Birthing mother abused for refusing male nurse 2

I don't know know why I wouldn't because I would. I can only imagine that they do not wish to work within the existing system OR they are unable to get the qualifications for whatever reason.

Midwifery education in the UK is reasonably good, and it has a very high drop-out rate and is very hard to get into. I can imagine that people who don't make the grade or who leave a program would be tempted to go another route if one was available.

As to being able to take on high-risk births outside the regulations there are two facets to this:

1. You would not want to. You would have the training and education to understand the risks and would not want to encourage or support that risk.

1. Your employer, insurance provider, and regulatory body would likely have grounds for termination of your job/insurance/registration if you were found to be working outside your scope of practice. So you might want to keep your career that you worked so hard to get.

You could still take on high risk births outside the regulations couldn't you?

You could, but if found doing it, you'd lose the accreditation you'd spent money qualifying for.

And you wouldn't have valid insurance if you operated outside the regulations.

sorry! I mean I would train properly if I wished to be a healthcare professional, yeh.

I'd also probably not go to someone who was a "lay cardiologist" or a "lay dentist" because I think medical professionals should be trained professionals. But lots of people will go to lay midwives (CPMs).

America is just a mess overall with regard to birth

Healthcare, especially women's health is a mess in the US.

It makes you realise what you take for granted in the UK.

RTB it may be similar to the US where infant mortality is deaths of babies up to 1 and perinatal mortality is deaths of babies in the last weeks of pregnancy, during birth or in the week following birth (I think anyway). So their infant mortality stats are always shocking but that also includes older babies who were ill, or were in accidents, SIDS, various things unrelated to birth safety.

You have to make sure you are comparing like-to-like, including things like risking out criteria and transfer rates/outcomes.

Also The Netherlands is also cited as country which gets a very good press because of how common homebirth is, but its got a higher rate of infant mortality than most other western European countries.

I believe theway that infant deaths during childbirth are recorded is slightly different to other countries, so it has the effect of masking the rate.

(its a long time since I looked at this, but I'm pretty confident there was a questionable methodology going on that differs from the way others did it so it makes it harder to compare stats).

I see what you mean, I mean I would yeh? But it's an undergraduate degree then a postgraduate nursing qualification with a specialism in midwifery, and then they have to practice within regulations and boundaries and can't do the lovely home births that they really want to.

Also, they'd have to get IN to the training, so get into college and then meet the grade requirements for postgraduate training. They'd need science and maths at the very least. Why do that when you can just do the easy route?

It just doesn't tally with the stats I read about the maternal and infant mortality rate of low risk homebirths worldwide

It doesn't mean its wrong either though. Just that Homebirth in the US is significantly more dangerous than other places in the world.

and midwives make money from homebirth, it is in their best interests to NOT transfer patients and not risk-out women during pregnancy, and accept the twin pregnancies and breech presentations, and VBAC/VBA2C.

It helps them if women "trust birth" (trust them) and not trust the mean old doctors with their unnecessary interventions and lack of care and understanding of the transformative power of birth.

The fact is Sakura, that until very recently very few statistics existed about the mortality and morbidity rates for women/babies in the US who were cared for by CPMs. These stats are gathered at the State level (not federal) and some just don't keep those records. CPMs rarely have good notes of past clients and they have no regulatory body to answer to. Also in many states this type of midwife is illegal so they are practicing outside of the law. They have no insurance so clients have little if any recourse for compensation if a birth goes wrong and often the women get blamed for "choosing this" even if the information provided to them by the midwife was incorrect or incomplete.

Many years ago in my area antenatal care was sickening. At every single visit you were told to take everything off and put on a hospital gown. You would then wait in a small room where eventually a doctor would come in (no chaperone). He would do a full vaginal examination and breast examination often without even introducing himself.This would happen every single time along with several smear tests.

As a young woman I found this sickening, wrong and very traumatic. When I had my second child I did not go for any antenatal care whatsoever and insisted a midwife come to my home for the delivery.

I can't get upset about how or where other women choose to have their babies.

Women are not having high-risk births at home due to hospitals being a hotbed of misogyny. They are doing it because of the pervasive idea that birth is natural, problems are caused by doctors, bodies know how to give birth, everything is a "variation of normal" and they are the experts in their own births.

It is not male doctors who are spreading and encouraging that message.

No Sakura,

It is not a class thing, it is a medical training thing. They don't have it.

Homebirth with a midwife in Oregon in 2012 was 7 times more deadly for babies than hospital birth. This was the year they started mandating that birth and death certificates for babies listed where the birth took place and who attended it.

Records show that homebirth with a CNM is twice as dangerous as hospital birth with a CNM, homebirth with a CPM is four times as dangerous.

So you can believe that CPMs know what they are doing but the evidence does not support that claim.

Homebirth CAN be safe but only if there are stringent risk-out criteria, the midwife is adequately trained, and there are procedures in place to transfer and to manage emergencies.

There needs to be medication on hand to cope with PPH, equipment to resuscitate a baby (and mother), oxygen, adequate monitoring of the baby and the mother's vitals, and ideally two midwives (one for mum and one for baby).

Is it a class thing? Are these women just trying to make a living somehow, and can't afford the necessary qualifications?

Cost of insurance and whether insurers will provide cover due to the risk. Given they provide care for high risk patients and the US culture of litigation insurers simply don't want to touch them with a barge pole or have premiums which are so ridiculously high as to render it impossible for a midwife to afford it.

The Journal of Perinatology found that home births attended by nurse midwives had double the neonatal mortality rate of hospital births attended by nurse midwives, while home births attended by C.P.M.s and other midwives had nearly four times that rate. from the article I linked to.

That is fascinating about the different midwives, Loops. This article in the NY Times is interesting .