Richard Yetter Chappell has drawn my attention to this – a blog post in which he bemoans the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s rules about indemnity insurance, and the effects that they’ll have on independent midwives. (I’d never heard of independent midwives – but an IM – according to Independent Midwives UK – is “a fully qualified midwife who has chosen to work outside the NHS in a self-employed capacity”.) In essence, what’s happened is that the NMC has ruled that the indemnity cover used by some IMs – around 80, nationwide, according to some reports – is inadequate; these 80 IMs (out of 41000!) are therefore barred from working.
I’ve got to admit that this seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup to me. For sure, there may have been infelicities about the way that the NMC handled its decision. That may well be unfortunate, but it may not be all that much to get excited about. However, Chappell makes two particularly striking points. The first is his opening claim, in which he refers to this as “a new low for harmful government over-regulation”. Well, it’s not really government overregulation, is it? It’s the NMC. Governing bodies are not government. And whether it’s overregulation at all is a moot point: we need more information about what the standard is by which we should assess any regulation. That leads us to the second striking thing that Chappell says, to which I’ll return in a moment. Whether it’s harmful is also a moot point. I mean, it may be true – as he points out – that the decision will have an undesirable impact on the relationship between some women and their chosen midwife. But that won’t tell us anything about whether the policy is desirable all told. It’s certainly not enough to warrant calling it “unethical” – and to dub something unethical is not a moral argument.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.