RE: [ozmidwifery] Liability ruling in Weekend Australian
You said it all Sally_Anne Tania xx From: owner-[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sally-Anne Brown Sent: Monday, 22 August 2005 5:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Liability ruling in Weekend Australian Thanks for this link Tania, re the case - two thoughts ONE - this is exactly why all midwives need to be aware that they should have their own PI Insurance - because of the reality that vicarious liability alone does not cover a midwife. Sadly - many midwives still make the assumption that the PI Insurance issue is to be put in the basket for IPM's to deal with, in the belief it is only their issue (how sad our colleagues are not supported anyway! ) - but the truth is PI is an issue that affects all midwives ! good to see Bisits calling it as it is and not buying into the primary care stuff as RANZCOG recently did (it would be delightful to be a fly on the wall right now). Of course Mourik's claim that Ob's be responsible for the work of midwives is the response we would expect when the issue not been faced is the OB been responisble for their own work..which leads into point two. TWO - We all know obstetric beds are the highest number of hospital beds used currently approx 250,000 per year. And despite the OB's largely turning birthing into big 'business' - with overservicing of well women and less time available for the women who do need hrs of intensive obstetric care - govts still provide the funds to keep it happenning, Women do not actually receive the care they think they will when they choose an obstetrician for their care in both the private and public health sector. we know the OB's do not provide the care for a woman experiencing labour and birth - it is the midwives who provide this care with the OB glorified for catching the baby (if they actually make it in time -and only if the woman has private health cover). Whilst different OB's do have different practices, in the public health arena a woman does not realise that even in an obstetric emergency - caesarean section or emergency medical care - the Obstetrician does not provide this. - women do not realise it is provided by the team of midwives and drs/ob's in training (residents and registrars) while the obstetricians who may have seen the women for one or two brief periods in pregnancy and birth (15-30 mins ?) are drumming up big business (scans and genetic tests), often imposed on healthy well young women at whim - who again do not need to be overserviced with costly and unnessary tests. and we all know only a small proportion of women receiving this care actually need it - and the costs to women and the system are exorbitant. Yet how do the govts address this ? - when the insurance crisis hit the fed government bailed the OB's out to the tune of $600 million and libs senator helen coonan secured coverage with Llyods (London) ... the govt also provides access to the high costs claim scheme (where if the Ob's PI insurance fee is more than 7.5% of their income the govt pays the rest 80% AND will payout any claim over $300,000 !) - not to mention the coverage by medicare etc. so why do govts continue to pay unnessary medicalised birth costs and the 'patch up the damage funds' for other health costs resulting from women recovering from traumatic birth experiences, postnatal depression etc ? why do they keep plugging up the holes and support a service that is essentially unnessary and expensive medical sub standard care for the majority of women (80% WHO) ? Why do govts deny women the right to experience the safest and most cost effective pregnancy and birth care ensuring the health system 'dam' wall bursts while midwives do not have equity to access medicare provider numbers or insurance ? ... yes abbott has stated he is now finally considering medicare for midwives but only if a woman has been serviced by the public health budget of a medicare swiped visit to the GP for a referral first ! despite all the evidence, unnessa'scary costs are continuing to be paid out big time - for sub-standard care of healthy well women experiencing pregnancy and birth. one does not need to look much further than the individual and organisational donations at election time and the politics of the obstetric alliance to work out why. Sally-Anne - Original Message - From: Tania Smallwood To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 7:00 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Liability ruling in Weekend Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16318814%255E23289,00.html Liability ruling delivers fuel to midwife debate Adam Cresswell, health e
Re: [ozmidwifery] Liability ruling in Weekend Australian
Thanks for this link Tania, re the case - two thoughts ONE - this is exactly why all midwives need to be aware that they should have their own PI Insurance - because of the reality that vicarious liability alone does not cover a midwife. Sadly - many midwives still make the assumption that the PI Insurance issue is to be put in the basket for IPM's to deal with, in the belief it is only their issue (how sad our colleagues are not supported anyway! ) - but the truth is PI is an issue that affects all midwives ! good to see Bisits calling it as it is and not buying into the primary care stuff as RANZCOG recently did (it would be delightful to be a fly on the wall right now). Of course Mourik's claim that Ob's be responsible for the work of midwives is the response we would expect when the issue not been faced is the OB been responisble for their own work..which leads into point two. TWO - We all know obstetric beds are the highest number of hospital beds used currently approx 250,000 per year. And despite the OB's largely turning birthing into big 'business' - with overservicing of well women and less time available for the women who do need hrs of intensive obstetric care - govts still provide the funds to keep it happenning, Women do not actually receive the care they think they will when they choose an obstetrician for their care in both the private and public health sector. we know the OB's do not provide the care for a woman experiencing labour and birth - it is the midwives who provide this care with the OB glorified for catching the baby (if they actually make it in time -and only if the woman has private health cover). Whilst different OB's do have different practices, in the public health arena a woman does not realise that even in an obstetric emergency - caesarean section or emergency medical care - the Obstetrician does not provide this. - women do not realise it is provided by the team of midwives and drs/ob's in training (residents and registrars) while the obstetricians who may have seen the women for one or two brief periods in pregnancy and birth (15-30 mins ?) are drumming up big business (scans and genetic tests), often imposed on healthy well young women at whim - who again do not need to be overserviced with costly and unnessary tests. and we all know only a small proportion of women receiving this care actually need it - and the costs to women and the system are exorbitant. Yet how do the govts address this ? - when the insurance crisis hit the fed government bailed the OB's out to the tune of $600 million and libs senator helen coonan secured coverage with Llyods (London) ... the govt also provides access to the high costs claim scheme (where if the Ob's PI insurance fee is more than 7.5% of their income the govt pays the rest 80% AND will payout any claim over $300,000 !) - not to mention the coverage by medicare etc. so why do govts continue to pay unnessary medicalised birth costs and the 'patch up the damage funds' for other health costs resulting from women recovering from traumatic birth experiences, postnatal depression etc ? why do they keep plugging up the holes and support a service that is essentially unnessary and expensive medical sub standard care for the majority of women (80% WHO) ? Why do govts deny women the right to experience the safest and most cost effective pregnancy and birth care ensuring the health system 'dam' wall bursts while midwives do not have equity to access medicare provider numbers or insurance ? ... yes abbott has stated he is now finally considering medicare for midwives but only if a woman has been serviced by the public health budget of a medicare swiped visit to the GP for a referral first ! despite all the evidence, unnessa'scary costs are continuing to be paid out big time - for sub-standard care of healthy well women experiencing pregnancy and birth. one does not need to look much further than the individual and organisational donations at election time and the politics of the obstetric alliance to work out why. Sally-Anne - Original Message - From: Tania Smallwood To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 7:00 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Liability ruling in Weekend Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16318814%255E23289,00.html Liability ruling delivers fuel to midwife debateAdam Cresswell, health editorAugust 20, 2005 DOCTORS and midwives are at loggerheads over their legal liabilities from new-style birthing units after a hospital sued an obstetrician to recover a share of the $7.5million it was ordered to pay for a birth mishap involving a midwife.Obstetricians say the case vindicates their fears they wi
[ozmidwifery] Liability ruling in Weekend Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16318814%255E23289,00.html Liability ruling delivers fuel to midwife debate Adam Cresswell, health editor August 20, 2005 DOCTORS and midwives are at loggerheads over their legal liabilities from new-style birthing units after a hospital sued an obstetrician to recover a share of the $7.5million it was ordered to pay for a birth mishap involving a midwife. Obstetricians say the case vindicates their fears they will be held responsible for the work of midwives, who are pushing for expanded roles and recently started a second midwife-led birthing unit in NSW at Belmont near Newcastle. But midwives such as Robyn Rudner, who works at the Ryde midwifery group practice in Sydney, the state's first public midwife-led birthing centre, said doctors' fears were overblown. She said while the Ryde and Belmont units had good safety records, midwives would remain legally responsible for any mistakes they made. "We are fully responsible for women under our care as midwives, and when we transfer women to a hospital we remain responsible (for their own actions)," she said. The legal case, adjourned this week in the NSW Supreme Court, was mounted by the Greater Southern Area Health Service in NSW. The doctor being sued was an on-call obstetrician when the baby was born in September 1995. While the delivery was handled by a midwife in the obstetrician's absence, the health service claims the doctor failed to adequately supervise the case. It was ordered to pay the mother $7.5million in April 2003, and is now seeking a contribution from the obstetrician. Pieter Mourik, a retired obstetrician from Albury, NSW, claimed the case bore out fears doctors would continue to carry the responsibility for mishaps in a midwife's delivery. Dr Mourik said the case was "dynamite" and it was "unheard of" for a hospital to sue a doctor for a procedure carried out by another health worker. However, Andrew Bisits, director of obstetrics at John Hunter Hospital, who has helped develop the Belmont unit, said while "the whole atmosphere around pregnancy and childbirth ... has degenerated into this very negative and fearful experience", units such as Ryde and Belmont were "an antidote" to such fears.
