The gentlebirth.org website is provided courtesy of
Ronnie Falcao, LM MS, a homebirth midwife in Mountain View, CA
An interactive resource for moms on easy steps they can take to reduce exposure to chemical toxins during pregnancy.
Other excellent resources about avoiding toxins during pregnancy
These are easy to read and understand and are beautifully presented.
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 23:16:25 -0400 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Susan HodgesNOTE: I wrote the original version of this letter to a small group of direct entry midwives and midwifery advocates around the country. In the "what you can do" section I have now added some ideas especially for CNMs who are concerned about the actions of the ACNM. I want to clarify that the aim of Citizens for Midwifery (CfM) is to promote the Midwifery Model of Care in all settings, provide public education about midwifery and related issues, and encourage consumer action to increase the availability of the Midwifery Model of Care; CfM recognizes that a variety of practitioners, including nurse midwives and direct entry midwives, may provide that kind of care. CfM does not support actions or positions that serve to limit the availability of skilled midwifery care in the full range of settings.
After attending the ACNM Convention, and reading the last few Grassroots Network messages, I felt compelled to put into words a clear (I hope) statement about the implications of the ACNM's recent positions and actions, what we need to be aware of, and what we can do on the state level.
THE PROBLEM: The ACNM is now graduating "Certified Midwives" (CMs) from their new non-nurse "direct entry" midwifery program in New York (and a number of other programs are about to open in other states), but CMs are not legally recognized in any state statutes. CMs are not nurse-midwives, so they do not fall under state statutes for nurses or for nurse-midwives. Furthermore, the CM program requirements alone do not meet midwife licensing requirements in any state with the possible exception of New York. Like CNMs, CMs are not required to have any out-of-hospital birth experience, so the programs do not prepare them for home birth practice; however, the CM credential is not a recognized medical credential either, so CMs are unlikely to get hospital employment.
It is important to understand that the ACNM is using the words "direct entry" in a very narrow sense, meaning simply not requiring nursing first. Their meaning has nothing to do with out-of-hospital midwifery practice or the "kind of care" we associate with home birth midwifery. Their educational philosophy differs dramatically with educational philosophy of MANA, MEAC and NARM. The ACNM's original intent was to provide an ACNM-controlled pathway for other medical practitioners who were not nurses (such as physician's assistants) to obtain ACNM midwifery credentials without having to go through nursing school. Confusion arises when people see the ACNM using "direct entry" and think that they mean what most of us mean by this term: learning midwifery through educational pathways based primarily outside the hospital (including apprenticeships as well as midwifery schools), leading to the midwifery model of care, the kind of midwifery most easily practiced outside the hospital. This is NOT what the ACNM means.
THE CHALLENGE FOR THE ACNM Is to get the CM legally recognized in all states. The ACNM has been working on a strategic plan for statutory recognition of the CM credential for several years, and we must assume will work aggressively for new laws and for changes in existing licensing laws. We can assume that wherever possible they will take advantage of existing laws. We should also assume that these new laws and changes will NOT be friendly to "traditional" direct entry midwives, licensed or otherwise, if the ACNM has anything to say about it.
The ACNM leadership has been very clear in recent position statements, publications and actions that only ACNM credentials (all requiring university-based, degree-granting programs approved by the ACNM) are acceptable to them, that any other credential, especially any that include apprenticeship learning, are totally unacceptable, and that they intend for the ACNM to monopolize and dominate midwifery in the U.S. We can expect that they will work not only to establish the legality of their CM credential, but also to exclude all other credentialing and licensing processes that are not based on the CM/CNM credentialing requirements. According to the ACNM, virtually all licensed and unlicensed midwives in the US who are not CNMs or CMs are merely "traditional birth attendants" and not to be referred to as "midwives" (Kraus, Nancy. What's In a Name: Defining the Profession of Midwifery. J Nurse Midwifery 1997;42:69-70).
The ACNM appears to be unconcerned about the ramifications of these policies and intentions, for midwives or for consumers, and particularly unconcerned about the availability of midwife-attended home birth -- only about 3% of CNMs attend home births, out-of-hospital birth experience is not required and often not available to nurse-midwife students (home birth experience is virtually unavailable in ACNM programs), and increasing home birth practices does not appear to be a significant priority for the ACNM leadership. In fact, until relatively recently the ACNM opposed home birth, and I believe even fewer CNMs would be practicing in the home setting were it not for traditional direct entry midwives who have provided the knowledge base and experience for out-of-hospital birth practices. Out-of-hospital birth, particularly home birth, is really the basis for the Midwifery Model of Care and for the Mother-Friendly Childbirth Initiative. MANA, NARM, MEAC and CfM are really out to protect and preserve the out-of-hospital model of midwifery practice and that option for consumers, and they share deep concern that the ACNM is strongly moving away from this model. The problem is not that the ACNM has established the CM credential; the problem is that they have gotten themselves into an all or nothing position-- if the ACNM credential is excellent, it must mean that all others are inferior-- rather than being able to accept the idea that there can be more than one effective and desirable way of doing a good job at preparing midwives for practice.
MIDWIVES AND MIDWIFERY ADVOCATES IN EVERY STATE NEED TO BE ALERT TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE ACNM AND RELATED ISSUES, WHETHER THERE ARE LICENSING LAWS OR NOT. The ACNM is very clear that they want ONLY their standards and credentials to be legally recognized. Direct entry midwives and advocates need to have an understanding of the issues in order to proactively guide any regulatory activity in their state. Any statute designed by the ACNM will include the requirement of a baccalaureate degree with clinical training in a hospital setting. This would assuredly eliminate the apprenticeship model and even academic models such as the Seattle Midwifery School and Miami Dade Program as well as many other programs around the country.
Imposing ACNM requirements and educational and practice philosophies on all of midwifery would virtually give the doctors complete control over where, how and if all midwives might practice (not just CNMs), would greatly curtail the availability of community-based midwifery education, would greatly increase the cost of midwifery education, and would make it extremely difficult for most student midwives to get any out-of-hospital, especially home, birth experience. In addition, of midwives, only CNMs are acceptable teachers in ACNM programs, so experienced direct entry midwives, no matter how respected and experienced, would be ineligible to teach in these programs. Is this what we want for all of midwifery??
THE CHALLENGE FOR MIDWIVES (DIRECT ENTRY, LICENSED, ETC.) AND ADVOCATES is to make sure that direct entry midwifery and home birth remain alive and growing in our country. That is, direct entry midwifery as we understand it, as expressed by the Certified Professional Midwife (CPM) credential, recognizing a variety of educational modalities with training and experience in techniques for woman-centered, out-of-hospital practice, rather than the strict European definition of simply not requiring nursing first.
Another part of the challenge is that the ACNM has a lot of recognition and respectability --much more than direct entry midwifery does in many states. They have established a widely recognized credential based on an educational model that is easy for people to understand and widely acceptable. Direct entry midwifery is not well-known, out-of-hospital birth is rather suspect in many circles, and the educational process known as apprenticeship, while effective, is not widely used and is perceived to be difficult to evaluate. So, a degree-based "direct entry" credential from the ACNM may be very acceptable to legislators who do not understand the issues. We have a great deal of educational work to do with legislators and government officials, and if we wait until an ACNM bill is in the legislative process, we are likely to be too late.
[here is the section with changes. You can replace from this "heading" to the end of the piece with following]
WHAT CAN STATES AND INDIVIDUALS DO? Here are several things that have been thought of, but I'll bet you will come up with more ideas -- please share them! If you believe in the Midwifery Model of Care, if you want to protect the choice of midwife-attended out-of-hospital birth and to work for independent professional midwifery, these are things you can do to help.
Well, thank you for reading my thoughts on this matter!
Sincerely, Susan Hodges.
The Online Birth Center News is copyright 1997 by Donna Zelzer. The individual writers hold copyright to the individual messages. Copies may be freely distributed electronically, as long as
|About the Midwife Archives / Midwife Archives Disclaimer|