high-risk.  eyesroll.gif  But it still doesn't explain why as such a highly industrialized nation alleged to have the "world's best health care," we have ranked alongside Malta and Slovakia.)

 

Now consider this.  In that Johnson and Daviss study that has been tortured within an inch of its life.....NO woman in 2000 died in childbirth while attended by a CPM.  Yet as both you and the Amnesty International report have pointed out, maternal mortality rates in the U.S. have been staggering!

 

For these reasons and with all due respect, I wonder why you're focusing so intensely on those 0.67% of homebirthed babies when there is clearly a much greater problem in the U.S. with mainstream maternity care?

 

post #96 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Kanna, I wanted to juxtapose and address two points that you made.

 

First:

 

 

The second quote comes in the context of responding to why you care so much about this issue:

 

 

 

 

Did you know that 0.67% of babies in the U.S. are born in homebirths?  Yet the stats you cite show that neonatal mortality is DOUBLE in the U.S. what it is in Germany!  I understand your concern about that fact. I'm concerned, too, as is anybody with a conscience. 

 

I already explained in Post #107 of our previous thread that our system is set up so that those scary homebirth anecdotes that you saw make the newspaper....and preventable neonatal deaths in hospitals never will. 

 

So consider this: If every homebirthed baby in the U.S.--100% of that 0.67%--died as a result of a CPM-attended homebirth, it wouldn't come CLOSE to explaining that inexcusable 4/100,000 statistic.  (Doctors will often get defensive and explain this away by blaming the victims; we childbearing women are all old and fat and poor and high-risk.  eyesroll.gif  But it still doesn't explain why as such a highly industrialized nation alleged to have the "world's best health care," we have ranked alongside Malta and Slovakia.)

 

Now consider this.  In that Johnson and Daviss study that has been tortured within an inch of its life.....NO woman in 2000 died in childbirth while attended by a CPM.  Yet as both you and the Amnesty International report have pointed out, maternal mortality rates in the U.S. have been staggering!

 

For these reasons and with all due respect, I wonder why you're focusing so intensely on those 0.67% of homebirthed babies when there is clearly a much greater problem in the U.S. with mainstream maternity care?


*chuckles* 

 

This is a bit unrelated and I'd do something similar in a heartbeat, but it did amuse me that you linked to an article which stated that "A review paper published in 2010, for example, found the risk of newborn death was two to three times higher for babies born during planned home births compared to planned hospital births." while arguing for homebirth.

 

To your question on why you're wondering why I'm "focusing so intensely on those 0.67% of homebirthed babies when there is clearly a much greater problem in the U.S. with mainstream maternity care?":

 

From what I've gathered, there's a huge problem in the U.S. with mainstream maternity care...because of insurance. Which a lot of people don't have. So they, including moms-to-be have big holes in their health-care. Not because it isn't available. But because they're not able to pay for it.

 

Germany and vast majorities of Europe DO have health insurance for all.

 

This study is a bit older, but does point in the direction of health insurance being a big factor in maternity and neonatal care:

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198908243210805

 

Threads here on MDC seem to confirm that impression:

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1170695/well-uc-is-pretty-much-our-only-option-now-update-post-20

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1103379/those-with-no-insurance-and-paying-out-of-pocket

 

 

Tackling the American Health Care System? Totally out of my league.

 

Making some posts and discussing things here on MDC? That I CAN do.  ^_^

 

 

 

 

 

post #97 of 107

Good post, but i dont think ive ever heard that the USA has the best healthcare lol just the opposite.

 

TBH- Kanna, I think you have decided based on media that you dont agree with homebirths, for whatever reason, and there is no changing your mind or opening your eyes to the fact that homebirths barely make up enough of a percentage of births in the USA to make a dent in either mortality rates. Take Canada for example, our homebirth rate is anywhere from 1.1%-2.4% depending on what you read, and yet our mortality rate is lower then the usa, and in studies homebirth morbidity and mortality were virtually the same (statistically insignificant difference but homebirth scored a tiny bit better). This is on par with pretty much every country who has done studies on homebirth rates, so obviously there is something more going on in the USA and the mortality rates there.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Kanna, I wanted to juxtapose and address two points that you made.

 

First:

 

 

The second quote comes in the context of responding to why you care so much about this issue:

 

 

 

 

Did you know that 0.67% of babies in the U.S. are born in homebirths?  Yet the stats you cite show that neonatal mortality is DOUBLE in the U.S. what it is in Germany!  I understand your concern about that fact. I'm concerned, too, as is anybody with a conscience. 

 

I already explained in Post #107 of our previous thread that our system is set up so that those scary homebirth anecdotes that you saw make the newspaper....and preventable neonatal deaths in hospitals never will. 

 

So consider this: If every homebirthed baby in the U.S.--100% of that 0.67%--died as a result of a CPM-attended homebirth, it wouldn't come CLOSE to explaining that inexcusable 4/100,000 statistic.  (Doctors will often get defensive and explain this away by blaming the victims; we childbearing women are all old and fat and poor and high-risk.  eyesroll.gif  But it still doesn't explain why as such a highly industrialized nation alleged to have the "world's best health care," we have ranked alongside Malta and Slovakia.)

 

Now consider this.  In that Johnson and Daviss study that has been tortured within an inch of its life.....NO woman in 2000 died in childbirth while attended by a CPM.  Yet as both you and the Amnesty International report have pointed out, maternal mortality rates in the U.S. have been staggering!

 

For these reasons and with all due respect, I wonder why you're focusing so intensely on those 0.67% of homebirthed babies when there is clearly a much greater problem in the U.S. with mainstream maternity care?

 



 

post #98 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrlamia View Post

Good post, but i dont think ive ever heard that the USA has the best healthcare lol just the opposite.

 

TBH- Kanna, I think you have decided based on media that you dont agree with homebirths,

 

Actually, I DO agree with homebirth...with a competent, skilled provider.

Yes, women SHOULD have the option of a homebirth....but they shouldn't have to worry about their saftey and that of their unborn kid while doing so.

 

I know I get really mad at other doctors when I hear about one of them acting negligently and if I came across one at my workplace, I'd lobby my ass off to get that doctor shut down.

 

I can't fathom why the midwife community DOESN'T seem to be up in arms at the reports of some of their own acting so negligently that it has led, amongst other things, to babies dying.

 

Instead, e.g. when Midwife Karen Carr was up on charges for manslaughter, other midwives rallied to help and support....NOT the grieving parents....but the negligent midwife. headscratch.gif

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/midwife-faces-involuntary-manslaughter-charges/2011/04/18/AFTsqs1D_story.html

http://marylandmidwives.webs.com/karencarr.htm

http://marylandmidwives.webs.com/sponsors.htm

 

Granted, I don't have all the details....but somehow, something seems fundamentally wrong with this picture.

 

for whatever reason, and there is no changing your mind or opening your eyes to the fact that homebirths barely make up enough of a percentage of births in the USA to make a dent in either mortality rates. Take Canada for example, our homebirth rate is anywhere from 1.1%-2.4% depending on what you read, and yet our mortality rate is lower then the usa, and in studies homebirth morbidity and mortality were virtually the same (statistically insignificant difference but homebirth scored a tiny bit better). This is on par with pretty much every country who has done studies on homebirth rates, so obviously there is something more going on in the USA and the mortality rates there.

 

It's not the overall mortality rate I'm concerned about. It's the neonatal mortality rate of hospital births versus homebirths in the US that I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Because still, by looking at the data and the studies available, homebirths in the US seem to have WORSE outcomes......and that SHOULDN'T be the case. They should be equally safe.

 

Right now, US moms seem to be caught between a stone and a hard place: Have a mother and child friendly, low-on-interventions homebirth....which carries a higher risk of complication....or have a (possibly quite unpleasant) stay at the hospital, with a higher risk of interventions happening....but a lower risk of serious complications. (Complications as in "neonatal mortality rate")

 

Doesn't seem fair to the moms, does it?



 


Edited by Kanna - 8/22/11 at 6:25pm
post #99 of 107

it definately doesnt seem fair at all. TBH though, with the recent study ACOG came out with, I really cannot take it seriously, that organization is not exactly honest or in it for the moms and babies.

I dont think any midwives should support careless midwives, but all the info for the Carr case is media presented, so it will be inherently biased, plus without seeing case notes I really cannot make a judgement call. And to be fair, this family had a breech baby and decided to go ahead with a homebirth despite the risks, that is not neccessarily the midwife's fault IMO, because breech can be safely done.

post #100 of 107
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrlamia View Post

it definately doesnt seem fair at all.

 

*g* Another point we can agree on.

 

TBH though, with the recent study ACOG came out with, I really cannot take it seriously, that organization is not exactly honest or in it for the moms and babies.

 

Which study are you referring to exactly?

 

I dont think any midwives should support careless midwives, but all the info for the Carr case is media presented, so it will be inherently biased, plus without seeing case notes I really cannot make a judgement call.

 

I can't make a judgement call either (and said as much), but this kind of behaviour (one midwife being negligent, midwife community does nothing about it) seems to occur quite frequently.

 

Mom loses baby to negligent midwife....nothing happens.

Quote: What can you do when your child dies due to a midwife's negligence?....
The midwife review board did nothing but give us shit. Funny enough, they also have sat idly by while multiple babies die under her care."

 

http://momofmanyfeet.blogspot.com/2010/08/calling-out-negligent-midwife.html

 

And to be fair, this family had a breech baby and decided to go ahead with a homebirth despite the risks, that is not neccessarily the midwife's fault IMO, because breech can be safely done.

 

O.k. serious lack of information about the details on my part, so this more of a what-if scenario then anything else...I feel that IF the midwife had failed to inform the family of the risks and / or misinformed them about her abilities to deal with a breech...in that case it WOULD have been negligence.



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Homebirth
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › The price of being the best.....is having to BE the best - Or: On how to make Homebirth even safer (Initial quote by Terry Pratchett)