...or is Andrew Lansley a stupid tosser? Maternity care.

[VictoriaWould]

The Telegraph
Isn't it already the case that you get your own 'named midwife' and that although you 'have' one, you're still lucky if you get to meet her more than once?
'Every woman shall receive one-to-one care during labour' I thought midwives had been campaigning for years give women in labour this care, except midwives are forced to look after 2 or 3 labourers at a time. Who does he think will give that care?
'Measures to increase the number of midwives in training' doesn't mean any of them will get a job when there training is complete. They actually need to be employed to make a difference! There is not a shortage of midwives in this country. The NHS refuses to employ enough.
'Mr Lansley will also promise more choice for expectant parent about where and when they will give birth' How? When units are shutting all over the country (espescially MLU's) and you have to travel further, to larger (more impersonal) units, where chances of 1 to 1 care is lower and intervention higher and when home birth provisions are being eroded because of the shortage of midwives.
Is this not all just lip service and promises of something completely undeliverable unless more, and I mean alot more midwives are employed?
I notice there's no mention of how he's going to acheive this.

Andrew Lansley is indeed a stupid tosser. YANBU, although I base my opinion on everything he has ever said/done rather than the specific article you are citing.

YANBU...

YADNBU

he's a plum

Ask yourself honestly how you would be reacting if the same announcement had come from a different political party. YABU because you are using your own bias to discount everything he says.

thefurryone you seriously saying you think he's doing a good job at health?

thefurryone, I'd still be laughing my head off at their stupidity.

YANBU, but while care for illnesses and disability remains sub standard, I can't get worked up about sub standard maternity care. People choose to be pregnant and have babies, no one chooses to be ill with a chronic life altering condition or a disability. Those things should be given priority when it comes to NHS spending.

outraged I'm lost for words at that post. I think you'll find that sub-standard maternity care leads to a lot of disabilities and illness, also.

No that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he's said a perfectly reasonable thing about improving maternity services, and the OP is reacting as if he'd suggested more women have abortions in order to ease pressure on overworked midwives. I was making a point about political bias and interpretation rather than Andrew Lansley.

I don't live in England so have other health ministers and there mad schemes to worry about.

Outraged, do you think people should choose to remain childless as to not put themselves at risk or divert funds away from the ill and disabled? Really?

Their even.

outraged we were all born, so maternity provisions affects everyone not just those who choose to have children.

Well, if no one chose to have babies, there would be no need for the NHS at all in about 100 years would there Freddos? Although there would be an issue before that, as there would be no nurses or doctors.

Of course I don't think people should remain childless, I said YANBU, Lansley is a tosser.

I just can't get worked up about a lack of maternity care when there are so many other things that are lacking in areas that I personally believe are more important.

Good point though that a lack of maternity care can lead to disability though.

People choose to be pregnant and have babies That is one of the least logical thoughts I have ever read.

What? So the only choices are substandard maternity care OR substandard care for illness/disability? The option of decent health care across the board is philosophically unacceptable to you?

And, erm, the babies didn't choose to be created did they, are they not entitled to the care that you say older humans deserve for some reason? Given poor maternity care causes illness and disability, at what age would you say someone becomes deserving of the 'priority' NHS spending on illnesses and disability?

I can't be bothered to do loads of these faces, so I will just put x 100.

thefurryone, what are you talking about? theres no political bias in my opinion here. I'm pointing out that what he's saying means nothing unless he employs enough midwives to provide a good maternity service. I don't see him being very forthcoming with this.

I had my babies in 1994, 1997 and 1998. First pg - I saw 37 different health professionals from the booking in appoinment to 10 days after delivery including 6 post natal midwives. It was a disaster. In 1997 after our son died in my arms - a midwife turned round and said "it would have been easier if you had aborted at 20 weeks"! That was at a time when the childbirth agenda was being pronounced loud and clear and I was using a hospital that was being fanfared for putting women at the heart of care and giving them freedom and choice.

In 1998 I changed hospitals and put my foot down and the care was amazing. From what I hear, there is still a very very long way to go and if Andrew Lansley is helping it get there then I am very very pleased.

Yes there is, he had said he's going to do something quite reasonable and you've just made a massive assumption that he isn't going to do it based on your own views of him as a politician.

Where is the funding going to come from? It is just words. That is why people are frustrated.

As an ex midwife can I just say "I've heard it all before" from lots of health based ministers. The reality is that there is no extra funding and what there is will only plug the gaps left by those of us who got fed up with the shit care we were expected to offer women.

What he is saying is reasonable, but unless the staff are employed to deliver the care it means nothing. So what he is saying is impossible to achieve but it keeps people like yourself happy because they are under the false belief something is being 'done' about it, when it is not.
Maternity services have been striving to give continuity of care and 1 to 1 care during labour for years but can't deliver because of staff shortages. Lansley announcing there going to do something they've been failing for to do for years without actually changing anything means nothing.

I'm not even going to begin to take Andrew Lansley's announcement seriously until he tells us exactly how much money he's going to make available to fund this AND the royal college of midwives endorse him and confirm that he's actually going to deliver (ho ho ho!) on his promise. Otherwise, it's just another government priority - competing for a couple of George Osborne pennies along with all the other miriad government priorities.

He needs to start with London and address the maternal mortality rate there, which is twice that of the national average, which is a disgrace that needs to be addressed immediately.

A little whisper - in 1994 when midwives were telling me how busy they were, there were was an awful lot of gossip about holidays at the midwife station. DS1 was born on Xmas day and there were an awful lot of midwives around who didn't want to help much - well esp on Boxing day. In 1997 there were an awful lot of midwives at the midwife desk doing not very much and getting arsy if they were asked a question. In 1998 the post natal midwives still had a lot of time on their hands to moan about how busy they were. Just saying ... like.... you know, ...... how it seemed at the time.

In 1994 it was the terrible Tory governments fault. In 1998 it was because the local mat hosp was closing (announced within days of getting a Labour MP). Bit of focus on the job and a bit less on political propaganda, holidays, boyfriends, .... may be ????

By the way VictoriaWould am in SW London. Worst hospital for care but best for surface glossiness was a very modern, well equpped, right on one on the Fulham Road!!! Huh!!!