Talk:Obstetrics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alejandra Navarro Rosado. Peer reviewers: Paola.Franco-Negron, Carla R2D2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

This article needs one or more references to cover the content, added the tag. --FloNight 04:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup request

For for such an important topic. Perhaps some parts of it should be split into other sections (antenatal care and induction, for example). If not, then the sections need quite a bit of work to flesh them out. violet/riga (t) 22 July 2005

This is a poorly written article. I concur it needs major rewrite and restructuring. Mirasmus 03:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Still.  :( violet/riga (t) 21:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor Cleaning

Added a few links in the Trimesters section. What does β-hCG mean? I know it has something to do with haemoglobin but a link to exactly what, or some kind of explanation would be helpful.

Also moved the references template from the talk page to the article itself. User:SaintedLegion

It has nothing to do with Hemoglobin (perhaps you're thinking of Hgb-A1C? which is form of hemoglobin measured to assess the long term level of a diabetic's blood sugar status). beta HCG is produced by the placenta and is only found in the blood (and urine) of pregnant women and rarely those with certain types of tumors. I plan on cleaning this article up a bit when I can.

Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, I think.

Minor Comment

Human Chorionic Gonadotropin is correct.

The HCG tests used by physicians to determine if a woman is pregnant - to confirm a pregnancy, or to elimunate the possibilty of pregnacy in a woman of child bearing years who, for example, is starting a medication contraindicated by pregnancy, or who requires an X-ray - are the Beta HCG, determined by analysis of blood, and the urinary HCG, which is sold for home use,yielding a rapid result, but is less specific and less sensitive than Beta HCG... if you understand the probability associated with virtually all medical testing: A sensitive test is one which will identify the occurance or presence of an abnormality or disease substrate - such as chemical or cellular components of blood indicative of a disease state - e.g., the glucose level in diabetes; "drop out" of visible heart muscle in nuclear stress testing - indicating a diminished blood supply to that region of the heart and disease in the artery which supplies it; MRI imaging of the brain which will establish or rule out an intracranial blled- is so sensitive that it will rarely fail to confirm an abnomality, but not infrequently yield a "false positive" result - the test may indicate that a condition is present when, in fact, it isn't.A highly specific test is at the opposite end of the spectrum - if it is postive, it is very likely that the disease state exists; however, a negative result does not conclusively rule out the disease, but merely diminishes the physician's index of suspicion, as the test is so specific for a particular disease substrate that it might miss low-grade, incipient indicators of an illness...producing a "false negative" test. When an emergent answer is necessary regarding the possibility of pregnacy - say, with regard to a young woman involved in a motor vehicle accident with a suspected collapsed lung, who thus needs an X-ray - the urinary HCG will have to do. When time isn't of the essence, a Beta HCG is obtained - it is, again , far more specific for the presence of a pregnacy than the urinary HCG, as well as more sensitive. As an aside, the take home message is : Don't relie on a negative urinary HCG to establish the absence of pregnacy. The urinary test is so inferior to the Beta,and is so temporally dependent on the moment of implantation, that serial home testing, over a several days after insemination or a missed menstrual cycle ( the specifics are recommended by the manufacturer) should be considered. No references are cited - I was an emergency room doctor for three years before establishing a viable cardiology practice, and I'm certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiovacular Disease...and have practiced for more decades than I want to remember.

Mitral valve stenosis risk

I'd like to add to the article - if there is a concensus among the community - one of the more dire risk factors in maternal/fetal morbidity and mortality: Mitral Valvular Stenosis. Mitral stenosis used to be primarily the result of rhematic heart disease, a sequel to rheumatic fever associated with beta hemolytic strep infections - such as "strep throat". Despite the concerted effort of our younger doctors to create antibiotic resistence in every known bacterium ( in contraversion to the fact that most upper respiratory infections are viral), RF still occurs, and an associated stenosis of the mutral valve may result, progressing over time. Endocarditis, due to poor dentition, IV drug use, or sepsis arising elsewhere which seeds the valve, is an important cause. The leading cause of mitral valve replacement is mitral valve prolapse -significant prolapse, confirmed by imaging, with very "floppy" and redundent valve leaflets ( as opposed to the universal MVP with which every woman with a vague chest complaint is told they are afflicted). This usually causes back flow of blood through the valve ( mitral regurgitation), but as it constitutes a risk factor for endocarditis, and patients at risk may not have been diagnosed and undergo a procedure - a simple visit to the dentist for a filling, which floods the circulation with pathogens - usually without any harm, just as brushing your teeth releases a considerable number of pathogens ( don't worry about it - the body sweeps these up in immune competant individuals - poor dental hygeine is far worse ); but in the presence of significant MVP may lead to endocarditis, and in turn , MS. A women with moderate to severe MS should not conceive until a ( rather complex)strategy has been developed to releive the narrowing of the valve. As noted in the article, there is a fifty percent increase in blood volume during pregnacy, and trying to force all that volume through a snall orafice is inviting congestive heart failure and pulmonary hypertention...not an auspicious situation, and a valid reason for terminating the pregnancy if the mother's status deteriorates. This is not to say that every pregnant woman, or those planning to conceive must underco echocariography; but certainly they should expect a careful heart examination, which will reveal the characteristic murmur of MS, and comprehensive questioning by the physician.Skyraderuniform1 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst clearly an issue of Obstetrics#Cardiovascular, that is a section on Obstetrics#Maternal physiology which probably should be more about the normal physiology of pregnancy rather than disease process. Might be better therefore under Obstetrics#Prenatal care, but as a relatively rare issue probably better in the linked main article of Prenatal care ? David Ruben ^Talk 11:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhesus D negative

This should never be written "Rh-" = WRONG - MAY LEAD TO MISTAKES
It should be always written in full "Rhesus D negataive" = CORRECT - UNLIKELY TO BE MISREAD OR CHANGED
Similarly "Rhesus D positive" should always be written in full.
Accuracy is important in all aspects of blood grouping.

obstetrics or obstetricians

obstetrics or obstetricians provide complex pregnancy, labour and birth and post natal care for woman who have complications. Obstetricians deal with the abnormal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.126.27 (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

This is a misinformed and misleading statement. OB/GYNs will generally either do both obstetrics and gynocology, or restrict themselve to one or the other. While mid-wives have gained popularity in home or hospital delivery, they are not qualified to manage any complications which may crop up. The United States has the highest infant mortality rate of all industrialuzed countries - although we don't really know why. Even so, the majority of deliveries are uncomplicated, and are performed by obstetricians. Just as there are specialized GYNs who restrict themselves to gynocologic maligmancies, there are obstetricians, working in conjunction with neonatologists and other specialists as warranted, who perform high risk deliveries. The average OB is not trained in this manner, and is not resticted to dealing " with the abnormal". Far from it...they refer high risk patients to appropriately trained OB's, usually in tertiary care medical centers. I would suggest eliminating the above remark.Skyraderuniform1 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But from UK perspective not that far off, for the majority of UK NHS deliveries will be with a midwife and the obstetrician on call might never meet face to face the mother (in other units will do a brief ward round at the start of each rota shift just to "show their faces" adhead of when they might be called in). In such circumstances then yes only the non routine constitutes UK NHS practice (from maternal issues eg asthma, hypertension, gestational diabetes etc to foetal issues or concerns to labour problems). UK private practice probably follows closer the US model, although even with this in recent years private midwives often take the lead as recognised higher intervention rates when delivery lead bu Obs vs midwives. David Ruben ^Talk 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I imagine form the perspective of most first world countries apart from the USA. In the USA maternity care is under the control of medical practitioners and I expect that they are therefore familiar and experienced with normal pregnancy and birth. Midwives deliver a small percentage of maternity care in the USA. The reverse is true in other countries where midwives provide the majority of maternity care, including deliveries. Women are usually only referred to an obstetrician if there is a deviation from normal. Hence it is correct to say that obstetricians (outside of the USA) usually only deal with the abnormal. Some women without obvious clinical need will elect to have an obstetrician provide her maternity care, just in case something goes wrong, but this would be expensive and the numbers would be small. The totality of maternity care needed from discovery of pregnancy to postnatal care is such that obstetricians would struggle to provide this, at least for a reasonable cost to the women. For example, outside of the USA, women under obstetric are would almost certainly receive most of their postnatal care from a midwife engaged by the obstetrician.

I would also like to correct your statement that midwives are not trained to manage any complications that crop up. It is true that their scope of practise is normal pregnancy and birth, and any recognised deviation from normal would result in a consultation or referral to an obstetrician. However, it is common for unexpected complications to occur and midwives are of course trained to handle obstetric emergencies. Cheers. Ghipeb (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor Note

Dave,I quite agree that there are vast differences in medical praxis between the UK/NHS and the US health care delivery system.I think,to an extent,that the differences are predicated on the rather unrealistic expectations of Americans-idealistic but not very realistic from a percuniary perspective-that every American is entitled to access to medical care,and that the "care" knows no limits;that is,every testing modality that can be applied will be applied, and each patient seems to expect to walk out the door with a bag of medications,cured and rejuvinated,praising the physician's lovingconcern.Then,too,our system has developed into a paradoxical"privatized NHS",whereby business-as opposed to government-sets the limits on diagnostic and treatment options for the doctor,while the physician bears the responsability of the outcome-and faces tort litigation at the whim of the patient or family.Thus,physicians tend to employ adnvanced diagnostic methods in lieu of a reasonable bedside assessment of the patient by physical examination, to call in consultants needlessly, and to treat aggressively, using the latest and greatest in our armamentarium of surgical and medical therapies and technology.Finally, US doctors often feel compelled to do a great deal of "hand-holding",rather than medicine. Given the patient's expectations, and the pressures on the physician to avoid litigation,to merely "show the flag"-the physician popping in on rounds to show his face-would be unacceptable in the context of an Americann medical practice. In the UK,from what I understand,there is a compelling hierarchy of physicians,the Attending (or Consultant)being shown great deference and respect by the patient and the system alike,such that merely making an appearance satifies the Great Doctor's patients.The NHS doctor does not seem to occupy that exaulted position-he's in the trenches of the city or countryside,more of a technician than clinician,practicing according to the monolithic regulatory NHS.The Attending may have a private,"boutique" practice which resembles the typical US situation-what constraints are placed upon him I don't know, but my impression is that if the wealthy can pay for it,they get it. On the other hand,while economic considerations fuel both systems, US phenomenology would never accept the witholding of life saving technology from any and all comers- the UK, for example, apportioning dialysis on an as needed,and as available basis,while in the US every renal patient can expect dialysis,should it come to that.All of which is a long-winded explanation of why the OB is a part of the American pregnant woman's life from conception to delivery,while midwives are essentially used,at the patient's own discretion, by those people who advocate hoilistic medicine and have disdain for the "establishment".In all,both systems are more or less equally effective in both the delivery and efficacy of health care,just very different in how,and by whom,it is delivered.Then,of course,there is the health insurance crisis over here,the malpractice insurance crisis,the Medicare crisis...I'm sure you're aware of the imminent collapse of our system,and the waning morale of our medical community.And yes, OB's(and neurosurgeons,and others in high risk fields)work a good part of the year to cover their malpractrice costs and other overhead.Best Regards,Skyraderuniform1 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable assessment. I think UK consultants are quite independant in clinical decision making, but comparisons with colleagues does somewhat restrain them (eg if post-op stay is significantly longer than for colleagues undertaking the same op). Likewise the relative lack of litigation concerns means we can practice what might be seen as clinically appropriate care, ordering tests only likely to be useful or free of undue side effects, without having to practice defensive medicine (but there is no absolute here and overlap with what may be termed sensible prudent caution for at least patient's sake if not the doctor looking over their shoulder). Whilst before the introduction of the NHS, those that could not afford private medical care would have sought delivery with help of mid-wife or general practitioners (my parents spent much of their younger working time attending home deliveries), there was then a shift to hospitalise labour for being safer (as monitoring and intervention become better understood, along with managed labour - ie. augmentation). I gather there was then a backlash against this medicalising (what in the majority of cases is routine normal) natural life process and so midwifery led care has become the norm - but not primarily out of cost consideration (although I'm sure govbernment looks at that aspect) but from point of view of what thought to be more appropriate. Obs therefore step in for the management of the non-normal pregnancies (but not as if sitting around not doing anything as wil lbe seeing to augmented labour cases, prenatal & postnatal inpatients needing care). Fear not re collapse of your system - since the time I was in training, the death of the NHS has been predicted as healthcare & health-technology have improved and with it extra expense. Hence at start of NHS the routine MI who survived would be initially managed at home (no angiography, no heart bypass nor CABG and what cholesterol testing?), or diabetes defined at higher threshold than now and also being less prevalent with the less overweight population in the post-war years, yet oral agents vs insulin only some years later becoming available. David Ruben ^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Career

i need to know more about obstetrics the salary what skill you need the perspectics and much more abot the career —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.72.197 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to know, specifically. In terms of what I can understand of your question, OB/GYNs generate well above the average income considering "primary care" and specilized doctors - as a guess ( this is usually published in AMA news periodically, or Medical Economics ), I'd say the median income of an OB is around a half-million, with a range starting in the low six figures to over 1 million dollars. The "skills" you need are the skills all doctors need - competance, a solid university based training, an engaing and empathtic personality, as much experience and continuing education as you can acquire, and a willingness to sacrifice much of your private life in the interest of your patients. You should also be able to go with little or no sleep for a few days, have good manual dexterity required in any surgical field,sound judgement coupled with equanimity; and a tolerance for rediculous malpractice rates. Without intending to sound self-righteous, if your first question is about money...don't go into any medical field. Because if you're already focused on that, the 14 or so years of higher education, the medical school debt of about $100,000, and the emotional demands with which a doctor contends will defeat you...or produce an entreprenurial, uncaring doctor. We've got plenty of those already. As for what they do, the article and my comments above should give you an idea. But, please, consider your motivation.Skyraderuniform1 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how much of those pay rates are taken up by malpractice rates, in UK NHS across all specialities of "Consultants can earn between £73,403 to £173,638, dependent on length of service and payment of additional performance related awards"[1] and (as far as I can tell) expect to have medical insurance premium of around £22,300-25,675[2]. Of course private practice earns rather more (and greater insurance premium rates).David Ruben ^Talk 11:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy

I removed the introduction to Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy from this article, because it is already found in Pregnancy, and obstetrics on the other hand is primarily to prevent changes that are NOT physiological. Of course it is useful to know what is normal in order to know what is abnormal, but that's what the link to Pregnancy is there for. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does this fit?

I pasted the following section here because it has the following issues which may need to be tended to before any reinsertion:

• There is already a section on Prenatal care. Where does this fit? Some of it could perhaps fit in complications?
• It is unreferenced

Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Antenatal care In obstetric practice, an obstetrician or midwife sees a pregnant woman on a regular basis to check the progress of the pregnancy, to verify the absence of ex-novo disease, to monitor the state of preexisting disease and its possible effect on the ongoing pregnancy. A woman's schedule of antenatal appointment varies according to the presence of risk factors, such as diabetes, and local resources. Some of the clinically and statistically more important risk factors that must be systematically excluded, especially in advancing pregnancy, are pre-eclampsia, abnormal placentation, abnormal fetal presentation and intrauterine growth restriction. For example, to identify pre-eclampsia, blood-pressure and albuminuria (level of urine protein) are checked at every opportunity. Placenta praevia must be excluded (PP = low lying placenta that, at least partially, obstructs the birth canal and therefore warrants elective caesarean delivery); this can only be achieved with the use of an ultrasound scan. However, early placenta praevia is not alarming; this is because as the uterus grows along the pregnancy, the placenta may still move away. A placenta praevia is of clinical significance as from the 28th week of gestation. The current management includes a caesarean section. The type of caesarean section is determined by the position (anterior or posterior) of the placenta. In late pregnancy fetal presentation must be established: cephalic presentation (head first) is the norm but the fetus may present feet-first or buttocks-first (breech), side-on (transverse), or at an angle (oblique presentation). Intrauterine growth restriction is a general designation where the fetus is smaller than expected when compared to its gestational age (in this case, fetal growth parameters show a tendency to drop off from the 50th percentile eventually falling below the 10th percentile, when plotted on a fetal growth chart). Causes can be intrinsic (to the fetus) or extrinsic (maternal or placental problems).

Obstetrics V Obstetrician

There is some confusion here between obstetrics and obstetricians A search for obstetrician redirects to this page. This confusion is not helped by the definition used. A more correct and accepted definition would be that obstetrics is the branch of medicine dealing with childbirth and care of the mother. Obstetrics is not a person and cannot have a salary. There should be a separate page for obstetricians, as there is for example for midwives.

The reference to obstetrics being a surgical specialty is also confusing and I suggest incorrect. If surgery is required during pregnancy and childbirth then it would be provided by an obstetrician. However the reverse does not apply and being in obstetric care does not imply that any surgery will be involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.196.95 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

wow so much knowledge Mahlengwa (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

i wish I was done my studies Mahlengwa (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

i rather obstetricians Mahlengwa (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This Article Isn't Helpful

I came looking for information on what an Obstetrician does... what kind of procedures they might learn to preform, etc. Instead, I feel like I got a bunch of random other information. This is actually, for that one fact, probably the worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia. I've never been motivated to write anything about any other article I've read. I feel like I'm reading more about general pregnancy issues & tests & not how any of these RELATE to obstetrics. There's no discussion about what training is required. This is a pretty long article but most of it is stuff I could find somewhere else under another heading. I understand why some of this info is here, but I just feel like it needs to be cleaned up & more obviously relational to Obstetrics. 65.5.11.253 (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Then fixit. WP:Fixit Gillyweed (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would if I knew anything about the topic, but I don't, hence my desire to read an article about it. The article on "steampunks" is more complete, organized & sourced than this article.65.5.11.253 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

History section is not NPOV

The history section reads like a condemnation of modern medicine, a pro-midwife historical perspective. I made [edit] because that particular section was citing numerous statistics without a direct citation, doing so selectively with a clear agenda, and the citation being used was vague and represented a single POV on the topic. I skimmed the rest of the history section and didn't find any other blatant editorial slants, but I will come back later as similar sources are used. Smeggysmeg (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Obstetrics. This has been a very difficult RM to close, as it has been affected by recent and historical undiscussed moves. We have a nearly unanimous consensus that the current title is problematic, and most editors prefer Midwifery as the title, and reasonably so. However, a few things need to be taken into consideration:

• This article was formerly at the title Obstetrics until it was moved here two weeks ago, on July 20, 2015.[3]
• The same day, the title Obstetrics was redirected to Obstetrics and gynaecology.[4]
• Additionally, the Midwife article was historically at the title Midwifery until it was moved to Midwife (obstetrics) on March 5, 2014.[5] It was subsequently moved to Midwife on March 28, 2014.[6]
• However, Midwifery redirected to Midwife until it was directed to this article on March 27, 2015.[7]

None of these moves appear to have been discussed. As such, until the last few months, Wikipedia had separate articles for obstetrics (this one) and midwifery (currently titled Midwife). While it is true this article has much material that's perhaps more relevant to midwifery, and I do not wish to overlook the reasonable and compelling arguments for retitling this article "midwifery", I think the easiest, most productive solution all around will be to restore the historic status quo for all these articles as it existed prior to the last few months. I would encourage interested and knowledgeable readers to look into cleaning up both articles as well as the one on Obstetrics and gynaecology. I've also moved the midwife article back to its former title Midwifery, considering the confusion this has caused; if it is to be moved again it should go through its own community discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Obstetrics (Midwifery) → Midwifery – The term "obstetrics" refers to the medical speciality concerned with pregnancy and childbirth, while "midwifery" is the profession concerned with assisting women in the peripartum period. See Oxford definitions here and here, and Merriam-Webster definitions here and here. Obstetricians are not midwives, and midwives are not obstetricians. Kwekubo (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support per WP:UCN and WP:NATURAL, as per the nom. RGloucester — ☎ 00:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• NOTE from 2001 to 2014, the article currently located at midwife was located at "midwifery" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is not the same "profession" than "professional". It is not the same "dentistry" than "dentist", "law" than "lawyer","physics" than "physicist", "midwifery" than "midwife", etc. Different articles for different concepts. Rodguerrer (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE from 2003 to 2012, this article was about "obstetrics" and not "midwifery"; midwifery was added to the obstetrics article in 2012. The focus on midwifery happened during the period from 2014 through 2015. This article was renamed to "obstetrics (Midwifery)" from "obstetrics" in July 2015 -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The current article is almost entirely related to midwifery. ricmart (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting this article to be about midwifery instead of obstetrics does not seem to be discussed. Changing the topic of an article without discussion, can be easily undone since it wasn't a consensus decision, by reverting to the version that was not about midwifery. The edit history of this article concerns obstetrics and not midwifery. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting to the version that was not about midwifery and delete the contributions of multiple users for several years, that's not correct for me. Details in the answer to your same comment, lines bellow. Regards, Rubcald (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And what of the contributors who wrote about obstetrics, expecting to be working on obstetrics? Reverting to the earlier version allows us to have an obstetrics article. The contributions that converted obstetrics into midwifery can be involved in an article split, with the {{split}} contribution attribution template, and a second article at "midwifery". -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like one of the statement's examples of ownership behaviour: "I created/wrote the majority of this article. (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)" (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). "No one has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page... Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone... Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them." (WP:OWN). Additionaly, I have reviewed that much of the exclusive content of obstetrics was referred to the Obstetrics and gynecology article. Rubcald (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, your statement saying that the current edits matter more, seems like OWNership. The change in topic from "obstetrics" to "midwifery" was not discussed. Such changes in other articles are frequently reverted, since you would normally create a new article instead of taking over an article for your new viewpoint and getting rid of an existing topic to create a new one. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Friend, I don't say that the current edits matter more, I maintain that all editions matter. But if you want to remove the contributions of multiple users over several years to impose your point of view, you are free to do it, luck. Rubcald (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• oppose --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

no reasons ricmart (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• weak oppose Though would support WP:CONSPLIT to Midwifery and Obstetrics (based on IP user's notes above) !vote should have been a comment; esp after reading Jytdog's comments below Little pob (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Midwifery is very deliberately not obstetrics. Midwifery is about the natural birth, while obstetrics includes both natural and medically assisted birth. A split is required to achieve this; much of the content could also be integrated into an article about childbirth rather than the professions involved with it. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• In my view, looking across WP, what we have is kind of a confused mess right now. What we have, is:
  • Midwife which is about the profession (and has a section about their role: Midwife#Midwife-led_continuity_of_care)
  • Obstetrics and gynaecology which is pretty strictly about the medical profession.
  • Prenatal care is kind of stubby, on that topic and is about the care provided at that stage of the process.
  • Childbirth and especially the Childbirth#Management section is the main content we have on taking care of the woman and the fetus/newborn
  • Postpartum period which is kind of stubby, about that and is about the care provided at that stage of the process.
  • This article, Obstetrics (Midwifery), it is basically an unWP:SYNCed repetition of the content that is elsewhere - it blends purely medical stuff like imaging and various diagnostic tests with what midwives do. Jfdwolff do you really think we should have an article focused on non-medically supported prenatal care, childbirth, and postnatal care? fwiw, I think this article should be dissolved and its content merged into the other articles. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (copyedit a bit Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC))
    • Jytdog No, I think we need to discuss all clinical aspects under prenatal care and childbirth, and discuss the professional aspects under the articles about the relevant professions. JFW | T@lk 08:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• This article doesn't repeat contents, this article assembles contents forming a concept, in this case of a profession. Rodguerrer (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support The terms are not synonymous and Obstetrics already redirects to Obstetrics and gynaecology. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF what about all the medical (OBGYN) content in this article? What should the scope of this article be and how should it fit with others? In my view it is important that we meta-edit so that content is in WP:SYNC across WP. I really don't see what value this article has at all....Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, edited and old version and did not see your reply. While I still agree that the name is a poor choice I think you're right. Midwife is a better article and already holds quite a bit on the responsibilities of midwifery. Most of the content, bar the history section is poor here so it could either be scrapped or merged. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is not the same "profession" than "professional". It is not the same "dentistry" than "dentist", "law" than "lawyer","physics" than "physicist", "midwifery" than "midwife", etc. Different articles for different concepts. Rodguerrer (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards what Jytdog said: "confused mess". A stable and sustainable resolution to this question is going to involve deciding how to adjust several articles. For example, should obstetrics redirect to obstetrics and gynecology? Gynaecology doesn't. Given that Oxford defines obstetrics as "The branch of medicine and surgery concerned with childbirth and midwifery" (i.e., midwifery is a proper subset of obstetrics), should the non-regulatory aspects of that subject be split based on how (or even whether) the person assisting with childbirth is licensed? Also, we need to decide things like whether "the subject that is studied" (e.g., the study and treatment of heart disease) and "the legal regulation of the profession" (e.g., how to get licensed as a cardiologist) should be the same or separate articles. This is a bigger question than it seems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Keilana who might be interested. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that midwifery isn't a medical specialty. So, with the requested move, it can distinguish midwifery from obstetrics as a medical specialty (obstetrics and gynecology) for clarity of concepts.

ricmart (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • Midwifery is the term most often used for the health profession (non-medical) that deals with the care of women in pregnancy, childbirth (parturition), and the postpartum period that often also includes care of the newborn (encyclopedia britannica: midwifery)
  • Obstetrics is the term most often used for the medical specialty of Obstetrics and Gynecology, not to midwifery. (enciclopedia británica: obstetrics)

ricmart (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Obstetrics (Midwifery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) used to be called Obstetrics until this year, and was in 2012, about "obstetrics" and not "midwifery". We have a separate article called gynecology from obgyn; since "gynaecology" does not redirect to "obstetrics and gynecology", wouldn't we also have a separate article on "obstetrics" separate from OBGYN and separate from "midwifery" ? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The current article is almost entirely related to midwifery.

The requested move doesn't prevent, subsequently, we can have a separate article on "obstetrics", separate from "obstetrics and gynecology" and separate from "midwifery".

With the requested move, it can distinguish midwifery from obstetrics as a medical specialty (obstetrics and gynecology), what it's priority important for clarity of concepts.

ricmart (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We are also not restricted to keeping this as it is, since we can roll back to an earlier version, before it was rewritten to be about midwifery, since it was obstetrics. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Roll back, deleting contributions of several years, it's not valid for me. Details in the answer to your same comment, lines bellow. Regards, Rubcald (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Rolling back would restore a decade's worth of contributions, that concerned "obstetrics", which is most of the history of this article. "midwifery" could be split off since, the substantial part of the edit history of this article is for obstetrics. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Rolling back several years, don't restore contributions, destroy contributions. Besides, that seems one of the action's examples of ownership behaviour: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version" (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). Additionaly, I have reviewed that much of the exclusive content of obstetrics was referred to the Obstetrics and gynecology article. Rubcald (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure : FWIW, I do not have edits from the time this was obstetrics, so I don't own/contribute any of that content. I just think this kind of article take-over is a very bad thing to accept; rewriting an article about one topic to be another is not a good way to create a new topic.

It is OWNership behavior to suggest that we cannot roll back articles to prior topics just because new contributions have been made. The rewriting of this article to become midwifery and away from obstetrics was not discussed, so there is no consensus violation in rolling it back to what it wasy before. Indeed, in many articles, where someone takes over and article and rewrites it to be about a different topic, they are reverted because the article was changed to be a different topic without discussion. Indeed, since this isn't a paper encyclopedia, it isn't even the way to do things, since one would normally start a new article, instead of rewriting an existing one to be about a different topic. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok buddy, I already told you what I think, if you want to remove the contributions of multiple users over several years to impose your point of view, you are free to do it, luck. Rubcald (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I was not sure that the requested move was appropriate because I believe that obstetrics is also a synonym for midwifery (midwifery in other languages is known as obstetrics). However, reading the ricmart's comments, and to reach a consensus, I think the requested move might help differentiate the midwifery of from obstetrics as a medical specialty (obstetrics and gynecology). Rodguerrer (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC) (edited Rodguerrer (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC))
• Support per WP:NATURAL if nothing else--WP:UCN might apply, too. Red Slash 22:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  And also--lol, why is "(Midwifery)" capitalized?? Red Slash 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Obstetrics and merge most midwifery-related content into Midwife - I'm baffled why we don't have an article for obstetrics (currently it's a redirect to obstetrics and gynaecology). This article would make a decent start, but a lot of the midwifery-specific content would probably be better off at midwife. (Indeed the history section here originally came from that article.) What a mess. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Article has a lot of contribution to midwifery. "Midwifery" is not "midwife". The medical specialty recognized worldwide is "obstetrics and gynecology". Rubcald (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We can roll this article back to the 2011 version, that did not contain midwifery information. Or the 2013 version that was about obstetrics, but also contained some information on midwifery. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles (WP: OWNER). Wikipedia is a work in progress (WP: IMPERFECT), the topic and scope of an article evolves over the time with the collaboration of multiple users. It's advisable improve the work of other contributors, not delete it. Remove the work of several years of multiple contributors seems to me that it would be a sneaky vandalism (WP: SNEAKY, "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages"), and i think it should and would be reverted by other editors or administrators. Regards, Rubcald (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Converting an article on "obstetrics" into an article "midwifery" also involved ignoring several years worth of contributions (about a decade's worth) to create this article out of an article about another topic. Rolling back would restore what was, after which you can split off the current content for a "midwifery" article, since the contribution history of this article is substanitally about "obstetrics", and not "midwifery" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed that much of the exclusive content of obstetrics was referred to the Obstetrics and gynecology article. Nobody owns the topic or development of an article, "work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone" (WP:OWN). Contribute, improve is different than delete, remove. Currently, the article topic refers to midwifery, so "Midwifery" is more appropiate than "Obstetrics (midwifery)" as article title. Regards Rubcald (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting an article to be about a different topic isn't improving it. And counting only recent edits would seem to be a position based on OWNership. Rolling back and splitting the article, would not be based on ownership, since different topics should not be written by eliminating an existing topic, they should be written by creating a new article. WP:NOTPAPER we are not restricted in the number of articles that can exist on Wikipedia. Eliminating one topic by rewriting it to be another topic is not the proper way to write a new topic. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok friend, I already told you what I think, if you want to remove the contributions of multiple users over several years to impose your point of view, you are free to do it, have a nice day. Rubcald (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Midwifery is not the medical specialty of obstetrics and ginecology, also per WP:NATURAL Rubcald (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Split' content into 2 articles, Obstetrics and Midwifery. The content is really easy to divide. Sort out SYNCing after that is done. Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. We already have Obstetrics and gynaecology to describe the medical specialty. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support.
  • This article of Midwifery doesn't should have the term "obstetrics" in the title, to avoid confusion. The term "obstetrics" should refer to the medical specialty of Obstetrics and gynecology.
  • Per natural disambiguation (WP:NATURAL, "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources")
  • Per precision (WP:PRECISION, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.232.97 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC) 201.230.232.97 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Midwifery is for the non medical profession. Obstetrics and gynaecology is for the medical specialty. It's simple. 190.232.117.157 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Midwifery is a much more appropriate title --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split

I boldly split out content about midwifery in this set of difs and added nonduplicative content to the Midwifery article in this set of difs Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I boldly split out substantial and important information to Midwifery article from this recently moved ambiguous article from Obstetrics (Midwifery) to Obstetrics Alejgonz 01 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone vet the changes by Alejgonz 01? Jytdog?--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes by Alejgonz removing content from this article are here and in my view these removals were not good - that content belongs here as it involves medical diagnostic tests - that should be reversed. Content was added back to this article here - that was a good call, fixing a mistake I made. Content was removed here; I am on the fence with that one and would reckon it belongs in both articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes are fine. All such information I wrote it with my user ip (86,151,122,144) for "Midwifery" when it was in the title of "Obstetrics" (changes here). I didn't write that for "Obstetrics" (as medical specialty). There's still information that I added to "Midwifery", but with the split is still in "Obstetrics". Rodguerrer (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I had no idea that all of this discussion was going on and have been working on the Midwifery article, which is a huge mess, IMO. I hope I have not been wasting my time. Is the situation stable now and should I go on working with it? Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the situation is stable, you can continue working in article freely. Regards. Rodguerrer (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Obstetric medicine

complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No link to German article in left 'languages' navigation

sorry if this is the wrong way to make this point, but I was just wondering why - on such a significant lemma - there is no link to the German aequivalent in the left 'languages' section? *ponder* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.155.196 (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Obstetrics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707205101/http://www.med.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v01n01/fever.html to http://www.med.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v01n01/fever.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)