This was in my inbox from NCT E-group - re independent midwifes:

[handlemecarefully]

"You may be aware that there are moves afoot to outlaw independent midwives later this year.

IMs lost their insurance some time ago and the governement now have plans to make it illegal to practice without insurance. This is going to have huge implications for the practice of midwifery and for the range of care options available to women - particularly those who truly require experienced and skilled midwives (those wanting a vaginal breech birth, or a home birth after caesarean, for example - or those who have lost trust in the NHS service).

To actively oppose this move please go to www.independentmidwives.org.uk
where they will be providing us with ideas for supporting their campaign."

Ummm??? - well I don't know a great deal (or in fact anything) about this....but if IM's do not have insurance it makes sense to me that they can't be allowed to practice. Surely it is the height of irresponsibility for anyone to deliver obstetric care without insurance?

But how come thety becamre uninsurable in the first place?

well it's certainly very brave of the mw to continue if they could lose their homes should someone decide to sue them. maybe the govt could provide insurance/an insurance co for them instead of just banning them?

more info on when and why insurance was withdrawn etc discussed on mumsnet here

We interviewed an IM and she was very upfront about this. Insurance used to available but the yearly premium was more than most of them earned.

Message withdrawn

Yes, IMs warn you. When we first used an IM, there was one practice that still had insurance, but we didn't use it.

I think I relied on my midwife's very good professional judgement, rather than my ability to sue her if it all went wrong.

IMs want to be insured, but insurance is now beyond the means of IMs.....and i don;t think it is even offered now

what a shame

another erosion of womens; choice to get the birth they want, no IMs, less midwifery led units, shortages of midwives , it is a real shame.

What a disaster! I'm pg with DS3 and had 2 relatively normal pregnancies on the NHS, neither of which were great experiences. I have an IM for this pg and feel as though I am being looked after and that I am truly informed for decisions I make about the pg and baby.

Hmm hang on

If I was the government I would probably outlaw IM's without insurance

What is the answer here?

I agree that it is a risk that IMs, and their clients, take. However they do provide a much needed service that is sorely lacking in the NHS (in my experience). Surely there is another way, rather than blanket outlawing IMs?

Why won't the royal college of midwives support them?

If insurance is not available, surely that just means that it is too risky?

think the problem is litigiousness

that there has to be someone to blame and sue for a vast amount if something terrbible should happen....and an IM does not have the coffers or insurance or legal services of a large hospital.....

home birth per se is no riskier than a hospital birth and there was a thread here today on 'in the news' about the rising mortality rate in NHS hospitals due to midwife shortages, so it is a lose lose situation , it would seem

But insurance companies just work on statistics

So if it is just as risky as a hospital birth, why isn't the insurance the same?

good question

home birth is perceived as more dangerous, and even as irrepsonsible

i am no expert on this, but it greatly saddens me that midwifery is being eroded all the time.....

our local hospital wants to increase the number of home births, they would not want to do that if it was a dangerous thing to do

I think the confusion may lie between insurance and registration. Every nurse/ medical professioal should be registered to practice, insurance is a different matter.
Reg ensures that your medical professional is undertaking continuing professional development and is actually qualified to do the job that they claim to do , insurance is for when things go wrong

But hospitals don't have insurance, do they, they just 'self-insure' like other govt departments so the dosh comes out of the kitty.

GPs have insurance, I think. Certainly I remember a friend telling me a few years ago the premium was around 4k per annum.

But insurance companies just base their business on statistics

I don't think that people should practice this sort of thing without insurance really

I make WEBSITES and I'm insured up to the hilt

I don't see why IMs can't be insured if it is not actually very risky

Yes but that's a bit of a crap choice for the tiny tiny percentage of women who might need life-long care for a bad birth

I mean imagine having NO course of action you could take AT ALL

Message withdrawn

SueW - actually hospitals do insure! (ex NHS manager)

But insurance companies only work on statistics, right?

There isn't a conspiracy here

Message withdrawn