As far as I know it hasn't been reported in the USA either or if it has it isn't big news, not even on the radar of the major midwifery/birth groups, which is scary for Australia. There is a huge pro c/s push in the western world and we have to figure out what it really is about. I mean really about. It feels beyond just the age old birth fear. I hope I am being paranoid. Please tell me I am. Have heard it said that since most women in Australia are having 2 children these days, 2 c/s is not such a bad thing like why risk a vaginal birth ( said by a woman). It just breaks my heart. Too many failed inductions, too many interventions, too much fear.
thinking of going fishing marilyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob and Claire Leslie-Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] C/S in Sydney Morning Herald > There are so many stumbling points for the idea of this research I just > can't see how they are going to do it. > > How will they be able to randomise women, and what will they do with the > women who cross over from one group to the other, or refuse to be part of > it? How will they manage the vaginal births? There are so many subtle ways > of manipulating a vaginal birth to make it fail, I can't see how it will be > fair. > > What are the implications of the study, if it is going to say that c-section > is better, which must be the hypothesis, then what are the implications on > health policy. The US has a terrible infant death rate, terrible inequality > between rich and poor and a terrible PND rate. Why would they be focussing > on this issue? It seems to be going all ass about face to try to sort out > the problem. In fact it doesnt' seem to be trying to address those problems > at all, just ensuring job security for obstetricians and attendant hospital > staff. > > How would countries such as Australia with it's vast distances, and the UK > with it's NHS be able to incorporate this sort of thing. > > And my incredulity goes on and on. I have found when discussing it with > people that they are quite pro the idea of the research, "Finally something > that will stop all the silly debate", and there was a letter following the > article in the herald that said "My baby was brain damaged in a vaginal > birth, I would welcome the research etc etc.". It seems that the public is > easily manipulated into believing that this research needs doing, without > really looking at the problem with any objectivity. > > The other thing that has struck me is that this hasn't been reported at all > in the UK, I have looked on the BBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph, and > there doesn't seem to have been a mention. Why are we so excited about the > application for funding, that it gets front page coverage. After all the > trial hasn't even been approved yet. > > I think it is very appropriate that we are discussing Sonia's story at the > same time as this, > > Yours in wonder at the world > > Claire Saxby > >From: Sandi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] C/S in Sydney Morning Herald > >Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:40:42 +1000 > > > >Yes, I could hardly believe my ears when the obs told us about this trial > >recently, and I specifically > >rejoined the list to see what was happening. Show some pictures Lyn and > >they'll simply counter with their own > >messy pictures of tears and shoulder dystocia. No we need to focus on how > >only a mother can draw > >on all her strength and experience the wonder of birth. Anyone can have > >major abdo surgery, but only > >a mother can labour, discover what a strong person she is and feel that > >connection with women through > >the ages. The medical director coldly told me how much cheaper it would be > >having eluscs as opposed to emergency 0200, yes but what about all the PND, > >troubled breast feeding, poor bonding and troubled teens. Let's see how > >much > >that costs! Not to mention, it would only take a bad batch of sterile > >supplies and we could > >potentially lose a few mums. > > > >Best of luck in countering this abhorrent research > > > >Sandra > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Lynne Staff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:45 AM > >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 mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > >Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! > http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband > > -- > 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.
