Comments on: Australian Medical Association To Work With Government On Nurse Legislation

By: Melissa Maimann

Melissa Maimann — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:00:56 +0000

ACT in Australia? I always thought you were from the US or Canada!

It’s always difficult to pursue a lawsuit for unnecessary surgery or intervention because it’s hard to prove that the outcome would have been better without the intervention. Obstetrics is about managing the risk that’s infront of you, not averting risks of intervention. Those risks will be dealt with if and when they occur.
Midwife attended birth in hospital is fine – it will be facilitated, but midwife-attended homebirth will be illegal.

By: Marge

Marge — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:50:12 +0000

We’re out in the ACT where homebirth is still legal for now. Women here don’t even seem to realize what is slipping from their grasp. It is common knowledge that if you’ve had a c-sec that you have to have another c-sec, and the reason that the c-sec rate is so high is because mothers are requesting them. Uncommonly, you’ll find women who have looked farther than their doctor’s word for information, and who are angry and saddened that the VBAC rate is so low, and that homebirth will no longer be an option. Generally though, people are not looking into their births as it’s much easier to believe that their traumas were necessary and their babies were miraculously saved. It’s easier to believe than the fact that most were intentionally misled by those they trusted. Women are also unable to find legal representation to pursue lawsuits for unnecessary interventions and trauma because a uterus is apparently almost worthless, which is most likely the case all over the country. I’ve got nothing but respect for midwives now that I know the statistics and WHO recommendations. If more families, or the Maternity Services Review, looked into birthing this little coup by the AMA would not have gotten so far. I hope one of the parties comes out in favor of midwife attended birth as a human right, whether in home or hospital, so I know where to cast my vote next election.

By: Melissa Maimann

Melissa Maimann — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:25:55 +0000

Hi there,
Midwives can already do AROM for augmentation (not induction) but we can’t order synto. Nor will we be able to. Prescribing will be for synto for third stage, vitamin K for baby, Anti-D (RhoGAM), pethidine, Hepatitis B vaccine for baby etc.
The legislation will actually prevent midwives from practicing within their full scope – we will have to practice under guidelines st by the college of midwives. but the vollege of obs have their own guidelines that are more concrete than the midwifery guidelines and no guesses as to which guidelines will hold more water in court.
The benefit for women and babies is that the majority may have continuity of care as an option, and currently that’s only an option for about 3% women.
Where abouts are you from, and what is it like there? Is homebirth legal?

By: Marge

Marge — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:07:53 +0000

What do they mean? Are more midwives and NP’s going to be performing AROM and Rx’ing synto? And will this be done in the manner of OBs with women being scared or guilted into early interventions so the hospital machines can keep their conveyor belts greased? The whole point of this legislation is supposed to be that midwives will be able to practice within their full scope in order to support women during birth, but it’s looking more and more like midwives are just being brought into hospital in order to force them to practice under guidelines that benefit hospitals and docs. So where is the benefit for women and babies? This really raises my hackles. Midwives MUST be able to practice their full scope and not be bogged and restrained the way hospital midwives are now. Otherwise, this whole scheme has just served to remove safe birthing, in home and in hospital, from Australia.