Midwife charged in DC? Karen Carr, CPM...

[Anonymous]

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about a Certified Midwife Practitioner that was charged by the DC government for practicing illegally in the District. Rumor has it that she was working with a woman to deliver, and they had to transfer to a DC hospital. The hospital then referred her to the DC government, since it is alegal or illegal for CPMs to practice in DC.

Does anyone know about this? Not sure if anything happened to the baby or the mother during the birth, or if the DC gov is targeting midwives, or if the hospital just called the DC gov as a matter of practice.

[Anonymous]

Wow! She is a very well known and trusted midwife. I am interested to hear other DCUM readers' input on this question!

[Anonymous]

I haven't heard but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. Midwives are being charged all over the country. I can think of two cases right now.

[Anonymous]

!!!! This is awful. Would love more details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:!!!! This is awful. Would love more details.

Why is it awful if it is illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!!!! This is awful. Would love more details.

Why is it awful if it is illegal?

Because women have a right to choose whatever care provider they want. They have a right to choose anyone or a right to choose no one. Should they choose someone to tend to their homebirth they should not have to worry that the provider will hesitate to transfer if necessary due to being afraid of prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!!!! This is awful. Would love more details.

Why is it awful if it is illegal?

Because women have a right to choose whatever care provider they want. They have a right to choose anyone or a right to choose no one. Should they choose someone to tend to their homebirth they should not have to worry that the provider will hesitate to transfer if necessary due to being afraid of prosecution.

blah blah blah Would you put your kid in an unlicensed pre-school? The lady knew she was not following the law. A women’s “right” does not supersede the law. I would love to be on that jury.

[Anonymous]

I don't argue with people who are ignorantly opinionated. You asked, I answered- this issue is obviously above your comprehension level- go troll somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!!!! This is awful. Would love more details.

Why is it awful if it is illegal?

Because women have a right to choose whatever care provider they want. They have a right to choose anyone or a right to choose no one. Should they choose someone to tend to their homebirth they should not have to worry that the provider will hesitate to transfer if necessary due to being afraid of prosecution.

blah blah blah Would you put your kid in an unlicensed pre-school? The lady knew she was not following the law. A women’s “right” does not supersede the law. I would love to be on that jury.

Do you actually know anything about the various kinds of certifications that go into becoming a practicing midwife? No? Then pipe down.

[Anonymous]

I am under the impression that it is legal for CPMs to practice in the District.

To 15:53 - this is a big issue with midwifery all over the country right now. Many states' laws with respect to midwives were put in place early this century, when OBGYNs were an emerging specialty and sought to legitimize themselves by delegitimizing midwives, who at the time did not hold medical degrees.

However, in this day and age, the vast majority of midwives hold advanced nursing degrees and/or equivalent training in midwifery generally. CPMs are trained, certified professionals; the question is, does DC have a way to license them? If they are not licensed in DC, it is possible to charge them with practicing medicine without a license.

Even though it may be IMPOSSIBLE to get licensed in DC, due to CPMs being an unrecognized specialty.

Does this make sense?

Maryland recently changed its law to license CPMs and CNMs and drop its requirement for them to practice under the supervision of a physician. I thought DC had already done this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't argue with people who are ignorantly opinionated. You asked, I answered- this issue is obviously above your comprehension level- go troll somewhere else.

How? she was not licensed, correct? you can't back up yoru argument, you just throw out womens right to do this to do that etc,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't argue with people who are ignorantly opinionated. You asked, I answered- this issue is obviously above your comprehension level- go troll somewhere else.

How? she was not licensed, correct? you can't back up yoru argument, you just throw out womens right to do this to do that etc,

There are different kinds of midwives. In this area, the ones you hear most about are nurse-midwives, which means that they went to nursing school and then specialized in midwifery. There are also direct entry midwives, who study and work under a qualified midwife for a period of time and then become certified. The controversy is not whether midwives should receive training, but what the certification and licensing process should be.

If you are actually interested in having a conversation about that, I'm sure that there are at least a couple other people on this board who would be happy to have a dialogue about it. If not, that's fine, but don't act like it's a black and white issue because it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't argue with people who are ignorantly opinionated. You asked, I answered- this issue is obviously above your comprehension level- go troll somewhere else.

How? she was not licensed, correct? you can't back up yoru argument, you just throw out womens right to do this to do that etc,

How what?

How are you ignorant? Because this issue is not just limited to this case (if there even is a case!) This has been going on for a long time, it's a heated political issue, and it has many ramifications that I am not about to explain. Being that you most likely know nothing of the issue, nothing about the political history, etc- you are ignorant. You are especially ignorant to have such a strong opinion with absolutely no knowledge of the subject. Sorry, it's deeper than "no license, off with her head!" Therefore there is no point in arguing with you. And why would you even want to argue when you know nothing other than your unresearched opinions.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, it is not legal for CPMs to work in DC. You can check out a list of laws state by state (including DC) here: http://mana.org/statechart.html

In DC it is "Prohibited by Statute, Judicial Interpretation, or Stricture of Practice"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't argue with people who are ignorantly opinionated. You asked, I answered- this issue is obviously above your comprehension level- go troll somewhere else.

How? she was not licensed, correct? you can't back up yoru argument, you just throw out womens right to do this to do that etc,

How what?

How are you ignorant? Because this issue is not just limited to this case (if there even is a case!) This has been going on for a long time, it's a heated political issue, and it has many ramifications that I am not about to explain. Being that you most likely know nothing of the issue, nothing about the political history, etc- you are ignorant. You are especially ignorant to have such a strong opinion with absolutely no knowledge of the subject. Sorry, it's deeper than "no license, off with her head!" Therefore there is no point in arguing with you. And why would you even want to argue when you know nothing other than your unresearched opinions.

16:15 poster here. I agree with you, but your attitude isn't gonna calm this lady down

MOVING ALONG - does anyone actually know what happened?