The local paper has carried a series of letters from midwives and obstetricians on the topic of home births. Essentially, should a woman be allowed to give birth at home with a midwife but no doctor in attendance.
Today there is a letter from "M. Aitken, vice-president, National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists". Under the headline of "No finance gain", regarding "claims that obstetricians earn more for assisted deliveries and inductions" Aitken writes, "This is incorrect." (The West, 30 Oct 2012)
This is a clear and absolute statement: Aitken is clearly stating that doctors earn no extra money for assisted deliveries. Stand back, cross your arms, watch the baby pop out -- and earn the same as though you were fully involved and up to your elbows in blood and birth fluids.
Of course, Aitken continues, "there are understandably some different fee payments depending on the complexity of the case."
In other words, the more involvement by the doctor, the more the doctor will charge.
Three sentences, two direct contradictions.
Would you trust this doctor?!
Oh, btw, I'm only guessing at "doctor". This "M. Aitken" may well have a day job as hospital accountant. Rubbing his (or her) hands in glee at the prospect of more childbirths forced into hospitals. With all the extra hospital income that that will ensure.
Perhaps... probably... Aitken is correct to write that doctors "are not driven by financial incentive but healthy outcomes for mothers and babies." But let's not pretend that there is no financial benefit to doctors.
Doctors earn money from childbirth. The more complex the birth, the more money they earn. And hospitals earn nothing at all, from a no-complications birth at home.
Financial gain may not be the heart of the argument. Yet it is certainly a very important factor in the equation.
====
Problems ? Solved
No comments:
Post a Comment