Tomorrow (as Q and A is on Mon). The Senate is planning to pass midwifery related legislation that will enable an individual Dr the veto power over a woman's right to make full decisions in childbirth (for both birth in hospital and at home). How can you explain Minister Plibersek how the common law rights of women can be removed by an amendment demanded by the Australian Medical Association?
The Rudd Government has instituted major midwifery reform. For many years advocates have asked that women be put at the centre of maternity care. Can you explain why your Government supports legislation that will remove the right of a woman to a registered midwife (for home or hospital birth) if a Dr does not agree with the choices made by a woman?
Minister Plibersek you are a member of the feminist group Emily's List. This group is pro choice. How then can you explain the bills that will pass the Senate tomorrow that will force a woman to have the approval of a dr in order to secure the services of a Medicare funded midwife? Does your definition of pro-choce end at termination and not protect women in pregnancy and birth.
The legal concepts of informed choice and right of refusal are well established in healthcare. In relation to women's health they are often hotly debated. Can Minister Plibersek explain how the appropriate need for Midwives and drs to work together has been spun into an amendment in legislation to pass the Senate tomorrow that will give Drs the veto power over midwifery practice and a woman's individual choices in pregnancy and birth?
Bookmarks