Time Magazine discusses homebirth

I found this online today. I'm not sure if it appears in the print version as well. Unfortunately, the article only mentions nurse-midwives, and it is a major oversight to omit the rigorous training of professional midwives who are licensed in 26 of our 50 states.

It has some sentences that seem promising enough at first glance: "Modern medicine can eliminate a lot of the risk (of childbirth)but in doing so, it can also turn what could be a joyous experience for the mother into the equivalent of an all-day appendectomy." But while the sentence acknowledges that many women are losing the joy of birth, the sentence doesn't acknowledge that modern medicine may create -- not eliminate -- risk in childbirth with unnecessary routine interventions and restrictive protocols. Also, deservedly categorized as "high-risk" are the premature births, but how many of those premature births could have been avoided had they not been caused by inductions before 42 weeks gestation, under the seductive guise that a scheduled birth is less stressful than a spontaneous one? Medically, a baby is full term at 37 weeks, but what if that baby wouldn't have been born until 41 if left on his own? That is 4 weeks his lungs would have had to mature in the safety of the uterus.

But the article does a good job highlighting some of the more-often discussed indications of why homebirth is a safe option, referring to the Oregon study and the British Medical Journal findings. It also makes a fair statement about why OB's may be "soured" on the entire concept of homebirth, as they only see the births that become complicated. OB's are never brought in on the homebirths that are progressing as normal, unmedicated, physiological labor should -- which is most of them! But combine that with our country's zeal for litigation, where there is zero tolerance for a less-than-perfect baby, it doesn't seem so unreasonable for an OB to be unsupportive of homebirth.

What I find most heartening, though, is that this article has appeared in Time -- hardly the publication of Radicals. Homebirth is slowly, slowly making its way into more and more women's menu of birthing options. Homebirth is also facing grave opposition, but I remain ever hopeful.

(cross-posted on the Massachusetts Friends of Midwives blog)

What's a "midwife?" Please let the ACNM know.

This week, the birth blogosphere was abuzz with news that the American College of Nurse-Midwives has changed its position statement on midwife certification and its definition of what a midwife is.

Essentially, what it boils down to is that the ACNM will not recognize a midwife unless she has received her academic and clinical training in a formal education program. The North American Registry of Midwives is the national agency which certifies professional midwives. After a midwife has met conceptual learning objectives and gained significant clinical experience with out-of-hospital births and prenatal care, she can become a Certified Professional Midwife. There are a number of formal education programs in which an aspiring midwife can enroll; however, an aspiring midwife can obtain her theoretical and conceptual learning through apprenticeship, under the guidance of wise, experienced and mentoring midwives. It's probably the oldest, most traditional form of learning there is.

There are many paths to learning, and it makes sense that the art of traditional midwifery honors learning through apprenticeship. NARM certification is rigorous; it recognizes different paths to learning, and ensures quality practice and standards of care through its certification process. Additionally, its standards for certification are used by the 26 states that regulate midwifery, states in which CNM's, OB's and CPM's practice collaboratively in a variety of birth locations.

It is curious that in its definition of a midwife, the ACNM wishes to split the midwives certified by NARM into separate camps, legitimizing one and squeezing out the other. It is particularly disheartening in the 24 unregulated states like Massachusetts, where the only opportunity to learn midwifery is through apprenticeship. What gain does the ACNM have in only recognizing some CPM's?

NARM has created a petition asking the ACNM to reconsider its statement and respect the knowledge and diverse training that those who hold the CPM carry. At this writing, the petition has over 1160 signatures. Please take a few moments to sign the petition, taking action to protect birthing choices, which includes access to qualified, trained, experienced Certifed Professional Midwives.

(this has been cross-posted on the Massachusetts Friends of Midwives blog)