Belly Tales

So, you’re probably wondering how it’s going. I’m in the middle of my third week as a new midwife, and it’s going…okay…so far, I guess. I wish I could sound more confident and enthusiastic about it at the moment, but I’m having a hard time feeling very confident or enthusiastic these days. Which is not to say that I am not absolutely *thrilled* to be finally working as a midwife, or delivering babies, or taking care of so many beautiful pregnant women (I am!!!), it’s just that my general state lately has been one of extreme nervousness and tension and uncertainty. Which is, according to many of my loving and supportive preceptors, something that is expected, and something that is normal for a lot of new grads, but even so…it’s not a very pleasant place to be living in at the moment. Even if I did expect that it would feel like this.

I think the nerves and tension is all coming from the sudden onslaught of responsibility. I feel unbelievably responsible, for everything, at the moment. Heavy with repsonsibility. I’m taking my patients home with me, worrying about them at night. And I’m so scared, with all of this new responsibility, that somehow I will totally, terribly mess something up. Which I’m sure I will, given that I’m new, and bound to make mistakes, and that some of the best learning you ever do is from your mistakes. It’s just…I can’t make huge mistakes. I really can’t. These are people’s lives and bodies and pregnancies and babies on the line, so…no mistakes, right? Except that how can you learn a new job, as a new grad, and not make mistakes? Do you see where the tension headaches and the knots in the middle of my back come from?

I’m still on orientation at the moment. I have three full months for orientation, which means that my orientation will finish sometime around Jan. 10th. Ostensibly, I can ask for more time, if I feel like I need it, but I do recognize that there is a strong hope that by three months in I will be able to work like a fully functioning midwife, someone who can be an asset to the practice. And I hope the same as well, although at the moment, I’m a bit terrified of being on my own, and I certainly don’t feel ready for that. Have I mentioned lately how NUTS this practice is? How busy and crazy and overwhelming and exhausting it is? Which is fabulous, on the one hand, and is certainly one of the reasons I picked this job (after a year of this, just think of all of the amazing experience I’ll have)…but, on the other hand, is incredibly overwhelming, exhausting, crazy etc.

The sheer pace of the place is enough to knock you out: in the clinic, on average, the midwives are seeing about 25 patients a day, often more like 28-30. IN ONE DAY? Good lord, how do you even have time to say hi to that many women, let alone ask them all about their health and bodies and pregnancies, or deal with all of the many problems and questions they have? Just to give you an example: one of the women I was taking care of last week had had a positive chlamydia test two months ago, had been treated, had then slept with her partner again (who had not yet been treated), had contracted chlamydia again, and had then been treated again. She had also had a positive PPD test (for tuberculosis), an abnormal pap result, and a prior cesarean, in the Dominican Republic, and was desiring a vaginal delivery this time around. So on my visit with her, we were talking about safer sex and what that involved, abstinence until her partner could be treated, a referal for her partner to the male STI clinic, the need for a chest x-ray (to follow-up on the positive PPD test), the need for a colposcopy during her pregnancy (to follow-up on the abnormal pap smear), and the importance of getting the operative report from the hospital where she had had her cesarean in the Dominican Republic, so that she could be counselled for a VBAC and receive a trial of labor with this pregnancy (in order to have a trial of labor at this hospital, women need written proof of the fact that they had a low-transverse uterine incision during their cesarean, and are therefore at lower risk for uterine rupture). And then we went ahead and did all of the normal pregnancy visit things: is the baby moving? How’s your diet? Looks like you’re gaining a good amount of weight. Vital signs stable? Urine dip negative? Measure the uterus, palpate the baby, listen to the fetal heart, review warning signs and danger signs. Are you still taking the prental vitamins and iron? Any questions? And then, after all of that, we did a chlamydia test one more time to make sure that she’d been adequately treated. The entire visit took me about an hour. And rightly so. But technically, she was a revisit, and was supposed to only take about 15 minutes. On average, I’ve been seeing about 9-10 women a day, on a good day for me. I just can’t go any faster than that without missing something or forgetting something or not picking up on something…in essence, making a mistake.

And labor and delivery…wow. Where do I even start? I’m going fine so far, I’ve delivered three beautiful babies so far, but that’s only because I’ve been sheltered by my preceptors so far, and am not truly doing the entire job yet. They’ve been giving me one or two patients to manage so far, or else they plunk me down in the middle of triage to sort out all of the incoming women, and that’s fine. But that’s about as much as I can do right now. And meanwhile, beyond the doors of triage, there are all of the women who are in labor, who I can’t really keep track of at all. Room 5 is 6 centimeters dilated, room 7 is 8 centimeters dilated, room 8 needs another dose of cytotec, room 10 needs another note written on her at 2:00 pm, and room 5 and 7 need a note written at 2:30, and room 10 will need a note as soon as the cytotec is placed, which will happen just as soon as one of the midwives gets a chance…I have no idea how to keep track of the floor. I have tunnel vision. Keeping tabs on one or two patients is about as much as I can handle, and that is plenty to keep me busy. More than plenty. Admitting a patient, and getting through all of the paperwork, takes me a solid hour or so. I’m being very thorough…I’m proud of my notes, but I’m slow.

And the thing is, it’s okay to be slow right now. No one is yelling at me to be faster….yet. But I know…I dread…that soon enough, too soon, I will be off orientation, and then I’ll be in trouble. And granted, I’m sure that my ability to handle all of this will increase tremendously in the next three months, and worrying about running the floor at this point is fruitless and stupid, because no one is asking me to run the floor yet. So why even worry about it at this point? And yet, I can’t stop myself from thinking about it. I find myself worrying about everything right now.

The BBC has put together an amazing series of articles on birth and maternal mortality in developing countries. This year, at the half-way mark towards the Millenium Goals set for 2015, we’re not even close to reaching the desired 75% reduction in maternal mortality. These articles explore the reasons behind these failures: everything from lack of US funding for the United Nations Population fund (ostensibly because the UNFPA doesn’t outlaw abortion) to the low status of women in developing countries, the low priority given to women’s health issues, unsafe drinking water, lack of access to medical facilities and skilled birth attendants, infection, poor nutrition and low birth weight.

“These women are dying not because we don’t have the means to save them, but because we (the world) have not determined whether they are worth saving.”

Why women still die to give birth

Action needed on maternal deaths

“They thought I was cursed” (article on maternal fistulas)

In pictures: fighting maternal mortality

Check out the older articles from 2005 and 2006 as well. Really excellnt, but really sobering reading.

I am a working girl at last!  Finally, after weeks of overcoming bureaucratic hurdle after hurdle, I am finally working!  Today was my first day at my new job as a new midwife at a busy Brooklyn hospital.  I can’t even begin to describe to you how exciting it was to get an employee ID with my name and the credential of CNM on it, or my CNM “stamp” that I’ll be using to write prescriptions.  All incredibly official.  A little bit surreal.  I was issued sets of scrubs, two long, white lab coats, spent a portion of the morning talking to the benefits coordinator about my benefits, and then, in the afternoon, was plunked down in the middle of a busy prenatal clinic, in true dyed-in-the-wool sink-or-swim midwifery style.

And how fantastic it as to be back in the midst of pregnant women again!  Listening to fetal heart tones, doing  Leopold’s maneuvers, estimating fetal weights, listening to women complain about their swollen ankles and over-active bladders and sore backs (normal, normal, all totally normal).  The computer system is cumbersome, I’m really, really slow, I have absolutely no idea what paperwork is needed to be filled out for referrals or ultrasounds or triple screens, but I suppose I’ll get there eventually.  The slow, painful, very steep learning curve has begun.  I can’t wait to look back in 6 months and see all of the incredible progress I’ve made—that is the light at the end of the tunnel.  In the meantime, I’ll be exhausted, overwhelmed, and making a lot of mistakes.  Oh joy.  But yes, oh joy!  I’m actually an employed midwife now.

I got a phone call last night from a good friend from college, who has just recently been diagnosed with an ovarian cyst, and had been told by her doctor not to worry too much about it and was prescribed birth-control pills to help manage the symptoms. She wanted a second opinion, and I told her what I knew about ovarian cysts (i.e. that they’re very common, usually benign, usually do not affect fertility, and usually spontaneously resolve in a few months without incident), but I did promise that I’d do some more research on the subject for her. So here you go: more than you probably ever wanted to know about ovarian cysts!

An ovarian cyst is a fluid-filled sac that forms on the ovary. The majority of ovarian cysts are benign, and are classified as either functional or organic. We’ll start with functional cysts, because they are simpler and easier to understand.

Functional cysts are fluid-filled sacs which most often form during a normal menstrual cycle—either during the follicular phase or the luteal phase. Follicular cysts are more common and are often undiagnosed because they are usually asymptomatic. During the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, the follicle ripens while the egg matures and becomes a small, fluid-filled sac in the process. During normal ovulation, when the egg is released the sac breaks open, the fluid is released along with the egg, and the remnants of the sac are eventually re-absorbed. If for some reason the egg is not released (i.e. there is no ovulation), the ripened follicle can remain as a cyst, and may continue to grow through the next menstrual cycle. Follicular cysts can occassionally grow quite large, and the risk of torsion or rupture increases the larger the cyst becomes. However, the majority of follicular cysts usually spontaneously disappear within one to three months.

Luteal ovarian cysts, or corpus luteum cysts, occur during the second half of the menstrual cycle, after ovulation has occurred. Once the follicle has ruptured and the egg has been released, the remaining follicle sac becomes the corpus luteum, which produces progesterone and maintains the endometrial lining of the uterus. If the egg is not fertilized and pregnancy does not occur, the corpus luteum normally disappears through a process called luteolysis, which occurs with the onset of menses. In some cases, though, the corpus luteum does not disappear, and instead seals off after ovulation, fills with fluid and forms a cyst. Luteal cysts are less common than follicular cysts and usually disappear on their own within a few weeks. However, they can sometimes grow up to four inches and may cause bleeding, torsion, or pain.

If a small blood vessel ruptures inside a functional cyst, the cyst fills with blood instead of clear fluid, and is then called a hemorrhagic cyst. However, like follicular and luteal cysts, hemorrhagic cysts rarely rupture, are often self-limiting, and will most likely spontaneously resolve on their own.

Organic cysts are the second type of ovarian cyst, and are much less common than functional cysts. They’re referred to as complex cycts because of how they appear on ultrasound, and may contain blood, serous or solid material inside them. The type of cyst that forms depends on the type of ovarian tissue the cyst arises from. “Mucinous or serous cysts arise from mucinous or secretory ovarian glandular cells and can become very large, though they usually grow slowly.” (Schuiling & Likis, 2006). Another type of organic cyst known as a dermoid cyst arises from ovarian germ cells. Because germ cells have the capability of forming any material in the body, dermoid cysts sometimes contain unusual substances such as hair cells, skin cells, bone cells, tooth enamel or other body material. Dermoid cysts tend to grow rapidly and can become very large. They are rarely malignant, however, because they don’t spontaneously regress and there is some (albeit small) chance of malignancy, dermoid cysts are most often surgically removed . Another kind of organic cyst is known as a cystadenoma, which forms in the stromal tissue on the outside of the ovary, and can also grow quite large and cause a fair amount of pain.

Ovarian cysts can also be caused by other illnesses. Endometrial tissue begins to grow outside the uterus in women with endometriosis, and can sometimes attach itself to the ovary, forming an endometrioma, which is a solid cyst. Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) form multiple functional cysts within their ovaries from repetitive anovulatory cycles, and are often infertile. While neither of these kinds of cysts are malignant, managing these types of cysts requires dealing with the underlying etiology—either endometriosis or PCOS—and these cysts usually do not resolve on their own without assistance.

Because ovarian cysts are usually asymptomatic, many women have them without realizing that they do, and they often resolve on their own without the woman even being aware. Otherwise, the woman may experience pressure or fullness in the abdomen, pain during intercourse, persistent low-back ache, urinary frequency, chronic pelvic pain or pain during menstruation. Ovarian cysts are sometimes detected during a routine pelvic exam if a large mass or fullness is felt around the ovaries. However, diagnosis is most often made by ultrasound (either abdominal or transvaginal ultrasound), and management depends in part on the size of the cyst.

For most functional cysts, nothing needs to be done. Simple cysts don’t require therapy unless they’re larger than 8 cms, rupture or lead to ovarian torsion. The “watch and wait” approach is most often used, since these cysts usually spontaneously resolve on their own. If there is minor pain associated with the cyst, medication like Motrin or Tylenol is usually enough to manage the pain while waiting for the cyst to disappear. Follow-up ultrasounds at 1-3 months after diagnoses are sometimes performed, but aren’t mandatory unless the symptoms persist or worsen. If the cyst is between 5-8 cm, repeat visits to your doctor or midwife may be needed to follow the growth of the cyst. Surgery may be required to drain and remove larger cysts (anything greater than 8 cm), and is usually done either through laparoscopy or laparotomy. Other tests, such as a blood test to check for CA-125, a tumor marker which can indicate malignant growth, may also be performed for larger cysts just to rule out cancer. Oral contraceptive pills can be prescribed to help reduce the likelihood of repeat cyst formation, and may be especially helpful in women who keep having ovarian cysts. Since ovulation and the ripening of a follicle are often the causes of functional cyst formation, birth control prevents this from happening by preventing ovulation.

Organic cysts are generally more complex and usually require medical treatment. An MRI or cat-scan may be used in addition to ultrasound in order to diagnose the exact type of cyst (dermoid, cystadenoma, endomerioma etc.) The tumor marker CA-125 will most likely be checked to rule out cancer, and larger cysts greater than 8 cm will most likely be removed via surgery.

Warning signs for the rupture of an ovarian cyst include nausea and vomiting, fever, sudden, severe abdominal pain, fainting, dizziness, weakness or rapid breathing. In the case of very large cysts, rupture can be quite dangerous, so emergency care should be sought immediately if any of the warning signs appear. Otherwise, as in the case of my friend, who has some type of functional cyst by the sound of it, I’d agree with her doctor’s assessment that she shouldn’t worry too much about it. The cysts will probably go away on their own, and using oral contraceptives will make the likelihood of future cyst formation very, very slim.

References and further resources:

Shuiling & Likis (2006) Chapter 22: Benign Gynecologic Conditions. Women’s Gynecologic Health, pp. 584-587, Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Varney, H. et. al. (2004) Chapter 14: Common Diagnoses in Women’s Gynecological Health. Varney’s Midwifery: Fourth Edition, p. 406, Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Women’s Health.gov: Ovarian Cysts

Emedicine: Ovarian Cysts

There was a recent article in the NY Daily News on the homebirth practice of Joan Bryson, a Brooklyn midwife who has been delivering babies at home for over seven years now.  Joan also served as president of the local NYC ANCM chapter last year.

Last year, Bryson delivered nearly 50 babies throughout the city. The business, which grossed about $250,000, has grown steadily since its inception in 2000, when Bryson handled just four births.

Wow, so nice to see homebirth practice growing in New York right now.  And now nice to see a well-written, balanced, pro-midwifery article in a mainstream newspaper with a high-readership.

Miles for Midwives, yesterday, was also a great success.  There were 282 people participating, the largest number so far.  This event has also grown every year that it’s occurred, which is another really promising sign.  Let’s hear it for midwives and midwifery getting out into the news!

So, I’m back in the blogosphere again, and realizing that I’ve been missing a lot of important news by taking a vacation for a few months. Here’s a quick overview of some of the stories I’ve found most pressing (and/or impressive) lately, even though some of these stories are old news by blog standards, and many other people have already done a much better job at covering them than I have.

First, Verizon Wireless, the cellphone megagiant, has gotten itself into a heap of trouble by initially refusing to allow NARAL Pro-Choice America to host a text messaging service on its network. Verizon initially claimedthat company policy allows it to refuse “highly controversial” and potentially “unsavory” messages from being distributed on its network. NARAL quickly shot back with an action alert and Verizon was flooded with thousands of e-mails and text messages from angry subscribers, and several anti-censorship groups also joined the fray. Quickly realizing it had made a huge mistake (especially when it discovered that other cellphone networks like Sprint and AT&T had approved the NARAL text messaging service without a whiff of protest), Verizon reversed its position, allowing the NARAL text service to go forward, and issued a statement in the press, but NARAL is still hounding Verizon to put its new public policy in writing. Interstingly, since the issue dealt with text messaging and shortcodes, the story was picked up not only by pro-choice and anti-censorship news carriers and blogs, but by sites like Ars Technica and Slashdot.

Sticking to the technology theme, the website Facebook recently started banning pictures of women breastfeeding from user accounts, and in some instances has banned specific users altogether (for example, Karen Speed from Australia, who has chronicled the entire event on her blog, One Small Step for Breastfeeding). Facebook banned certain pictures on account of their “obscene content” and asserted its right to remove pictures as a violation of its terms of use policy, but as the Sydney Morning Herald points out, it’s not exactly clear what constitues an “exposed breast”, which is the specific violation, and Facebook hasn’t provided any further. clarification. Right. So, breastfeeding is obscene, and women aren’t allowed to post their own pictures of themselves breastfeeding on their own facebook accounts. If this bothers you as much as it bothered me, go join the new facebook group entitled Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!

In other news, a 43 year old Russian woman has recently given birth to a 17 lb. baby, her 12th baby to date. Wow!!

Finally, this is a quick reminder to local folks that the 5th annual Miles for Midwives will be occurring this weekend, Oct. 6th, at Prospect Park. The 5K run/walk helps to raise awareness for midwifery, as well as raise money for the ACNM local NYC chapter, and Friends of the Birth Center. My beloved boy and I will both be there, of course, running and sweating in the sunshine. Race time is 10:00 am, rain or shine. If you’re interested in joining the race, you can register at Active.com.

Finally, the long-awaited SUNY Downstate Gala will be occurring this coming weekend, celebrating 75 years of continuous midwifery education. SUNY Downstate is actually the oldest and longest running midwifery program in the country, and is commerorating the event by a day-long educational symposium featuring speakers such as well-known author Barbara Katz Rothman and keynote speaker Joyce Thompson, CNM, followed by a dinner-dance. Sounds amazing! Go Downstate!

Guess today is Catch-up From Chicago day. In addition to the very long post on the ACNM, MANA and CMs which I just posted below, I also wanted to “unofficially” post the 2007 ACNM Student Report, which I helped to draft at the annual meeting this year with approximately 20 other student representatives from around the country. This report is drafted annually by the student reps to summarize and present student concerns to the ACNM as a whole, and is published every year in the Quickening, the ACNM newsletter. As you might surmise from my post below, the issue I was most concerned about was the representation of CMs, which translated into joining the committee that was drafting the paragraph on Professional Issues, i.e. the newly proposed DNP and how this will affect midwifery education. I’m putting this behind a cut, because again, it’s a very long document and I’m not sure how many people are really interested in reading this in its entirety, but I have been wanting to post this up here since the convention for posterity, more than anything else. So, here you go: (Read on …)

I never had a chance to post much about my experiences in Chicago at the ACNM Annual Meeting in May, mostly because I was finishing up my semester at school, and graduating, and then studying for my board exams, and blogging was not a high priority. But I’ve been thinking a lot about my time at the convention, and there are still a lot of posts which need to be written about it. This is one of them. Where to even begin? The entire topic is enormous, highly political and daunting.

I get lots of e-mails from people who are very excited about becoming midwives, but aren’t sure how to go about it. They’re not sure which path to midwifery is the right path for them, and they’re confused about all the different options available to them. And rightly so: it’s highly confusing stuff! It took me years to get a basic understanding of all of this, especially many of the smaller nuances which you miss when you’re first learning about your educational options. And if we, the midwives and future midwives of America are confused about this stuff, just imagine how our clients feel, let alone your average American who’s surprised to learn that midwifery still exists as a viable modern profession.

Part of this confusion stems from the fact that in this country right now, there is no one standardized definition of a midwife, nor are there standardized credentials or certification processes. Instead of one standardized educational route for all midwives, there are two main routes you can take, and myriad ways to obtain differing degrees and qualifications. Instead of one professional title to designate you as a midwife, there are three legally recognized titles: CNM, CM and CPM. Instead of one national accrediting body for midwifery educational programs, there are two: ACNM and MEAC. Instead of one national board exam, there are two different exams administered by two different organizations: the AMCB (which administers the board exam to qualify as a CNM/CM) and NARM (which administers the board exam to qualify as a CPM). The acronyms alone are enough to make your head spin.

Just to give a quick overview (because I’m sure there are still many folks who’re confused about all of this), it works like this: the ACNM (American College of Nurse Midwives) is the professional organization of Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) and Certified Midwives (CMs). Most of the members of the ACNM are nurses who then go on to obtain advanced degrees in midwifery (either a Masters degree or a certificate….usually a Masters), and are then credentialed through the ACNM. However, there are some members of the ACNM who are direct-entry midwives (i.e. do not have any prior nursing education or experience), who attend ACNM accredited midwifery education programs, and when they graduate are then credentialed through the ACNM and become CMs. In contrast, Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) obtain certificates through midwifery-education programs which are accredited by the Midwifery Education and Accreditation Council (MEAC), and when they graduate, they are credentialed through the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM) and become CPMs. Like CMs, CPMs are direct-entry students, with no prior nursing education or experience. And because CPMs are not nurses, nor are they credentialed through the ACNM, they aren’t allowed to join the ACNM.

The professional organization which represents the interests of CPMs is the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), which seeks to represent the interest of every type of midwife in North America, including CNMs/CMs (even though their interests are already being respresented by the ACNM). While some midwives (well, CNMs/CMs) belong to both organizations, I think the majority of midwives tend to pick one or the other, if they even join at all (and just think how much further the profession as a whole could get if every midwife in the country actually joined their professional organization and paid dues, which could then be applied to projects and lobbying which actually benefits midwives and our profession. Sadly, of course, membership is never even close to 100%, which is just stupid. Membership in the AMA is just about 100%—I have never known a doctor who was not also a member—and just look at what a powerful and influential organization the AMA is—i.e., look what happens when a professional organization actually has money! Ahem.)

Now, there are so many problems with this I don’t even know where to start. Someone looking in from the outside could very sensibly say: well, don’t you think you’d have more power and more political clout and be better understood by the public and by other professions if all of you midwives just got together and decided on ONE standard definition, ONE standard credential and ONE professional organization to represent you? And of course, the answer to that would be a resounding YES! In countries around the world where midwifery has a very strong professional presence, and where midwives are not only highly respected but also deliver the majority of the babies in that country, invariably you will find that there is one unified professional organization for all of the midwives of that country, one standardized educational track and one credential. British midwives who are reading this, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that if you’re in England and you say “I’m a midwife”, no one needs to ask if you’re a nurse-midwife or a direct-entry midwife or if you have a Masters Degree or a Certificate. The profession of midwifery there has one standardized definition of what midwifery entails, one qualifying board exam, one credential, one professional organization and one standardized scope of practice. I’m sure this must really simplify things, and allow the profession of midwifery to move beyond issues of sorting out its own mess and instead tackle larger goals and issues and missions which are important to the entire profession, as a whole.

In America, because of all of the different credentials and the differing legal status of midwives from state to state, we’ve got an enormous range in our scope of practice. CPMs most often work in birth centers or homes, while CNMs/CMs can work in hospitals, birthing centers and homes. Depending on what state you live in, a CNM/CM may or may not be able to prescribe drugs, or admit private patients to a hospital. CNMs/CMs are required to work with a collaborating physician in order to practice legally (is this also true for CPMs? To be honest, I’m not sure. CPMs who are reading this, please let me know!). The scope of practice for CNMs/CMs can range from primary care to family planning to birth control to hormone replacement to basic gynecology. To be honest, I’m not sure if CPMs can do all of this as well (CPMs who are reading this, can you? Or is that a state by state thing, too?). In other words, it’s a hodge-podge mess. And maybe that’s just the nature of the game, given that America is a conglomerate of states, and because each state wields so much independent power, laws vary considerably from state to state.

However, the chance of MANA and the ACNM actually getting together and coming up with one unified plan for midwifery in this country seems very, very, very slim. And while there is a MANA/ACNM Bridge Committee that is working to keep a dialogue open between the two organizations, I doubt very seriously that I will see these two groups joining up in my lifetime. Part of the problem is that the interests of these two groups are too distinct and it’s hard to find the common ground, but I also believe that part of the problem is that there’s an undercurrent of disdain between members of both of these two groups, which harms every midwife in the country, collectively. I think that CNMs/CMs have a tendency to look down on CPMs as being under-educated, unacademic, tradition-based rather than evidence-based, and not very clinically well-informed, while CPMs have a tendency to look down on CNMs/CMs as being too interventionist and technocratic, too quick to view pregnancy from an medical/obstetrical lens, too eager to suck up to the AMA and/or the ANA, and having lost touch with the heart and soul of midwifery. The term “med-wife” gets bantered around a lot in reference to midwives who have apparently lost their soul and become too medically-minded, too quick to turn to drugs, induction, or pitocin, too much a part of the system. And of course, since CPMs don’t work in hospitals or have to manage hospital-based deliveries, “med-wife” is most often used to describe CNMs/CMs. There’s really no point in arguing which point of view is right; they’re both flawed, and so long as this continues, the profession of midwifery in America will continue to struggle.

However, this post isn’t really about the differences between MANA and the ACNM, and why the fervent dream of someday having just one professional organization in this country is most likely going to remain nothing but a dream. Instead, since I am a CNM and a member of the ACNM, my chief concern resides with issues within my own professional organization at this time. We’ve got to clean up our own house first before we can even think about moving forward. (Some of you may be wondering why I’m not also a member of MANA, and to be honest…that’s a really good question! I should be. More thought on this to follow).

When I was in Chicago this Spring, I was acting as the student representative from my midwifery program, and I had been charged by the direct-entry students in my program to make sure that the concerns and issues facing CMs were given a voice. I took this duty seriously, and when we were brainstorming ideas for topics to include in our student statement, I proposed that we ask the ACNM to make the recruiting of direct-entry students a bigger priority, and to encourage the development of more direct-entry educational tracks in existing ACNM accredited midwifery programs. This was met with a lot of resistence from the other students, and ultimately, this was dropped from our list of proposed topics (granted, there were more than 20 items on our brainstorming list, and many of them were dropped). Because there are so few CMs within the ACNM (at the moment, there are only a little over 50 CMs in the entire U.S.), the other student representatives felt that the student statement needed to focus on the issues of the majority. The consensus seemed to be that since CMs could only practice legally in three states (NY, NJ and RI), what was the point in encouraging more direct-entry educational options, especially in states where CMs aren’t legally recognized in the first place? To that I can only say: which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Legislative change is very slow, and it requires large numbers of people pushing for something in order to make it a reality. Until we educate and graduate more CMs, we will never have the numbers needed to actually demand that the CM be recognized in more states.

I was really surprised to learn that I was the only student there who came from a midwifery program which had direct-entry students, and which graduated CMs in addition to CNMs. Only a few of the other students even knew what a CM was, or were aware of the fact that there were ACNM-credentialed midwives who weren’t also nurses. There are only a handful of midwifery education programs in the country which are housed under a department other than nursing, such as a college of health-related professions or a department of allied health professions, and in these programs, since there is no need for a nursing prerequisite, direct-entry education is an option. Every other student in that room came from a midwifery program that graduated CNMs only, and most of these midwifery programs were housed within the school of nursing or were a part of the nursing department. And for the most part, these students didn’t see any problem with this. After all, they were all nurses, and were now going on to become certified nurse midwives. Why should it bother them if their midwifery program exists as part of the school of nursing? What’s the big deal? And why do we need more direct-entry routes of education anyway? If a direct-entry student wants to be a midwife so badly, why can’t s/he just go to nursing school and then on to midwifery school, just like they did? If you’re already a nurse, with boundless midwifery education options open to you, it just doesn’t seem that important.

This raises a lot of other issues as well. So long as midwifery programs are housed under the umbrella of nursing in this country, direct-entry educational tracks will not be widely accessible. But the larger issue is more of a philosophical one: if you’re a nurse who then goes on to become a nurse-midwife, what is your core identity? That of a midwife, or that of a nurse? How can midwifery fall under the jurisdiction of nursing, when as a midwife you are in a much different role from that of a nurse—the midwife diagnoses and makes management decisions and writes orders, which are then carried out by the nurse. How can nursing supercede midwifery? Is the profession of midwifery seperate and disctinct from that of nursing, with its own philosophy and culture and educational tenets? I would say, unequivocally, YES. And if that’s the case, is it possible to be a midwife without first being a nurse? Again, unquestionably, YES. While midwifery utilizes skills which are also used by nurses, the profession of midwifery predates the profession of nursing. When you look at other countries with a large and successful midwifery profession, you will see that there is either a direct-entry route which doesn’t first require a nursing degree, or else midwifery education is entirely seperate from nursing education, and you go to school to either become a nurse, or a midwife, but not both—and one is not a prerequisite for the other.

At the ACNM meeting this year, one of the very first suggestions made on the floor during the business meeting (i.e. the really big annual meeting where hundreds of members get together and vote on the really important stuff) was to change the name of the ACNM from the American College of Nuse-Midwives to the American College of Midwifery. This motion was tabled, but only after 10 minutes of pretty heated and strenuous debate (you could tell it would be a powder keg, if it was actually put forth as a motion), and this is not the first time that members of the ACNM have tried to change the name in such a way. It just goes to show that even within the ACNM itself there is a huge debate and very mixed views on this issue. Personally, I would be very happy with the credential of CM, instead of CNM. I wonder what would happen if more CNMs simply changed our credential to CM? After all, we are certified midwives, even if we are also nurses. Why should the nursing come before the midwifery?

The issue is coming to a head at the moment due to a new proposal made by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), which has suggested the Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP) as the new entry to practice for advanced practice nursing by the year 2015. In other words, starting in 2015, if you want to be an advanced practice nurse (i.e. nurse-practitioner, nurse-anesthestist, and yes, nurse-midwife), you’ll have to obtain a Doctorate in Nursing Practice, rather than simply getting your Masters. As a student, this raises untold concerns, but from a professional point of view, it’s just as tricky. Since nurse-midwives are advanced practice nurses, will all CNMs starting in 2015 have to get a DNP? What if you’re a midwife, but you don’t want a doctorate in nursing practice? What if you’d prefer to get your doctorate in research, or international relations, or health policy? And where will that leave direct-entry CMs, who can’t obtain a DNP since they’re not nurses in the first place? What about the profession of midwifery itself, which is trying to move away from the shadow of nursing?

Requiring all future midwives to get a doctorate in nursing doesn’t seem to be the right way to go about this. Instead, I believe that the answer lies in midwifery education which is seperate and distinct from nursing education. The degree I obtained was a Masters in Midwifery, not a Masters in Nursing. I chose this route because I view myself as a midwife, period, not a nurse-midwife (even though yes, I am a nurse). Unfortunately, there are only a handful of midwifery education programs in the country right now which can offer a Masters in Midwifery rather than a Masters in Nursing, but I do think that Midwifery education would really benefit from this approach. Once obtaining a Masters in Midwifery is more widely available, more direct-entry students will be able to become midwives. From a self-preservation standpoint alone, this makes a lot of sense to the future of the ACNM.

Which brings me back to the MANA/ACNM divide. If the ACNM continues to ignore the direct-entry route and doesn’t work harder to provide more direct-entry options for students, where are all of those talented, bright, committed future midwives who aren’t already nurses going to go? Will they take the long way around, and go to nursing school in order to then go to midwifery school, or will they go to midwifery school right off the bat, via the more widely avaiable direct-entry route provided by MANA, and ultimately become CPMs rather than CNMs? There is obviously a large market for direct-entry midwifery, and many interested and talented women who are becoming amazing midwives without bothering to become a nurse first—and why should they? But it means that MANA and the ACNM are going to become even more polarized as the “direct-entry” professional organization versus the “nurse-midwife” professional organization, and so long as we have two seperate professional organizations, the profession of midwifery as a whole won’t get very far in this country. At a time when our country so desperately needs more midwives, period, and the ACNM itself is noting a shortage of qualified candidates for nurse-midwifery education, ignoring direct-entry students and not providing more direct-entry routes of education seems like shooting yourself in the foot. Direct-entry midwifery is the only way to get our profession out from under the foot of nursing, but so long as the ACNM continues to emphasize the nurse in nurse-midwife, our professional organization is never going to grow…and neither will the profession of midwifery in this country.