LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:01:48 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
 I hope that Lactnetters understand that the "legalization" of non-nurse midwifery is just as absurd as legalizing breastfeeding. Jeanette makes
the argument that the "licensing" of non-nurse midwives in CA was in some way a good thing for women and for midwives and is a model that 
IBCLCs should follow. I completely disagree. The licensing of midwives was a desparate act on the part of midwives to protect themselves from malicious attempts to jail midwives who practiced in the midwifery model of care. The licensing of midwives created restrictions that virtually made the practice of midwifery--within the woman-centered midwifery model, all but impossible and made the practice tentative in any way at all. IN CA, nurse-midwives are not partners with OBs, but rather are subservient to them, Non-nurse midwifery is an autonomous practice that requires no physician involvement in the normal course of care, and the demand that physicians participate always signals a more interventive care. Licensure demanded that non-nurse midwives adhere to the same level of subservience as nurse-midwives. Because most physicians are unwilling to work with non-nurse midwives (or threatened if they do) and do not inherently support normal, uninterrupted birth, midwives are challenged to even find someone to fill this role..They are open to prosecution if they cannot.

I was the Chair of the legislative committee of Friends of Midwives in CT in the 90' when we looked into pursuing the licensure of midwives. We worked with one of the most well-respected lobbyists in the state and came to the conclusion that legislation was NOT in the best interest of women or midwives. This was, of course, a risk, an midwives since have been persecuted repeatedly, and at have gone to great expense to protect themselves and the rights of women to birth in the midwifery model. IMO, there is no greater ally
to women's health than a midwife practicing the midwifery model of
care, and yet, even we who ardently advocate for women's health, have
no understanding to the true history of midwifery in our own country
and of how the intentional destruction of midwifery has imposed the
medical model on other countries as well. 

I am in no way supportive of licensure for IBCLCs and think we are delusional if we imagine it will be good for us or for women. Licensure ALWAYS carries with it the risk of control by a medical establishment that does not know anything about the profession it seeks to control. 



 Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA
Intuitive Parenting Network LLC

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome

ATOM RSS1 RSS2