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 3

post #41 of 285

So are all the pro-illegal midwives folk also against other basic licensing? 

 

For example, are you against driver's licenses?  Not being able to drive without a license is a significant restriction on personal freedom -- in fact it is something that would impact a person's freedom and choices on a daily basis.

 

 

post #42 of 285
Thread Starter 

Great discussion ladies!  I think if I took a poll across the US, the majority would be against underground midwives (because the majority are against homebirth to begin with), but I think if I took a poll of women who support homebirth, the majority would support underground midwives.  I support homebirth/unassisted birth but I don't support underground midwives, and I think I'm in the minority.  Thanks for the replies.

post #43 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrlamia View Post

why would you need a nursing degree and a masters degree? That is more indepth then most countries, most have specifically midwifery courses that do not incorperate nursing. It is direct entry midwifery, this includes countries with much better maternity outcomes then the USA.

 

 

....actually, a CPM degree it is LESS in depth than what is required of midwives in most countries. Even IF they offer courses that are direct entry, most of them require something along the lines of a bachelors university degree that includes 4 years of full time study and intense clinical work, at times including clinical work at a hospital, alongside OB's as well as work with different midwives:

 

Canada:

 

http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/midwifery/

http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/midwifery/current/level3.htm

http://cmrc-ccosf.ca/node/18

 

UK

 

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=1947

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/prospectus/undergraduate/details/name/midwifery-studies-with-registration/alpha/MNO/header_search/

 

Netherlands:

 

http://www.verloskundige.info/EN/Default.aspx

http://www.av-m.nl/default.aspx?id=326&sc=63&taal=en

 

Considering that you can take the NARM exam after educating yourself exclusively via self-study and that being signed off on the clinical part by a preceptor who might have only a CPM credential plus just 50 births to her name (less if she applies for an exemption and gets it), that's a LOT less education. (And yes, I know a second midwife beyond the preceptor needs to sign off on the clinical part, but that's still not comparable to what is required in other countries)

 

 

.... (bolding mine, on something I wholeheartedly agree with) I dont believe midwifery should be illegal in any state, and I do not look badly at any midwife who does practice illegaly but it opens doors for people who are not properly trained and able to practice independent midwifery.

 

.....

 

The risks of childbirth are actually fairly small, under 10% is a pretty small number, ....

 

Actually no, 10% is a HUGE and unacceptable number, if it means that of 10 women, one will end up with a dead or disabled baby or will suffer from complications herself. E.g. an acceptable neonatal mortality at the hospital is less than 1 per 1000 (under  0,1 %)!

 

.....most women go through birth normally and if they choose to go with a midwife who has only delivered 20 babies, that is their choice, not one I would agree with, but thats the beauty of freedom isnt it?

 

It's only a free, informed choice if the women knows EXACTLY what kind of risks she's running with birth in general and her midwife in particular. If there is ANY factor that makes her feel safer than she actually IS (e.g. the midwife assuring her that a breech has as low a risk as a normal non-breech), then it's not an informed choice (and in the example I mentioned it would basically be fraud on the part of the midwife).
 



 



 

post #44 of 285

I support homebirth, and think that midwives should be able to practice, and that HBAC should be legal - but I do not support midwives practicing illegally.

post #45 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinderella08 View Post



These ideologies often boggle my mind....   A few questions....

 

Interesting.

 

So - do you believe a care provider (CPM, DEM, LM, CNM, OB, ect) should be prosecuted if they are negligent??  Because many OBs and CNMs are, but due to the fact that *most* CPMs/LMs/DEMs do NOT carry MP insurance and are not legal and/or licensed in many areas - they often get a slap on the wrist even if a baby dies simply for practicing w/o a license which is a misdemeanor....  Not saying all OBs/CNMs that have suits filed are convicted, but at least there is the option!

 

The decisions of the courts aren't up to me. If a judge slaps someone on the wrist for actual negligence, resulting in a baby's death, that says a lot more about the priorities of the courts than it does about licensing. It makes no sense to me that practicing without a license is considered to be a crime, but negligence is not. OTOH, if a woman deliberately and knowingly chooses an inexperienced midwife, and that inexperience leads to the death of her baby, I can't see how that's negligence on the part of said midwife. It's inexperience. If you choose inexperience, than that's what you get, yk?

 

 

Also - you say if you choose a MW who has only attended 20 births - that should be your choice.  So, knowing the MW is illegal, or unlicensed, or has only attended 20 births - and she kills your baby because of something she did - pure negligence - but you trusted her and thought she was a good MW - you are going to take FULL responsibility that your child now lies in a casket instead of in your arms?  You aren't going to place ANY blame on that midwife for her negligence?  Your baby is 6ft under in a white casket because a midwife thought the heart tones she was hearing were the baby's but they were yours?  Or she poo-poo'd mec in the fluid and your baby aspirated it and died of an infection?  Or your baby was deprived of O2 too long due to shoulder dystocia that your MW didn't have a clue how to resolve?  All of these issues are PREVENTABLE deaths and you would actually step up to the plate and take the full blame for your child dying??  I can not fathom how most mothers would do that?  Or perhaps we can say we would now, but what if it actually happened to you??  Could you honestly say it was your fault for choosing that MW (even though at the time her credentials looked great, her training was adequate, she had amazing reviews from past clients, ect...)?

 


While my situation was considerably different than any of the ones you're discussing here, my son's ashes are just a few feet away from me as I type. He died after a HBA3C attempt. And, yes, I do take responsibility for it. I didn't choose a midwife with only 20 births, and I personally wouldn't do so...but if I were going to take someone with that few births under her belt, then I'd take responsibility for that, too. I also wouldn't call it "pure negligence" on the midwife's part. If I choose someone who is inexperienced, then I'm choosing that inexperience...and inexperience isn't negligence.

 

I also take responsibility (considerably more grudgingly, I'll admit) for the fact that I went ahead with an unnecessary c-section, simply because my doctor was going to drop me. I knew it wasn't necessary. I knew there'd be a doctor at the hospital when I went into labour, anyway. But, I let him push me around, and I have to own that. But, it does piss me off that the guidelines and regulations prevented me from choosing an attendant that would have worked better for me. It does piss me off that keeping one's license is more important than giving women the care they need, instead of the care the regulations say they should have.

post #46 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane93 View Post

So are all the pro-illegal midwives folk also against other basic licensing? 

 

For example, are you against driver's licenses?  Not being able to drive without a license is a significant restriction on personal freedom -- in fact it is something that would impact a person's freedom and choices on a daily basis.

 

 


Actually, I think driver's licenses are pretty much a joke, but they also have nothing to do with unlicensed midwives. People at crosswalks, or going through a green light, or turning a corner, have no say in, and no knowledge about, whether or not the person whipping through the intersection (and the crosswalk, or the red light) has a driver's license or not. The driver's actions affect everybody else on the road with them. My choice of care provider affects me and my baby, and nobody else. I have the right to make my own decisions about such things.

 

post #47 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane93 View Post


I am in favor of the nursing degree requirement because a woman (even a pregnant woman) is more than a uterus and breasts.  The body works together as a whole and I believe someone with a nursing degree has a better understanding of the whole body function than someone with just a midwifery degree.



I have yet to deal with a single nurse or OB who shows any awareness whatsoever that I'm more than a uterus and breasts. This part of your post is a good argument for a less formalized and regulated approach to maternity care. I've also, by and large, received extremely poor care (with a few amazing exceptions) from any of the nurses involved in my L&D or maternity care. My experiences are such that I would run, not walk, from a midwife who was also a nurse.

post #48 of 285

Okay - just realized I've posted about four consecutive responses. I'm out of here. There will always be people who argue for more regulations to protect we poor pathetic women from our own decisions. From my perspective, those of you pushing this kind of stuff are partially responsible for the various systemic abuses I've experienced over the years. You may be successful one day. If so, I'm just glad I'm past my childbearing years, and I hope my daughters still have a say in their own care, if and when they choose to have children.

post #49 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post

My experiences are such that I would run, not walk, from a midwife who was also a nurse.

And the woman who caught both my babies was a CNM and was amazing. She was wonderful, completely competent and had OB backup... which my hubby "the just in case" guy appreciated.
post #50 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post


While my situation was considerably different than any of the ones you're discussing here, my son's ashes are just a few feet away from me as I type. He died after a HBA3C attempt.

 

I'm wondering.....in how far were you aware of the risks of a HBA3C before making the choice to give it a try? Just curious.

 

And, yes, I do take responsibility for it. I didn't choose a midwife with only 20 births, and I personally wouldn't do so...but if I were going to take someone with that few births under her belt, then I'd take responsibility for that, too. I also wouldn't call it "pure negligence" on the midwife's part. If I choose someone who is inexperienced, then I'm choosing that inexperience...and inexperience isn't negligence.

 

If you work in a job where people's lives are at risk, especially the lives of babies, then, yes, I WOULD call inexperience negligence. If I can't fly an airplane, then I have no business even trying. And I'd say it's even criminal negligence if the midwife didn't make a really big point about exactly how inexperienced she was.

 



 

post #51 of 285

Kanna: I can't get the quote to work.

 

I was well informed about the risks of HBA3C. I did months and months of research, starting before I got pregnant. (In fact, I knew far more about the risks than I'd have known if I'd stayed with the OB, because he never told me about the risks - just pulled the dead baby card on me at every visit. I also knew the risks of multiple c-sections, which is something the medical community never once mentioned to me...except for the OB pressuring me to have a tubal after ds2.)

 

The results of my HBA3C were disastrous. My son died, and I was broken. I'm still broken. I didn't even try to fight my fifth c-section, because I was broken (I'm sure the doctors actually thought I'd seen the light - they're wrong). I will never, ever be the same. The thing is...people like you point at the HBA3C gone wrong and the damage it did, and that's what you see. You don't see everything that led up to it. It's easy to point at the HBA3C as the reason I broke and my baby died. But, if I could do my reproductive life all over again, I wouldn't even see the inside of a doctor's office or hospital, except if there were an emergency.

 

 

Your definitions are different than mine. If I know the pilot has very few hours of flying experience (or has only used a simulator) and I get in the plane, anyway, then I've got to own it when I get injured in a crash (or killed, but I can't own it if I'm dead, yk?). If I choose a midwife that I know has only attended 20 births, then that's my choice.

 

But, unlike you, I don't see care providers as the person responsible for the baby. I see the mom as that person. You and I are coming at this entire discussion from completely different places. (You know, I was responsible for my children's conception. I was responsible for their health during my pregnancies. I'm responsible for their medical care and decisions since they were born. Why is that time of transition from in utero to outside the one time when the woman is expected to shut up and do what she's told?)

 

 

ETA: I also don't see midwifery as a medical profession, which is one of the reasons I don't feel that a license should be required.

post #52 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanna View Post

Originally Posted by starrlamia View Post

why would you need a nursing degree and a masters degree? That is more indepth then most countries, most have specifically midwifery courses that do not incorperate nursing. It is direct entry midwifery, this includes countries with much better maternity outcomes then the USA.

 

 

....actually, a CPM degree it is LESS in depth than what is required of midwives in most countries. Even IF they offer courses that are direct entry, most of them require something along the lines of a bachelors university degree that includes 4 years of full time study and intense clinical work, at times including clinical work at a hospital, alongside OB's as well as work with different midwives:

 

Canada:

 

http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/midwifery/

http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/midwifery/current/level3.htm

http://cmrc-ccosf.ca/node/18

 

UK

 

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=1947

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/prospectus/undergraduate/details/name/midwifery-studies-with-registration/alpha/MNO/header_search/

 

Netherlands:

 

http://www.verloskundige.info/EN/Default.aspx

http://www.av-m.nl/default.aspx?id=326&sc=63&taal=en

 

Considering that you can take the NARM exam after educating yourself exclusively via self-study and that being signed off on the clinical part by a preceptor who might have only a CPM credential plus just 50 births to her name (less if she applies for an exemption and gets it), that's a LOT less education. (And yes, I know a second midwife beyond the preceptor needs to sign off on the clinical part, but that's still not comparable to what is required in other countries)

 

Actually I was talking about CNM's, and this is re-jane as well. In Canada it's 4 years for midwifery, in the UK it is 2-3 years for a midwifery degree, most countries do not require nursing training and a master degree, it is all direct entry (IE no prior schooling needed) and specific to midwifery.

 

.... (bolding mine, on something I wholeheartedly agree with) I dont believe midwifery should be illegal in any state, and I do not look badly at any midwife who does practice illegaly but it opens doors for people who are not properly trained and able to practice independent midwifery.

 

.....

 

The risks of childbirth are actually fairly small, under 10% is a pretty small number, ....

 

Actually no, 10% is a HUGE and unacceptable number, if it means that of 10 women, one will end up with a dead or disabled baby or will suffer from complications herself. E.g. an acceptable neonatal mortality at the hospital is less than 1 per 1000 (under 0,1 %)!

 

No it doesnt. That means 10 women may have some sort of complication during pregnancy and labour. The morbidity and mortality rates are extremely low, less then 1% actually. Complications do not mean a bad outcome, that 10% includes pre-e, gestational diabetes, malposition, breech, etc etc.

 

 

.....most women go through birth normally and if they choose to go with a midwife who has only delivered 20 babies, that is their choice, not one I would agree with, but thats the beauty of freedom isnt it?

 

It's only a free, informed choice if the women knows EXACTLY what kind of risks she's running with birth in general and her midwife in particular. If there is ANY factor that makes her feel safer than she actually IS (e.g. the midwife assuring her that a breech has as low a risk as a normal non-breech), then it's not an informed choice (and in the example I mentioned it would basically be fraud on the part of the midwife).
 


of course women should know exactly what the risks are, that's really personal responsability isnt it?


 



Jane- Driver's licenses have NO Bearing on midwifery, because there is no place in the USA where driving is illegal. You cannot compare such a trivial thing to something like midwifery.

 

post #53 of 285

Wow - I missed this before:

 

Actually no, 10% is a HUGE and unacceptable number, if it means that of 10 women, one will end up with a dead or disabled baby or will suffer from complications herself. E.g. an acceptable neonatal mortality at the hospital is less than 1 per 1000 (under 0,1 %)!

 

Are you suggesting that women don't suffer all kinds of complications under the care of OBs? You say 10% is a huge number if it means dead or disabled baby or maternal complications. Then, you compare that 10% solely to neonatal mortality rates.

 

I've suffered complications. Not one of them shows up in my records. Not one. My nerve damage just isn't relevant to anyone except me and dh. The incisions that didn't close, due to infection, for almost six weeks didn't require rehospitalization, so it went "poof" into "not written down, so it didn't officially happen" land. They don't reach some kind of arcane standard, so they don't count as complications. (IMO, anything that affects a woman's daily life, six years after the fact, is a complication.)

post #54 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post

 

I was well informed about the risks of HBA3C. I did months and months of research, starting before I got pregnant. (In fact, I knew far more about the risks than I'd have known if I'd stayed with the OB, because he never told me about the risks - just pulled the dead baby card on me at every visit. I also knew the risks of multiple c-sections, which is something the medical community never once mentioned to me...except for the OB pressuring me to have a tubal after ds2.)

 

The results of my HBA3C were disastrous. My son died, and I was broken. I'm still broken. I didn't even try to fight my fifth c-section, because I was broken (I'm sure the doctors actually thought I'd seen the light - they're wrong). I will never, ever be the same. The thing is...people like you point at the HBA3C gone wrong and the damage it did, and that's what you see. You don't see everything that led up to it. It's easy to point at the HBA3C as the reason I broke and my baby died. But, if I could do my reproductive life all over again, I wouldn't even see the inside of a doctor's office or hospital, except if there were an emergency.

 

It was your choice and going by your posts, I believe that yours was indeed an educated, well-researched one.

I was curious because going by a lot of other posts and stories I've come across, I'm right now more under the impression that most moms do research, but not very throughly and that they tend to overestimate the knowledge and skill they actually DO have. (Dunning-Kruger effect?)

And if something happens to them, they were bound to be left in an especially nasty situation, maybe blaming themselves for not having know better.

By reading your posts, I kinda got the impression though that you were not one in that category, and I was wondering how you handled this particular situation.

 

With birth, there's more than just the risk to the baby that figures into a mom's choice. Going by some stuff I've read, care in the L&D departments in the US can be abysmally bad, and I understand if a mom is so daunted by the prospect of facing that, that she decides to take her chances with a HB and I think that's perfectly fine...as long as the mom is truly completely aware of all the risks and implications. Which you were.

 

Your definitions are different than mine. If I know the pilot has very few hours of flying experience (or has only used a simulator) and I get in the plane, anyway, then I've got to own it when I get injured in a crash (or killed, but I can't own it if I'm dead, yk?). If I choose a midwife that I know has only attended 20 births, then that's my choice.

 

And I very much appreciate that you will share your definitions with me. Even though I'm sticking to mine where my life and the life of my family are concerned, getting input from somebody from the "other side" makes it easier to understand where people are coming from, what influenced their choices....and ultimately to respect those choices.

 

But, unlike you, I don't see care providers as the person responsible for the baby. I see the mom as that person. You and I are coming at this entire discussion from completely different places. (You know, I was responsible for my children's conception. I was responsible for their health during my pregnancies. I'm responsible for their medical care and decisions since they were born. Why is that time of transition from in utero to outside the one time when the woman is expected to shut up and do what she's told?)

 

Yes, a mom is responsible for making the best choices for her kids that she can. But I also believe that no mom is superman (or rather supermom). Being a mom doesn't suddenly confer the power to gain deep insight into complex medical problems within just a few months that have taken others (midwives / OB's) years to comprehend and appreciate. Yes, a mom is responsible. But as they say here: no man (or rather no woman) is an island and we shouldn't have to shoulder the weight of the world on our shoulders alone.

And if there IS someone, be it a friend or a hired professional, who offers to help us carry the weight of that responsibility, they should make sure beforehand that they are able to indeed carry that weight with us.

There's nothing more horrible than relaxing for a moment, thinking you are safe, because the other (implicitly or explicitly) promised they would look out for us and we trusted them....only to find that trust, that promise betrayed.

 

ETA: I also don't see midwifery as a medical profession, which is one of the reasons I don't feel that a license should be required.

 

*g* Different worlds again. I always thought of midwives as some of the first medical specialists EVER, boldly offering health care and medical assistance long before anybody else came up with it.



 

post #55 of 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane93 View Post

So are all the pro-illegal midwives folk also against other basic licensing? 

 

For example, are you against driver's licenses?  Not being able to drive without a license is a significant restriction on personal freedom -- in fact it is something that would impact a person's freedom and choices on a daily basis.

 

 


If you want to run with this comparison, then (as PPs have said), the appropriate context isn't the US, where you are able to become licensed, but, say, Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive. Are the women who do drive then "unethical"? Or does this point to an unjust and discriminatory law that endangers lives? Or, say, the question of illegal immigrants getting licensed in this country: if they're banned from getting licenses, but must drive, is that their fault or the law's?

I grew up under apartheid in South Africa, where the law of the land was patently unjust and standing up for ethics often meant being branded a criminal. If we really care about the safety of mothers and babies, we should be fighting for the legalization of CPMs nationwide. It's easy to be judgmental when you're in a state or country where your birth options are so much more open.
post #56 of 285

I'm copying the whole thing, because I can't seem to quote the embedded quote...

 

I was well informed about the risks of HBA3C. I did months and months of research, starting before I got pregnant. (In fact, I knew far more about the risks than I'd have known if I'd stayed with the OB, because he never told me about the risks - just pulled the dead baby card on me at every visit. I also knew the risks of multiple c-sections, which is something the medical community never once mentioned to me...except for the OB pressuring me to have a tubal after ds2.)

 

The results of my HBA3C were disastrous. My son died, and I was broken. I'm still broken. I didn't even try to fight my fifth c-section, because I was broken (I'm sure the doctors actually thought I'd seen the light - they're wrong). I will never, ever be the same. The thing is...people like you point at the HBA3C gone wrong and the damage it did, and that's what you see. You don't see everything that led up to it. It's easy to point at the HBA3C as the reason I broke and my baby died. But, if I could do my reproductive life all over again, I wouldn't even see the inside of a doctor's office or hospital, except if there were an emergency.

 

It was your choice and going by your posts, I believe that yours was indeed an educated, well-researched one.

 

With birth, there's more than just the risk to the baby that figures into a mom's choice. Going by some stuff I've read, care in the L&D departments in the US can be abysmally bad, and I understand if a mom is so daunted by the prospect of facing that, that she decides to take her chances with a HB and I think that's perfectly fine...as long as the mom is truly completely aware of all the risks and implications. Which you were.

 

I'm not actually in the US. I'm Canadian. I have no idea whether the care I received would be considered good or bad by anyone else, but I found it horrifying. (Okay - I lie. I'm pretty sure most people would be upset, at least, about being drugged and cut open after refusing consent...but that one was a looonnng time ago. Their butts were legally covered, beause I signed the blanket consent and the only people who heard me refuse were my ex, who would be considered biased, and a bunch of hospital staff.)

 

 

Your definitions are different than mine. If I know the pilot has very few hours of flying experience (or has only used a simulator) and I get in the plane, anyway, then I've got to own it when I get injured in a crash (or killed, but I can't own it if I'm dead, yk?). If I choose a midwife that I know has only attended 20 births, then that's my choice.

 

And I very much appreciate that you will share your definitions with me. Even though I'm sticking to mine where my life and the life of my family are concerned, getting input from somebody from the "other side" makes it easier to understand where people are coming from, what influenced their choices....and ultimately to respect those choices.

 

Fair enough. I talk a lot, and it usually seems that I'm talking to no purpose. Maybe not...

 

 

But, unlike you, I don't see care providers as the person responsible for the baby. I see the mom as that person. You and I are coming at this entire discussion from completely different places. (You know, I was responsible for my children's conception. I was responsible for their health during my pregnancies. I'm responsible for their medical care and decisions since they were born. Why is that time of transition from in utero to outside the one time when the woman is expected to shut up and do what she's told?)

 

Yes, a mom is responsible for making the best choices for her kids that she can. But I also believe that no mom is superman (or rather supermom). Being a mom doesn't suddenly confer the power to gain deep insight into complex medical problems within just a few months that have taken others (midwives / OB's) years to comprehend and appreciate. Yes, a mom is responsible. But as they say here: no man (or rather no woman) is an island and we shouldn't have to shoulder the weight of the world on our shoulders alone.

And if there IS someone, be it a friend or a hired professional, who offers to help us carry the weight of that responsibility, they should make sure beforehand that they are able to indeed carry that weight with us.

There's nothing more horrible than relaxing for a moment, thinking you are safe, because the other (implicitly or explicitly) promised they would look out for us and we trusted them....only to find that trust, that promise betrayed.

 

Well, I've never really relaxed in the moment in the hospital, because it was made clear to me very early on that I couldn't trust them. I sort of get what you're saying, but if we're trying to establish a situation where a woman can only make her birth choices under the rules someone else has set out (ie. no underground midwives), then she's not responsible, because she has no autonomy. (I find it interesting that you say women shouldn't have to be Superwoman. The only time I've ever felt that I was expected to be Superwoman was when I was expected to get through massive psychological trauma with a smile on my face, because I had a heatthy baby...and when I was sent home to look after all my children, when I couldn't physically look after myself.) I'm not sure what the licensed midwives are like, because I wasn't allowed to use them by the time I knew about them (I'd already had two c-sections, and once the doctors have mangled your body twice, you lose a lot of choices...which was NOT disclosed to me when I was pushed into section number two). I know that the doctors have absolutely no interest in "helping me carry the weight of that responsibility". They want to take over and don't acknowledge that I have any more involvement than signing a consent form. I'd trust an underground midwife over a medical professional any day of the week. My last OB was pretty good, but even she made a few decisions that sent me around the bend.

 

 

ETA: I also don't see midwifery as a medical profession, which is one of the reasons I don't feel that a license should be required.

 

*g* Different worlds again. I always thought of midwives as some of the first medical specialists EVER, boldly offering health care and medical assistance long before anybody else came up with it.

 

Health care and medical care are two different things, imo (one of the reasons all the talk about "health care" in the US makes me nuts). Medical care, imo, is about treating illness. Pregnancy isn't an illness.

post #57 of 285
Thread Starter 

Storm bride did you use an "underground" midwife for your HBA3C?  Had she done them before, was she optimistic about your chances of success?  Are there many underground midwives to choose from in Canada?  Sorry if you already answered these questions.  I'm not interested in debating this topic I just posted this thread to learn more about what women thought of midwives practicing illegally, that's why I'm asking you these questions if you don't mind answering them. 

post #58 of 285

Yes, I did. She'd attended a couple of previous HBA3Cs and was very upfront that they'd all ended up transferring for c-sections. Optimistic? I don't know if I'd say that, exactly. She didn't see anything in my history or my pregnancy that would indicate any problems, but did mention that she was a little leery of VBA3Cs. (FWIW...my first two were both for breech, and my third one was for post-dates and having had two already. I've never had a pregnany with any health issues at all. The "complications" have all been at the very end. My first actually turned breech during labour...something those "well trained" experts have assured me is impossible.) I don't really know how many underground midwives there are. I found one I was happy with, and didn't look any further.

 

And, to be clear - my reasons for opting for a c-section with my last had nothing to do with thinking it was best for me or my baby. I didn't think so (and, by my books, that makes my last "birth", the most irresponsible one of the lot - I made a choice that I felt wasn't in my best interests, or in my baby's best interests, because of external factors...of course, that's true, to some degree or another, of all of my hospital births). If the external factors affecting my choice hadn't been present, I'd have gone with the same midwife, if she'd have taken me again.

post #59 of 285

Why do you feel the need to attack my thoughts and opinion...I could have certainly voiced my disagreement with the blatant fear I hear coming from women, many of who I suspect are licensed MW's. It is not my choice to decide what is too risky for someone. It is not my choice to tell a woman how to give birth. It is not my choice to tell women that the only choice they have in using the person they feel will best support them and their needs has to be Licensed by the state or some abitrary organization that thinks they know that woman's body better than she does. 

post #60 of 285
Thread Starter 

thank you for sharing.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post

Yes, I did. She'd attended a couple of previous HBA3Cs and was very upfront that they'd all ended up transferring for c-sections. Optimistic? I don't know if I'd say that, exactly. She didn't see anything in my history or my pregnancy that would indicate any problems, but did mention that she was a little leery of VBA3Cs. (FWIW...my first two were both for breech, and my third one was for post-dates and having had two already. I've never had a pregnany with any health issues at all. The "complications" have all been at the very end. My first actually turned breech during labour...something those "well trained" experts have assured me is impossible.) I don't really know how many underground midwives there are. I found one I was happy with, and didn't look any further.

 

And, to be clear - my reasons for opting for a c-section with my last had nothing to do with thinking it was best for me or my baby. I didn't think so (and, by my books, that makes my last "birth", the most irresponsible one of the lot - I made a choice that I felt wasn't in my best interests, or in my baby's best interests, because of external factors...of course, that's true, to some degree or another, of all of my hospital births). If the external factors affecting my choice hadn't been present, I'd have gone with the same midwife, if she'd have taken me again.


 

 

I'm not sure who you're responding to mindfulmomma...
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfulmomma View Post

Why do you feel the need to attack my thoughts and opinion...I could have certainly voiced my disagreement with the blatant fear I hear coming from women, many of who I suspect are licensed MW's. It is not my choice to decide what is too risky for someone. It is not my choice to tell a woman how to give birth. It is not my choice to tell women that the only choice they have in using the person they feel will best support them and their needs has to be Licensed by the state or some abitrary organization that thinks they know that woman's body better than she does. 



 

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?