Title: Re: [ozmidwifery] axa
|
What you have done with this email Justine, is to
very nicely and succinctly put 'risk' in perspective - something that not
many do regarding uterine rupture.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:58
PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] axa
Hey Jo
Love reading your posts, you
have the right idea!!
Why would VBAC be seen as riskier? I
would think a 1% chance of uterine rupture would be preferable �risk� to a
c/s anyway? Then again evidence doesn�t play much of a role does
it!
Take care
Justine
I have often
thought that those who want elective cs for no medical reasoning then it
should be considered 'cosmetic' and should be treated like cosmetic
surgery....YOU pay! Perhaps the cover should be more costly for those
who elect surgery? The argument that cases of FTP and CPD would
increase: but that would be obvious and the medicos would have allot
of explaining to do to justify it.
There will always be loop holes
for women and doctors to get their sections, but it could be a deterrent.
Elective CS cost insurance companies thousands of possibly unnecessary
dollars. It should be structured like car insurance: those who live in
high crime areas have to pay more- therefore those who elect unnecessary
surgery should pay more.
There should be a strict criteria which
allows emergency cs as exempt from charges. As I said before the
chances are the 'emerg' cases will increase but they are leaving themselves
open for close scrutiny.....
What concerns me about insurance companies
power over care is that there are reports that doctors who are 'allowing'
vbac will be facing higher insurance costs due to the increase
risks.........call me biased but THAT IS CAUSE FOR CONCERN!!!!!
well,
there is my 5c worth (about all I have got!)
Jo
Bainbridge
founding member CARES SA
email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 08 8388 6918
birth with trust, faith
& love...
|
