Bakersfield Midwife Charged (4 posts)

|
  • Profile picture of think4yourself think4yourself said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/health/x837003584/Woman-charged-with-delivering-babies-without-a-license

    This is an intriguing case, that I’m sort of on the fence on. There are valid points on both sides. Faulkner has a point about providers primary interest being protecting their profits. There is also no mention in the article as to whether any of these mothers had complications during labor or if the welfare or the mother or newborn were, in any instance, in danger. So, is this an action to protect people, or to protect profits?

    | #
  • Profile picture of catpaw catpaw said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    According to her faithbabies.org site, she presents herself as a qualified mid-wife without mentioning that she has not met state licensing requirements and twice failed to pass the licensing test. She says the mother will be monitored but the picture does not indicate any kind of monitoring devices. Licensing for any profession is a requirement for a reason.
    By implication she represents herself as something she isn’t–the legal criteria for a midwifery. She may be competent if the birth is normal without any complication. What if it isn’t?
    Since this is Bako and not San Francisco or some foreign country, it would be appropriate to try her for witchcraft, flog her in public, and then burn her at the stake. (Due to budget shortfalls, firewood donations are appreciated.)

    | #
  • Profile picture of think4yourself think4yourself said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    The million dollar question would be has she knowingly mislead any of her clients as to her credentials? This is a toughie. Lets, Cat, assume for a moment that her clients were aware that she wasn’t a licenced physician. What crime (other than the momma to be’s own stupidity IMO) has been committed? And does ANY board have a right to dictate what form or standard of care one receives? There seems to be the faintest suggestion of the ‘privacy’ issue that is often touted by pro choice advocates. Hmmm? Now, I do agree with you on the concern over the scenario of complications of delivery. So, if that is the primary concern, does that mean that the state is taking the position that there is an obligation to protect the child?

    | #
  • Profile picture of catpaw catpaw said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    After looking at her site, I’d guess she misleads ciients by withholding info rather than lying. Stupid mom to be may not know midwives are required to have a state license or assume that midwife is licensed, or why would she be practicing?
    And yes, the state is obligated to protect the child, even according to Roe v. Wade if it’s past the first trimester.
    Bottom line, I think stupid moms are making an uninformed decision.

    | #