Title: Cytotec discussion - from OBC news.
For interest.
BB Jackie Mawson.
==========================
To subscribe to the obcnews write to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and put _only_ the words
subscribe obcnews your-name
in the _body_ of the message. Replace your-name with your
actual name.
===============
Dateline's segment on Cytotec - An Exchange of Letters
From: "Helen Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Helen Moore <[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:01 PM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dateline, Sunday, November 4, 2001
Sirs -
Responsible journalism shows both sides of an issue to the
fullest, in order to "tell the truth". I did not find this
so with your recent Dateline presentation on Cytotec, which
aired on Sunday Nov. 4 2001.
Ina May Gaskin, of Summertown, TN, considered to be "the
mother of the American midwifery movement", has done a study
of the research involving the use of Cytotec as a
labor-inducing drug. Combining the results in 20 studies of
Cytotec-induced labors published in peer-reviewed journals
and papers presented at professional meetings -- a total of
1,958 births -- she discovered a total of two maternal
deaths, 16 baby deaths, 19 uterine ruptures and two
life-threatening hysterectomies. In the state of Louisiana
alone, in 17 uses, there were 2 ruptures. Her paper on this
subject may be found at:
www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/07/11/cytotec/index.html
Your Dateline presentation as shown, left the unknowing
viewer thinking that "today's" Cytotec (Misoprostol) dose is
safe and beneficial in birth - because the doctors appearing
on the show "said so". The only exception was Marsden
Wagner, MD, well-known anti-Cytotec activist- but his entire
presentation was allowed only a few moments.
Nothing was said about how tens of thousands of women and
babies have been used in a massive uncontrolled experiment
for years, and how the experiment is still going strong -
especially today as doctors experiment with Cytotec WITHOUT
INFORMED CONSENT OF THE MOTHER. As doula to a woman for her
second childbirth, she told me her first birth, in 1996, had
been induced with a drug called "Misoprostol" (Cytotec),
which she was NOT told was experimental - it caused such
titanic uterine contractions that she actually lost
consciousness between them, delivering in 4 hours, in
contrast to a normal first labor averaging 12 to 5 hours.
She told me she definitely did NOT want this drug used on
her again! The mother's unmedicated second labor was
"precipitous", lasting only 1 hour from first contraction to
birth, resulting in her giving birth in the family van on
the way to the hospital. This caused me to wonder what the
long-term effect of Cytotec may have had on a uterus for
future births. As doula to another woman who was scheduled
for induction because of "the baby's heart problem" (which
surprisingly was not evident following birth), I personally
witnessed and heard her obstetrician say, "I'm going to use
Cytotec - it's been around a long time and is very safe." I
was appalled that there was NO mention of possible risks to
mother and/or child.
It was never mentioned that there have been published
studies associating the use of Cytotec with neonatal
cerebral infarction, as reported by the Society for
Maternal-Fetal Medicine (see attachment) and we have no idea
what the long-term effect may be on other babies whose
mothers' labors have been "successfully" induced with
Cytotec, especially important since we have ample evidence
that oxygen supply is frequently diminished to these babies
during uterine hyper stimulation..
Apparently, we are to always believe our doctor knows best -
in spite of evidence of labor and childbirth mismanaged.
Does no one ever wonder why the best outcomes for mothers
and babies in industrialized countries of the world are in
those countries where many or most of the babies are birthed
into the gentle hands of midwives? Or why the United States,
with the highest per capita expenditure on health care of
any nation in the world, and undoubtedly the nation with
more technology available in the hospitals, ranks 25th among
industrialized nations in infant mortality?
The arrogance displayed in Dr. Lockwood's statement,
speaking as a representative of the ACOG, "...that a doctor
has to exercise his or her own discretion in deciding just
how much a patient needs to know about the specific approval
of a drug by the FDA." is unacceptable for all of us in
America. We have an ethical and legal right of true informed
consent before any drug or procedure is used on any of us.
NBC, by consenting to present this segment of Frontline, now
has the responsibility to offer the full truth to the
American public. I suggest you open the forum to people like
Ina May Gaskin, who has studied the literature for years
concerning the use of this drug, for full disclosure of its
dangers.
Thank you,
Helen Moore
Certified Doula
Doulas of North America
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
His response to me:
----- Original Message -----
From: Beacham, Tim (NBC) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Helen Moore' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:55 PM
Subject: RE: Dateline, Sunday, November 4, 2001
Madame---
Both Ina Mae Gaskin and Dr. Marsden Wagner immediately
congratulated us on our report.
We would have liked to have had more time for the topic. The
piece was originally three parts instead of one. The longer
version was cut down to make room for other news. Perhaps
you would have preferred we not air anything at all on this
topic. The fact of the matter is---Cytotec is widely used to
induce labor. Our report informed millions of unsuspecting
couples that there are dangers associated with the drug and
that their doctors may not be telling them about those
risks.
Your assertion that our report failed to point out the risks
of uncontrolled experimentation with the drug or the failure
of doctors to provide informed consent---is simply not true.
Tim Beacham
Producer
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And, finally, mine back to him:
----- Original Message -----
From: Helen Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Beacham, Tim (NBC) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Dateline, Sunday, November 4, 2001
Mr. Beacham -
I have a name - Helen Moore - and you may refer to me by
name instead of "Madame".
Ina Mae and Marsden may have congratulated you on bringing
the matter before the public but I feel that you did the
topic an injustice because you had certainly had more
doctors speaking in defence of the drug than against it.
Your statement that perhaps I would have preferred you not
air anything at all on this topic was sarcastic and beneath
your position, to say the least, since I was outspoken about
the misuse of the drug. Yes, it IS widely used, but that
doesn't make it acceptable. Thalidomide was widely used
also, and we ended up with deformed babies - DES was widely
used, and we have female babies of these women who have
developed unusually high percentages of uterine cancer.
I am a viewer, and I stand by my original opinion- you did a
poor job in reporting the true risks - all you did was make
a suggestion that PERHAPS there were risks and lack of
informed consent. You did not even bother to quote research
studies which spoke of actual numbers of mothers and babies
affected.
Sincerely,
Helen Moore
=========================
Birthing Beautifully,
Jackie Mawson.
Convenor of Birthrites: Healing After Caesarean Inc.
Visit our Website at: http://www.birthrites.org
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 61 08 9418 8949
Please note I am not a Professional Healthcare Provider, and all opinions given in this email are not to be taken as medical, or legal, advice. Please seek such advice from the relevant professional service.
Email me your postal details for a FREE copy of our quarterly magazine, if you live within Australia - Overseas postage costs are above budget, sorry!
Too many Gods;
so many creeds,
Too many paths
that wind and
wind,
When just the art
of being kind
Is all the sad
world needs...
----------------------------------
