KerryMcG

Any woman who is giving birth for the first time or is not of optimal age and health would be ill-advised in my view to prefer delivery outside of a hospital.

Australian hospitals and medical specialists do emphasise natural childbirth.

All research and statistics have limitations that may not always be evident, or disclosed for that matter.

The most obvious flaw in overseas studies is that they say nothing about our local conditions. Often data has been collected for another purpose entirely.

Consumers should be aware that governments have targeted health for savings and this will skew research grants (and a cynic would say some research results) accordingly. An easy way to reduce costs is to focus on risk management – which is fine for those who have money and good access to facilities.

Again, privatisation of health provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to enhance profit through using less skilled staff on a ‘risk management’ basis. I would not be surprised if clinics of midwives with visiting specialists were set up in Australia by entrepreneurs and ‘user pays’ contributions were increased by government.

Feminists will be very useful in sledging obstetricians and gynaecologists to ‘free up’ the market. This is regardless of the number of women who are entering these fields. High insurance premiums are driving experienced Gynaecologists and Obstetricians out of the market.

I think we are moving rapidly towards two layers of health provision in Australia: the top layer for those who can afford 'optimal health and wellbeing' and the lower layer for those with scant medical insurance and resources who will have to be satisfied with what accountants focussed on 'risk management' are prepared to dish out.

We should insist on robust community consultation on health before it is all over, game set and match.

Cornflower, I agree wholeheartedly with your predictions for Australian health care. I don't want to live in a society with a 2 tier health care system and I don't believe we need to. From what I can see there is no guarantee that patients in the top tier of health care would get better treatment than is available in another society with universal health care.

You know, Cornflower, I admire much of what you say and the tenacious and forthright way you say it.
Your only blind spot is your hatred of feminists, and your tendency to identify every woman who disagrees with you as a nasty feminist. Funnily enough, you sound just like a feminist to me - as I understand the term - an intelligent, informed woman not afraid to put her point of view. Even if you reject the term, can you acknowledge that you (and I, and all the other women on this forum) owe our ability and right to express our view publicly to women who certainly would have identified as feminists? Without feminists, there would be no female doctors, no female voters, no universal female education.
There are many views in the broad church that is feminism - there are socialist feminists, liberal feminists, radical feminists, conservative feminists, religious feminists - we are no more cut from one cloth than any other group. You never know, if you met many of us, you might like us - in fact, you probably already know and like many women - and men- who are also feminists.

Defining a term in such vague and variant terms lacks credibility. Its highly disingenuous. It provides the incontravertible 'out clause' that a term is whatever someone says it is, in all of its 6.5 billion potentially divergent definitions. Thus, nothing can ever be illucidated in rational terms because its built on eternally shifting sands.

In other words, something is whatever someone says it is. The more obtuse, variant and fuzzy, all the better. Everything becomes relative and no progress can be made, which l suspect is the underlying motivation for such esoterica.

It is exceedingly dificult, if not impossible, to be logical, rational and reasonable if we cannot first DEFINE the TERMS of discourse and AGREE on those terms. Of course, when folks have agenda they invariably seek to define the terms in a way that serves themselves. Very dishonest.

It does not need to take decades to come up with an objective definition. The fact that it has taken so long, speaks to a generalised state of confusion and indecision. Both of which l perceive as deliberate devices to keep battle field sands shifting, thus making it very difficult to get a foot hold from which one can actually advance.

Most glaring aspect of ideological 'debates' like feminism is that they go around in circles. Assertions to the contrary, few if any make any real effort to step outside of their own egoes, insecurites and self interests and yield to pure logic, in all of its intellectually unforgiving and rigourous demands. Its easier and more effective to drive personal agenda by emotions (thinking hurts, its difficult to resolve logically). If it can be done with thinly veiled prententions to logic and reason, all the better. Those half truths have a lot of power.

Tendency to continually revise terms and reduce them to personal subjectivity makes the whole exercise thoroughly nebulous, ultimately futile. Imagine, one person arguing that 1+1=2, the other arguing it equals yellow, becasue that is 'my personal understanding and that is how l feel about it'.

In a word... REDUNDANT.

Ena - a very soft and fluffy sisterly appeal to “the woman in Cornflower” - this should be interesting...

Again, a familiar mantra: when something putrid is revealed, the obligatory statement is imminent: “… but look at all that we’ve achieved”.

How much credit for these achievements does feminism really deserve? For at least the last 20 years, its unchecked ability to usurp resources and uproot families has produced more havoc than anything of tangible value to society. The full impact of this is yet to be realised.

intelligent confusion caused by absorption of trendy ideology. pathetic and concerning.