The Disappearing Male

 Michael Mendezza from Touch the Future shared this information about the effect of environmental toxins on male fetuses and fertility. Artificial chemicals in the environment have increased from less than 100 in the early 1900's to over 86,000 now. The video below explains that 85% of those chemicals have not been evaluated for safety for human babies.
  Michael encourages us to get informed. The following came from Michael's newsletter. 

Download and read the complete interview with Peat Myers, Chief Executive Officer of Environmental Health Science, one who has been involved with the science behind this issue since it began. He describes with profound clarity how hormones bind with DNA which trigger protein expression - and how chemicals that mimic hormones, in this case estrogen, are altering human development around the world - it is excellent.
 From the video site:   "The Disappearing Male is a CBC documentary about one of the most important, and least publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to the male reproductive system. The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer. At the same time, boys are now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette's syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia. The Disappearing Male takes a close and disturbing look at what many doctors and researchers now suspect are responsible for many of these problems: a class of common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world. Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are called "hormone mimicking" or "endocrine disrupting" chemicals and they may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development".  Bisphenol A is a synthetic oestrogen that affects cell differentiation in the fetus, having a particularly troublesome effect on male fetuses/babies. 

What is Bisphenol A? Bisphenol A is a chemical commonly used in the manufacture of clear polycarbonate plastic. It is one of the top 50 products produced by the chemical industry, generating revenues in the order of $6 million per day in the United States, Europe, and Japan alone. Global bisphenol A production exceeds 6.4 billion pounds per year.
How pervasive is it? Most people reading this will have come into contact with bisphenol A at some stage in their life. A study by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 95% of Americans have detectable levels of bisphenol A in their bodies. Researchers also found that the median level of bisphenol A in humans was substantially higher than the level that causes adverse effects in other animals.
Where is it found? Bisphenol A is commonly found in a range of polycarbonate plastic products, including most plastic baby bottles. It is also found in the following:

• children’s toys
• dental sealants
• epoxy lining of food and beverage cans
• reusable drink containers
• microwavable food containers
• electronic equipment
• sports helmets
• eyeglass lenses

What can we do? Given that bisphenol A has been found to alter cell behaviour even at very low levels – in the parts per trillion – the safest approach is to avoid using products containing it altogether. This is especially important during pregnancy and infancy.

Breastfeeding babies is best, the baby's mother however, needs to avoid bisphenol A containing products. If a mother is bottle feeding her baby, then ensuring the bottles and teats that are used are made of products that do not contain bisphenol A is important.

You may also like to watch a brief ABC report on Bisphenol A and newborn health.

References
vom Saal, F.S. and Welshons, W.V. Large effects from small exposures: II. The importance of positive controls in low-dose research on bisphenol A. Environmental Research, Online November, 2005. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.09.001.
vom Saal, F.S. and Hughes, C. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspect. 113:926-933, 2005.
Gibson, R.L. Toxic Baby Bottles. Scientific Study finds leaching chemicals in clear plastic baby bottles. Environment California Research & Policy Center. Feb 2007

Want to live well? Harvard experts offer pragmatic pointers on getting healthy and staying there

"The long-running Nurses’ Health Study shows that as much as 80 percent of heart disease, 70 percent of strokes, and 90 percent of diabetes — three of the nation’s top 10 killers — are related to just four lifestyle factors: avoiding smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, exercising regularly, and embracing a heart-healthy diet.

“They are absolutely astonishing numbers,” said Manson, who is beginning a large trial of vitamin D’s role in preventing illness. “Studies demonstrate the powerful role of lifestyle factors in preventing chronic disease. One of the most important prescriptions doctors can write is to prescribe regular physical activity.”
One area where knowledge has advanced rapidly in recent years involves the importance of maintaining a healthy body weight, which Willett said is understood much better today than even a decade ago and is linked to heart disease, diabetes, and many cancers".

Other aspects to what constitutes a healthy and rewarding life are explored in this article.
Getting enough quality sleep, saving money, being kind, taking time to reflect and be still to name a few.

The article continues:

"Though people make individual decisions that affect their well-being every day, people are at their core social animals. Recent research has detected those social underpinnings in their personal behavior.
Nicholas Christakis, professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, explores the effects of social networks on health. His research indicates that everything from obesity to smoking to happiness to loneliness can spread through social networks.
Still, Christakis cautioned that someone looking to live healthier should not just avoid friends who have unhealthy habits. Social networks are important, providing companionship and support even from those who smoke or eat junk food. There’s far more to gain, he said, in lending a hand to struggling friends than there is from cutting them off."
Want to live well? Harvard experts offer pragmatic pointers on getting healthy and staying there

Obstetricians' peer pressure: the problems with one sided mandated collaboration

Dr Jenny Gamble, President of the Australian College of Midwives, in her appearance before the Senate Committee on Thursday, 18th December 2009, explained how her private midwifery practice changed overnight because doctors changed their mind about 'collaboration'.

"About 15 months into the arrangement the three obstetricians, whom we had written agreements with, pulled out within the space of 10 days. We lost our livelihood. All of the women on our books—and there were a significant number; they were providing the livelihood of four midwives—who were still in pregnancy and still had their pregnancy, labour, birth and postpartum care to go with us, were now left without the option of continuing care with us and having a hospital birth. Effectively, we were forced into a home birth practice

In fact, the state government had to step in at that stage to make interim arrangements for the
remaining women on our books so that they could continue under our care and have a hospital birth, after much ado—minister visitors, lobbying, submissions. So we were on thin ice—‘Yes, I’ll have a collaborative arrangement with you; oops! No. I’ve changed my mind.’

We did not have any mishaps. We did not have a postpartum haemorrhage. We did not have a baby admitted to a special care nursery. Nobody died. In fact, we have had outcomes from our practice which are world’s best—a seven per cent caesarean section rate, with no postpartum complications and no re-admissions to hospital. We had excellent outcomes and they all pulled out within the space of 10 days—and I always thought it was because they had no-one to sit next to at the Christmas dinner! They had a lot of pressure from their peers not to do it."

Jenny continued, explaining how the proposed bills before the Senate would impact midwifery practice. 


"Under this arrangement, you will not be forced into a home birth practice; you will be forced out of
practice". 

Obviously women's choice of caregiver and place of birth will also be severely curtailed by this legislation.

People point to the fact that Belmont Birthing Service has excellent collaborative agreements, based on the Australian College of Midwives Guidelines for Consultation and Referral.

Thanks to Dr Andrew Bisits, the champion of choice, that's true.  But what would happen if Andrew were to retire, or move elsewhere? Who would take up the challenge to support the practice?

Would the situation have the same outcome for Belmont as it did for Jenny's service when the obstetricians changed their mind? If there was no obstetrician prepared to state categorically that he/she would take over from Andrew Bisits, would the health service continue to provide that option for women?  Worth noting that up the valley, within the same health service, opposition from local GP's means there is no comparable midwifery based service for the women in the area, despite there being local midwives who would like to practice in a continuity of care service and women who lobby to have that care.

Dr Jenny Gamble explains the issues with the proposed amendments to the bills and the idea of mandating a 'collaborative' relationship for midwives only:

"Collaboration is a very important thing in health care and we know that you know that. We also buy in completely to the idea of collaboration and I know my colleagues will talk about how that is already embedded in regulatory frameworks, registration and clinical governance of midwives. At every level we accept collaboration as a concept. When you collaborate with people when one party must and the other party may and there might be reasons that the person who may collaborate does not want to, you do not have collaboration and that is the fundamental problem with all of this. Just because some medical practitioners may, do and will collaborate does not actually make for collaboration and to legislate that you have a signed written agreement with a medical practitioner becomes meaningless and unworkable.

Perhaps we have heard examples today of where the medical practitioner may choose not to collaborate with the midwife in relation to homebirth but in fact from the college’s point of view, we can think of thousands of clinical examples where the woman may make choices that the doctor does not think are in her best interests.

The midwife wants to respect the woman’s right to self-determination, give her information and ensure she is fully informed but also respect her right to make the decision, even if it is a decision the midwife disagrees with—and then she will not be able to find a collaborating doctor to help care for that woman, because the doctor will choose not to participate in care that the doctor does not think is in the woman’s best interests. So right away we have this funny relationship: ‘I’ll decide what’s in your best interests and that’s the sort of care I’ll support.’  

 We are not talking about surgery here; we are talking about having a baby, a normal physiological process for many women with vulnerabilities and risks that might need referral to medical care.

To legislate that one party has to have a collaborative arrangement with another party to practise is
problematic. What we are unclear about, and what has not been able to be cleared up for us, is how far this goes in restricting midwives. If you cannot get a collaborative arrangement with a medical practitioner, does that mean you cannot practise? Does it mean you cannot get access to MBS? Or do they put it in the professional indemnity insurance product that you have to be eligible or have to have a collaborative arrangement to access professional indemnity insurance? And you cannot even get professional indemnity insurance, and you cannot even register. All of that is completely unclear. With all these things being unclear and those questions being unable to be answered by any of the bureaucrats that we have spoken to, it seems to me that to put it in the legislation is a highly flawed position. There are a number of other mechanisms to ensure collaboration. The college, our members, midwives generally and doctors generally all agree collaboration is a good idea. 

It is a benevolent patriarchy when the doctor can decide with whom and when they will collaborate. 

It is not freedom if your freedom is granted by others. (emphasis my addition)

The problems associated with having a group of professionals 'in charge', especially when those professionals can have widely differing viewpoints and practices, means that those who have to work with (read 'under') those professionals are vulnerable to the whims of those they work with.

In the case of midwives and obstetricians, collaboration works well when you have strong, open minded, women friendly, birth comfortable obstetricians together with health services which put women at the centre of concern. When health services put women at the centre of concern, the work of both midwives and obstetricians is equally valued and neither group is preferenced above another.  Of course, when health services are more driven by the culture associated with 'professional silos', then the individual woman and birth friendly obstetrician is under incredible pressure to conform to the 'norm'. As in Jenny Gamble's example, such pressure is difficult to endure without succumbing.

However, those women centred health services and woman and birth friendly obstetricians are few and far between. If obstetricians perception of their 'right to rule' is strengthened by legislation, then support for optimising women's natural processes and midwives ways of working are doomed.

Collaboration: Doctors don't want to be like ambulances at the bottom of the cliff: waiting for disasters

                                                    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Proof Committee Hansard
SENATE
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Reference: Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill
2009; Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill
2009; Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009
THURSDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2009
CANBERRA

CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION
This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee.
It is made available under the condition that it is recognised
as such.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE
[PROOF COPY]
TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY, THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS NOT BEEN SUBEDITED

Dr Weaver—The other message we got in forming our submission for the Maternity Services Review was that doctors did not want to have a woman brought into hospital with all sorts of problems when they had had no opportunity to be involved in her care and then have to make quick decisions. The woman would have the perception that everything was going all right until they saw the doctor. There was no opportunity to be involved in care early. In other words, they do not want to be seen, as somebody said, as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. They wanted and needed to have that involvement, to be able to have a discussion with the woman, in the event that problems arose during her labour, as they do. The clear message we got from the fellowship of the college was that they did not want to have to pick up the pieces at the end of something.

CHAIR—That being their only role?

Dr Weaver—That being their only role. Again, most of them acknowledged that they worked in good
systems of care and they valued and respected their midwifery colleagues and were happy to work with them,but as I said, the clear message was that they did not want to have to pick up the pieces from so-called independent midwives.

CHAIR—The term ‘collaboration’ seems to be agreed by everyone. In the absence of the detail of what that means, people are able to put their worst-case fears of what that could mean as opposed to what it will mean and that gets into that circular process. I think that the fact that the amendments were put out before people had a sense of what that could mean has in some ways created an even greater difference. Certainly the evidence today from the various midwives groups and consumer groups was as I said: they put forward cases where they had to date had no effective collaboration and had in effect been stopped from doing what they wanted to do by various parts of the system—and it varied. They felt that collaboration that was dependent upon having that approval, which up until now has not been there, could mean that they would not be able to continue to operate.

The consumers were saying that it should be ‘consumer informed consent’—that was the term that was consistently used. The idea is that the consumer, having clear information from all of the people involved in providing the service, can then have their role clarified and codified in that process. Have I missed anything in that process?

The comments by Dr Ted Weaver are illuminating in that they strike at one of the basic problems threaded throughout this long 'turf war' history of midwives, women and medical men/women.


The idea of doctors waiting for disasters to happen in maternity care indicates their problem based medical training. Their training is problem based because doctors are about curing and alleviating sickness and injury.  Emergency doctors work in emergency departments to take care of people who come in following accidents or illnesses which occur during/as a result of engaging in their activities of daily living.  Emergency doctors don't want to get to know bike riders, tennis players, skiers, swimmers or drivers before they have an accident or before they do what it is they are doing in their lives as they are living them.

The problem with problem based training is that doctors are trained for problems.  That is how it should be when there are problems to deal with. However, when the subject under scrutiny is a normal healthy process that is different as fingerprints for every woman who undergoes it and even for the same woman in different pregnancies, that uniqueness and variability creates a problem for the problem minded.

Healing is a natural healthy process. Healing occurs because something has been damaged as a result of some insult or other.

However childbirth is a natural healthy process and is generally the result of loving, fun activity, not some insult or other (although occasionally and tragically, pregnancy can result from rape).

Healing can be aided and propelled by drugs or surgery.

Childbearing however, is helped most by loving, encouraging companionship.

Drugs and surgery are doctors realm. Loving, encouraging companionship is a midwife's realm.

Childbearing would be better conceptualised as a form of extreme 'sport' than an illness model of human activity. Women's bodies are perfectly suited to give birth, just like people's bodies are perfectly suited to become runners, skiers or long jumpers etc. Preparation, understanding, practice and supportive encouragement are needed to ensure their bodies' function optimally.

Therefore obstetric doctors 'waiting' for disasters is appropriate. Emergency doctors wait for broken ankles etc. Obstetricians are more sensibly employed 'waiting' for women who need intervention, rather than imposing intervention on normal healthy processes that are expressed individually. Ted Weaver's throw away phrase 'as they do' at the end of his statement of waiting for problems to occur in labour, is a powerful indicator of the way that a practitioner's failure to appreciate diversity in the way that human birth is expressed, coupled with an expectation of problems leads to actions, like interventions, to speed things up etc creating the very problems they are worried about. 

Interestingly, when women are given the kind of care that informs, supports and encourages them through their experience of childbearing, as the statistics demonstrate, heroic 'rescues' are very few and far between.   As Jenny Gamble's practice statistics, our Newcastle private practice statistics and the Belmont Birthing Service Statistics show (plus many overseas examples), women and babies are safe and mothers are more satisfied with their experiences when they are provided with one to one midwifery care.

Consensus, collaboration and power imbalances - words from the Senate Hearing on Women's choice of birthplace and midwife's role

From the Senate hearing

Senator SIEWERT—The issue around consensus is about somebody who has spent years of her life in a
consensus system—a consensus decision-making process. One of the things I clearly know is that, if there is a power imbalance, consensus tends not to work, because at the end of the day the people holding the power can say, ‘I don’t care what you think; we’re the ones that sign on the dotted line at the end of this process.’ That seems to me to be one of the keys here. You can say that the medical practitioners will collaborate and want a consensus approach, but at the end of the day it is the medical profession and obstetricians who will be responsible for signing off on collaborative care arrangements under the current process, and that is what
people are concerned about. It seems to me that it is clear that there is a power imbalance when you are happy with this amendment but patients, midwives and nurse practitioners are not happy with it. So that says to me that fundamentally there is an issue here.

Dr Pesce—All right. We have lots of very happy patients that do not seem to be unhappy with the power
balance. But in trying to address—

Senator SIEWERT—We have 2,000 emails from people saying that they do not like the current
amendment.


Dr Pesce—And there are 280,000 births a year. But we do not have to get stuck on that. In terms of the
power imbalance, if there is a power imbalance, I suspect that it emerges from the fact that we have different
competencies and that, at the end of the day, when something goes wrong—in an abnormal or high-risk
pregnancy—it is an obstetrician that is required to perform an instrumental delivery or a caesarean section,
which is not within the competency of a midwife. If there is an imbalance, I suspect that it emerges from the
fact that midwives can care for a patient to a certain point and then, if something goes beyond that, they need
to enlist the services of a collaborating obstetrician. But that obstetrician obviously is hesitant to just become a
technician and say, ‘I will just step in when I am asked to.’ They would like to step in at the right time. So, if
there is a power imbalance, it arises from the different competencies of the people who work in the team,

Community Affairs Legislation S12666.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Proof Committee Hansard

SENATE

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Reference: Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill

2009; Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill

2009; Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009

THURSDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2009

CANBERRA

CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION

This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee.

It is made available under the condition that it is recognised

as such.

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

[PROOF COPY]

TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY, THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS NOT BEEN SUBEDITED

Great work by everyone at the Senate Committee hearing yesterday! Rachel Siewart (Green's senator) asked insightful questions.

Some comments below, from members of Maternity Coalition around the subject of safety - dynamic Dr 3am's catchcry - where was he when The Butcher of Bega was out and about?

"Mrs McIntosh —The way we see it is that the woman should be at the centre of that—her choices be
respected; all the information given; and safety looked at, not only physical safety for her and the baby but
also emotional and psychological safety. They are paramount not only to a woman’s experience through
pregnancy, labour and birth but also to breastfeeding, postnatal depression, relationships, bonding and ongoing
issues with siblings. They are all so intertwined that, if a woman is not right at the centre of the collaboration,
it is probably not going to be all that effective.

Ms Catchlove—Nobody has more interest in the safety of a baby than the mother of that baby. I make a
decision for my baby and myself, and I am absolutely 100 per cent motivated by safety. And I am the only
person who can weigh up what is a safe choice for me and my family.

Mr Teakle—Safety is about being comfortable with the risks. There is no way of defining something as
being safe or unsafe. We have a bunch of different people here who are going to have different feelings about
what risks they are comfortable with. Some doctors might be comfortable with the risks of a caesarean,
because that is something they are familiar with and they feel in control of it; a midwife might feel
comfortable with something else. Once we get into an argument about other people deciding what is safe for
the woman, then we have lost focus. The woman needs to decide what she feels safe with, on the advice that is
provided to her by experts who can give her really good advice about that. That is why in other countries
informed choice has been understood as the way of getting out of these arguments.
It is terrible to have arguments going on in the media about what choices women should make. That is not
about safety; that is about control".


S12666.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Gary Craig said: My Retirement…and a Gift to the EFT Community - EFT Blog

The wonderful Gary Craig is retiring. What a legend this humble, sensitive, gorgeous and generous man is!

EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) is the most stunningly simple and effective tool for emotional management I have ever found.

I love it and am deeply grateful to Gary Craig for developing and sharing so generously this amazing technique.

Gary Craig said: My Retirement…and a Gift to the EFT Community - EFT Blog

What is "Normal"? - Mamapedia™ Voices

This is a lovely exploration of the concept of 'normal' by Lisa Morguess of "Finnian's Journey" on Mamapedia.

Good to ponder

A friend of mine had a baby with Down's syndrome.
She told me one day that her child 'wears his imperfections on the outside'.

What is "Normal"? - Mamapedia™ Voices

Ex-Bega doctor faces 52 more charges

 From the Sydney Morning Herald Newspaper, Australia

DYLAN WELCH

December 15, 2009

"Former doctor Graeme Reeves appeared in court today, facing 52 more charges in regard to sexual assault, bodily harm and fraud offences. The new charges, which involve as many as 21 incidents, date back to 1989.
The previous set of more of than 100 charges Mr Reeves faces were all related to offences allegedly committed between 2001 and 2003.

Mr Reeves's bail was continued during a brief appearance at Parramatta Local Court just after midday"
Nine officers from Strike Force Tarella sat in the court, across the room from Mr Reeves, who sat quietly.
Also tendered in court today was a 180-page fact sheet relating to the new charges.
Included among the new allegations were 17 fraud charges.

"These fraud allegations basically flow from an allegation that he was not entitled to practise as an obstetrician,” Mr Murray told magistrate Vivian Swain. (my emphasis)


Known as the Butcher of Bega, "Mr Reeves, 59, is already charged with nine counts of aggravated sexual assault, six of indecent assault, one of genital mutilation and one of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. The charges relate to 10 women on whom he operated between 2001 and 2003 while working at Bega on the NSW South Coast and in Richmond, in Sydney's north-west.
He has waived his right to a committal hearing and has yet to make a formal plea.
Strike Force Tarella has been investigating allegations of sexual assault, medical misconduct and genital mutilation involving Mr Reeves since it was formed in February 2008".

Midwife Maggie-Lecky Thompson, supported thousands of women and their families to birth their babies safely at home.  Maggie was de-registered in 1998 largely on the testimony of the now notorious Dr. Reeves, the Butcher of Bega.

What else don't we know about those who argue against midwifery care and seek to limit women's choices about who they choose to birth with and where they have their babies?  Who are these expert doctors who fight against women being given support by highly skilled and talented midwives, like Maggie, who provide excellent midwifery care throughout the childbearing period; care that is respectful, individual, one to one and valued by women and their families.

As Kelly from BellyBelly forum says  "Isn't it amazing that even with his rap sheet, there's still no justice for a homebirth midwife who supported thousands of families to have safe homebirths".

 

 

I wonder what dynamic doctor 3am thinks about this? 

Ex-Bega doctor faces 52 more charges

Mom fights, gets the delivery she wants - CNN.com

"(CNN) -- Seven months into her pregnancy with her fourth child, Joy Szabo's obstetrician gave her some news she didn't want to hear: Because she'd had a previous Caesarean section, the hospital where she planned to deliver was insisting she have another one.

Szabo wanted a vaginal delivery, and argued with hospital executives, but they stood firm: They refused to do vaginal births after Caesareans (VBACs) because they have a slightly higher risk for complications.
After they lost that fight, Szabo and her husband, Jeff, made an unusual decision. About three weeks before her due date, Szabo moved nearly six hours away from their home in Page, Arizona, to Phoenix to give birth at a hospital that does permit women to have VBACs".

Isn't this a lovely photo?  Joy Szabo and her baby Marcus after a normal birth on 5th December. 

The hospital executives made the claim that VBAC's have slightly higher risks for complications? Compared to what? Normal births? Repeat caesareans? Don't they understand that it is the way that women are treated during childbearing that leads to either lower or higher risks of complications????


Mom fights, gets the delivery she wants - CNN.com

Newborn care key to baby’s survival—DoH - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

"MANILA, Philippines—The current practice of handling newborns, like clamping and cutting the umbilical cord and washing the baby right after birth, have been known to actually contribute to the high incidence of neonatal deaths and illnesses in the country.
“This is a paradigm shift,” was how Director Honorata Catibog, head of the Department of Health (DoH) task force on the rapid reduction of maternal and neonatal mortality, described the new program introduced by the DoH and the World Health Organization.

Proponents of the Essential Newborn Care (ENC) are changing the protocol currently observed by childbirth

practitioners.

The ENC protocol prioritizes drying the newborn and initiating skin contact with the mother before clamping and cutting the umbilical cord. It prescribes a proper sequence of interventions that even a single health worker could perform and calls for initiating breastfeeding within the first hour of life".


Newborn care key to baby’s survival—DoH - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

GOVERNMENT BACKFLIP ON MIDWIVES

Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding has welcomed the decision by the Health Minister to back down on its controversial plan to drive homebirths underground.

...now the government says it won’t force midwives to work in formal collaborative arrangements with doctors as a condition of insurance.

"The Rudd Government's backflip proves they clearly underestimated how important this issue was to Australian women,” Senator Fielding said.

“Women should have the right to choose whether they want to have a birth in a hospital or at home, and midwives that assist in either case should be able to access affordable indemnity cover.

How I love intelligent, thinking men! Senator Fielding, not only believes women have the right to be self determining, he even reads the research and understands it. (wonder if dynamic Dr 3am has read this report?)

“Numerous studies have shown that for low-risk women with appropriate transfer-to-hospital options available, homebirths are at least as safe as births in hospitals or birth centres.”


GOVERNMENT BACKFLIP ON MIDWIVES

Midwives damn AMA-induced amendments to maternity reform – Crikey

Midwives damn AMA-induced amendments to maternity reform

by Professor Lesley Barclay and Professor Sally Tracy

A wonderful piece of writing by two of our leading midwifery professors. Clear, reasoned, succinct and accurate in the description of the threat to women's self sovereignty and midwives and nurse practitioners' right to practice unimpeded posed by the power laden antics of the likes of dynamic Dr 3am and his union.

Midwives damn AMA-induced amendments to maternity reform – Crikey

Dynamic Dr 3am responds about his greatest achievement

Dr Pesce, self appointed arbiter for birthing women's and the unborn child's safety, has this to say in response to various letters in the Age newspaper after the article on his dynamic ability to influence the Federal Minister of Health, the Honorable Nicola Roxon. There is another letter following by someone else on the same issue.

Raising the bar

IT HAS been claimed that in an interview with The Sunday Age, I stated my greatest achievement so far as AMA president was to curtail a woman's choice to choose a home birth. This is not correct.
I consider my greatest achievement thus far was promoting to Government a collaborative care amendment to legislation before the Parliament. This amendment underpins the importance of doctors and nurses and doctors and midwives working together to provide the best quality care for our patients. It confirms in legislation the recommendation of the Maternity Services Review.
The amendment does not impact in any way on the existing arrangements for midwives providing care for women who choose home birth. These midwives are exempted from the requirement to carry indemnity insurance, provided they inform their patients that they are not indemnified, and meet reporting requirements that will be overseen by the Victorian Health Department.
Similarly, in line with the recommendations of the Maternity Services Review, midwifery care for home birth will not be funded by the Commonwealth, so the amendment in no way impacts on midwives who currently provide care for women choosing home birth.
Dr ANDREW PESCE, federal AMA president

At what risk?

PASSIONATE single-issue advocates have been hard at work flooding The Sunday Age with pro-home birth propaganda. But who is looking after the interests of the unborn child?
One assumes that the statistics speak for themselves. In the 19th century, when home birth was common, the death rate was more than 1 per cent of live births, leading to the development of women's hospitals specialising in gynaecological care.
While most home births are successful without intervention, so are births in hospital. However, when intervention is required, specialist help is immediately available. Women choosing home birth should be required to sign an undertaking recognising the risks that they are assuming on half of themselves and their unborn child, and to provide an indemnity to any service provider other than their midwife in the event of a crisis.
GREG ANGELO, Balwyn North

Park and ride instead