Re: FRI Preeclampsia Solved
From: Anna Meenan, MD (annam@uic.edu)
Sat Feb 4 00:42:30 2006
Joanne, there are a lot of midwives who feel they should not have to
spend 3 or 4 years becoming a nurse before spending another 3 years
becoming a midwife, and rightly so, I think. A great deal of nurses
training in this country (the vast majority, in fact) has no bearing
whatsoever on what goes on in midwifery. In fact, a great deal of
nurses training seems to have no bearing on what nurses do either, but
that's another story altogether. I think we would see fewer
self-trained or apprenticeship-trained direct-entry midwives if there
was a legitimate path to midwifery that did not involve going through
nursing school first, as there is in the UK. Nearly all midwives are
women, and the vast majority have families, and the extra 3 or 4 years
of training is a real and unnecessary hardship. Formal schools of
midwifery offering a certification that is recognized in all 50 states
is what we need in this country. I know the CNM's (and OB's) may not
agree, but that's my 2 cents. Fire away.
--
Anna Meenan, MD
At Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Joanne Bulley, MD wrote:
>
>Gail
>
>Your definition of Medicine is one possible way to define it.
>
>It is also the study and evaluation of NORMAL antaomy and physiology AND
>the ability to identify when things are not normal.
>
>Pregnancy is indeed a "normal" phsyiologic process. However, just like
>the common cold and cataracts (which are also normal physiologic
>processes) things can go wrong (that cold we expect the body to take
>care of on its own can, in the right setting, allow bad bacteria etc to
>get in and cause a life threatening condition) and the pracitice of
>medicine is better defined as knowing what is normal - identifying when
>things are not normal and being able to triage and treat those things
>that need treatment.
>
>Therefore - monitoring and caring for a woman in labor (be it lay
>midwife / BSci midwife / Certified RN midwife or an MD trained in
>Obstetrics) requires that one be adequately trained to identify when the
>physiology is NOT normal and when intervention is needed.
>
>In this country, the majority of the lay midwives (not the Bachelor of
>Science midwife that you have in the UK) have really sketchy training
>and qualifications. Much of what they do is praciticing medicine (or
>caring for laboring women) without a license and without adequate
>training.
>
>You probably don't want to hear about the horrendiomas I have seen that
>lay "midwives" have brought in to the hospitals. Whatever you want to
>call it - they misled the pregnant woman about their qualifications.
>Well they didn't know they weren't really qualified ...
>
>This not is not about midwives vs MDs - because the CNM here in the US
>and the Registered Midwife of the UK (Hope I have that right) ARE well
>trained and get their patients /clients (whatever yuo want to call them)
>get excellent care from them - and you/they KNOW when to call for help.
>That is indeed practicing good medicine.
>
>Joanne
>
>At Fri, 3 Feb 2006, GA12L@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>In a message dated 03/02/2006 18:23:40 GMT Standard Time,
>>ainsron@sbcglobal.net writes:
>>
>>It's kind of a fine line. They cannot legally prescribe drugs. They can
>>"provide drugs" under written protocol with their physician consultant.
>>
>>It's the same for us here. UK midwives cannot prescribe drugs but provide
>>under standing orders.
>>
>>Medicine by it's very definition is the science or practice of the
>>diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease to exclude surgery. Pregnancy is not a
>>disease so how can a midwife be guilty of practising medicine without a
>>license when we don't? But then I'm here and you're there...
>>
>>Gail
>
>--
>Joanne Bulley, MD
>Keene, NH, USA
>
|
|
