My midwife was arrested! Please read...

[asta]

The truth of the matter is that most babies can be delivered safely in the back seat of a taxi. Most births are not emergencies and do not require western medical care.

 

You KNOW!?!?!?

 

One would think that women hadn't been continuing the species for thousands of years or something before the invention of Ben Casey.

 

Sheesh.

 

My dad taught me how to deliver a baby when I was in 6th grade; it's not rocket science. If he'd lived longer, I'd have asked him to teach me how to do "complicated" births too. Any man who could do a c-section on a woman under hypnosis (her choice: she had panic reactions to anesthesia) could have taught anything in my book. But I'm biased. ;)

 

 

a

 

(And yes, he lost some. Babies die. People die. We can either spend our lives pointing fingers and blaming, or accept that there is a bigger plan than ours, and we all just need to do the best we can with the information and resources we have at any given time.)

[Heather in VA]

I agree to a point. Much of what is done is done to CYA. But they don't feel as though they have a choice, when they're getting sued left and right.

 

Also, please understand that because midwives generally do the low risk cases, they are unlikely to see the really bad outcomes. The obstetricians see Really Bad Things happen all the time, and are going to have a much different perspective on risk. It isn't all CYA. Of course they want the best outcome for the babies.

 

After my husband delivered his first close call (a baby with severe shoulder dystocia) his perspective was forever changed. He doesn't do OB anymore, because it's just not worth the risk. Or the stress.

 

This is definitely true. OBs aren't all in-it-for-the-money CYA type practitioners any more than midwives are all 'medical is evil everyone should birth at home not matter the risk'. There are some bad apples on both sides putting their needs or agendas before wise decision making. But for the most part both want the best outcome and just have different perspectives on why they think their way makes more sense.

 

I have known a woman for many years who was an OB when I met her. She was a pretty low-intervention lady for an OB. I always figured if I needed to go to the hospital instead of a homebirth - I'd go to her. She ended up quitting a few years ago. I figured it was because she had 4 kids at home. One day we chatted about it and she said she had to quit because the lawsuit risk was just becoming so insane she couldn't bear the strain on her or her family anymore. She felt like every time she walked into the delivery room she was putting herself at a risk for being sued. And she felt like she couldn't practice medicine the way she felt best because of that constant threat. It's really easy to blame doctors, but if our society wouldn't be so sue-happy things would change a lot too.

[Perry]

 

One would think that women hadn't been continuing the species for thousands of years or something before the invention of Ben Casey.

 

I'm thankful for Ben Casey. Pretty sure I'd be dead, and so would my babies, if I'd had a 1600s style homebirth.

[happypamama]

No there isn't. I had 2 births with these women and they do not work with doctors. It may be that way somewhere else, but it isn't that way here.

 

BirthCare absolutely does have doctors as backup. You may never see the doctors at all, and they may never come to the birth center, but they are indeed available. For many women, BirthCare never even needs to consult the doctors, and the clients may not even know they exist, but they do. The doctors are not on their staff, but if they ever have any question about a client, they contact the backups. It's part of the legal requirement to operate as a CNM. A CPM does not have the legal requirement to have a backup doctor anywhere.

[Perry]

It's part of the legal requirement to operate as a CNM. A CPM does not have the legal requirement to have a backup doctor anywhere.

Doesn't this vary by state?

 

Law Gives Nurse Midwives More Independence

 

When New York City’s St. Vincent’s Hospital closed its doors for good last year, the certified nurse midwives who held practice agreements with the hospital had nowhere to turn. Now, thanks to a landmark piece of legislation that was signed into law in June, every licensed CNM in New York state can practice independent of a physician.

 

Passage of the Midwifery Modernization Act (A8117-b/S5007-a) is “a major victory for women’s healthcare across New York,†Laura Sheperis, president of the New York State Association of Licensed Midwives, said in a news release announcing the signing of the law by Gov. David Paterson. “Midwives are the acknowledged experts in normal birth — and this legislation ensures that New York’s women have the right to choose the birth options and healthcare providers they desire — including the care of highly educated and licensed midwives.â€

 

The bill was sponsored by District 75 Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, D-N.Y., and District 29 Sen. Thomas Duane, D-N.Y., among other supporters, who noted that most midwives handle low-risk births but have formal or informal relationships with physicians in case complications arise during a home birth. When performing a hospital birth, midwives typically have admitting privileges and the support of the hospital’s attending physician, if necessary.

 

Passage of the bill was heavily opposed by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which says it has concerns regarding safety and the competition it creates with physicians.

[Perry]

nm

[Joanne]

Slightly unrelated question (but it's been mentioned, so…) -- some of you have said that your hospital "refuses" to do a VBAC.. which made me wonder.. what exactly will the hospital do if you show up in labour and refuse to agree to a c-section? They kinda have to deliver the baby…. they can't force the c-section on you without your consent.. (can they?)

 

Hospitals typically get sued for *under*intervention rather than over-intervention. Interventions can be defended as quality of care, whereas lesser intervention is easily exploited as "substandard" or "inadequate".

 

Therefore, due in part do liability insurance realities, part of the progression of medicalization of birth is from hospital staff deciding to "err" on the side of caution by intervening rather than not.

[RachelFlores]

There are some bad apples on both sides putting their needs or agendas before wise decision making. But for the most part both want the best outcome and just have different perspectives on why they think their way makes more sense.

 

It's really easy to blame doctors, but if our society wouldn't be so sue-happy things would change a lot too.

 

:iagree:I didn't mean to come across as totally anti dr.. I know that the vast majority of OBs want their patients, mother and baby, to come out of labor ALIVE and healthy and that they are in a no win situation of trying for the best end result WHILE protecting themselves from a lawsuit. I agree that our sue-happy society needs to change.

[happypamama]

Doesn't this vary by state?

 

Looks like it might -- cool! It does appear that VA requires a collaborating physician, though. I can't get it to copy and paste, but I found it in section 18VAC90-30-121 of the Virginia Regulations Governing the Licensure of Nurse Practitioners (in which it includes CNMs).

[Spy Car]

I'm thankful for Ben Casey.

 

:iagree:

 

Me too. Except our doctor is named Ben-Yahuda :D

 

Bill

[asta]

I'm thankful for Ben Casey. Pretty sure I'd be dead, and so would my babies, if I'd had a 1600s style homebirth.

 

Oh, me too.

 

In fact, my mom would have no living children at all.

 

But I suspect that boils down to a "man somewhat triumphing over natural selection" than anything else. (in our family, at least)

 

 

a

[mommymilkies]

I really don't know how you can argue this. I have seen babies die that were born in a hospital. A hospital birth does not equal a healthy baby. The current standard of care still results in death of infants and mothers.

:iagree: The only baby in my (extended) family to die was a hospital birth. I have been bullied by sooooooo many doctors. THey tried with all 5 to force me into a c-section. EVERY. TIME. C-section triples maternal and neonatal death and complication rates. It's insane to me that people are treated the way I was. And I got off lucky! I found a good OB who took my side (and had also been my gyn surgeon) and told them no. My last two were homebirths, which are illegal here. But I don't care. To me, the real tragedy is that they are illegal. We don't even have birth centers, for crying out loud. The state of midwifery in this country is horrible. Disrespected, outlawed...it's a terrible shame.

[mommymilkies]

LidiyaDawn Slightly unrelated question (but it's been mentioned, so…) -- some of you have said that your hospital "refuses" to do a VBAC.. which made me wonder.. what exactly will the hospital do if you show up in labour and refuse to agree to a c-section? They kinda have to deliver the baby…. they can't force the c-section on you without your consent.. (can they?)[/Quote]

 

Here they do. Actually, a local hospital (they all have 32-40% c-section rates) has a no-OB policy. Even if the head is out, they put you in a helicopter. Not only that, but recently they got in trouble for turning down a young mom in labor. They wouldn't even check her even though she was hysterical and in pain. They told her to go to the nearest big city the next day. She got home, baby fell into the toilet and died. She had no knowledge of what to do during a birth and the baby could not be resuccitated in time.

[WIS0320]

You know, I am finding it very offensive that so many people are willing to give the midwife who attended this birth where a baby died, who has been working illegally for years in several states and by all accounts here regularly takes patients that many midwives consider to be too high risk for homebirth the benefit of the doubt that she was really doing what she thought was best for the mother and baby (and frankly I do think she thought it was best - whether she was right or not is another question) BUT the homebirth midwives who were caring for her and decided that she was at lower risk in a hospital setting must just be 'working for the man' or 'don't really want homebirths - they are really not homebirth supporters'. They are being vilified just because they didn't say 'sure whatever you want' to the mom when their training and experience said it was wrong?

 

Just because they made an informed, experienced decision doesn't make them evil or anti-birth choice. If we want to continue to have freedom in our choices, we have to recognize that freedom requires responsibility - it's not just a license to do whatever we want and anyone who doesn't let us do whatever we want is anti-freedom.

 

I really appreciate you writing this. I completely agree. I get very frustrated by midwives and patients who seem to consider the wants of the mother over the needs of the baby. Denying a woman a specific type of birth based on experience and expertise and knowledge is not a bad thing! I'm not sure why the midwife alone is considered responsible for this baby's death, the parents knew the risks and hired her and elected a non-hospital birth with an unlicensed midwife for an unusual birth.

[WIS0320]

I find it hard to believe that you blame the mother in this case. Do you also blame mothers who have a "desperate" desire for a pain free birth or scheduled labor, and their child dies? It happens and more often than a child dying under a midwife's care if only because it is SO much more common. All of those things lead to a greater chance of maternal and infant mortality. That is not saying that those things CAUSED the death of a child, but neither has it been proven that a homebirth CAUSED the death of this child.

 

 

 

I certainly blame the mother. She knew the risks, she knew the baby was breech and her current providers had warned against a homebirth. It isn't like she was seeing an OB who wanted to make his tee time so he pushed a c-section on her, these were midwives committed to safe home birth deliveries who advised her to go to the hospital.

Edited April 20, 2011 by drexel

[kalanamak]

My husband has been a lawyer for 18 year, mainly as a prosecutor. He says grand juries tend to do whatever the district attorney wants them to do. :glare:

 

One hopes his is busy lobbying to remove this biased, time consuming and pricey process from the books, then.

[Nakia]

I certainly blame the mother. She knew the risks, she knew the baby was breech and her current providers had warned against a homebirth. It isn't like she was seeing an OB who wanted to make his tee time so he pushed a c-section on her, these were midwives committed to safe home birth deliveries who advised her to go to the hospital.

 

What a hateful post. While I certainly agree that some poor choices were made by the mother and the midwife, assigning blame accomplishes nothing. You can rest assured that mom will beat herself up for the rest of her life. It is likely her guilt will nearly kill her. I pray for peace for her.

[*Lulu*]

Generally speaking, there is a tension between the patient having the final say in his/her care and the doctor/medical community running the show. When you look at cases with children the tension is really spectacular because now both parents and doctors are operating from the position that THEY are best suited to be that child's advocate. And when it comes to pregnancy.....that tension is off the charts and complicated by the fact that there are TWO patients to be considered at all times.

 

It simply isn't a black and white issue. Sometimes you get a patient/parent that is either unwilling or unable be the advocate for their own/their child's care, and in other cases you find the medical community too busy running their own agenda to admit what is in the best interest for this single patient may not be the medical norm for most patients.

 

(By the way this is why I think many people have a horrified reaction to the idea of the government *running* health care. Anytime you have a situation that is 100 shades of gray being dictated by guidelines that are primarily set up to deal with black and white you lose a lot of the *personal* in personal health care. It is also why most stories you hear about health insurance companies are negative.)

 

I have delivered three times with three different doctors at two different hospitals. I have never had an epidural or an episiotomy. I have, however, had two inductions; once because it was my first and I didn't know better and once because I begged the doc to induce me. The second induction was for my third child and I when I went to see the doc at 37 weeks 6 days I told him that this kid was ready and I was worried I was going to not make it to the hospital if we waited. (For me it was medically necessary to deliver at the hospital.) He tried to talk me into waiting until 39 weeks, but I stuck to my guns and went in for an induction at 38 weeks 3 days. (The earliest I could convince him to go.)

 

Before anyone becomes horrified, I was at three cm and having contractions at 6 min. intervals when I arrived for my induction. The pitocin never even made it from the IV bag into my arm. And, had the doctor's arrival been two contractions later the nurse would have been obliged to catch DS before he hit the floor. The doctor actually apologized to me for doubting my decision about induction. (My nurse told him you can't call it an induction if all you do is break the water and catch! :tongue_smilie:)

[WIS0320]

What a hateful post. While I certainly agree that some poor choices were made by the mother and the midwife, assigning blame accomplishes nothing. You can rest assured that mom will beat herself up for the rest of her life. It is likely her guilt will nearly kill her. I pray for peace for her.

 

You're right, it was a hateful post and I should have waited to post until I could do so in a kinder way. I wrote from emotion based on how I felt that the mother chose her preferred birth experience over safety. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I'd bet she would go back and make different choices if she could. With that said, I'm not sure how assigning blame is inappropriate? How does avoiding pointing out the mistakes that were made make the situation better for anyone? The baby died and that is a real tragedy.

[Nakia]

You're right, it was a hateful post and I should have waited to post until I could do so in a kinder way. I wrote from emotion based on how I felt that the mother chose her preferred birth experience over safety. Hindsight is always 20/20 and I'd bet she would go back and make different choices if she could. With that said, I'm not sure how assigning blame is inappropriate? How does avoiding pointing out the mistakes that were made make the situation better for anyone? The baby died and that is a real tragedy.

 

I think I used the wrong words. Unfortunately blame must be placed; you are right about that. That is the only way it can be prevented in the future. I just hate the word "blame" because it has such a negative connotation, and it makes it hard to believe that anything good can come of this. Does that make sense? I guess what I mean is that it truly accomplishes nothing to tell a mother she is to blame for her child's death when there was no malice involved. To know she is, in part, responsible for her child's death due to her own ignorance or stubbornness or whatever, is going to haunt her forever. I honestly find the midwife to be truly responsible for what happened (not a popular opinion on this thread), not the mother. As a health care professional, it was the midwife's responsibility to recognize the risks involved and to make prudent decisions based on those findings.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Nakia

[lcelmer]

Just wanted to encourage people on both sides to be loving, and remember just because it worked for you doesn't mean it works for everyone.

 

I am so thankful that my niece was a planned hospital birth. A mid labor placental abruption = super low O2 baby, Emergency C & pretty dicey time for mama as well..... that csec was faster than you can imagine, but even then bb was blue & limp when she was born. (thankfully she is healthy & happy now!)

 

This is a much safer era, but those unusual worst case scenarios can still happen, regardless of where you are.

:grouphug:

[knittingmomof3]

This may be a stupid question and I hope I'm not veering too far off topic, but has there been any discussion of finances in this thread? Is it possible that the mother chose to go forward with the homebirth after being advised not to because she could not afford to give birth in a hospital? I delivered my three babies in the hospital and my insurance company was billed $14K-$15K for each delivery. These were for uncomplicated vaginal deliveries without medication and none of the babies had any issues after birth. If I didn't have insurance, I could not have afforded to pay those bills and may have elected to deliver at home. Costs have certainly risen in this field. In contrast, when my DH was born in 1978, the total bill for the hospital and the doctor was $750. :glare: Some women have been priced out of the option to deliver at a hospital.

[MrsBasil]

You know it only just occurred to me that, while this thread is really interesting, that being pregnant and already scared about what birth options and experience I will and won't have means I need to STOP reading this thread. :tongue_smilie:

[Sue G in PA]

I haven't read all the posts (past page 15 or so) so forgive me if this has already been said. Had this woman chosen to deliver in a hospital that allowed vaginal breeches, the baby probably would have died anyway. The baby was almost delivered when the head got stuck and in the time it took to maneuver this child out (w/out breaking it's neck), he had lost too much oxygen. Even in a hospital, by the time a csection had taken place, the baby would have likely died anyway. Look, I don't know all the details besides this. 100 years ago, this woman wouldn't have even had the choice to have a c/s and nobody would have been questioning her "choice" or Karen's decision to deliver her at home. It simply would have been a horrible, tragic, turn of events during childbirth. Nobody would have been blaming anyone. Feel free to debate this until the cows come home. I apologize for taking up the bandwidth and creating such a controversial thread.

[kalanamak]

I I apologize for taking up the bandwidth and creating such a controversial thread.

 

It isn't controversial until several posts are deleted and at least one person is banned. :)

[Nakia]

I haven't read all the posts (past page 15 or so) so forgive me if this has already been said. Had this woman chosen to deliver in a hospital that allowed vaginal breeches, the baby probably would have died anyway. The baby was almost delivered when the head got stuck and in the time it took to maneuver this child out (w/out breaking it's neck), he had lost too much oxygen. Even in a hospital, by the time a csection had taken place, the baby would have likely died anyway. Look, I don't know all the details besides this. 100 years ago, this woman wouldn't have even had the choice to have a c/s and nobody would have been questioning her "choice" or Karen's decision to deliver her at home. It simply would have been a horrible, tragic, turn of events during childbirth. Nobody would have been blaming anyone. Feel free to debate this until the cows come home. I apologize for taking up the bandwidth and creating such a controversial thread.

 

Don't apologize, Sue! This thread has opened up a lot of interesting conversation! I'm just so sorry it happened. God bless all involved. :grouphug:

[Heather in Neverland]

It isn't controversial until several posts are deleted and at least one person is banned. :)

 

too true!

 

I have now read the entire thread and it just makes me SO VERY GLAD for my OB. All the horror stories...wow. :grouphug:

[staceyobu]

I certainly blame the mother. She knew the risks, she knew the baby was breech and her current providers had warned against a homebirth. It isn't like she was seeing an OB who wanted to make his tee time so he pushed a c-section on her, these were midwives committed to safe home birth deliveries who advised her to go to the hospital.

 

Most CNMs do not do breech deliveries because they are not trained in how to deliver a breech. Being advised by one practice to deliver in a hospital does not mean you should follow that advice. It means you do not meet their standards to be in their practice. One midwife said no and another midwife said yes. The only reason we know the one who said no was right is because we know the outcome.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

It's possible that the woman would have chosen an unattended birth instead due to the unacceptable (in her view) hospital options available to her. Perhaps the midwife hoped to improve the baby's chances by being available to help....

 

I wondered the same thing. Still as a someone who has all her four babies at home with a midwife and only minutes from the nearest hospital(because my research led me to believe this to be the safest option not because I have a romanic, nostalgic view of homebirth...we even paid out of pocket for our hbs when our $$$ medical insurance would have covered a hossy birth), I most def. would have chosen a hospital birth even if a vaginal birth could not be attempted. It was a risk taken and one I would NOT have been willing to take.

Edited April 21, 2011 by JENinOR

[Melissa in Australia]

Our Obstetrician (who has my enduring love and gratitude) has never cut a woman in the history of his practice delivering babies. He did not rush the delivery, he took moments to manually pull back tissue to reduce chances of any tearing, and was as gentle and caring as a practitioner could possibly be.

 

I understand this sort of care is all too rare.

 

Bill

 

I had a GP that did this too, he also applied ice to stop the burning as I ripped. I tell you what. I didn't like the unfolding part at all. In fact the hospital had a policy of only cutting after someone started ripping, and cutting on a curve to stop the rip from going too far down.

I worked out after my first, that the best way to stop ripping was to not push hard, just let the head come out slower and let things stretch.

[Ravin]

Most CNMs do not do breech deliveries because they are not trained in how to deliver a breech. Being advised by one practice to deliver in a hospital does not mean you should follow that advice. It means you do not meet their standards to be in their practice. One midwife said no and another midwife said yes. The only reason we know the one who said no was right is because we know the outcome.

 

Most OBs will not vaginally deliver breech for the same reason, even though ACOG guidelines now say that vaginal breech delivery with an experienced birth attendant is safer than a c-section and the better option...unfortunately they decided to start saying this a generation after most of the OB's experienced in such were long gone.

 

The best trained breech birth attendants in the country are the midwives at the Farm in Tennessee (Ina May Gaskin and company). If I lived in that half the country and had a birth that was iffy for CYA reasons, I'd go there.

[asta]

As an aside:

 

There are many things that have simply stopped being taught in American medical schools in the past 20, 30 years. We have lost a great deal of our "collective consciousness" (is that the right term?) in regards to the art of medicine because of all of

, IMO.

 

Here is an example for you: my sister, who has ALS, was not diagnosed for over 5 years because she did not "present" in a typical fashion. Or, rather, she did, but you would not know it if you had gone to med school in the US during the late 70s through the mid 80s. It had literally been deleted from the curriculum.

 

When she finally saw a doc who had NOT been schooled during that time period, he pegged her right off the bat.

 

I don't have ALS, but I do have a weird neuro condition, and I've had the same experience with that 70s-80s crowd. By and large, they are clueless w/o their machines or anything that isn't exactly like a picture book. Are there exceptions? Sure. But guess what? They're the baby boomers, and they make up most of who is out there as department heads. They are dictating how things "go" in medical departments. Until this "new crop" of docs who have been re-trained (or should I say trained as docs were trained back when docs looked at the whole person?) come into "power", we will unfortunately see this same lack of options not just for women, but for many patients in all fields.

 

 

a

[AngelBee]

Dangerous things happen in and out of hospitals.

 

Baby 1: Hospital birth with OB. Almost had emergency Csection due to not being allowed to push by nurse and ending up with preclampsia.

 

Baby 2: Hospital birth with OB. They gave me too much epidural medication and almost stopped breathing.

 

Baby 3: Hospital birth with midwife. No interventions. Healthy birth.

 

Baby 4, 5, and 6: Homebirths with UNlicenced mdwives. No interventions. Healthy births.

[AngelBee]

I respect your opinion. I also must say that the mother in this case was WELL informed of the risk to herself and her baby. According to my midwife, the mother "desperately wanted this homebirth". But I hesitate to "blame" the mother or my midwife b/c this birth could have had a tragic outcome in a hospital as well. C-sections are not w/out risk to mother or baby either. Bad judgement? I don't know about that since Karen has delivered well over 50 breeches safely. There is risk in childbirth...no matter who attends or where it is. Blame will not bring this baby back, help the mother heal, etc. And if Karen is convicted, the community will lose one incredibly skilled and caring midwife. So many "what ifs" but all are hindsight...and hindsight is always 20/20.

:iagree:

 

As long as abortion is legal in this country, there should be NO issue with how a woman decides to birth.....including decisions that may end her or her child's life.

 

This is a private matter between the woman, her family, and the medical professions she chooses to be involved with.

[AngelBee]

Actually, there have been judges give emergency orders to force women to undergo c/sections who attempted to usurp a hospitals "no vbac" rule.

 

I worked as a maternity nurse for four years. I have had one natural hospital birth, one birthing center birth with a CNM, and one unassisted birth. This is a topic that I am passionate about and have been personally affected by.

 

A few thoughts on this...

 

My understanding is that primip women over forty have close to an 80% section rate. Please quash this perception of mine if you can find statistics to refute it.

 

I also don't know that I believe that being older than thirty five necessarily makes labor and delivery more risky. It does increase risk of genetic disorders, but I'm not sure that it makes labor more risky if the baby is normal. Here is one study I have looked at previously. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1804079

 

Breech is it's own animal with evidence on either side. However, most doctors will not deliver a breech. So, to be at a hospital just in case, is simply not an option.

 

So, if you are 43 with a breech baby and want to attempt a vag birth, can you just walk into a hospital and refuse a section?

 

Not necessarily.

 

I have seen women screaming "don't cut me" in labor and doctors give massive episiotimies despite their refusal. When I complained up the chain I was told that "a laboring woman can't really refuse an episiotomy because she'll just tear anyways, so we don't really *let* women refuse them". I have seen nurses call anesthesiologists to give women epidurals (who wanted to go natural) and then seen anesthesiologists ream women out and tell them they wouldn't give them an epidural if they changed their mind later and pressure them as hard as they could to get the epidural.

 

Hospitals make a lot of money off of managed childbirth. Women's desires... specifically laboring women's desires... seem to be worth as much as the opinion of a four year old from what I've seen. I am sure other ob nurses have seen differently, but I have worked in some areas that are very unfriendly to natural birth.

 

My insurance requires us to use a specific hospital, that is completely managed childbirth. My OB informed me he would probably use forceps to "give me something to push against" and he would have them put in a bladder catheter even if I didn't have an epidural. I was told the baby would be taken to a nursery immediately following delivery whether I approved or not. We eventually made the decision to go unassisted because of what we were up against. Could we have walked in and refused? Possibly. But I've seen laboring women ignored before. And, what is your capacity to argue treatment when you are in labor?

 

Unfortunately, because of hospital rules such as no vbac, no breech, etc, women are often pushed between a rock and a hard place when trying to get the birth they feel is the right decision.

 

Did this midwife take unnecessary risks? Possibly. Is the other poster right in stating that it's a witch hunt? I would think so.

 

Edited to add: Although I have been told before that the two do not compare, I am still surprised by a system that argues women's choice to abort a possibly viable infant, but will not allow a woman to make a birth decision that possibly adds risk according to which studies you look at. Where is women's choice in birthing? Oh, that's right... it's in the anesthesiologists and obs pocketbooks.

:iagree:

[AngelBee]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/04/baltimore-midwife-charged-va-manslaughter

 

Grand Jury, no witch hunt here ,sorry for the failed conspiracy theory. This means that the following facts are true : 16 to 23 citizens reviewed the prosecutorial evidence and deemed the case to be worthy of a full trial on the evidence. That is not a witch hunt by the hospital or an over zealous prosecutor. As for the facts of the case only time will tell as to whether any charges whould have been brought or not.

I could find 23 out of 23 people here to be against homebirth period.

[akmommy]

I could find 23 out of 23 people here to be against homebirth period.

 

I'm not sure how it's done in VA, but here grand juries are not hand picked for individual cases. When called you serve for a specified time (in my district its every Friday for three months) and hear whatever cases come in during that time.

[akmommy]

That's what I meant. And why I don't think Elizabeht's comment about this being a decision by a grand jury and NOT a district attorney witch hunt makes any sense. I think my husband used phrase "the prosecutor 'indicates' the outcome he wants." ;) I don't think grand jury does or means what many of us think/thought. It is a let down.:glare:

 

Oh.. Oops I misunderstood what you meant, I'm sorry. Sounds like I was lucky to serve with a group of people who cared more about following law then pleasing a DA. We took the cases we heard and did our best to decide them based on the laws involved and not what would make the DA happy.

[Melissa in Australia]

When I had a baby that wouldn't turn, and appeared that it was going to be breach, my GP said what happens is they do pelvic measurements, and measure the size of the baby's head as well, to see if it will get stuck or not before deciding to have a caesarean. In Australia they don't just give out caesareans if the baby is breach.

Fortunately, with exercises prescribed by my GP , she turned and wasn't breach.

[Sara R]

How crazy-risky is it to attempt to deliver a breech baby in a home environment with a 43 year old woman?

 

I am no expert here, but this sounds like a case of exceptionally bad judgement that lead to the needless death of a newborn.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: Here's the case from another point of view: here and here.

[LizzyBee]

:iagree: Here's the case from another point of view: here and here.

 

On the same blog, the author says that attachment parenting causes autism. She lost me there. http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/11/attachment-parenting-causes-autism.html

[unsinkable]

On the same blog, the author says that attachment parenting causes autism. She lost me there. http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/11/attachment-parenting-causes-autism.html

 

That was a satire.

 

She says so later in the article.

 

Those who have read this far have probably figured out that this is a satire. I'm satirizing the "thinking" of vaccine rejectionists on the purported relationship between vaccines and autism. The purpose of the satire is to demonstrate that what seems to vaccine rejectionists to be compelling "reasoning" is nothing more than nonsense, and logical fallacies.

[Orthodox6]

Please do not angrily pounce on me for asking this question. (It would not be fair, especially since I support the profession of midwifery.)

 

When a lawyer, randomly to select a profession, is not licensed to practice law in State Q, he follows the procedure to obtain the necessary qualifications. Otherwise, he refrains from practicing law while living in State Q.

 

If a person wishes to practice the profession of midwifery, and his/her state does not allow legal exercise of same, why would not the midwife move to one of the states in the U.S. which does permit the legal exercise of this profession?

 

I do not understand a willingness to jeopardize the future freedom to aid mothers by practicing outside of the laws -- other than during an emergency situation.

 

Again, I beg of you all not to respond hostilely.

[Jennifer]

It's satirical. You have to read the whole post.

Jennifer

[LizzyBee]

That was a satire.

 

She says so later in the article.

 

Those who have read this far have probably figured out that this is a satire. I'm satirizing the "thinking" of vaccine rejectionists on the purported relationship between vaccines and autism. The purpose of the satire is to demonstrate that what seems to vaccine rejectionists to be compelling "reasoning" is nothing more than nonsense, and logical fallacies.

 

Oh, I got aggravated and didn't read to the end. Thanks for setting the record straight.

[Orthodox6]

Changing topics now. . . . I was astonished to read in this thread that there are hospitals which prohibit VBAC. How absurd ! ! ! ! ! !

 

VBAC is an individual decision agreed upon between patient and doctor.

[unsinkable]

Oh, I got aggravated and didn't read to the end. Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

No problem. I actually wondered where the heck she was going w/the article as I read the beginning. :D

[LidiyaDawn]

Please do not angrily pounce on me for asking this question. (It would not be fair, especially since I support the profession of midwifery.)

 

When a lawyer, randomly to select a profession, is not licensed to practice law in State Q, he follows the procedure to obtain the necessary qualifications. Otherwise, he refrains from practicing law while living in State Q.

 

If a person wishes to practice the profession of midwifery, and his/her state does not allow legal exercise of same, why would not the midwife move to one of the states in the U.S. which does permit the legal exercise of this profession?

 

I do not understand a willingness to jeopardize the future freedom to aid mothers by practicing outside of the laws -- other than during an emergency situation.

 

Again, I beg of you all not to respond hostilely.

 

I don't understand that either…most medical professions require licensing and it's expected that the people who choose that line of work will follow the licensing laws.

[LittleIzumi]

I don't understand that either…most medical professions require licensing and it's expected that the people who choose that line of work will follow the licensing laws.

 

I know that in some places, a few midwives will believe that women deserve an out-of-hospital option no matter what, and will practice "underground" to serve that population. I have heard of that in several states. In our state, once they legalized homebirth the "underground" moved into the completely legal and open position immediately. I'm not giving opinion either way on this, just what I've seen.

[mommaduck]

Please do not angrily pounce on me for asking this question. (It would not be fair, especially since I support the profession of midwifery.)

 

When a lawyer, randomly to select a profession, is not licensed to practice law in State Q, he follows the procedure to obtain the necessary qualifications. Otherwise, he refrains from practicing law while living in State Q.

 

If a person wishes to practice the profession of midwifery, and his/her state does not allow legal exercise of same, why would not the midwife move to one of the states in the U.S. which does permit the legal exercise of this profession?

 

I do not understand a willingness to jeopardize the future freedom to aid mothers by practicing outside of the laws -- other than during an emergency situation.

 

Again, I beg of you all not to respond hostilely.

 

In this case, the midwife did/does live in a state where she could practice. She crossed state lines. She had a decision...either help a mama deliver or let the mama deliver unattended at home. Which was the lesser wrong morally and ethically? She chose to put herself and her practice at risk to assist a birth where the parents appeared to be likely to choose to go unassisted if there was no midwife (this is what I've gathered from the story...Sue can correct me if I'm wrong). Has anyone considered that a portion of the blame should be on the parents???

 

In the end, the reason there are midwives willing to practice without licensure, etc, is that there are parents out there that REFUSE to have a birth with an OB or a CNM. Yes, you heard that. There are people that do not trust CNM's either. Some on religious grounds and some on grounds that CNMs are more likely to be "medwives" than "midwives".

 

Changing topics now. . . . I was astonished to read in this thread that there are hospitals which prohibit VBAC. How absurd ! ! ! ! ! !

 

VBAC is an individual decision agreed upon between patient and doctor.

 

Agreed, but many doctors won't do it for fear of being sued if something goes wrong. If they do an automatic c-section, even if something goes wrong because of the overkill decision, they can claim they "did everything" to avoid x, y, and z (even though they created problems g, h, and i in the process). In a court of law, this pans out in THEIR favour. Sorry, but they, and their insurance companies, are more concerned about THEIR rear ends than your child's birth.

Edited July 23, 2011 by mommaduck