or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › Poll- Do you support "underground" midwives?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Poll- Do you support "underground" midwives? - Page 11

post #201 of 285

Okay, this is my problem with the whole thing. I think there lots of women who are just sure that if they just ask questions of their midwives (and like the answers) that they are getting a competent provider. And I think that's a load of BS.

 

I don't think that most consumers of midwifery services (i) even know what questions to ask to ensure they are getting a competent providers and (ii) would be able to evaluate the "correctness" of their midwife's responses even if they did ask the right questions. Then there are all the important factors that questioning can't really tease out -- for example, how well does the midwife perform under pressure or in an emergency?  Does the midwife really know how to suture?  Could you evaluate how "good" her suturing was if she demonstrated it for you?

 

This isn't true just for midwives, its true for all medical professionals. For example, my MIL just recently had brain surgery. Do you think she or any of her family really knew, based on interviewing the doctor alone, whether he was competent to perform the surgery or not? Absolutely not.

 

What we relied upon for evaluating the doctor was:

 

(1) his educational history, including being a fellow in goodstanding of the appropriate boards of specialty

(2) his length of practice and frequency of performing the procedure in question

(3) his lack of malpractice claims

(4)  his licensing by the state board of medicine and lack of complaints filed with the board

(5)  his reputation amongst other doctors (NOT patients) to the best of our ability to determine

 

So, when you're only relying on a minimal number of criteria (some of which are irrelevant for CPMs -- for example #1 is almost completely irrelevant for most CPMs, since they largely obtain their skills through self-study and #3 is irrelevant for most CPMs -- since they are uninsured, they are uncollectible and thus they don't get sued)  those criteria become more and more important.  Since unlicensed midwives are insulated from civil lawsuit and there is no board keeping track of results or where complaints can be lodged it can be extremely difficult for a consumer to make an evaluation of their competency.    

post #202 of 285

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz View Post

Okay, this is my problem with the whole thing. I think there lots of women who are just sure that if they just ask questions of their midwives (and like the answers) that they are getting a competent provider. And I think that's a load of BS.

 

I don't think that most consumers of midwifery services (i) even know what questions to ask to ensure they are getting a competent providers and (ii) would be able to evaluate the "correctness" of their midwife's responses even if they did ask the right questions. Then there are all the important factors that questioning can't really tease out -- for example, how well does the midwife perform under pressure or in an emergency?  Does the midwife really know how to suture?  Could you evaluate how "good" her suturing was if she demonstrated it for you?

 

This isn't true just for midwives, its true for all medical professionals. For example, my MIL just recently had brain surgery. Do you think she or any of her family really knew, based on interviewing the doctor alone, whether he was competent to perform the surgery or not? Absolutely not.

 

What we relied upon for evaluating the doctor was:

 

(1) his educational history, including being a fellow in goodstanding of the appropriate boards of specialty

(2) his length of practice and frequency of performing the procedure in question

(3) his lack of malpractice claims

(4)  his licensing by the state board of medicine and lack of complaints filed with the board

(5)  his reputation amongst other doctors (NOT patients) to the best of our ability to determine

 

So, when you're only relying on a minimal number of criteria (some of which are irrelevant for CPMs -- for example #1 is almost completely irrelevant for most CPMs, since they largely obtain their skills through self-study and #3 is irrelevant for most CPMs -- since they are uninsured, they are uncollectible and thus they don't get sued)  those criteria become more and more important.  Since unlicensed midwives are insulated from civil lawsuit and there is no board keeping track of results or where complaints can be lodged it can be extremely difficult for a consumer to make an evaluation of their competency.    


I think you highlighted your issues with women choosing cpm pretty well. I guess though, like you admit, we can never totally be sure of what exactly we are getting from any health care pro, on any given day.

 

I admit I am not very read-up on the process cpms go through for certification, since I'm not in the US and uc'ed. 

 

But, I would say, (1), there are some education programs for cpms, and apprentice-ship is a popular course, I don't think it is all self-study. Also, I would take an experienced midwife with years of experience and many births under her belt over an ob/gyn resident. I think in terms of birth, you can combine 1 and 2. (3) and (4), I think you can get around by word of mouth/some research. I know you stated before concern about mws name changes and moving, and difficulty for consumer to find that... but if your mw has been in the same area for many years, and attended many women in your community, you should be able to get a good idea. (5) is a good idea to overcome lack of 3 and 4, how well known/regarded by other mws, doulas, childbirth educators, other hcps, etc.

 

I don't know, I'm not well versed in NARM requirements like I said. You can push for better/different requirements/regulations. But then there will still exist lay midwives outside of cpms. You take away lay midwives, and women will still uc. Where is it going? At some point we have to let women make and be responsible for their choices and assume their own risks. 

 

post #203 of 285

I believe percentage-wise there are more incompetent physicians attending births than CPMs and it's extremely difficult to tell which ones are incompetent.

 

But then my idea of incompetence and yours are probably different.

 

I would consider a lot of factors but here is an easy stat for the sake of argument:  Anyone know the stats on the number of docs in the neighborhood of 10% C-section rate for non-repeats?  How many even keep it under 20%?  Because that's my absolute ceiling and anything higher confirms incompetence and as far as I know that statistic alone would shrink the field pretty dramatically.

 

Other doctors don't give bad reviews of their peers for doing lots of sections, and as far as I know no one wins malpractice claims over unwarranted sections but in my reality they are tragedies of incompetence.  Fully authorized, ordained, legal, insured, and licensed but incompetent nevertheless.  There's always an excuse and a lot of them are flimsy and there's nothing we can really do against it.  It's a pretty risky gamble as far as I can tell. 

 

I guess a lot of us are completely screwed.  Look at the choices.  Now we have the illegality attacked when it was our only humane alternative in some places. 

 

 

 

post #204 of 285

Quote:

Originally Posted by littlest birds View Post

But then my idea of incompetence and yours are probably different.

 


I think this is really important.

 

For the moment, we are all "allowed" (most of the time) to make some alternative health choices - NDs, homeopaths, whatever non-traditional therapies. Someone interested in that type of medicine would have very different ideas and values about standards and course of treatment than mainstream. 

 

Personally, I feel that health freedoms are fundamental. 

 

ETA: I don't mean to necessarily compare natural, normal childbirth to alternative medicine. Natural, normal childbirth shouldn't really require any medicine in the majority of cases, just some help and support, and some assistance or help with plan B if things turn out not "normal" 

 

post #205 of 285

You're right, we probably do priortize certain things differently. 

 

I hear about these extended labors and pushing phases (inevitably described as "gentle" -- which I will note is the mother's perception only) far off the curve of normality and what I think about is that little baby holding its breath during each contraction as the labor goes on and on and on.

 

 

 

 

post #206 of 285

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz View Post

You're right, we probably do priortize certain things differently. 

 

I hear about these extended labors and pushing phases (inevitably described as "gentle" -- which I will note is the mother's perception only) far off the curve of normality and what I think about is that little baby holding its breath during each contraction as the labor goes on and on and on.


I have concerns about what is the curve of normality and who sets it. (placental delivery and time limits there I think are really absurd, ot, but, so what if it takes 41 minutes instead of 30, or 15?). Everyone seems to have very different labors... and interventions can cause your labor to go differently in unexpected ways.

 

What do you mean little baby is holding its breath? I was under the impression that in most cases of healthy mom, baby, and healthy placenta, the baby still receives some, but reduced oxygen during contractions, and/or even if the bloodflow is cut off during a strong contraction that the healthy fetus can tolerate this. (I've read that the guy who invented fetal heart monitor never intended, or saw it necessary for every mother/fetus to be monitored). I had extended pushing phase, and I would definitely not call it gentle, and I didn't try to prolong it to torture my baby. I guess we just see things differently, you are worried about the stress of normal labor on the baby, and I would be more concerned about stress of electrodes being pinned into scalp, pitocin contractions, vaccum or forceps, immediate cord cutting and treatment after birth, etc.

 

 


Edited by slmommy - 3/20/12 at 4:50am
post #207 of 285

I had an OB with which I was doing shadow care who recommend using Cytotec to induce my labor.  When I asked if there were any side effects (having researched it before), she responded "none".  I don't see how that's competent or professional.  I'm not going to argue about whether it should be used on pregnant women even though it's not FDA approved for that, but to say it has NO side effects is bad medicine to me.

post #208 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngfrankenstein View Post

I had an OB with which I was doing shadow care who recommend using Cytotec to induce my labor.  When I asked if there were any side effects (having researched it before), she responded "none".  I don't see how that's competent or professional.  I'm not going to argue about whether it should be used on pregnant women even though it's not FDA approved for that, but to say it has NO side effects is bad medicine to me.


Those of us who haven't been to medical school or studied for years and years may not know enough to fully judge/choose a hcp, as Buzz pointed out... but when the little you *do* know is in apparent conflict with hcp... time to run!!

 

post #209 of 285

On one hand, I've known for years that I wanted to have a homebirth. On the other, when I got pregnant, I started by seeing a great hospital-based CNM. It would have been covered by my insurance, legal and all. But no matter how much I was trying to like the experience, I wasn't.

I then went to find a homebirth midwives. And I have to say that I was surprised by the results of my search. I used to think that homebirth is a philosophy of sorts. And I was very surprised to actually see how different midwives were completely different from one another. What was normal to one, was a reason to transport for another. etc, etc.

Some of the midwives I interviewed were legal (CNMs), but in all honesty - I was not feeling them at all. Neither was my husband. I did not like what they had to say or how they answered my numerous questions (which included what will you do if ...). But then I did not like some of the underground midwives either. I did find one that I meshed with the most. I agreed on what she had to say. I talked to some of her previous clients, I asked hard questions, but in the end I was confident with my choice.

If I went down the legal route, I would have never had the kind of care I actually desired. The legal route for me would have been 9 months of painful misery and a lot of fights for what i wanted vs what they wanted with my care provides.I would have spent 9 months worrying that my birth will not be what I want.

 

Of course, I fully understand that different people desire different things. Different people look for different things in their midwife and an overall experience. What I may want - somebody else may not want at all. I get it. But for me personally - only one midwife actually fit what I wanted, and she was illegal.

 

While I would agree that being legal is definitely preferred to illegal, I do support the underground midwives. Had I not had the support of one of them, my pregnancy and birth would have been an experience very damaging to my mental health (and no, I am not exaggerating because I have a past history that affects how I deal with issues of intimate nature in my life).

 

eta: while it may appear from the above that I was putting myself above the baby;s safety, that is not the case. I did meet one underground midwife who I believed was unsafe. I also met a legal midwife who was so medical, both my husband and I wondered why she chose to do homebirths at all. Inductions and transports seemed abundant and "no big deal" kind of thing.
I genuinely do not know what would have happened if I did not find the midwife I chose, but I can honestly say that she practiced in a way that I believe was safe and science-based while also fitting my requirements for emotional comfort.


Edited by valeria_vi - 3/20/12 at 10:56am
post #210 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Quote:


I think this is really important.

 

For the moment, we are all "allowed" (most of the time) to make some alternative health choices - NDs, homeopaths, whatever non-traditional therapies. Someone interested in that type of medicine would have very different ideas and values about standards and course of treatment than mainstream. 

 


This is an excellent point! While there are some NDs and homeopaths around taht practice where I live, they are not exactly legal either. Insurance does not cover my ND. And it doesn't matter that he has an official education and his license is perfectly legal in another state.

Yet, I cannot tell you how many times I have been helped by these kinds of practitioners. If they were to be hunted down as much as midwives are here in IL, it would be beyond devastating.

 

While the legal argument is that technically homebirth is legal anywhere, it's only the practitioners that are forbidden, this argument is driving me up the wall.

Why is it that it is legal for a practitioner in, say, WI) to do a VBAC at home while it is not legal in, say, IL?

What are they implying? That those practitioners in WI are better trained? And if that is not the case, are women in IL and WI different? Can the WI women's bodies birth by VBAC inheretently safer than the IL women? I mean, that really is absurd, isn't it? it almost feels discriminatory in a way. WHy is WI any better than IL???

We have those freedoms, but no legal ways to achieve them. What is the point? And if somebody is making a law that affects these freedoms (like a law where a legal practitioner cannot do a VBAC at home) how is that not taking it away?

post #211 of 285

I support a woman's choice, to choose who she might see fit to attend her birth, regardless of education or "legal"status.

post #212 of 285

"Why is it that it is legal for a practitioner in, say, WI) to do a VBAC at home while it is not legal in, say, IL?

What are they implying? That those practitioners in WI are better trained? And if that is not the case, are women in IL and WI different? Can the WI women's bodies birth by VBAC inheretently safer than the IL women? I mean, that really is absurd, isn't it? it almost feels discriminatory in a way. WHy is WI any better than IL???"

 

Each community makes its choice about what is a safe behavior.  You are acting as if these are clear cut issues, as if it is crystal clear that VBAC carries no risk so IL is crazy to prohibit it.

 

Why is someone in Florida allowed to "stand his ground" when shooting in self-defense, while someone in another state is required to retreat before using a gun in self defense?

 

Why is it 20 cents a gallon less expensive for us to buy gas just a 40 minute drive away over the state line?  Is my state claiming its gas is better than out of state gas?

 

The democratic ideal has always been to have a more local community making decisions about those matters that impact their lives most.

 

 

post #213 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz View Post

 

Each community makes its choice about what is a safe behavior.  You are acting as if these are clear cut issues, as if it is crystal clear that VBAC carries no risk so IL is crazy to prohibit it.

 

Why is someone in Florida allowed to "stand his ground" when shooting in self-defense, while someone in another state is required to retreat before using a gun in self defense?

 

Why is it 20 cents a gallon less expensive for us to buy gas just a 40 minute drive away over the state line?  Is my state claiming its gas is better than out of state gas?

 

The democratic ideal has always been to have a more local community making decisions about those matters that impact their lives most.

 

 

ACOG and medical interests involve themselves in lobbying/legislation all the time, they have money and resources. I do not want the community deciding how I should give birth, I am the one going to give birth, which I believe to normally be a basic biological function. Personally, I believe I have the capacity to make that decision, it seems as though you feel women do not have the capacity to make their own health decisions in this regard, nor should have the ability.

 

ETA: I think Valeria_vi was just trying to show how arbitrary some of the differing state legislation is. Women and uteri are the same across the country, last I knew. I understand states make their own laws. But I think there are a lot of less well intentioned interests that come about when legislating what women should and can do with their bodies and babies, particularly medical interests and paternalism.


Edited by slmommy - 3/20/12 at 3:11pm
post #214 of 285

Legal issues aside, women are best served when midwifery is legal and flexible, and when hospitals maintain good relationships with the midwives in the community. Birth is safest when women have the freedom to choose the birth that fits them best, and when the barriers to transport are minimal. 

 

My experience casts this in sharp relief. My last pregnancy, I was technically high risk, but could not stomach the thought of planning a hospital birth. My home is about 4 minutes from the hospital, and the hospital has a program for homebirth transport, specifically intended to facilitate transports so that women are not emotionally or physically traumatized by them, and so that midwives do not hesitate to transport if there is a problem.

 

So I hired a licensed CPM, totally legal in my state, and we consulted with a perinatologist who thought I was nuts for wanting a homebirth but respected my right to be a nutbar, and did exactly what we asked, no more. So I spent my pregnancy on lovenox, got my amnio (I have a child with a chromosome disorder, and could not deal with going through it again), and my laid-back midwife let me pretty much call the shots as far as what we did as far as prenatal care went. So when the doc muttered about big baby, we just looked at each other and smiled and paid him no mind (and rightfully so, babe was 60th percentile at birth for his gestational age!)  He was able to fret all he wanted to about me being fat and old, and we just carried on with what we knew.

 

I grew a healthy baby, a stubborn baby, who liked his head just so.... which happened to be high and asynclitic, so high that despite having loads of contractions with his sisters for months, I barely had prodromal labor with him at all, even castor oil, eventually, produced very little response. 

 

The pregnancy was brutally painfully difficult phsyically, and by 40 weeks 5 days my body was not tolerating it well, I was losing the ability to sleep, which was causing my blood pressure to go up, and when a fibro flare started after we'd tried to get labor going again, I decided at 41 weeks to transport for pitocin. I'm almost 40, my stamina for labor was fading rapidly, and I was hitting a point with pain from the fibro that was going to limit my ability to have the active birth I wanted at home.

 

I cried, spent a while writing a birth plan, emailed it to my midwife, she emailed it to the stork doc on call... and the doc said, "It looks good to me."

 

We went in. 

 

The staff were respectful. They let me call the shots in every way that counted. We worked together as a team. They did not do a single vaginal exam that I did not request. When I told them, after 7 hours with no progress, to turn off the pit and let me talk to my family, they did it without question. When baby's heart rate was rock steady throughout, they switched to intermittent monitoring because it was so hard to keep him on the monitor, as he was active. When we decided to turn the pit back on and use Spinning Babies and traditional Mexican rebozo techniques to turn the badly asynclitic head (ear presenting!) they watched with interest and helped as requested.

 

After 15 hours, with slow, slow progress, when I realized that I couldn't stop fighting the contractions, I had to insist on an epidural, they did not want to give it to me. And when it became apparent that yes, in fact, the baby was going to be born vaginally, the doctor stepped back, my midwife supported my perineum, and my husband caught the baby. They didn't mess with the cord, they didn't even mind when I said, "He's crying, and pink, please let him be for now" when they said it was the time they usually did vitals. I stood to deliver my placenta, much to their shock, and we left less than 8 hours after the birth. It was hard, and brutally difficult, and really scary at one point... but it did not damage me the way the planned hospital birth of my first child did. 

 

This birth could NOT have happened in an illegal state, or with an adversarial hospital team. I would have been planning a UC, probably in secret from the perinatologist. It pretty much had to happen exactly as it did, given the cards we were dealt. 

 

When I told the perinatologist who my midwife was, he said, "Oh, she's great, I like her."

 

When we went in, the nurses treated her as an equal, she took heart tones more than once with their blessing and mine, did far more than a doula could (and I've been a doula, so I know). 

 

I've had a homebirth, and two hospital births, and that first hospital birth nearly broke me, then turned me into a birth warrior. The homebirth was surprisingly difficult. And this birth? This birth showed me that it's possible to walk the path of the frosted mini wheat, as my husband puts it. Pitocin and epidural? They were awful. Horrible. Would never recommend them if someone didn't have a medical need to birth now. But the things that were most important? My husband caught our son. No one messed with his cord. No one messed with him. They never even put the band on his ankle, he was just never out of our sight. We didn't have to fight for ANYTHING except leaving early, and that was merely a discussion, not a battle. We didn't even leave AMA, they signed us out officially. They sent me home with APNO for heaven's sake. The multiple lactation consultants on staff are actual IBCLCs. Decent, respectful hospital care CAN happen, and legal midwifery only helps that. 

 

Had I followed the perinatologist's advice, they would have induced me at 39 weeks. The midwife bought me 2 full weeks for my cervix to ripen. She saved me from a c-section. She helped smooth our postpartum magnificently. We'd have rather had the birth at home, but when castor oil doesn't even give you the runs, and hours of cervical manipulation (at my request) fail to trigger more than a couple contractions, and it is clear that there's something holding things up, well, I'm just glad the transport went as smoothly as it did. 

 

My son still likes to cock his head to the right (and we've done plenty of CST about it). He's very persistent about it. We probably corrected his head 20 times in the last month of pregnancy, it just never stayed long enough to drop until I had contractions happening, and they weren't happening until his head was lower... a catch 22 we couldn't fix without pitocin (we tried so many things). 

 

My second child, born at home, would have been much worse off in a hospital, due to her chromosome issues. At home we had the flexibility to kangaroo 24/7, get her slowly up to speed on weight gain, sort out breastfeeding with the help of a pediatrician. In the hospital, she would have been a mandatory NICU admission. I followed my instincts and she's done as well as anyone could possibly expect a child with her syndrome to do. And she was also helped by a legal midwife.

 

I just wish states and hospitals would quit their "Homebirth is unsafe" crusade and work on making birth as safe as possible no matter how women choose to deliver. 

post #215 of 285

Jenrose, your story just made me cry. That was awesome, and I am glad you had such amazing care!

post #216 of 285

Underground midwife almost killed me in my first pregnancy when she failed to do anything about severe pre-eclampsia (namely, referring me to an OB!). Seriously, like, spilling +2 protein throughout, borderline BP red flags - and then ending up in the hospital with a BP of 210/190. I very, very much support midwives, but I'm also very much in favor of licensing and not supporting lay midwives.

post #217 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz View Post

Okay, this is my problem with the whole thing. I think there lots of women who are just sure that if they just ask questions of their midwives (and like the answers) that they are getting a competent provider. And I think that's a load of BS.

 

I don't think that most consumers of midwifery services (i) even know what questions to ask to ensure they are getting a competent providers and (ii) would be able to evaluate the "correctness" of their midwife's responses even if they did ask the right questions. Then there are all the important factors that questioning can't really tease out -- for example, how well does the midwife perform under pressure or in an emergency?  Does the midwife really know how to suture?  Could you evaluate how "good" her suturing was if she demonstrated it for you?

 

This isn't true just for midwives, its true for all medical professionals. For example, my MIL just recently had brain surgery. Do you think she or any of her family really knew, based on interviewing the doctor alone, whether he was competent to perform the surgery or not? Absolutely not.

 

What we relied upon for evaluating the doctor was:

 

(1) his educational history, including being a fellow in goodstanding of the appropriate boards of specialty

(2) his length of practice and frequency of performing the procedure in question

(3) his lack of malpractice claims

(4)  his licensing by the state board of medicine and lack of complaints filed with the board

(5)  his reputation amongst other doctors (NOT patients) to the best of our ability to determine

 

So, when you're only relying on a minimal number of criteria (some of which are irrelevant for CPMs -- for example #1 is almost completely irrelevant for most CPMs, since they largely obtain their skills through self-study and #3 is irrelevant for most CPMs -- since they are uninsured, they are uncollectible and thus they don't get sued)  those criteria become more and more important.  Since unlicensed midwives are insulated from civil lawsuit and there is no board keeping track of results or where complaints can be lodged it can be extremely difficult for a consumer to make an evaluation of their competency.    


My homebirth midwife was wonderful, and I had none of this information about her (your list, I mean). The OB who did my second and third c-sections was/is considered to be a top OB around here, and is highly thought of by other doctors - other OBs, the family physicians who work with pregnant women, and the pediatricians who attend at births (well - I honestly don't know if they attend at vaginal births - I've never had one - but they're always there for c/s). He's also the one who bullied me into an unwanted, unnecessary c-section (the only reasons were that I'd had two already, and that I was "overdue" and not in labour yet...but I was in labour when I got to the hospital...which was one of the worst mistakes of my life, to be honest). He's also the one who caused the nerve damage throughout my pelvis and abdomen. He's also one of the ones who uses the damned staples for closing the incision (the staples suck, and are a crappy way to close, imo - but they're fast), which caused me to have an infected incision.

 

If we had any way to truly know who was qualified, it would pretty much mean we were qualified ourselves. At some point, it's always going to boil down to trust. I could - and can - trust my unlicensed midwife. I couldn't - and can't - trust my oh-so-qualified OB. He rates highly on every single item on your list - every one. (Yes - my outcome for my homebirth was awful - almost as bad as it gets - but it was my fault, not my midwife's fault.)

 

post #218 of 285

One CPM answers why she won't practice illegally:

 

"Do you think that when you need to transport to a hospital for the safety of you and your baby, I’m going to be eager to call an ambulance and explain what is going on, then follow the ambulance to the hospital and talk to the physician who is on the receiving end of your care and share my name and charts and record of your prenatal care and labor with him so that you have continuity of care?  No.  I am going to try to find a way to keep you from the hospital.  I may keep you home longer than I should and possibly, although I like to think not, longer than is safe.  And when it becomes clear that you need to go (and probably needed to go an hour or two ago), I am going to worry about what may happen when we do go.  Instead of thinking about you and your care and your baby, I am going to be thinking about my own four babies, whose mother might be in jail when they wake up in the morning.  When given the choice between going to jail for providing you a homebirth and being present to mother my kids, the children are a higher priority.  The quality of the care I provide will be affected by my priorities and my desire to stay out of jail.  If I were to tell you otherwise, I would be lying and if you disagree with me on that point, I’m pretty sure I am not the midwife you want." 

 

From edenwaybirth.com

post #219 of 285

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz View Post

One CPM answers why she won't practice illegally:

 

"Do you think that when you need to transport to a hospital for the safety of you and your baby, I’m going to be eager to call an ambulance and explain what is going on, then follow the ambulance to the hospital and talk to the physician who is on the receiving end of your care and share my name and charts and record of your prenatal care and labor with him so that you have continuity of care?  No.  I am going to try to find a way to keep you from the hospital.  I may keep you home longer than I should and possibly, although I like to think not, longer than is safe.  And when it becomes clear that you need to go (and probably needed to go an hour or two ago), I am going to worry about what may happen when we do go.  Instead of thinking about you and your care and your baby, I am going to be thinking about my own four babies, whose mother might be in jail when they wake up in the morning.  When given the choice between going to jail for providing you a homebirth and being present to mother my kids, the children are a higher priority.  The quality of the care I provide will be affected by my priorities and my desire to stay out of jail.  If I were to tell you otherwise, I would be lying and if you disagree with me on that point, I’m pretty sure I am not the midwife you want." 

 

From edenwaybirth.com


I'm glad she knows it's not for her!

 

post #220 of 285

Quote:

Originally Posted by Youngfrankenstein View Post

This is a little crazy to me.  I truly can't see how going to another state (minimum 2 hour drive), using a hotel in that state (unsanitary), or having a UC (I'd never attempt) is better or safer than the illegal midwife I hired.  My midwife is very out in the open.  She isn't a CPM or a CNM.  CNMs are not legal to do homebirth in Ohio without full back up of an OB.  That doesn't happen.  

 

I'm trying to think of an appropriate analogy for the scenario and I can't.  I suppose hair cutting is the closest example.  I realize that hair cutting isn't dangerous but the legalities are there.  People with licenses aren't allowed to cut other people's hair at home.  It's illegal.  Does it happen?  Yes.  Would you find that wrong?

 

I don't know.  I guess you have made your point and we don't all agree.


I thought of an analogy (it's not perfect either, but makes sense to me).

 

There is always the potential for accidents to happen while driving cars... Driver's negligence or other circumstances that were un-preventable.

 

1. Unlicensed driver - I guess this would be like "underground" mw... maybe this person has had years of driving experience, never been in an accident, had a license in another state that expired... of course, there is the possibility it is someone who is a bad driver and couldn't pass the test, and maybe will try to run from cops instead of stopping when pulled over...

 

2. Licensed driver - Driving with someone who has a license, still exists great variation for driving skill.

 

3. Taxi or Car Service - Equivalent of hospital birth, and that there will never be any "official blame" put on mother for her choice- she went to hospital with ob/gyn and did the official "correct thing." But taxi drivers can still get into accidents too. Although I guess not perfect analogy since taxi driver isn't going to strap passenger in and bully into unwanted procedures/surgeries.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Homebirth
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › Poll- Do you support "underground" midwives?