Poll- Do you support "underground" midwives? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 285 Old 02-28-2012, 06:49 PM
 
HappyDreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think every woman should have the right to choose for herself. In Nebraska it is a felony for even a CNM to attend a homebirth (there are a LOT of people working to change that) so the only option for a mother to have a homebirth is to use an "underground" midwife or go the route of unassisted childbirth.

HappyDreamer is offline  
#122 of 285 Old 02-28-2012, 06:51 PM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbieB View Post

 

Midwifery does not come with all of the pros and cons of the current medical system, that's exactly why so many women choose it. There is a very narrow middle ground in some states, licensed CNMs, with a very narrow scope of practice that can serve women that want a little of both worlds, who happen to fit the narrow definitions of low risk. But there are plenty of women that are not served by this and need another option other than the hospital.

 

yeahthat.gif


ME&treehugger.gifHE... loving our: wild.gifdd(18) ~~violin.gifds(13) read.gifdd(13)~~ peace.gifdd(10)
 
 

littlest birds is offline  
#123 of 285 Old 02-29-2012, 08:14 AM
 
Lizbiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

If a midwife can become licensed in a given state to practice, then they should.  But if they can't, as is the case for CPMs in some states, and they can't just move to another state or go to school to become a CNM (this isn't always feasible given the investment they've already made in their education along with their own family commitments, etc.) - then I do support them practicing without a license.  

 

I hired such a midwife for the homebirth of my first child.  She was eminently professional and upfront about all of this.  She was also highly skilled and a truly exceptional midwife.  She could not just move or go back to school to become a CNM - and it would have been a great loss to our community if she were not practicing.  I interviewed all of the area homebirth midwifery practices (licensed and not) and she was the best, hands down.  

 

I do not see her practice as unethical - I see her as serving women in a courageous way.  Women's birth choices are far too hemmed-in by our current state laws.  This is unethical, in my opinion, not the other way around. 


Lizbiz, wife to my man who makes me smile, and mom to one bouncy boy (08/07), one sassy girl (12/09), and one sweet new boy (08/12).

Lizbiz is offline  
#124 of 285 Old 03-03-2012, 05:48 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I would rather have an unlicensed midwife who carried pitocin, antibiotics, and IV fluids than a licensed one who didn't. My current state doesn't have any licensure for midwifery. It's not illegal, but it's not regulated either. My current midwife was licensed in another state before moving here. She's also an ND. I'm cool with the fact that she's not licensed here. Now, she's not underground at all - the fact that there are no prohibitions against her practicing make it legal - but if she were unlicensed, that wouldn't bother me. She's got training, she carries IVs and abx and all that other stuff (made legal by the fact that NDs in my state have limited prescriptive power). She's prepared. She wouldn't be any less prepared if the state outlawed midwifery by anyone but CNMs.

 

I think it's highly disingenuous when people say that all midwives should be nurse midwives, because our CPM qualifications aren't up to the standards required for midwives in other countries, then when it's pointed out that those other countries do NOT require midwives to be nurses, they essentially gloss right over that fact. It's not irrelevant. You can't try to use the training of non-nurse midwives in other countries to support the argument that all midwives should be nurse midwives. That's absurd and illogical. Listen to how that argument goes: "Look at all these other countries that allow women to become midwives without becoming nurses first. They require their midwives to attend 3 to 4 year degree programs! That proves that all American midwives should be nurses!" Uhhh...no. It proves that you are grasping at straws to support your position, and since you don't have anything better, you will use facts that don't actually support your position, claim that they do, and then hope that none of us notice. We noticed.

 

I absolutely think the CPM credential leaves a lot to be desired. That doesn't mean that all CPMs are unqualified. Additionally, there are some programs in this country which do qualify graduates to work in some of those other countries that you are referencing. For instance, the midwifery program at Bastyr, formerly the Seattle Midwifery School, does leave graduates qualified to work in Canada. You have to take a bridging course, lasting around 9 months (or maybe 7, not sure) but it's the SAME course required for ANY midwife, coming from ANY country, including those with much more stringent regulations of non-nurse midwifery. In fact, my plan for about 10 years from now is to get my master's from the program at Bastyr, move to Canada, complete the bridging program, get lots of experience working up in Canada for a few years, then move back to the U.S. to work as a home birth midwife here. And I'll have to have the CPM credential, because that's all that will be available, but I'll be every bit as qualified as those midwives you love up in Canada. So at the very least, if you want to engage in adult conversation, be honest. Admit that you like nurse midwives because it's your personal preference or because the current CPM credential doesn't require as much education and experience as you think is necessary, but do not try to act like what's going on in the rest of the world means that American midwives need education above and beyond that required in those countries you're referencing, just to be qualified to do the same job. It's so dishonest.

Plummeting is offline  
#125 of 285 Old 03-03-2012, 08:49 PM
 
iowaorganic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3,292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Wow- I didn't read the whole thread and am not sure I really have much to add- but I definitely support my 'underground' midwife.  She is a CPM and she is awesome.  Her transfer rate is 4%.  My old OBs CS rate was 40%.  Amazing huh?  I guess I don't recognize the 'right' of my state to tell me who can and can not be at my birth- nor their 'authority' to tell me where to give birth.  I can't move- that is ridiculous.  Nor can my MW.  She is providing me with a service that I not only want but need since we don't have insurance.  In the event of a transfer- I don't expect her to come to the hospital with me- given the way my state operates- I wouldn't want her there.  It isn't all about me- it is a give and take relationship.  I do believe that even if I had a transfer- she would still be my choice the next go around.  

 

Also- I never received the amount of care I get from my MW from my old OB.  I didn't know I could do better and that is pretty sad.  3 hospital births and all three times  I tore horribly and had to be stitched up for 30 min each time.  HB with a baby over a pound more than the last one and no tear- and it was not an easy labor.  I had the best care around during my HB with a MW who has caught more babies than most OBs around.  

 

Some people aren't cool with it- that is fine with me.  I don't see what that discomfort has to do with me and my choices for our family.  By saying that unlicensed MWs and the birth freedom movement is dangerous-is just another way for this nanny state to control another aspect of my life.  That is something I don't need or want.  


Iowaorganic- mama to DD (1/5/06), DS1 (4/9/07), DS2 (1/22/09), DS3 (12/10/10), DD2 (7/6/12) and a new kid due in early 2014

iowaorganic is offline  
#126 of 285 Old 03-09-2012, 08:56 PM
 
muzie5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

While I may not choose to see a "self-taught" dentist, that doesn't mean a person in America shouldn't have the right to choose that if they want it.  This is America, right?  Besides, this is entirely different.  An "underground" midwife has usually had the same training and experience as a "certified" midwife.  They just don't have the piece of paper.  If someone does all of the training required of a doula, but hasn't received the certificate in the mail yet, does that mean they don't know how to be a doula until the postman delivers the package?  Of course not.  It just means the state hasn't recognized them yet (or charged them money yet, whichever way you want to look at it).  As for nursing, the nursing program is a long and tedious process to get into and produces people who are not always as well-versed in natural childbirth.  So, for me, an "RN" behind someone's name doesn't mean anything to me.  I've seen many, many nurses who have no business having a license and I've seen people who know more than nurses do but have no "certification".  A piece of paper is only worth the ink it's printed with.  What really matters is the education that preceded the piece of paper and the experience that person has had.  Just my opinion, though.  :)

muzie5 is offline  
#127 of 285 Old 03-09-2012, 08:57 PM
 
muzie5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

While I may not choose to see a "self-taught" dentist, that doesn't mean a person in America shouldn't have the right to choose that if they want it.  This is America, right?  Besides, this is entirely different.  An "underground" midwife has usually had the same training and experience as a "certified" midwife.  They just don't have the piece of paper.  If someone does all of the training required of a doula, but hasn't received the certificate in the mail yet, does that mean they don't know how to be a doula until the postman delivers the package?  Of course not.  It just means the state hasn't recognized them yet (or charged them money yet, whichever way you want to look at it).  As for nursing, the nursing program is a long and tedious process to get into and produces people who are not always as well-versed in natural childbirth.  So, for me, an "RN" behind someone's name doesn't mean anything to me.  I've seen many, many nurses who have no business having a license and I've seen people who know more than nurses do but have no "certification".  A piece of paper is only worth the ink it's printed with.  What really matters is the education that preceded the piece of paper and the experience that person has had.  Just my opinion, though.  :)

muzie5 is offline  
#128 of 285 Old 03-10-2012, 07:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It's not just about the piece of paper.  Underground midwives do not have collaboration with local doctors or hospitals in case of an emergency (in most cases), which makes the transfer process entirely different, nor are they held accountable in the same way if something goes wrong.  This isn't about safety of normal birth (anybody can catch a baby), it's about the 5% (give or take), that have to deal with transferring, difficult births, and/or bad outcomes.  It's far more complicated than a debate about CPM's vs. CNM's, or unlicensed vs. licensed.  I started this thread to get a general idea of how people felt about it, because I was personally effected by this issue.  Thank you for everyone's responses.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by muzie5 View Post

While I may not choose to see a "self-taught" dentist, that doesn't mean a person in America shouldn't have the right to choose that if they want it.  This is America, right?  Besides, this is entirely different.  An "underground" midwife has usually had the same training and experience as a "certified" midwife.  They just don't have the piece of paper.  If someone does all of the training required of a doula, but hasn't received the certificate in the mail yet, does that mean they don't know how to be a doula until the postman delivers the package?  Of course not.  It just means the state hasn't recognized them yet (or charged them money yet, whichever way you want to look at it).  As for nursing, the nursing program is a long and tedious process to get into and produces people who are not always as well-versed in natural childbirth.  So, for me, an "RN" behind someone's name doesn't mean anything to me.  I've seen many, many nurses who have no business having a license and I've seen people who know more than nurses do but have no "certification".  A piece of paper is only worth the ink it's printed with.  What really matters is the education that preceded the piece of paper and the experience that person has had.  Just my opinion, though.  :)



 

Poogles0213 likes this.

Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#129 of 285 Old 03-11-2012, 06:01 AM
 
Youngfrankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

It's not just about the piece of paper.  Underground midwives do not have collaboration with local doctors or hospitals in case of an emergency (in most cases), which makes the transfer process entirely different, nor are they held accountable in the same way if something goes wrong.  This isn't about safety of normal birth (anybody can catch a baby), it's about the 5% (give or take), that have to deal with transferring, difficult births, and/or bad outcomes.  It's far more complicated than a debate about CPM's vs. CNM's, or unlicensed vs. licensed.  I started this thread to get a general idea of how people felt about it, because I was personally effected by this issue.  Thank you for everyone's responses.  



 


But this isn't always true.  It wasn't in my case.  And while I wouldn't call my midwife "underground", she can't legally be a midwife but works tirelessly with governments in our state trying to change that.  Her practice is very out in the open and she would have absolutely transfered and stayed with us the entire time.  It was something we asked about in our interview.  I know not many people have this luxury.  

 

I really think you should check out the other thread about dispelling the perfect birth theory.  It goes on for many pages but it's a very interesting conversation.  One, I feel, that is very important.  Someone is bringing up the point about transfer rates being crowed about but really, maybe we don't want the midwife with the lowest transfer rate....maybe she's too "risky".

 

I don't know your situation but I know mine and would hire my midwife again and again.  So I guess legal or underground, it doesn't cover the scenarios adequately.

 


Mama to 4. winner.jpghomebirth.jpg
Youngfrankenstein is offline  
#130 of 285 Old 03-11-2012, 07:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

She might want to stay with you, but to the hospital she's just some person, not your midwife (since she has no license to practice), and they have no obligation to let her stay with you...so I'm just saying, transfers have no guarantee's with illegal midwives, but with a legal midwife with offical back-up, she DOES have guaranteed support because of the legal collaboration.  Even someone practicing illegally out in the open, couldn't possibly have the support of every doctor.  Do you disagree?  And this is all to get back to my original point, that this is about more than just a piece of paper.

 

I do appreciate your viewpoint though, even though I don't see it the same way, and I will take a look at that thread you mentioned.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngfrankenstein View Post


But this isn't always true.  It wasn't in my case.  And while I wouldn't call my midwife "underground", she can't legally be a midwife but works tirelessly with governments in our state trying to change that.  Her practice is very out in the open and she would have absolutely transfered and stayed with us the entire time.  It was something we asked about in our interview.  I know not many people have this luxury.  

 

I really think you should check out the other thread about dispelling the perfect birth theory.  It goes on for many pages but it's a very interesting conversation.  One, I feel, that is very important.  Someone is bringing up the point about transfer rates being crowed about but really, maybe we don't want the midwife with the lowest transfer rate....maybe she's too "risky".

 

I don't know your situation but I know mine and would hire my midwife again and again.  So I guess legal or underground, it doesn't cover the scenarios adequately.

 


 

 


Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#131 of 285 Old 03-11-2012, 08:46 PM
rad
 
rad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: IL
Posts: 1,648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, women should be able to use any midwife they want

 

I would prefer if they were licensed so I had some idea of what I'm getting, so to speak. But here in IL, CPM aren't licensed. There are only a few "legal" midwives. SO I'm left with very few options other than hospital (not gonna happen), unassisted (possibility for me) or underground midwife (my choice for my last 2 homebirths). Yes, I'd prefer they didn't have to be underground but I'd still use one over having all option taken away and being forced into a hospital birth.


 
Rachel , wifey to best friend Karl ,
SAHM to Kaelan (11) Chandra (9) Liam (7) Lachlan (5) Killian (4),Riordan (1), Baby Boy EDD 11/14. All born at home!

rad is offline  
#132 of 285 Old 03-11-2012, 08:58 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

She might want to stay with you, but to the hospital she's just some person, not your midwife (since she has no license to practice), and they have no obligation to let her stay with you...so I'm just saying, transfers have no guarantee's with illegal midwives, but with a legal midwife with offical back-up, she DOES have guaranteed support because of the legal collaboration.  Even someone practicing illegally out in the open, couldn't possibly have the support of every doctor.  Do you disagree?  And this is all to get back to my original point, that this is about more than just a piece of paper.

 

I do appreciate your viewpoint though, even though I don't see it the same way, and I will take a look at that thread you mentioned.  

 

 

I'm sure it's different state by state, but here in TX the hospital doesn't care that it's your midwife when you transfer.  Whether or not she stays is up to the hospital- they absolutely can (and do) kick them out.

alegna is offline  
#133 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 04:33 AM
 
Youngfrankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

She might want to stay with you, but to the hospital she's just some person, not your midwife (since she has no license to practice), and they have no obligation to let her stay with you...so I'm just saying, transfers have no guarantee's with illegal midwives, but with a legal midwife with offical back-up, she DOES have guaranteed support because of the legal collaboration.  Even someone practicing illegally out in the open, couldn't possibly have the support of every doctor.  Do you disagree?  And this is all to get back to my original point, that this is about more than just a piece of paper.

 

I do appreciate your viewpoint though, even though I don't see it the same way, and I will take a look at that thread you mentioned.  


 

 


I just feel like you're making a lot of assumptions.  I agree that everything should be "above ground".  But it isn't...I know that my midwife wouldn't have legal rights to act as my midwife if I transfered.  There is no legal way for them to bar her from coming in.  A transfer would be us, coming together, her acting as a monitrice.  If I transfered, I would need help.  I am there to get it with the CNMs I did my shadow care with. 

 


Mama to 4. winner.jpghomebirth.jpg
Youngfrankenstein is offline  
#134 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 07:10 AM - Thread Starter
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm assuming it's a real emergency, where things happen fast, there's no time to call your midwives to come, there's an OB assigned to you because you require a c-section.  In which case yes, he would have the authority to not allow your "montrice" to stay with you.  I don't think I'm being unrealistic.  I admit I'm talking about a very small chance of this happening.  If that small chance doesn't matter to women, fine, but I don't like the assumption that transfers who be just as smooth as with a legal midwife, I just don't buy that.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngfrankenstein View Post


I just feel like you're making a lot of assumptions.  I agree that everything should be "above ground".  But it isn't...I know that my midwife wouldn't have legal rights to act as my midwife if I transfered.  There is no legal way for them to bar her from coming in.  A transfer would be us, coming together, her acting as a monitrice.  If I transfered, I would need help.  I am there to get it with the CNMs I did my shadow care with. 

 



 


Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#135 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 07:58 AM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

 but I don't like the assumption that transfers who be just as smooth as with a legal midwife, I just don't buy that.  

You're assuming that a transfer WITH a legal midwife is guaranteed to be smooth.  Here in TX where we have CNMs and licensened midwives, how a transfer goes can vary GREATLY.  In no way do all OBs respect the midwife- quite the contrary actually.  Is it POSSIBLE to have a smooth transfer?  Absolutely.  Is it a sure thing since the midwives are legal and above board?  No way.

Youngfrankenstein likes this.
alegna is offline  
#136 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 08:21 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I agree with what YoungFrankenstein point out - that this thread could relate well with this one:http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1345213/dispelling-the-perfect-birth-theory

 

I have no problem with anyone choosing whatever type of attendant they want at their birth, or none at all. But I think women need to be aware of what they are really getting and what the possibilities are... and that is pretty much their responsibility to educate themselves to that end. Unfortunately, there is bad information or people who will intentionally mislead others out there.... but that is true for pretty much everything...

 

For example - as long as a mom knows that illegal mw can't go to hospital with her in case of transfer (as you guys are debating above, not sure what is really true and where/which states), and she is ok with that possibility and wants to risk it, who cares?

 

Slmommy is offline  
#137 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 08:51 AM
 
Youngfrankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

I'm assuming it's a real emergency, where things happen fast, there's no time to call your midwives to come, there's an OB assigned to you because you require a c-section.  In which case yes, he would have the authority to not allow your "montrice" to stay with you.  I don't think I'm being unrealistic.  I admit I'm talking about a very small chance of this happening.  If that small chance doesn't matter to women, fine, but I don't like the assumption that transfers who be just as smooth as with a legal midwife, I just don't buy that.  



 

I do think this can vary.  If I have to go to the hospital, by ambulance, for a transfer emergency, I will go to a facility and be treated.  I would expect the same thing in a life-threatening car accident.  I won't have control over it at that point.  I'm not suggesting that my midwife would be involved in being a monitrice in this type of situation.  If I transfered for exhaustion, or I got a fever, etc.  she would stay with me as we all drove to the hospital together.
 

 


Mama to 4. winner.jpghomebirth.jpg
Youngfrankenstein is offline  
#138 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 01:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm just going to agree to disagree with you guys.  I'd rather discuss with women who have actually had transfers, not just a promise of a good transfer.  And yes I know not all transfers are smooth, I just absolutely believe they are safer and have more certainty with legal midwives, in most cases.  Everyone has the right to choose whomever they want whether it's legal or not, who's going stop them?  Nobody, however the midwife could get arrested, that does happen.  

 

I did read thru a lot of that other thread.


Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#139 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 02:23 PM
 
iowaorganic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3,292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So you disagree with your own poll results?  I would like to think most midwives are upfront about their credentials- but it is obviously up to the mama to double check and be sure that they are ok with it.  Also- are there many who are completely naive about a transfer and think it will be sunshine and puppies?  I hope not- because if I had to transfer I know it would go bad- most likely really bad.  Cause what are they going to do with my paper records that get left in my cupboard after each appointment as a security issue- probably laugh and throw them away!?  Yet I am still cool with that.  And who doesn't google their midwife to see it they have been arrested?  I would think everyone would google them...  But it is again up to the mama on if that matters to her and her family.  In a perfect world there wouldn't have to be underground midwives.  Reality being what it is- it is necessary or a lot of us would be run again through the OB baby system with not much hope of anything better.  


Iowaorganic- mama to DD (1/5/06), DS1 (4/9/07), DS2 (1/22/09), DS3 (12/10/10), DD2 (7/6/12) and a new kid due in early 2014

iowaorganic is offline  
#140 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 04:12 PM
 
Youngfrankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

I'm just going to agree to disagree with you guys.  I'd rather discuss with women who have actually had transfers, not just a promise of a good transfer.  And yes I know not all transfers are smooth, I just absolutely believe they are safer and have more certainty with legal midwives, in most cases.  Everyone has the right to choose whomever they want whether it's legal or not, who's going stop them?  Nobody, however the midwife could get arrested, that does happen.  

 

I did read thru a lot of that other thread.


 

I did not have a transfer so I don't know, for a fact, how one would go.  We interviewed and felt good about hiring this midwife.  She doesn't work "legally" in Ohio as a midwife.  

 

You're telling us that we who live in states with no legal midwives we shouldn't home birth.  I disagree with that.


Mama to 4. winner.jpghomebirth.jpg
Youngfrankenstein is offline  
#141 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 04:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

You're putting words into my mouth, I never said that.  I don't think midwives should practice illegally.  But It's still legal to have a homebirth in all 50 states.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youngfrankenstein View Post


 

I did not have a transfer so I don't know, for a fact, how one would go.  We interviewed and felt good about hiring this midwife.  She doesn't work "legally" in Ohio as a midwife.  

 

You're telling us that we who live in states with no legal midwives we shouldn't home birth.  I disagree with that.



 


Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#142 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 05:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My "poll results" have to do with how people feel about underground midwives- it doesn't prove anything, it's just opinions.  In my state, underground midwives are not upfront about the legality.  Women have birthed with them having no idea it was illegal.  I've heard first hand accounts of this.  So while you would like to think they're being upfront about it, that's not always the case.  To be honest I'm surprised at the number of women that support illegal midwives, and are not at all concerned about it.  I was looking up homebirth in Ohio and found this: 
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1131174/ohio-homebirth-family-being-criminally-prosecuted  I had no idea this could even happen.

 

I'm not out to change anything, women can do whatever they want.  I just wanted to talk about it.  It's not my intention to cause a heated debate, I really do thank you all for adding to the discussion.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by iowaorganic View Post

So you disagree with your own poll results?  I would like to think most midwives are upfront about their credentials- but it is obviously up to the mama to double check and be sure that they are ok with it.  Also- are there many who are completely naive about a transfer and think it will be sunshine and puppies?  I hope not- because if I had to transfer I know it would go bad- most likely really bad.  Cause what are they going to do with my paper records that get left in my cupboard after each appointment as a security issue- probably laugh and throw them away!?  Yet I am still cool with that.  And who doesn't google their midwife to see it they have been arrested?  I would think everyone would google them...  But it is again up to the mama on if that matters to her and her family.  In a perfect world there wouldn't have to be underground midwives.  Reality being what it is- it is necessary or a lot of us would be run again through the OB baby system with not much hope of anything better.  



 


Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#143 of 285 Old 03-12-2012, 07:15 PM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I transferred smoothly with underground midwives for my twins, although it was not a major emergency I did have to switch hospitals as well and my midwife came with us and was present and participating for the entire birth in a doula role.


ME&treehugger.gifHE... loving our: wild.gifdd(18) ~~violin.gifds(13) read.gifdd(13)~~ peace.gifdd(10)
 
 

littlest birds is offline  
#144 of 285 Old 03-13-2012, 07:51 AM
 
Buzzbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Talking about the transfer issue, I remember reading an interview with a homebirth loss mom.  She lived in WA near the border with OR. 

 

When in need of a transfer, the midwife insisted on taking them across the border from WA to OR because the hospital was allegedly "homebirth friendlier" -- the mom is now convinced it was because the standards for midwifery care in OR are much looser than in WA and the midwife was concerned about prosecution.  So, rather than accessing the nearest hospital care in an emergency, the midwife covered her own butt.  

 

I hear sort of similar things again and again where midwives have preferred hospitals that are frequently significantly further away.   I believe that in many cases the preference arises from how pro-active certain hospitals may be versus others about reporting the illegal practice of medicine and/or midwife malpractice. 

 

I would encourage that any mother in an emergent transfer situation should consider obtaining care from the nearest rather the "most midwife preferred" hospital.


I support homebirth that meets the qualifications set forth in the AAP's 2013 policy on homebirth.

Buzzbuzz is offline  
#145 of 285 Old 03-15-2012, 03:02 AM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lovebeingamomma View Post

You're putting words into my mouth, I never said that.  I don't think midwives should practice illegally.  But It's still legal to have a homebirth in all 50 states.  
 



 


So what ARE you saying? That they should have an unassisted birth? Because that's going to be their only option if there are no CNMs or OBs providing home birth services where they live (in some states CNMs are not even legally allowed to attend home births). And come on, how many OBs out there are doing it? You are saying that midwives should never practice illegally, but that if there is no licensed person willing to attend a home birth, women who want to give birth at home should....what? I really don't understand what you're saying. If what you really mean is that women shouldn't have home births in those situations, why not just say it?

Youngfrankenstein likes this.
Plummeting is offline  
#146 of 285 Old 03-15-2012, 06:43 AM - Thread Starter
 
lovebeingamomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: RI
Posts: 1,549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Ok well let me try to think of all the legal options...traveling to a state where it's legal (some midwives attend births in hotel rooms), unassisted birth, birth centers, hospital birth.  I support all the choices I mentioned.  And I get it, many of you think you deserve the kind of birth you want no matter what.  I don't believe that, I don't think anyone is above the law, and I think it's more risky (did you just ignore BuzzBuzz's post and the story I linked to?).  Yes unassisted birth has it's own risks, but you're not putting your trust in someone who may or may not do what's best for you in a transfer situation.  However having this opinion does not change that you can still do whatever you want.  I respect your free-will to do what you want, if you don't respect my opinion so be it.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post


So what ARE you saying? That they should have an unassisted birth? Because that's going to be their only option if there are no CNMs or OBs providing home birth services where they live (in some states CNMs are not even legally allowed to attend home births). And come on, how many OBs out there are doing it? You are saying that midwives should never practice illegally, but that if there is no licensed person willing to attend a home birth, women who want to give birth at home should....what? I really don't understand what you're saying. If what you really mean is that women shouldn't have home births in those situations, why not just say it?



 


Christian SAHM & birth doula.
lovebeingamomma is offline  
#147 of 285 Old 03-15-2012, 08:26 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I don't see how using an underground mw is worse than uc (and i am a ucer.) Just because UC is not "illegal"? Don't women realize that whatever type of midwifery/hb in their state is illegal? Are illegal mws trying to pass off as legal? I was under the impression it was fairly difficult to find these ladies. If you are going to choose whatever hcp for your birth, you are responsible for knowing what their deal is. Do people not ask about transfer situations while interviewing mws? If you are worried that your mw is not experienced or going to mismanage your labor to cover her own ass... why go that route? I don't see a problem with women using a mw who they are comfortable with, and it is their responsibility to know about the situation. I think some of these laws are totally arbitrary (and hard/unlikely to change)... 5 miles away the mw could be totally legal but cross state lines, and no? and that makes her less of a mw?

 

I don't know, I kinda view this situation as say having a uc, and asking a friend/family member to be there with you, maybe someone who has some medical/birth experience... if you transfer are they going to let friend stay with you or inform dr. about your labor? would you let that person tell you to go to a hospital further away? I guess women who go with underground mws just have some more responsibility to learn about birth/legalities/transfer situation, and be more proactive about their situation. If they can't do that, or don't want to, they probably shouldn't go with an underground mw.

 

I don't think things change from "right" to "wrong" just because one state decides to legislate it that way. But probably my perspective is way skewed...

 

I live in a different country (with huge c/s rates). I uc'ed, and knew that if I transferred I would be met with hostility and automatic c/s. If I had a mw, who are legal here, she would have been physically barred from hospital, (of note, many cb educators are also banned from private hospitals here... even the ones teaching vag birth with epidural). I uc'ed because that's what I wanted, and I didn't find a mw I was happy with. In this country, homeschooling is illegal. I can't do so because I would face fine/jail time if found out, (not that I'm sure I would even want to hs). Does that mean hsing is wrong? I know there are some activists here who hs anyway and get thrown in jail... but that's on them right? are they really "wrong"?

Slmommy is offline  
#148 of 285 Old 03-15-2012, 08:59 AM
 
Buzzbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Laws are supposed to be a community's way of determining their general standards.  One community might decide that speed laws are an unreasonable burden on the individual's freedom and that there should be no restriction on how fast one can travel.  Another might decide that safety and enviromental concerns outweigh an individual's freedom to travel at an unlimited rate of speed and impose laws that no one can drive faster than 55 mph.

 

In any scenario, deciding to break the law comes with certain consequences and the question must always be whether those consequences are worth the perceived benefit of breaking the law.

 

And in fact, to respond to a couple of your questions -- illegal midwives can be easily found on the internet, including on this website.   I have also read about midwives clouding the question of whether they are legal or not.  Some may claim they are in fact "alegal" -- a status which doesn't really exist.  In particular, I remember reading a story on mothering about a woman who was convinced her midwife was legal until the end of her pregnancy when she discovered she was not. 

 

 


I support homebirth that meets the qualifications set forth in the AAP's 2013 policy on homebirth.

Buzzbuzz is offline  
#149 of 285 Old 03-15-2012, 09:12 AM
 
Buzzbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am a great believer in consumer protection -- I think that when you buy a car, the listed miles per gallon should be accurate, that the car seats I purchase should meet some minimal governmentally imposed safety standards, that when I take a trip that the airplane that I fly in has passed some level of governmental regulation, that when I buy a "Grade A" steak that the steak is actually "Grade A", that when I take medication that it has passed some level of inspection to know that its not actually toxic and that when I go to a licensed health care professional that they have met certain standards of educational achievement and professional and ethical fitness.

 

I feel that there are a number of consumer protection issues around licensed midwives themselves, let alone the sort of consumer protection issues that surround unlicensed and illegal midwifery.

 


I support homebirth that meets the qualifications set forth in the AAP's 2013 policy on homebirth.

Buzzbuzz is offline  
#150 of 285 Old 03-15-2012, 09:48 AM
 
Slmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz View Post

Laws are supposed to be a community's way of determining their general standards. 


This seems overly simplistic and idealistic to me. There are quite a few moneyed interests in law-making.

 

As far as consumer protection, what consumer protection would a uc-er have? None of course. I don't see how choosing an "illegal" mw would be different. If you are choosing something "underground" you are "underground." Even though you are paying for a service it is totally off the radar from any body who could regulate consumer protection, because according to the state, it shouldn't exist. I don't have a problem with underground mws unless they are individually misrepresenting their status and services. I'm sure that happens. I hope most women who choose hbs with mws do some reserach into legalities in their states and the status/operations of their mws. Should we add some legislation to require women trying for hbs/mws/uc to pass a written test to make sure they know the legalities of their state and possible medical consequences of their choices and actions? eyesroll.gif

 

ETA: I thought most women looking for underground mws had to find through word or mouth or private messages on mdc. I haven't ever done that search personally... just what I've seen here.

Slmommy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off