HORRIFIC legislation - Page 4

[Arwyn]

Canadian midwives have their own issues, though. It's a pretty good system, yes, but it's not perfect, either. No set up that would prosecute Gloria Lemay is anywhere near perfect. (I think Oregon is probably as near perfect a set up - except for the payment of midwives part, which just sucks everywhere in the US - as I know of, so of course they're trying to rewrite the legistlation to be crappy like everyone else.)

[flyjawn]

i know precious little about gloria lemay because i live on the other side of the country but i don't for the life of me understand why she refused to become licensed... i also don't understand why anyone would use an unlicensed midwife here in canada...

[Arwyn]

For the same reasons midwives here in Oregon don't want to become licensed (which thankfully, for the moment at least, is still an option), and some women will seek out unlicensed midwives: licenses usually dictate how you can and cannot practice, often against the better judgment of the midwife. In many states, licensed midwives cannot attend VBACs (who better to help avoid a repeat cesarean than a midwife??), twins, breeches, or cannot attend women past 42 weeks or before 37 weeks, among many other restrictions - and not all midwives are comfortable offering those options, but the point is it should be a choice the woman and the midwife make together, not have forced upon them by a bureaucracy that doesn't know the specifics or values of that particular woman and her pregnancy.

I don't remember why specifically Lemay chose not to be licensed, but I do trust she had her reasons. Women should have the option of selecting any attendant for themselves, licensed or not, without their selected attendant risking jail time not for harmful practice but simply for practicing at all.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by flyjawn

i know precious little about gloria lemay because i live on the other side of the country but i don't for the life of me understand why she refused to become licensed... i also don't understand why anyone would use an unlicensed midwife here in canada...

Well, I'm going to use an unlicensed midwife, because I've been cut open three times when I didn't want to be - and made that plain. Yes - I ultimately caved on my 2nd and 3rd section (my first was done while I said, "no - I don't want a f**king section" repeatedly), but I shouldn't have had to fight in the first place. I can't get a care provider covered by medical, because I'm going outside what the medpros say is acceptable. My "choices" are a homebirth with an unlicensed attendant or a hospital "birth" - either a c-section, or fighting every step of the way over everything...the IV, the right to eat and drink, the limit on how long I'm "allowed" to be pregnant or how long I'm "allowed" to labour, etc. etc. And, this is all because they cut me over my objections in the first place.

My OB told me last time that "we" in Canada are following the US's lead in obstetrics.

[flyjawn]

well as much as i don't believe that the government should be dictating how and where women have their babies - i also greatly appreciate the support of midwifery that they offer. i know that in the US you have a vastly different system that is generally distrusting of any natural healthcare practise but here in canada i think that practising without a license gives all midwives a bad name and discredits the amazing services and support that they offer. as it stands, a lot of people think midwifery is not as safe as having a "doctor" and when a baby dies with an unlicensed midwife as the primary caregiver, it just adds to this misconceptions.

jmo...

[TurboClaudia]

Originally Posted by flyjawn

well as much as i don't believe that the government should be dictating how and where women have their babies - i also greatly appreciate the support of midwifery that they offer. i know that in the US you have a vastly different system that is generally distrusting of any natural healthcare practise but here in canada i think that practising without a license gives all midwives a bad name and discredits the amazing services and support that they offer. as it stands, a lot of people think midwifery is not as safe as having a "doctor" and when a baby dies with an unlicensed midwife as the primary caregiver, it just adds to this misconceptions.

jmo...

so when a mother or baby dies while under obstetric care by an MD in a hospital, it discredits other MDs? i think evidence of increase in usage of hospitals as birth locations over the past century would indicate otherwise.

i believe women should be trusted to choose their care provider, regardless of licensure status.

[flyjawn]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

Well, I'm going to use an unlicensed midwife, because I've been cut open three times when I didn't want to be - and made that plain. Yes - I ultimately caved on my 2nd and 3rd section (my first was done while I said, "no - I don't want a f**king section" repeatedly), but I shouldn't have had to fight in the first place. I can't get a care provider covered by medical, because I'm going outside what the medpros say is acceptable. My "choices" are a homebirth with an unlicensed attendant or a hospital "birth" - either a c-section, or fighting every step of the way over everything...the IV, the right to eat and drink, the limit on how long I'm "allowed" to be pregnant or how long I'm "allowed" to labour, etc. etc. And, this is all because they cut me over my objections in the first place.

My OB told me last time that "we" in Canada are following the US's lead in obstetrics.

storm bride - does BC healthcare not cover home births and midwives? maybe our systems are very different... here homebirths are totally covered by our healthcare system.

[flyjawn]

Originally Posted by TurboClaudia

so when a mother or baby dies while under obstetric care by an MD in a hospital, it discredits other MDs? i think evidence of increase in usage of hospitals as birth locations over the past century would indicate otherwise.

i believe women should be trusted to choose their care provider, regardless of licensure status.

nobody questions MD's (and they should) because we're all full of some misguided blind trust. whereas midwifery doesn't have that level of trust yet in the general population... anyways midwives in ontario need to be licensed because they are paid by the government not the patient. knowing that my midwives are a part of a greater system that supports their continuous education and learning makes me feel very confident in them. and they DEFINITELY don't follow the US's lead in obstetrics. lol...

[Nature]

Huh. I had a baby larger than 8.8 lbs so I guess I'm not having my homebirth in that state. Geeze. I have.. no words.. that don't violate the UA. :

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by flyjawn

storm bride - does BC healthcare not cover home births and midwives? maybe our systems are very different... here homebirths are totally covered by our healthcare system.

Yes - homebirths and midwives are covered...if the midwife is licensed. But, the licensed midwives can't take a VBA3C without putting it back to a "consultation" with an OB. The OBs don't give a damn about nerve damage, PPD, PTSD or whatever. With them, I either fight through my entire pregnancy and my entire labour, or I get another section. So, I go outside the medical system, or I have a fight, or I have a c-section. If I go outside the system, then it's not covered.

[Arwyn]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

Yes - homebirths and midwives are covered...if the midwife is licensed. But, the licensed midwives can't take a VBA3C without putting it back to a "consultation" with an OB. The OBs don't give a damn about nerve damaged, PPD, PTSD or whatever. With them, I either fight through my entire pregnancy and my entire labour, or I get another section. So, I go outside the medical system, or I have a fight, or I have a c-section. If I go outside the system, then it's not covered.

And that would be why some midwives choose to be unlicensed, why some women choose to support them, and why that choice should be legal.

Lisa. I know you'll have the beautiful and blissful birth you deserve!

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Arwyn

And that would be why some midwives choose to be unlicensed, why some women choose to support them, and why that choice should be legal.

:

[flyjawn]

i guess the difference is that i see the restrictions and limitations that are currently in place as being perfectly acceptable.

nonetheless i hope you have the birth experience that you want storm bride.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by flyjawn

i guess the difference is that i see the restrictions and limitations that are currently in place as being perfectly acceptable.

nonetheless i hope you have the birth experience that you want storm bride.

Why is it reasonable?
I've done the research. I know the risks of VBA3C. If I feel that those risks are worth it, why should it be perfectly acceptable that I be deprived of a choice of care providers? How it perfectly acceptable that I can be required to go without food or water, be restricted to a bed (causing more painful contractions), and be cut open against my will?

If there weren't women willing to go against the grain and refuse licensing, I'd have no options at all...and that's exactly the way the system is set up. I'm not supposed to have any options. I'm supposed to do what I'm told.

If you find that perfectly acceptable, that's your business. But, I don't see why you should get to dictate what's an acceptable birth for me...and I don't see why the SOGC of the College of Midwives should be allowed to do so, either.

[Lady Lilya]

Originally Posted by Arwyn

Canadian midwives have their own issues, though. It's a pretty good system, yes, but it's not perfect, either. No set up that would prosecute Gloria Lemay is anywhere near perfect. (I think Oregon is probably as near perfect a set up - except for the payment of midwives part, which just sucks everywhere in the US - as I know of, so of course they're trying to rewrite the legistlation to be crappy like everyone else.)

Oregon? I have heard more horror stories about Oregon, when it comes to CPS taking children away from families, than any other state.

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

Originally Posted by flyjawn

i guess the difference is that i see the restrictions and limitations that are currently in place as being perfectly acceptable.

nonetheless i hope you have the birth experience that you want storm bride.

Why is it reasonable?
I've done the research. I know the risks of VBA3C. If I feel that those risks are worth it, why should it be perfectly acceptable that I be deprived of a choice of care providers? How it perfectly acceptable that I can be required to go without food or water, be restricted to a bed (causing more painful contractions), and be cut open against my will?

If there weren't women willing to go against the grain and refuse licensing, I'd have no options at all...and that's exactly the way the system is set up. I'm not supposed to have any options. I'm supposed to do what I'm told.

If you find that perfectly acceptable, that's your business. But, I don't see why you should get to dictate what's an acceptable birth for me...and I don't see why the SOGC of the College of Midwives should be allowed to do so, either.

Acceptable to her is not the same as reasonable.

It is acceptable to her, because it doesn't interfere with the way she would want to do things anyway.

It is like a teenager who wants to go to a party until 10pm, and her parents set a curfew at midnight. She will not feel restricted. If the teenager wanted to stay out until 2am, she would feel restricted by the same midnight curfew.

Pregnant women are not children. We should not be restricted. If they want to INFORM us of possible risks, fine, but no restrictions.

The reason the government feels like it can restrict us, and decide which risks are worthwhile for us, is because from the government's point of view we are its property. Note that it is illegal to kill ourselves. We are caretakers of the government's property (ourselves and our dependent offspring) as long as we care for the property in a way the government finds acceptable. If not, the government will rescind our privileges to care for ourselves or our offspring.

[[e-mail]]

Originally Posted by Arwyn

In many states, licensed midwives cannot attend VBACs (who better to help avoid a repeat cesarean than a midwife??), twins, breeches, or cannot attend women past 42 weeks or before 37 weeks, among many other restrictions -

The trend in the states that have most recently adopted licensure for midwives has been the exact opposite. Licensed midwives in MN, UT, VA and WI can do VBACs, breeches and twins, and the practice guidelines in those states are very reasonable in general. In WI, the midwives advisory council--which includes two CPMs, a homebirth CNM, a family practice doctor who works with midwives and a homebirth mom--wrote the practice guidelines, which are essentially an updated version of the practice guidelines midwives have been voluntarily following for the last twenty years (i.e. our statewide "community standards of care").

Also, both WI and VA included provisions in their statutes ensuring that the practice guidelines that were adopted must be consistent with the NACPM standards. Now that CPMs have their own national professional organization with its own standards of care (which are ethical guidelines, not practice guidelines) that are strongly based on client autonomy and respect for individual CPMs' scope of practice, we have an excellent tool for protecting against over-regulation of licensed midwives.

And for people who haven't heard the good news, the thinly-veiled repeal effort in UT was soundly defeated:

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/211455/4/

Katie Prown
Legislative Chair
Wisconsin Guild of Midwives

[sebarnes]

The article does not mention that although the Bill has been removed for this session, it will be sent to a study committee during the interim session to decide whether it should be reintroduced next year. Which is both good and bad. Study committees are still made up of legislative members, although in this case it is both Senators and House members. So they still bring with them their particular prejudices. The good is that there is much more time for actual FACTS to be brought to light and a lot of room for public input. So, if a study committee decides a bill is not worth it, then it makes it really, really hard for it to be brought back the next session. For those of us in Utah, this will be another chance for our voices to be heard! Yay you awesome Utah homebirthers!! Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, her quote in the paper comes directly from a canned email response she is sending to ANYONE who sends her an email opposing the bill no matter what they say or what points they make. The rest of the email is just as, if not more, incendiary. She is making out like this is all the LDEMs fault and that she is being misrepresented and being attacked at every quarter. Gee, my heart bleeds for you...

Shannon Barnes
President, Utah Friends of Midwives