Midwifery Training and Reciprocity with the Central Midwives Board

Kai Tiaki : the journal of the nurses of New Zealand, Volume XV, Issue 2, 1 April 1922, Page 73

Midwifery Training and Reciprocity with the Central Midwives Board

Those of our readers who have seen m the various Home nursinig journals a report of the Central Midwives' Board meeting, referred to m the letter below, will be interested to note the attitude taken up by that body. Correspondence is still going on, and it is hoped, for the sake of the few New Zealand midwives who wish to practice m England and the many midwives coining from Home, a satisfactory arrangement may be arrived at. It is of far more importance to the women registered under the C.M.8., coming out to practice m this Dominion, that they should be accepted, than to the New Zealand midwives. It is not their fault, but their misfortune, that the training given is so short and, m the case of those who have not previously had their general course of training, so inadequate. To the Editor, "British Journal of Nursing." Dear Madam,- — In the report of the meeting of the Central Midwives' Board, on Thursday, November 17th, given m your issue of November 26th, 1921, T notice the opinion given by the Board that the standard of midwifery m New Zealand is not equivalent to the standard adopted by the Board, ana the reasons given for this opinion. When one compares the short training given under the rules of the Central Miawives' Board — viz., six months (not long ago only three) — to women without previous training as a nurse, with that given under the New Zealand Midwives Act — viz., six months for registered nurses and twelve months for untrained women (which it is proposed, by an amendment of the Act, to raise to 18 months) — it is obvious that the standard of the latter is very much higher. The minimum number of .lectures laid doivn are twelve from the medical officer during each term of sire months, and the twelve months' train-

ees have the benefit of attending the double course. The minimum number js invariaibly exceeded, and, as well as tne lectures, the pupils are set "examination papers periodically, and given bedside instructions. All this by the medical officer. And what about the matron, whose part m the training of the pupils appears to be ignored by the Central Midwives 1 Board, but to whom, m the opinion of nurses themselves, a major part of both practical and theoretical instruction is due? The Board has also assumed that the medical practitioner giving lectures is. not necessarily approved by the midwifery authority. In this it is mistaken, as ail the heads of training-schools, both for general and midwifery nurses, must be so approved. In the past, the applications of midwives holding the Central Midwives' Board certificate for registration m New Zealand. have been too generously accepted, and it is scarcely fair to those training m our institutions to continue to register women with only half the period of training required m New Zealand, especially m view of the Board's decision re reciprocal registration of New Zealand midwives. I have ascertained that under the Victorian and the Queensland Acts a full equivalent term has to be made up and the examination passed by midwives from overseas, from schools under authorities with whom a reciprocal agreement has not been arrived at. This is only just, and T think New Zealand should make the same requirement. I hope you will publish this letter, as the report to which I refer conveys an erroneous impression regarding the training of midwives m the Dominion. — I am, etc., yours faithfully, (Sgd.) H. MACLEAN, Director, Division of Nursing.