Women would be at risk without gynaes

I have to take issue with Ellen Kamman's letter "No gynaes? Thank goodness" (yesterday). She must distinguish between gynaecologists and obstetricians.

I don't know what age she is, or if she has daughters or granddaughters of child-bearing age, but if things go wrong - and they can go sour very quickly in obstetrics - who is she going to call if the midwife cannot cope?

Of course, pregnancy is not an illness, but things do go wrong and then it is an emergency for both mother and baby. She hasn't mentioned whom she will go to if she needs something like a hysterectomy or cancer treatment of the ovaries and so on. Midwives can't help here. So, before writing off gynaecologists/obstetricians, think carefully.

Sadly, the medical indemnity payments are the highest of all the disciplines in medicine, but she is wrong to say it stops doctors doing unnecessary interventions.

By this I presume she means Caesareans. She is wrong here again as more and more gynaes are opting to do them because it is sometimes safer for mother and baby.

It will be a frightening world if certain disciplines fall away because doctors think it is not worth the stress to pay these high indemnities.

Women of the world will be the losers.