Talk:Midwifery

message: Requesting permission/opinion to add clarification/wikilink regarding "Direct Entry" of "Direct Entry Midwifery"  The article seems to assume you know what this procedure is refering to as defacto knowledge.  I had to do several searches to find an adequate definition at Medterms as "Direct-entry midwife: A midwife who has entered the profession of midwifery as an apprentice to a practicing midwife rather than attending a formal school program."  To me where it talks about the Missiouri conflict that made no sense without an understanding of Direct Entry versus coursework midwifery. Halcyonforever (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Australia, it is the absolute opposite.  A direct-entry midwife is one that goes to university to learn midwifery and does NOT learn nursing first, and then transfer to midwifery.  Midwives who were apprenticed to other midwives are called "Lay midwives" and are generally not allowed to work in Australia. Gillyweed (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Entry 

message: I would like the opinion of fellow Wikipedians.  Ombudsman has linked this article on Homefirst Health Services to this article.  Firstly, I am not convinced that na article about a specific medical practice is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Secondly, it reads more like an anti-immunization site and an advertisment for the company than anything much to do with midwifery.  I removed the link and Ombudsman reverted it.  Before I remove the link again, I would appreciate the views of a few other people.  I don't intend to get into a revert war. Maustrauser 07:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Homefirst, which specializes in home childbirth and provision of health services in the home, is the type of practice that has been all but vaporized in the West due to the political lobbying, profiteering and ham fisted marketing of 'modern' medicine.  It is none too surprising to find a Wikipedian has already vaporized the Homefirst link as well.  Readers should be given a choice whether or not to learn more about patient benefits derived from a medical practice that balances medical integrity with harsh economic and social realities.  Suppression of common sense is often the result of such realities, symbolized in this instance by the prompt deletion of the Homefirst link.  Elimination of vaccine injuries is not the only benefit for Homefirst's patients, who avoid many more obvious hazards of Western medicine.  Home care is far less traumatic and inherently less likely to result in invasive medical procedures, such as c-sections.  While c-section rates have soared well over 20% in the US, despite all manner of contraindications, Homefirst has struck something of a balance in keeping such cases to 5%.  But statistics, like the zero autism rate amongst Homefirst's unvaccinated clientele (for contrast, in China alone, thanks to vaccines, the autism epidemic afflicts 1.8 million children), tell only part of the story.  The Wiki's medicine articles are plagued by compartmentalization, sanitization, and obfuscation, while critiques and alternative medicine articles are typically given short shrift.  Narrowly focused articles, like statistics, tend to lose their integrity when real world examples are excluded, and to offset that, a link to the Homefirst article offers a perfectly good example, showing what happens when midwifery is practiced in lieu of Western medicine.  Ombudsman 08:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your comment.  I assume you would have no objection to me writing up advertisements for the Canberra Home Birth Service, the Ryde Homebirth Service, the Melbourne Home Birth Service as well as the Berrima Naturopathy Clinic, the Backofbourke Homeopathy Drop In-Centre etc?  All are commercial enterprises just like Homefirst Health Services.  All have a 'different' slant on what is scientifically defensible.  All make claims not based on accepted evidence-based practice.  However Wikipedia is not an advertising hoarding.  Further, before you attack me for being anti-home birth, pro-caesarean and pro-intervention, you may wish to examine my contributions to home birth, pregnancy, childbirth, obstetric ultrasound etc.  In all such cases I have added the scientific evidence that supports lower intervention and reduced meddling in birth.  What I particularly object to is the mixing of homebirth with anti-vaccination rhetoriic.  However, I await the commentary from other Wikipedians... Maustrauser 09:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ombudsman is the most vociferous anti-vaccine editor on Wikipedia, and this tactic is not isolated to midwifery. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman for a discussion. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to Ombudsman doesn't work.  Could you check it please?  I don't believe that it is appropriate to link to Homefirst as I agree with Maustrauser that its advertising.  I actually think that Homefirst should be deleted. Mirasmus 02:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've fixed it now. Ombudsman has a subtle but definite anti-vaccine (and anti-a-lot-of-other-things) agenda. Just because he wrote a page on Homefirst does not mean it should be included above many other similar services that do not have a link with the anti-vaccine movement. JFW | T@lk 08:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Homefirst Health Services

message: The article seems at present to represent a very US (legalistic) point of view. Perhaps UK midwives fall into the category of traditional birth attendants. I imagine that if working in the US a UK midwife might be recognised as a nurse widwife, but that itself seems to be a very US expression/concept, quite unknown in the UK. Somewhat surprised there is not an article called obstetric nurse. (Or is nurse midwife a new title for the same qualification?) Laurel Bush 16:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: not quite. midwifery used to be a conversion course, and many UK midwives are nurse-midwives as they were trained under the old system. CPMs practice solely in out of hospital settings (primarily home births), don't have university-level training, and are not integrated into the health system as a whole. The conditions of practice of British midwives are much more like that of American CNMs. 217.44.196.10 (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US POV 

message: I deleted/revised the last two paragraphs of the section on Canada because they don't seem to be NPOV to me. My mother is a midwife in Canada and I found them to be personally insulting to her and other currently practicing Canadian midwives. We have tried a rewrite, but would be happy to see someone else take a crack at a more neutral version if they don't think it passes muster. Thanks.Melsod 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Midwifery in Canada

message: I've moved the British spellings to American spellings because as the article stood before there were both American AND British spellings.  While I understand both forms are accepted and "one doesn't change from one to the other," having a conflict of styles within one article looks sloppy. --Bri 04:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whilst it looks sloppy, it really pisses off one side or the other.  By going to US spelling you annoy the Poms, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders.  By going to British spelling you annoy the US audience.  Sloppy or not it should remain as is.  As an author of parts of this material, I'm willing for my writing to be amended left right and centre (center) but not my spelling!   The reason for the Wiki policy of having both spelling systems as acceptable is to avoid irritating other authors.  I think it is a fine policy and I am reverting to the mish mash we had earlier. Maustrauser 05:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bri/Yorick8080, you are better off leaving well enough alone. Changing one spelling to another is just a waste of time. Spelling (correct English/American) is not a "style", it's spelling. BTW, do you have a problem with correct British spelling? --TGC55 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Conflicts 

message: The Female hysteria article says that in the past, midwives where sometimes used to treat "Female hysteria".. should that be mentioned in this article as well? 151.203.164.46 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female hysteria 

message: The wording on the section that gives the WHO definition is a little confusing at the end. Did the international midwives organization adopt the WHO definition, or is this referring to a separate definition? If the latter, what parts are the WHO defition, and what parts are the other definition. If someone in the know could clarify this, that would be great. Thanks! Melsod 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Midwifery 

message: I would like to request for someone who knows more about these subjects to add material on this page, as well as on the page for doula, explaining the differences and similarities between a midwife and a doula.  Cazort (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry.  I've removed your post about doulas from this page.  If people want to know about doulas they can go to Doula.  A simple wikilink is better than another exposition.  Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Doula vs. midwife? 

message: The large sections removed were copied verbatim from Our Bodies Ourselves without attribution and seemed to well exceed any reasonable quotation length.  I don't have time to rewrite it from a neutral point of view right now.
As to the rest, it's horribly vague and I don't see anything that backs up the implication that a lack of midwife-assisted births causes a high mortality rate.
Sistermonkey (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practice in the United States 

message: Midwifes are a very important during birth and before here is some brief bullet points about what sort of things they do.
. Deliver the baby
.Gives suport
.Gives you any advice you may need
. Answers any of your questions
That was only a snippet of what they do, during pregnancy they are very comforting and use-full.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond-k-molly (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do midwifes do? 

message: The sections of this article that mention the historical associations between midwifery and witchcraft are rather problematic.
In the "Early historical perspective" section it merely mentions that the Church required midwives to be licensed by a bishop and swear an oath not to use magic. This seems like a rather extreme whitewashing of the historical record. From the 13th to 18th centuries, midwives were heavily persecuted by both the Catholic and Protestant churches throughout Europe. Literally thousands of women were killed as witches for practicing midwifery. According to the famous witch-hunting guide, the Malleus Malificarum, "No one does more harm to the Catholic Church than midwives."
In the "Later historical perspective" there is a long discussion of Heinsohn and Steiger's theory that midwives were persecuted as witches solely because they performed abortions and thus interfered with population growth after the black death. This is something of a fringe view (as mentioned in the section), so I'm not sure why we devote 3 paragraphs to it, but not to any other theories (of which there are plenty). Kaldari (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reduced the section on Heinsohn and Steiger's theory to one paragraph. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midwifery and witchcraft 

message: Hi all, I'm currently undertaking a project to create a new page entitled "Midwifery in the United States" to be completed at the end of November 2012. I have an interest in midwifery and noticed that this page, while it gives a good overview of global practices, has very little coverage on midwifery in any specific country. My new entry will stem from the section on midwifery in the United States will have two main components: history and current practices. I will first highlight the historical course of American midwifery from colonial times to the 20th century with a focus on the early 20th century when many changes were taking place regarding the professionalization and the medical institution. Then I will move onto the current situation of midwifery in the United States, highlighting entry into the practice, current practices, and legal issues. For my sources, I'm using a collection of academic books on history of midwifery in the United States and the websites of current professional organizations. Additionally, I will use CDC government data, news articles, and more recent academic journals. Finally, in order to address the potential issue of neutrality, I will integrate the role of race and status by discussing how midwifery is not just a woman's issue, but also related to immigration and race. I welcome any feedback, suggestions, and criticisms on my project. Thank you. 
Clarification: I will update and rework the current material on US midwifery into my new page so that the original contribution will be retained. 
MonicaHe (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive Update for "Midwifery in the United States" 

message: I'm rather suspicious of a new section that's recently been inserted in the middle of the Canada section. Apart from the fact that there are clear formatting problems with it (e.g. the double spacing between paragraphs, the way references have been handled etc.), it looks a bit to me as if it's been copied and pasted from somewhere else. Although a number of apparent typos (or perhaps non-nativisms) make me think it probably doesn't come from a published article. I've raised these issues on the user's talk page, but if we don't get a response, I can't decide whether to keep the material (and do a lot of work to fix the problems and integrate it into the article) or delete it, on the grounds that it borders on OR, may be copied and pasted from elsewhere, and needs a lot of work to integrate properly . Thoughts? garik (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is odd, isn't it?  I thought I could google it and have at least something pop up somewhere but it did not!  At any rate I just deleted the whole thing and hope that is OK with you? Gandydancer (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was going to wait for the editor to respond, but I imagine it would have ended up getting deleted anyway. It can always be revived and rewritten if a case can be made for keeping it. garik (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly was not bad work and could easily be adapted for the article.  As the author noted, it is important to the women's movement, and the men's too in that men are more likely to become a member of the birthing team in a midwife-assisted delivery. I left a talk page note as well. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though Gandy deleted this, it came back, and there has been recent edit-skirmishing over deleting or keeping this section.  I agree that it is very clearly a copy-paste job from elsewhere (especially the way the citations were handled, which are useless as they stand).  I see that the editor who posted it has been unresponsive to queries as to where this came from at User_talk:Public_Anthropology.  I agree that this should not be here as it puts wiki at risk of copyvio, since we do not know where it came from.  If anybody wants to put in the time to fix it so that it is written in wikistyle and is properly sourced and we are no longer at risk of copyvio that would be great.. .I am going to delete it now. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Midwifery as a Western Social Movement" section 

message: As part of a course assignment, our group added information about Medieval midwifery. We removed a brief paragraph at the end of the "Early historical perspective" section and added our revised, expanded text as a new subsection titled "Medieval perspective." We also added a "Medieval Perspective Bibliography" section after the footnotes.
Deannalm (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the well-written addition, however the article is now extremely long--well over the length at which splitting should be considered.  Would you consider creating a new article with this information?  Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'd be happy to make a new article! I went ahead and created Midwifery in the Middle Ages and removed the edits I made yesterday in the main Midwifery article. I also added a "See also" link to the new article under the Midwifery "Early historical perspective" subheading. Thanks for your feedback! Deannalm (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval perspective section 

message: Who wrote this Tolkein? "...a conflict between surgeons and midwives arose..." crikey, all is not well in the land of Middle Earth it seems. While I'm willing to accept the existence of conflict between professional bodies, you can't simply express some general idea that popped into your head citing broad labels like, -surgeon- and -midwife- as fact, it's like saying Tinker or Jew. You -must- be -specific- in regard to the nature of the conflict and -explicitly- cite instances. The second paragraph beggars belief, just what conceivable relevance does some obscure opinion over -medieval- history have to do with with -later- historical perspective? 1348 for crying out load.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.156.178 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later historical perspective? 

message: I note that all reference to Certified Nurse Midwives has been removed from the USA section of this page, and from the USA Midwife page, and only direct entry midwife types are mentioned.  The reasoning seems to be that, as they trained as nurses before they trained as midwives, they are not really a midwife.  I disagree with this logic.  It is correct that they are an advanced nursing specialization and they don’t usually operated as autonomous practitioners in the way Certified Professional Midwives do.  However, they are a type of midwife none the less.  More so I would suggest than lay midwives (but not to depreciate that type of midwife).  They outnumber CPMs by about 4 to 1 and can operate in every US state.  It is illegal to operate as a CPM in some states (although this is changing).  They do have their own page.  However, they should have their own section, in the USA section for midwives, with the same standing as CPMs and the other midwifery types there. 
It is common in some countries (mainly third world countries) for midwives to train as nurses first but there is no suggestion that they are not midwives.  Cheers.  Ghipeb (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. if it is true they don’t usually operated as autonomous practitioners in the way Certified Professional Midwives do, however, they are a type of midwife. I include their description. --190.233.230.241 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of references to Certified Nurse Midwives 

message: added the content below,  in this dif
That IP is at American Midwifery Certification Board, and so this is a COI edit that needs review. 
 <REDACTED COPYVIO>
for discussion.... Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: oh dear so there is WP:COPYVIO too.  I am deleting the content Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content from conflicted editor 

message: The usage of  and the naming of Obstetrics (Midwifery) is under discussion, see talk:Obstetrics (Midwifery) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Midwifery" and "Obstetrics (midwifery)"

message: I've moved this article back to its original location following a move request at Talk:Obstetrics#Requested_move_30_July_2015. In summary, several related articles have been moved around without discussion, causing considerable confusion; this article was moved around in March 2014. I've restored it to its former position, with Midwife redirecting; if the article is to be moved again it should be through another WP:RM. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.--Cúchullain t/c 16:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but you closed the requested move by moving the ambiguous article of Obstetrics (Midwifery) to Obstetrics and leaving the Midwifery article without substance, also contrary to "the majority, reasonable and compelling arguments for retitling this article as "Midwifery"" (like you describes in your explanation about the closing). Alejgonz 01 (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the close I just restored the articles and their redirects to where they were before you started moving things around. The cleanup will have to be left to readers with more knowledge in the area, and it looks like they've made a solid start.--Cúchullain t/c 13:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I boldly split out content about midwifery from the newly-renamed Obstetrics article in this set of difs and added nonduplicative content to the this article in this set of difs Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly complete substantial and important information about Midwifery from the recently moved ambiguous article from Obstetrics (Midwifery) to Obstetrics Alejgonz 01 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Midwifery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120511074322/http://www.medicalknowledgeinstitute.com/files/ICM%20Definition%20of%20the%20Midwife%202005.pdf to http://www.medicalknowledgeinstitute.com/files/ICM%20Definition%20of%20the%20Midwife%202005.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120322225521/http://www.studentmidwife.net/universities.php to http://www.studentmidwife.net/universities.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section is vague. As a reader (and an ER doc), I don't understand what it is trying to convey. There are many medical professionals who work long hours and get physically and emotionally tired. Is this section suggesting that midwifes are more prone to these problems than nurses or docs? ... or less capable of dealing with the stresses? I don't know what this section is trying to say.
"Midwives are rostered to work long hours, this not only results in physical exhaustion but also emotional exhaustion.[21] The most stressful situations that occur for a midwife are during their routine work.[21] The most stressful part of their routines is when it comes down to life or death situations with mother or baby. These events may be sudden and unpredictable which puts a large amount of stress on the attending midwives. When these situations occur midwives general have a lack of control and can become quickly stressed.[21] Due to the update in technology the many common complications that can occur during childbirth are now easily prevented or easily attended to.[21] Although on rare occasions midwives cannot do anything more but their best and sometimes that is not enough."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.149.74 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This section is all based on one source and I'm going to delete it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotional stress on midwives 

message: I've reverted an edit which replaced "woman" with "pregnant person", and thought this might need to come to the Talk page. See WP:GNL and specifically "Do not use gender-neutral speech when it will confuse the reader. For example, it is generally best to write about "pregnant women", rather than "pregnant men and women". Although a few pregnant adults are not women (e.g., some transgender, non-binary and intersex people), the reader will be confused and distracted by the statement that men can be pregnant". I realise that "pregnant people" is not the same as "pregnant men and women", but think the statement covers that too. I also think that language should be in line with quoted sources - for example, this source from WHO refers to "women". Tacyarg (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender-neutral language 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010