Please View, Sign & Share our Petition! How many people can you get to sign it?
http://www.petitiononline.com/SpeakOut/petition.html
Friday, March 26, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
More Great Photos of our March 19th Protest against the Midwifery Ban.
BAC Advisory Board Member, Karni Seymour-Brown LM,with BAC Members and expectant moms, Lily Blueskyes & Amanda Tarpening
speaking out at St. John's on Friday, March 19th.
All photos taken & provided by Tasha Cleaveland
of Beyond Images Photography
BAC President, Kimberly Rivers keepin an eye on the kids.
The whole group, and our fabulous new banner. Can you Hear us Now!
BAC Members and new moms, from the left Jen Plew (BAC BOD Member),
Tricia Ainsworth & Summer Sivas (BAC Secretary).
Another happy family served by a midwife at Pleasant Valley.
We want our midwives back.
We want our midwives back.
copyright 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Due to the passage of health care reform, Women Have Better Access to Birth Options:
From the MAMA campaigns blog: "The following are now law:
See MAMA's website and click on their blog the grapevine for details.
- MAMA Campaign’s “partial victory”: Senator Cantwell’s provision that will have the effect of requiring Medicaid reimbursement for licensed CPMs offering services in licensed birth centers
- American Association of Birth Center’s provision that mandates Medicaid reimbursement of the birth center facility fee
- Childbirth Connection’s provision requiring quality assessment and improvement measures specific to maternity care
- American College of Nurse Midwives’ equitable reimbursement act for Certified Nurse Midwives
- And: giving birth, having a cesarean section, or being the victim of domestic abuse will no longer be considered pre-existing conditions and used to deny insurance coverage to women!"
See MAMA's website and click on their blog the grapevine for details.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Todays' Protest, March 19th. Great Energy, Great Banner. Keep Speaking Out.
"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito".
-the Dalai Lama.
We had a great group today, about 25 folks showed up to continue to demand Access to Midwives for ALL Women. Here are our first release photos.
Join your voice to ours, even if you can't make a protest: see our website for info on our letter writing campaign.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Report from Amnesty International: Maternal Heatlh Care Crisis=Systemic Violation of Womens' Rights
Amnesty details the maternal health care crisis in this country as part of a systemic violation of women's rights.
Click here to Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1971633,00.html#ixzz0hywniPE4
click here for the Amnesty Report:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGPRE010882010&lang=e
The report, titled "Deadly Delivery," notes that the likelihood of a woman dying in childbirth in the U.S. is five times greater than in Greece, four times greater than in Germany, and three times greater than in Spain. Every day in the U.S., more than two women die of pregnancy-related causes, with the maternal mortality ratio doubling from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 births in 2006. (And as shocking as these figures are, Amnesty notes that the actual number of maternal deaths in the U.S. may be a lot higher since there are no federal requirements to report these outcomes and since data collection at the state and local levels needs to be improved.) "In the U.S., we spend more than any country on health care, yet American women are at greater risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes than in 40 other countries," says Nan Strauss, the report's co-author, who spent two years investigating the issue of maternal mortality worldwide. "We thought that was scandalous."
Click here to Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1971633,00.html#ixzz0hywniPE4
click here for the Amnesty Report:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGPRE010882010&lang=e
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Thoughts on Right to Refusal of Treatment.
In the few years that I have been advocating in my community for access to birthing options for women, I have had an idea about a deep connection between the relationship, or lack thereof, between birthing women and their doctors and the complaint from doctors about liability in allowing women access to various birthing options (VBAC, out of hospital birth etc).
I am heartened to see the National Institutes of Health attempting to have open dialogue about reaching a consensus on VBAC in this Country, but quite disappointed about the lack of clear support for a womans right to refusal of treatment. Here is a link to a wonderful legal analysis of this issue.
While the stance taken both in the written report, and in the follow up press hearing on the issue of a woman's right to refusal of treatment involving having a repeat cesarean is disappointing, just the fact that we are discussing it helps to shed light on a very troubling aspect of our medical treatment & management of pregnant women in this Country. A respected national organization has said there is no clear consensus or overall legal support (that is news to us!) for a woman's right to refusal of treatment in all cases . This is truly astounding. In no other area of medicine is this even questioned except with a birthing woman.
The Panels found that a VBAC is a good option for most women, that the issue of a physicians liability in the process of obtaining full informed consent needs to be addressed; these are all findings that move in the right direction. But to fail to declare that a woman does not ALWAYS have the right to refuse major abdominal surgery is very surprising and troubling. Although I do understand the the NIH is not a "legal" or legislative body, I would suggest that they are fully within their duty to name the ethical obligation for physicians and hospitals to maintain policies which support a woman's right to refusal of treatment.
I wonder what the panel proposes when the woman and physician do not agree? Who gets to decide when a pregnant woman should and should not have surgery? Do we really believe that a physician or hospital administrator knows what is best for a birthing woman? better than the fully informed woman would know? I cannot imagine any other patient, besides a pregnant woman, being forced to have major abdominal surgery, Can you?
I also find it interesting that physicians and hospitals continue to use medical liability as a basis for their limiting access to VBAC for birthing women. When the decision is taken away from the patient, as is the case when a VBAC ban is in place, and is the case when physicians are unwilling to allow the woman a trial of labor, does this not automatically increase the liability of the physician? In that case the physician is choosing to limit the involvement of the patient in the decision making process of their own health care. It would seem normal and a natural part of that chosen path that the liability of the physician increase. But when a patient is encouraged and supported in being an active part of the decision making process for their own health care, and when a physician is open and honest about all of the forces which flavor his or her advice for "treatment", and when a physician then allows the patient to determine the course of treatment that is best suited for them, it would seem that liability would dissolve. I do not mean literally dissolve, but in the patients mind.
Studies & reports have shown this to be the case. When patients feel they have a good and open relationship with their physician, when they feel there is a caring relationship there, they are less likely to sue.
"A patient who is upset about the doctor-patient relationship, either because something didn't work out or they perceived a lack of caring, is more likely to sue the doctor. Plaintiff attorneys say that the majority of their calls come from patients who had poor rapport with their physicians"
"Medical mistakes happen because the human body is complex, treatments are complex and there are no guarantees in life. Most patients don't sue their doctors when a bad outcome occurs. The experts in risk warn us that the relationship is the most important prevention for lawsuits, followed by meticulous documentation in the medical record." (emphasis added)
-from article by Toni Brayer, FACP, is an ACP Internist editorial board member who blogs at EverythingHealth, designed to address the rapid changes in science, medicine, health and healing in the 21st Century.
from the American College of Physicians, ACP Internist Blog, November 9, 2009
In conclusion, I wonder what would happen to the number of malpractice suits filed in this country, if physicians spent more time and effort in building good rapport with their patients than they spent limiting access to full informed consent and right to refusal of treatment. Imagine that.
-Kimberly Rivers
President, Birth Action Coalition
www.birthactioncoalition.org
I am heartened to see the National Institutes of Health attempting to have open dialogue about reaching a consensus on VBAC in this Country, but quite disappointed about the lack of clear support for a womans right to refusal of treatment. Here is a link to a wonderful legal analysis of this issue.
While the stance taken both in the written report, and in the follow up press hearing on the issue of a woman's right to refusal of treatment involving having a repeat cesarean is disappointing, just the fact that we are discussing it helps to shed light on a very troubling aspect of our medical treatment & management of pregnant women in this Country. A respected national organization has said there is no clear consensus or overall legal support (that is news to us!) for a woman's right to refusal of treatment in all cases . This is truly astounding. In no other area of medicine is this even questioned except with a birthing woman.
The Panels found that a VBAC is a good option for most women, that the issue of a physicians liability in the process of obtaining full informed consent needs to be addressed; these are all findings that move in the right direction. But to fail to declare that a woman does not ALWAYS have the right to refuse major abdominal surgery is very surprising and troubling. Although I do understand the the NIH is not a "legal" or legislative body, I would suggest that they are fully within their duty to name the ethical obligation for physicians and hospitals to maintain policies which support a woman's right to refusal of treatment.
I wonder what the panel proposes when the woman and physician do not agree? Who gets to decide when a pregnant woman should and should not have surgery? Do we really believe that a physician or hospital administrator knows what is best for a birthing woman? better than the fully informed woman would know? I cannot imagine any other patient, besides a pregnant woman, being forced to have major abdominal surgery, Can you?
I also find it interesting that physicians and hospitals continue to use medical liability as a basis for their limiting access to VBAC for birthing women. When the decision is taken away from the patient, as is the case when a VBAC ban is in place, and is the case when physicians are unwilling to allow the woman a trial of labor, does this not automatically increase the liability of the physician? In that case the physician is choosing to limit the involvement of the patient in the decision making process of their own health care. It would seem normal and a natural part of that chosen path that the liability of the physician increase. But when a patient is encouraged and supported in being an active part of the decision making process for their own health care, and when a physician is open and honest about all of the forces which flavor his or her advice for "treatment", and when a physician then allows the patient to determine the course of treatment that is best suited for them, it would seem that liability would dissolve. I do not mean literally dissolve, but in the patients mind.
Studies & reports have shown this to be the case. When patients feel they have a good and open relationship with their physician, when they feel there is a caring relationship there, they are less likely to sue.
"A patient who is upset about the doctor-patient relationship, either because something didn't work out or they perceived a lack of caring, is more likely to sue the doctor. Plaintiff attorneys say that the majority of their calls come from patients who had poor rapport with their physicians"
"Medical mistakes happen because the human body is complex, treatments are complex and there are no guarantees in life. Most patients don't sue their doctors when a bad outcome occurs. The experts in risk warn us that the relationship is the most important prevention for lawsuits, followed by meticulous documentation in the medical record." (emphasis added)
-from article by Toni Brayer, FACP, is an ACP Internist editorial board member who blogs at EverythingHealth, designed to address the rapid changes in science, medicine, health and healing in the 21st Century.
from the American College of Physicians, ACP Internist Blog, November 9, 2009
In conclusion, I wonder what would happen to the number of malpractice suits filed in this country, if physicians spent more time and effort in building good rapport with their patients than they spent limiting access to full informed consent and right to refusal of treatment. Imagine that.
-Kimberly Rivers
President, Birth Action Coalition
www.birthactioncoalition.org
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
National Institute of Health, Convention to reach Consensus on VBAC
Most recent findings from the NIH Conference on VBAC.
Below is the summary from the report,:
Each year 1.5 million childbearing women have cesarean deliveries, and this population continues to increase. This report adds stronger evidence that VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean. Moreover, there is emerging evidence of serious harms relating to multiple cesareans. Relatively unexamined contextual factors such as medical liability, economics, hospital structure, and staffing may need to be addressed to prioritize VBAC services. There is still no evidence to inform patients, clinicians, or policymakers about the outcomes of intended route of delivery because the evidence is based largely on the actual route of delivery. This inception cohort is the equivalent of intention to treat for randomized controlled trials and this gap in information is critical. A list of future research considerations as prioritized by national experts is also highlighted in this report.
Click Here for the entire report.
Below is the summary from the report,:
Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights
(emphasis added)Each year 1.5 million childbearing women have cesarean deliveries, and this population continues to increase. This report adds stronger evidence that VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean. Moreover, there is emerging evidence of serious harms relating to multiple cesareans. Relatively unexamined contextual factors such as medical liability, economics, hospital structure, and staffing may need to be addressed to prioritize VBAC services. There is still no evidence to inform patients, clinicians, or policymakers about the outcomes of intended route of delivery because the evidence is based largely on the actual route of delivery. This inception cohort is the equivalent of intention to treat for randomized controlled trials and this gap in information is critical. A list of future research considerations as prioritized by national experts is also highlighted in this report.
Click Here for the entire report.
Monday, March 8, 2010
NY Times: Navajo run Hospital has better outcomes by using midwives and allowing VBAC.
A wonderful NY Times Article shows the success of a labor & delivery unit at a Navajo run hospital in Tuba City, Arizona, at lowering cesarean rates, both the primary & repeat rates, providing better outcomes and lowering overall costs, by utilizing the skills of midwives.
Quotes from the article:
"Tuba City will not be on the agenda, but its hospital, with about 500 births a year, could probably teach the rest of the country a few things about obstetrical care. But matching its success would require sweeping, fundamental changes in medical practice, like allowing midwives to handle more deliveries and removing the profit motive for performing surgery"
"Doctors and midwives here earn salaries and are not paid by the procedure, so they have no financial incentive to perform surgery. (Doctors earn $190,000 to $285,000 a year, and midwives $80,000 to $120,000.)"
"The hospital and doctors are federally insured against malpractice, in contrast to other hospitals, where private insurers have threatened to raise premiums or withdraw coverage if vaginal birth after Caesarean is allowed.
Quotes from the article:
"Tuba City will not be on the agenda, but its hospital, with about 500 births a year, could probably teach the rest of the country a few things about obstetrical care. But matching its success would require sweeping, fundamental changes in medical practice, like allowing midwives to handle more deliveries and removing the profit motive for performing surgery"
"Doctors and midwives here earn salaries and are not paid by the procedure, so they have no financial incentive to perform surgery. (Doctors earn $190,000 to $285,000 a year, and midwives $80,000 to $120,000.)"
"The hospital and doctors are federally insured against malpractice, in contrast to other hospitals, where private insurers have threatened to raise premiums or withdraw coverage if vaginal birth after Caesarean is allowed.
As a result, Dr. Leib said, doctors in Tuba City are free to “think about what’s best for the patient and not what covers our butts.”
Friday, March 5, 2010
Researchers say "avoid all unncesessary interventions"
A study done in California that shows the number of maternal death rates related to birth, has tripled since the 70's. Here is a video clip from ABC news.
BAC hopes that our local hospitals and care providers discuss with birthing women the true risks of various elective interventions, including elective induction, elective cesarean and elective augmentation. This study suggests that ALL means should be used to avoid unnecessary cesareans, in order to avoid the risk of blood clots from the surgery. It is BAC's position that ALL birthing women should be given this information by their health care provider as is required under the tenets of full informed consent.
Ask your care provider about ALL risks of what they are advising.
BAC hopes that our local hospitals and care providers discuss with birthing women the true risks of various elective interventions, including elective induction, elective cesarean and elective augmentation. This study suggests that ALL means should be used to avoid unnecessary cesareans, in order to avoid the risk of blood clots from the surgery. It is BAC's position that ALL birthing women should be given this information by their health care provider as is required under the tenets of full informed consent.
Ask your care provider about ALL risks of what they are advising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)