Sue Rose was one of the midwives who helped my partner and I during our pregnancy, although she was not present during the birth in March 2008. She was struck off the register of the Nursing and Midwifery Council on 27 January this year. I was sad and puzzled to hear that an accident happened. Sue is a gentle, caring midwife who has over twenty years experience of over 1,000 births. At first, the media focussed on the complainant's gory description of the birth. The Independent Newspaper finally published Sue's side of the story on 22 February.
I'm sorry it took me so long to read about the case. I Googled the subject yesterday. I was astonished to read the language of the early press reports, which quoted from the Council hearings. I'll limit my quotes to a relatively mild one from the Brighton Argus, whose headline ran:
"Brighton midwife 'randomly hacked' at mother and baby with scissors."
That Argus report was made on the same day that the Council made its ruling against Sue. That the report is sensationalised is apparent when you consider that scissors are the normal tool used in surgery when cutting a mother to free a stuck baby. Other newspapers from the Independent to the Mail to the Metro quoted similar gory details from the testimony of a mother whose birth went wrong. Even the Independent's first story on the case was a Press Association feature full of sensational quotes.
I looked for Sue's side of the story. What went wrong? The bloody descriptions of Sue's efforts to rescue a baby stuck during birth may make great tabloid copy, but where is the journalistic balance?
I found Sue's side of the story in the Independent Newspaper of Monday 22 February, a full month after the first horrible reports. Here we see a different picture: of a midwife who had to deal with an emergency situation:
"'I'm not a butcher,' says struck-off midwife".
I've included links to both these stories below.
As I read through the early stories about the striking off, I realised that the bloody descriptions could equally well apply to any surgical operation.
The Independent of the 22 February presents a different story. Sue Rose did her best, and even did well under very testing circumstances. She was confronted by a rare case of shoulder dystocia - when the baby's shoulder is stuck behind the mother's pubic bone - and she had eight minutes to get the baby out alive. It could not have been predicted.
One the main complaints was that Sue did not inform her client that independent midwives are not covered by indemnity insurance. That was in 2004. As a clients of Sue's in 2008, she told us that insurance for independent midwives was now unobtainable. Others have left comments on the news articles saying the same thing. Sue gave my partner and me a "case notes" document that itemised our discussions and agreement. This included discussion topics at booking with a statement that "clients understand we did not have [professional indemnity] insurance as none is available globally and understand the implications of this".
I understood Sue Rose's practice had drawn up these "case notes" documents. Should we expect midwives to be expert in drawing up these sorts of legal documents? In many professions, such important documents would be drawn up by the professional association, ie, in this case the Council of Nursing and Midwifery.
Public support for Sue Rose is growing. Reader's comments, posted on the on-line versions of the newspaper stories, show this (links below). Her case is also becoming a rallying point for the natural birth movement outside UK (see Gloria LeMay below).
Apart from the one-sidedness of early press reports, I am left with three concerns:
1. There are many reasons to encourage natural birth (and this means midwife led birth). Whatever else transpires, this tragedy should be seen as an opportunity to review the position of independent midwives, midwife led birth and home birth.
2. If she has the strength for it, Sue Rose should appeal the Council findings to clear her name, not only in her own interests, but for the sake of independent midwifery and natural birth, to put this tragedy into a real context, and expose the lack of support from the UK establishment.
3. The Nursing and Midwifery Council should be giving independent midwives a better level of institutional support.
• It seems that compensation for emergencies and complications is not available to those who choose independent midwives. Why is there no insurance available to independent midwives; surely the Council should have made this a priority by now?
• It seems there no standard contract documentation and guidelines available for independent midwives to use, which might help inform parents - surely this could be supplied by the Council?
• It seems there is there no support for clinical procedures in home birth, for example in helping give second opinions on urine tests.
• It seems that the Council's verdict on Sue depends a lot on the complainant's statement. I hope that adequate note was taken of Sue Rose's explanations, and if not, that she will appeal.
• Let's hope that this tragedy can have a positive outcome in the provision of better backup and regulation of independent midwives and home birth.
Brighton Argus: "Brighton midwife "randomly hacked" at mother and baby with scissors."
Independent: 'I'm not a butcher,' says struck-off midwife.
Gloria LeMay: Support for Sue Rose.
