Forum Index
»
Expectant and Postpartum Moms
Midwife charged in DC? Karen Carr, CPM...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Could you direct me to where it is documented that they refused? What is the reasoning? How can claims about home vs hospital safety be accurately made without this data? |
Anonymous
Why would you say that? The government licenses lawyers, doctors, and even the ladies who do your nails at manicure places. Why should midwives be exempt? If midwives are licensed, it will enable women who want to choose their services to know that the person that they select has undergone a minimum level of training and education. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
|
I received the following email about this thread. I don't believe that I have any liability in this situation, but some of you might (if you can be identified). Consider yourselves warned:
Dear Mr. Steele and Ms. Sokurashvili: I am writing you regarding the recent discussion thread “Midwife Charged in DC? Karen Carr, CPM. . .” as legal counsel to an individual who has been the subject of speculation in several posts in this string. My client wishes to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the circumstances. The recent posts in this thread have inflicted considerable harm to my client’s livelihood and reputation resulting from conjecture, false representation of facts and other defamatory conduct made by participants on the DC Urban Moms list. I am writing to demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further publication of this discussion thread and remove it in its entirety from the list archives and records. While the DC Urban Moms list is a valuable resource for discussion and debate, in this instance, it has crossed the line. The participants, who are allowed to remain anonymous, have recklessly posted baseless conjectures about the circumstances revolving around the manslaughter charges against Karen Carr and the individuals who were allegedly in attendance at the birth or who otherwise provided medical or health advice to the parents of the deceased baby. The statements published on your list regarding the facts of this situation are false and have inflicted considerable harm to my client. As such, the publication of these statements constitutes defamation. In fact, because certain list participants have gone as far as making accusations of criminal conduct, these false statements constitute defamation per se. Please notify me by April 25 of your intent to comply with this request. I would gladly discuss my client’s concerns with you in greater detail and you may reach me at xxx-xxx-xxxx if you have any questions regarding this request. My client reserves all rights and remedies available under the law. Here is my response: If you would like to identify specific messages of concern to you within the discussion thread "Midwife Charged in DC", I will evaluate them individually. However, I am not willing to delete the thread wholesale. Please understand that I am not a participant in the discussion thread you reference, nor am I familiar with the vast majority of the posts in the thread. I am sure that you are familiar with section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. As such, neither Maria nor I hold any liability in this situation. I would also like for you to understand that you should have no expectation of confidentiality in your communications with me. Given that I am not familiar with the identifies of those participating in the discussion at issue, the only way that I can communicate with them is publicly. Sincerely, Jeff |
Anonymous
Go to this website and check out their handbook for researchers: http://mana.org/pdfs/DORHandbookForResearchers.pdf Quoting from the handbook: "The MANA DOR (Division of Research) endorses the principles of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), which is an orientation to research that focuses on relationships between researchers and community partners. CBPR is a collaborative approach in which research takes place in community settings and involves community members in the design and implementation of research projects. Such activities demonstrate respect for the contributions made by community partners and for the principle of ‘doing no harm’ to the communities involved. The MANA DOR is responsible for representing the midwifery community in its relationship with investigators. This community includes not only the midwife providers, but also their clients as equal partners. Therefore the MANA DOR expects all investigators interested in collaboration with this community to consider how they can cooperate with these principles, and to describe how they intend to do so in their request for data access." The handbook also states that researchers must sign a confidentiality/ non-disclosure agreement and a specific research access contract, so they can't "mine" the database, they can only see the bits that someone from MANA decides they can see. So, MANA represents the midwifery community, and researchers are expected to "do no harm" to that community. That tells me that only projects likely to find favorable results will be approved, since negative results could harm midwifery, and that if they do find something that MANA doesn't like, they can't publish it because of the agreement they sign to get access to the data. No ethical researcher would agree to those terms. And as an aside, I'm not sure that MANA's definition of a "community" is what most proponents of Community-Based Participatory Research have in mind. |
Anonymous
|
This is a good article comparing studies on homebirth vs. hospital birth:
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2009/08/31/home-birth-with-midwife-as-safe-as-hospital-birth |
Anonymous
Oh, now this is interesting. The study that this article is talking about is "Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician" CMAJ Sept 2009. Their findings: Perinatal mortality for planned home births with a Canadian midwife: 0.35/1000 Perinatal mortality for planned hospital births with a Canadian midwife: 0.64/1000 Perinatal mortality for planned hospital births with a Canadian physician: 0.57/1000 The findings of the Johnson and Daviss paper that had the suspicious hospital controls: Perinatal mortality for planned home births with an American midwife: 1.7/1000 So I guess if you want a homebirth you should move to Canada... It's worth noting that midwives in Canada have university degrees, and that homebirths are only offered to women that meet certain criteria, ie, no breech, no diabetes, no heart disease. |
Anonymous
Wowza. 
|
Anonymous
| Interesting. I'm the pp who has been asking about studies/ stats. It would be informative to know what criteria a mother & child must meet for home birth in Canada and what research they use to back up their criteria. For that matter, I have no idea the official guideline that nurse midwives use in the states, and what research backs up their guidelines. I should have taken a course in college that would help me understand how to research and understand the studies that I am looking at better! |
Anonymous
| Wonder if they have tried to get the Post to pull comments as well? |
Anonymous
| I read an interesting quote from some Canadian physicians discussing the US study and how homebirth has already been proven to be a safe choice for low risk women in Canada -- if anything I think it calls into question our disparity between CPM/CNM education here in the US. |
Anonymous
The Canadian study just mentioned said this about criteria for homebirth: Eligibility requirements for home birth mandated by the College of Midwives of British Columbia • Absence of significant pre-existing disease, including heart disease, hypertensive chronic renal disease or type 1 diabetes • Absence of significant disease arising during pregnancy, including pregnancy-induced hypertension with proteinuria (> 0.3 g/L by urine dipstick), antepartum hemorrhage after 20 weeks’ gestation, gestational diabetes requiring insulin, active genital herpes, placenta previa or placental abruption • Singleton fetus • Cephalic presentation • Gestational age greater than 36 and less than 41 completed weeks of pregnancy • Mother has had no more than 1 previous cesarean section • Labour is spontaneous or induced on an outpatient basis • Mother has not been transferred to the delivery hospital from a referring hospital Maybe you could look up the College of Midwives of British Columbia and see if they say anything there about the criteria? |
Anonymous
Yes, you are right. Every midwife is an acid-dropping, husband-sharing idiot. Not anyone who wasn't a high hippie would even think to become a midwife. Just like every woman who has an epidural or has a c-section is a brainwashed idiot who couldn't stand up for themselves. |
Anonymous
To be fair, she does have a point - midwives can't have it both ways. Either the certification means something, or it doesn't. And if it does, then practicing in a jurisdiction where you're not licensed should not be permitted, much less condoned by those who trade on their certifications. |
Anonymous
On top of that, Karen Carr is now a public figure. So without actual malice on the part of the site administrators, there is no liability, even for false content. I would think being indicted for manslaughter in federal court has done more harm to her reputation than anything we anonymous posters could possibly ever say. And that's actually true. |
Anonymous
I haven't followed the whole thread, but midwives in the US don't have to have at minimum a university degree? |