Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.


NMC accused of 'disruption' to midwives in indemnity dispute


So because the IMUK do NOT offer a financial remedy to potential claims in comparison to the NHS; these MIDWIVES are deemed as incompetent before any malpractice/ error/ misjudgment has taken place, irrespective of all receiving the same training at the behest of the NMC. My only suggestion is that the IMUK offer or match the same financial remedy as the NHS would do or vice-versa; as NO reasonable Regulatory Body should ever strike-off Midwives who are fully competent when their indemnity criteria matches the same as NHS components. Bearing in mind women's choices to give birth at home......... Has anyone requested FOI on NHS payouts when Midwives have dramatically fallen below standards in comparison to IMUK financial remedies? Or are the NMC basing their analogy and findings upon 1 x Non- NHS case? It would be interesting to find out the amount or numbers of IMUK Midwives who have been subjected to NMC FtP hearings (sanctions, impairments and strike - off) in comparison to NHS Midwives. Has anyone requested FOI on the above before this case goes to High Court in October 2017?

Posted date

20 July, 2017

Posted time

9:18 pm