National “policy” silent on maternity services
Ultra dry conservative Stephen Franks is trying to reinvent himself by pretending concern for maternity services. Katrina Shanks is rattling cages and yet National’s only statement on Health, such as it is, is silent on maternity services.
A quick search of the summary of proposals statement reveals:
- search term “mother”, results: nil
- search term “maternity”, result: nil
- search term “obstetrics”, result: nil
Perhaps they need more time? Their discussion document only came out seven months ago! Does anyone know what Act’s policy was?
April 22, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Ultra dry conservative Stephen Franks is trying to reinvent himself by pretending concern for maternity services.
What makes you think he is pretending concern, Mardy?
April 22, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Four reasons.
One, he’s got no previous form on maternity or health services so far as I can tell.
Two, because his concern is not backed up by any policy, which makes his concern dubious.
Three because his criticisms appear to owe more to previous work/consultancy hes done than they do concern for mothers.
Four because he criticises women for choosing a midwife - where else has Franks complained about the operation of choice?
I know Franks is a long time Wellington resident with a fair number of causes, but there’s nothing to suggest his criticisms are anything more than opportune in this instance and this close to an election, opportunism isn’t credible. Show. Me. The. Policy.
April 22, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Matt - Mardy is right. I was talking to Stephen about this the other day and he said: “look, Mike, I don’t really have any concern about maternity services but given the nature of the electorate I’m standing in I better pretend to do so, yes?”
To which I answered: “yes, but don’t you think that’s a bit dishonest?”
To which he replied: “not as dishonest as jacking up a parallel off the books Sensible Sentencing Trust campaign for National and then using it as leverage for the Wellington city candidacy.”
At which point we both had a laugh, I said something about punters in punter land and we had another laugh.
Hope that answers your question Matt - and remember: Vote Franks, he pretends to care the best…
April 22, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Oh and Matt? Clam.
April 22, 2008 at 8:25 pm
On the other hand we could ask Harry how she feels about her restructuring of maternity services when she was health minister. And ask her if it was her intention all along to drive GP’s out of childbirth and introduce a system where midwives are discouraged from asking for help at critical moments because they may have to share the fee.
Oh and Rob before you start spraying at me, I have first hand personal experience TWICE of why this is harming babies.
And is by coincidence the genesis of my deep hatred of your PM.
April 22, 2008 at 8:50 pm
One, he’s got no previous form on maternity or health services so far as I can tell.
Two, because his concern is not backed up by any policy, which makes his concern dubious.
Three because his criticisms appear to owe more to previous work/consultancy hes done than they do concern for mothers.
This is just playing the man not the ball. Does Franks have a point or not? Re-reading his article it sounds like he does, and you’re not doubting him. Since when was it wrong to highlight what appears to be a genuine problem?
True, there’s no policy just yet, but its six months before the election, and testing the water to see if its an issue that voters care about before sinking a great deal of time on this and not something else to write a policy sounds sensible to me.
Four because he criticises women for choosing a midwife - where else has Franks complained about the operation of choice?
I believe that is a lie Mardy. Provide a reference or retract it. I will happily do the same if I am wrong.
I know Franks is a long time Wellington resident with a fair number of causes, but there’s nothing to suggest his criticisms are anything more than opportune
How can you say that without even considering whether what he says is true? Is it still opportune of him if pregnant women actually are being put under stress by someone’s ideology?
He has six months to put out a policy to fix this. If he still hasn’t by then, then call him opportune, but not before.
April 22, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Hatred is a poison Bill.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/02/hatred_is_a_poi.html
April 22, 2008 at 9:35 pm
So is witnessing your partner and child being caused undue stress, pain and ongoing health problems during child birth because a minister of health puts ideology above safety.
April 23, 2008 at 10:52 am
I believe it was and still is ‘charge them’.
April 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Is there a single author on this site who does not feel he has the right to lie making his point, or at least has the integrity to withdraw if and when a slip occurs?
Four because he criticises women for choosing a midwife
REFERENCE PLEASE, MARDY.
April 23, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Matt, you use the word “lie” rather casually. This article, http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=301, and particularly this statement:
Implies that somehow women are choosing inappropriately or have been denied their rights however there’s absolutely no basis for this other than Franks claim that he negotiated a contract which doctors didn’t like. You might view his comments differently from me and, if you do, I’ll resist the urge to accuse you of lying.
The market for maternity services is close to a monopsony but that doesn’t mean the purchaser/funder is ignorant to the requirements of the clients. When Franks produces more evidence and less anecdote, alongside policy, then I’ll take him more seriously. Until then, I view his comments as opportune.
April 23, 2008 at 5:57 pm
The reason I couched my accusation, Mardy, is that I was concerned you had found some other article by Franks that I hadn’t read in which he did in fact criticise women for choosing a midwife.
But there is no other other article. The article you cite is the one I had read and it comes nowhere near criticising women for choosing a midwife. His criticism is directed at politicans and the midwives union. Pregnant women are the victims in his article. I would pull out the relevant quotes but its so damned obvious, why bother.
Four because he criticises women for choosing a midwife
Which was and is a lie, as I suspected.
April 24, 2008 at 12:12 am
Matt,
I don’t particularly care what you thought I might say, what I care about is being accused of lying. I don’t. I’m always happy to debate and discuss and consider alternative perspectives and views however I’ll not respond to juvenile allegations.
April 24, 2008 at 9:08 am
What juvenile allegation? Plainly - unambiguously - Franks did not say or imply what you said he did in that article. You’ve not taken the opportunity to retract a mistake. So I conclude you are lying. Simple, really.
April 24, 2008 at 11:45 am
Matt, I obviously not made myself clear. I’m not in the habit of continuing discussions where I’m accused of lying. Again, you mightn’t agree with what I’m saying, but my comment was not and is not deceitful.
For the last time, I believe Franks is disingenuous in comments about midwifery (and I’m not zealous about maternity services) and his article clearly implies that somehow women are making choices that he doesn’t like (hence the smartarse comment about the Midwives Union).
Your might think his article is unambiguous, I don’t. I think he’s dropped in enough other material to provide insight into his attitudes.
And again, where does he prove his claim that the argument for a right to choose was in fact a strategy to kick out the doctors?
I’m happy to discuss these issues but not when my opinion is mischaracterised as deceit. It is the kind of response you’d expect from a playground dispute and I think we’re both a little past that.
May 7, 2008 at 1:21 pm
[...] blogged about Franks attempt to rebrand himself as something other than the ultra-dry conservative and a few weeks ago he was clearly [...]