"Cut Price" untrained Midwives

  anchor 13:29 04 Apr 2007
Locked

The cash strapped NHS is now putting new Mothers and babies at risk.

click here

Instead of Mothers being attended by a fully trained midwife, (who has undergone 3 years of training and examinations), it is possible they will be under the care of a "Maternity assistant", who has had only TWO WEEKS of training.

Would you like your wife or sister to be in that position?.

I do some part time examination work at a University with a Health Care faculty; this includes a Midwifery department. The staff there inform me that, despite there being a desperate shortage of trained midwives, they are having problems in finding jobs for their graduates.

  Watchful 18:11 04 Apr 2007

The Royal College of Midwives, and mothers, are the best people to voice an opinion on this subject and I, barring unexpected deliveries when anyone present may have to assist, personally, would not want an untrained midwife to assist me. Midwives play a vital role with mothers-to-be both before and after delivery especially with home confinements.

  g0nvs 18:16 04 Apr 2007

I suspect that this is childbirth on the cheap. Pity the poor midwife who after working all day is then expected to turn out at whatever time to deliver a child.

  anchor 18:37 04 Apr 2007

fourm member

The story is quite clear. This is confirmed by the people at the University who are having difficulty placing graduate midwives, despite the shortage. Money is the problem facing the NHS. It is happening NOW.

Patients will be the sufferers.

  riiverstock 19:00 04 Apr 2007

Women MP's have always been hyped as being a great thing for this country along with the general view that it will put many many femail interests and issues,especially health, to the forefront.

So far they have failed and act just like the 'blinded lobbied' men.

Shame on them.

No problem with them freely voting for the boys' wars.

  Kate B 20:08 04 Apr 2007

riiverstock, I believe it is considered a good thing for MPs of either gender to vote for what is best for people's interests, not for their gender.

  riiverstock 20:30 04 Apr 2007

Well if the femail MP's cannot muster up some good old fashion bias towards women's interests then what is the point of arguing for higer quotas for femail candidates standing in elections.

They should be there to make a difference but looking at the current mob of women in power they certainly don't.
Except when it comes to them putting their names backing world conflicts,more drink and very much more gambling.

Equality!
That is exactly what we get I'm afraid.

  Kate B 20:36 04 Apr 2007

It's "female" ;-) And bias is a bad thing, wherever it comes from and wherever it's directed. I'm not in favour of "positive discrimination", as it's termed.

  riiverstock 20:50 04 Apr 2007

Sorry Kate B for taking the male out of the female ;-).
Maybe it's a mail thing!

  Kate B 20:52 04 Apr 2007

Someone's been reading too much Daily Mail! ;-)

  riiverstock 20:58 04 Apr 2007

More to do with one ear tuned to the radio and one eye on the Sports channel.

European Football!

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

50 best online Adobe XD tutorials

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment connecter un MacBook à une TV ?