Have you mailed your letters yet? Heres the text! HERE AGAIN, is the letter, with the most pertinent names to mail. Below is a form letter for you to modify as you wish, print, and mail to at least these three people: Dr. Bobbi Hawk, Dr. Jenna Fiala, and Connie Miles, all at the following address: Saint Elizabeth Regional Medical Center 555 South 70th Street Lincoln, NE 68506 We at Water Birth NE (facebook/WaterBirthNE) understand that you have been working diligently with the team to put together a research proposal to study underwater delivery at Saint Elizabeth Regional Medical Center. We wish to commend your efforts and hard work on a matter extremely important to our local, national, and global community, restoring access to underwater birth with competent caregivers. Our community is very anxious to learn the details of the study, as well as any updates on the progress to restore waterbirth to your facility. We ask again for thoughtful answers to our questions, mailed with our Change.org petition the week of May 19, 2014 and enclosed with this letter again, and an open dialogue with the community, not just Water Birth NE, but with the entire population which Saint Elizabeth serves. A research study on childbirth safety to mother and baby is important for not only the mothers and infants in question, but to society as a whole, and the entire community deserves to know what kind of information is being collected on women and their newborns. Saint Elizabeth Regional Medical Center has repeatedly expressed concern for the safety of its patients in written communications, television interviews, and on social media. Water Birth NE, and its member mothers, fathers, birth doulas, and other concerned citizens, all stand with Saint Elizabeth in its concern for safety of mothers and newborns. We also, however, stand by our assertions that with over 20 years of no reported adverse outcomes in an underwater delivery at your facility, the suspension of waterbirth in response to an opinion papers concerns about extremely rare accidental risks is irrational, unnecessary, and frankly, disturbing. If Saint Elizabeth insists upon studying the safety of underwater delivery within the context of a clinical research study rather than studying their archives and revising their safety protocols, then the Medical Center owes its patients transparency and an open dialogue as the research study is designed, refined, and implemented. Thank you. We look forward to a timely response, **********(your signature here) **********(type your name here) and Water Birth NE Enclosure 1. Other hospitals around the country have not chosen to suspend underwater delivery in response to ACOGs Committee Opinion No 594 published in April 2014. Examples include Sutter Davis Hospital in Davis, CA, Regions Hospital in St. Paul, MN, and Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park, MN. Is a suspension of underwater delivery necessary to begin looking at the risks and benefits when there are presumably over 20 years of birth records already at Saint Elizabeth Regional Medical Center (SERMC)? 2. The potential risks listed in the ACOG opinion piece are: higher risk of maternal and neonatal infections; increased chance of umbilical cord damage; respiratory distress resulting from the baby inhaling tub water; potential for asphyxiation of baby following birth; difficulty in the regulation of the baby’s body temperature. We stand with SERMC in the opinion that these potential risks are very serious and worthy of consideration. Have these events occurred at Saint Elizabeth in waterbirth, and if so, at what frequency? How does that compare to the frequency of these events in other delivery methods? What is the difference in composite risk between waterbirth and other delivery methods? 3. SERMC has stated, Water births will be allowed if they are a part of the approved research study and the mother consents to the terms of the study. However, many of our members have expressed concern and fear over being required to be research subjects in order to waterbirth at SERMC in the future, and we know several plan to pursue alternative birthing facilities due to this fear. To alleviate our members fears, we ask that you disclose the terms of the research study, including, but not limited to, subject selection, information collected, research subject rights, experimental procedures to be performed, how the information will be used, and how the information will be obtained. 4. Once waterbirth is reinstated at SERMC, who can women expect to deliver their babies underwater? Will it be only the current waterbirth providers, or will all caregivers who provide obstetric care at SERMC receive comprehensive training on how to perform waterbirth safely? 5. What recourse do currently expectant families planning waterbirth at SERMC have? 6. Are caregivers (nurses and midwives/doctors) penalized by SERMC for accidental waterbirth or women refusing to get out of the water for delivery without medical cause while waterbirth is suspended? 7. Could midwives and family practitioners be penalized by their supervising OBs for accidental waterbirth or women refusing to get out of the water for delivery without medical cause while waterbirth is suspended? 8. Is there a written hospital policy yet? May we see it? 9. If compliance with the recommendations of an ACOG opinion is necessary, why is it so difficult for Lincoln women to obtain reasonable access to a trial of labor after one or two cesareans, as ACOG recommended in Practice Bulletin No 115 published in August 2010? Similarly, why is Foley catheter as an induction alternative to cervical ripening prostaglandins such as Cytotec (misoprostol) and PGE2 preparations seemingly rare in Lincoln practice, in contradiction to ACOGs Practice Bulletin No 107 published in August 2009 which states the Foley catheter is a reasonable and effective alternative for cervical ripening and inducing labor (pg 8)?
Posted on: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 02:18:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015