The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC’s) decision to stop Independent Midwives (IMs) from practicing is, in their words, for public protection.
IMUK have clearly stated that they feel that their indemnity policy is sufficient. The NMC have stated that they believe it’s not. They also say that they not in a position to state what would be enough. This in no way supports IMUK and in turn this does not support the public who want or need the services of an IM. This is not “public protection”.
But does medical liability insurance protect the public in any way, even if it is “sufficient”, as IMUK believe?
The definition of malpractice, or medial liability insurance (MLI) is a policy which, “protects health care providers against patients who sue them under the claim that they were harmed by the physician’s negligent or intentionally harmful treatment decisions.” (reference: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/malpractice-insurance.asp)
There is nothing in that definition which is protecting the public. MLI protects the practitioner. This is not “public protection”.
So, what does MLI actually offer? In the case of IMs, in the unlikely situation that an IM makes an error which causes harm to a mother or baby, the indemnity means that if the parents decide to sue the midwife, the midwife will be able to call upon her policy to pay damages to the parents (after a significant amount of legal wrangling which may take years, and in the meantime the mother or child will receive nothing other than the regular state provided care).
If the injury was not caused by an error by the midwife (or the baby is born with a condition which is unrelated to birth, including some cases of cerebral palsy), the parents will have no recourse from the IM’s indemnity policy and will need to rely on the state provision.
If the state provision is not sufficient for the baby or mother who is damaged by an error, it is not sufficient for those for whom there is no one to “blame”. This is not “public protection”.
In addition to this, there is no evidence at all that MLI changes practice. MLI does not mean that practitioners try harder to not make mistakes, nor that they make fewer mistakes. In other words, the same number of mistakes happen whether or not the practitioner holds insurance. This is not “public protection”.
MLI does not protect the public, so let’s stop pretending that that is what this is about.