Hey Nigel! Welcome back! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Selangor Maternity Centre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] C/S in Sydney Morning Herald
> Hi All, > > Thanks Lynne whereas I agree with the main theme of the inappropriateness of > such a trial it is the randomisation that appears to be the major sticking > point. > > I would welcome a comparative trial as it would show, in my opinion without > a shadow of a doubt the benefits of vaginal birth over an over employed > obstetric intervention. > > The trial would instantly be flawed but I fear like the breech trial would > become a singular point of reference to all wishing to simply advise women > rather than empower women through information. > > We know the flaws in the touted breech trial were the location and quality > of staff chosen to assist in womens pursuence of vaginal breech. The lack of > familiarity or experience itself was somewhat prohibitive. Not much is made > of this in the official critiques of this now perceived benchmark study and > as a result women are misinformed and disempowered through a lack of > information. > > In the case for elective caesareans this would be the same, a unit where the > randomisation of women to that extent could occur is not very likely to be > an actively birthing women centered unit? > Now if we can only remove the messy hit or miss act of conception by a > controlled trial....but then there is sometimes a lack of experience in this > department too for many...LOL > > > Love and Peace > Nigel > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lynne Staff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, 19 October 2003 09:45 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] C/S in Sydney Morning Herald > > > "there is this trial which gives you a 50-50 chance of totally avoiding all > this pain........" > A father-to-be I saw the other day, whose wife has had 2 caesareans (and is > having the devil of a time finding anyone to support her for a planned > vaginal birth), made the very pertinent point that 'natural' (read vaginal) > birth is ALWAYS portrayed as the worst pain a woman can ever have - too > terrible to contemplate, unbearable and totally avoidable, while the > portrayal of caesarean birth is ALWAYS pain-free, peaceful, smiles all > round.....etc > > Should publish some photos/stories of infected wounds, blood loss, how women > vomit when their uterus is pulled outside their abdominal cavity, because it > is easier to suture, the trouble they have accessing their babies because of > the physical limitation of spinals and post-op pain (although that is > becoming such an art that it is very 'manageable' nowadays), babies with > lacerations on their face or buttocks, babies on oxygen, sometimes for a > week, and the separation that goes with that....as you can see this is a > sore point with me. > > This trial disturbs me greatly for many reasons - but it's not just the > trial (although if the findings are that women like it better, that it is as > safe), then God help us! The wholehearted embracing of the findings of the > term breech trial (which scares the living daylights out of me) will pale > into significance compared to this (and the findings from the term breech > trial will be no doubt used to substantiate the rationale of this trial in > the first place........) > > As I see it, one of the biggest probblems is the way information is provided > to the women in any 'obstetric' situation. I can imagine the way the > information will be provided for this. Major heebeejeebies. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Neretlis, Bethany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 6:38 PM > Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] C/S in Sydney Morning Herald > > > > we have been discussing this article too, or an offshoot from perth. it > seems to me to be a further automatic kneejerk reaction to litigation from > those experts at strange who are from the usa. i can just see some insurance > company paying for this research, and unfortunately i can even see some > women being manovoured into it. can't you see some ob. finding a scared > pregnant woman who is vasilating over whether she wants to suffer pain in > labour and saying "there is this trial which gives you a 50-50 chance of > totally avoiding all this pain........" it just makes you cry. i have run > into this attitude towards vaginal birth amoung surgeons and anaethatists > when i worked in theatre so its not too far a stretch of the imagination to > see where this came from. just the idea of someone being serious aout this > research gives me the heeijeebies. it would be sooooo immoral to do this to > women. i'm sure that the researchers could somehow write it to pass an > ethics board, how i don't know, but they'd get some ethics lawyer involved > and before you know it , white isn't white at all, its black. > > > > love Bethany > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Justine Caines [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, 17 October 2003 16:00 > > To: OzMid List > > Subject: [ozmidwifery] C/S in Sydney Morning Herald > > > > > > Hi All > > > > The SMH have confirmed the following letter will appear in tomorrow's > paper. > > > > Justine > > > > > > As soon as safety is mentioned in obstetrics by Obstetricians there's a > mad rush. > > > > What they neglect to inform us is that many of their practices are not > based on evidence and that despite huge medical intervention, safety has not > improved in Australia. In fact the latest data on maternal deaths saw an > increase. This study represents a very sad fringe of the medical > profession. > > > > A woman is 4-5 times more likely to die from a caesarean section than from > a normal vaginal birth. A figure quoted in the last Senate Committee report > into childbirth procedures. It is also well noted that surgical > intervention in birth increases post-natal depression. With a C/S rate 2.5 > times higher than the World Health Organisation recommends, high incidences > of post-natal depression and no report into what seems to be a high > incidence of maternal morbidity, this study would be highly unethical and a > denial of a woman's most basic human right. > > -- > > This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > > Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. > > -- > This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. > > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify > the system manager. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > > www.mimesweeper.com > ********************************************************************** > > -- > This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
