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?

So the independent midwives are campaigning for the government to ensure that they can access insurance

Why would the government do that?

hmc I thought CNST (???) was just a self-insurance thing. It's part of NHS isn't it?

Someone from there came to the AIMS/ARM confernece about 18mos ago and said he was willing to talk to IMs about their actual stats, etc iirc. No idea what happened to that. Maybe it was to do with some hospitals allowing IMs honoroary contracts i.e. they can continue care in hospital and some not - midwife has to be a doula once she steps over the threashold of the hospital

Anyway twas all a bit over my head so I have prob got it all wrong!

Actually have just found CNST website and it says " is often equated to an in-house mutual insurer"

Message withdrawn

But Irishbird, parents don't have any choice but to use an IM without insurance, and IM's don't have any choice but to operate without it...unless you're suggesting that the IM option be closed to everyone?

Take a look at this Independent on Sunday article women's deaths soar in midwives crisis and then justify closing off the IM option to mothers.

I am hiring an (uninsured) IM because:

a) I believe my local hospital is so understaffed it's dangerous;
b) the hospital can't guarantee a homebirth (and the 1:1 care that guarantees) due to staffing issues;
c) I won't subject myself or newborn to the hospital's aggressive handling of my GBS +ve status(a very common condition).

Women currently have the choice of 1-to-1 care throughout their labour and birth from a highly experienced IM, or playing the lottery of NHS care. Unfortunately the latter often means being left for hours unattended and unmonitored until some junior midwife notices something might be wrong before being swept into emergency surgery.

The NHS staffing crisis is causing the medical emergencies, not the IMs. The govt need to sort that issue out before taking away my option to hire the level of care I feel I need.

Irishbird, I do agree with everything that you say, however I too have hired an IM for this pregnancy for pretty much exactly the same reasons as Brummie. I have still not decided, however, whether I will have the baby at home or hospital. Obviously if I go into hospital I will be covered by an NHS midwife, with my IM acting as more of a birthing partner. However, I am more likely to get the birth I want with my IM, along with care tailored to myself.