Reciprocity between the Central Midwives Board and the N.Z. Act for Registration of Midwives

Kai Tiaki : the journal of the nurses of New Zealand, Volume XV, Issue 4, 1 October 1922, Page 180

Reciprocity between the Central Midwives Board and the N.Z. Act for Registration of Midwives

In our issue of April 1922 we referred to the above subject. Nurses and midwives trained m New Zealand will, we feel sure, be glad to learn that the Registrar of Midwives has now laid down the following ruling: — 1. That as the Act specially mentions the London Obstetrical Society, certificates from that body be accepted. These are now likely to be very few. 2. That the certificates of the Victorian and Queensland Midwives Boards, which require the same training as the New Zealand Act, be accepted. 3. That Midwives registered by the Central Midwives Board, London, be rejected unless accompanied by a certificate from- a recognised Training School for Midwives and proof of residence therein either during course of training or after, of an equivalent term, viz., twelve months for untrained women, six months for trained nurses. 4. That failing the above condition the Midwives may bo allowed to make up the time m the Dominion m a Maternity Hospital or Ward, and sit for the State Examination. 5. That certificates from the Central Midwives Boards for Scotland and Ireland be accepted on same conditions. The Central Midwives Board has been informed of the ruling and has acknowledged the notification without comment

m regard to reciprocity. The Board has also written that it is now satisfied that the standard of midwifery training and examination m New Zealand is m fact equivalent to the standard laid down by the Board, but has not yet agreed to the terms of reciprocity, as it still desires that all the midwives holding its certificate should be admitted to the New Zealand Register. It is to be hoped that m view of the urgent need of longer training for midwives the Central Midw T ives Board will review their regulations, and bring the term into line with that required not only by New Zealand but by all the Midwives Acts m the Australian Commonwealth. Under none of these is recognised training under a registered medical practitioner or midwife on district cases m their own homes only. It is not possible under the conditions of most of the homes m which instruction could be given to impart a due sense of aseptic treatment or to properly care for abnormal cases. The combined training m institutions well equipped, and afterwards m district nursing is the most satisfactory method of turning out women who loioav the highest ideals of obstetric work, and how to adapt their knowledge to conditions m which the highest ideal cannot be attained.