I just had this thought while having the morning shower: I think the idea of a RCT for Vaginal vs c/s birth is flawed (as we have all said) not only ethically but in a true epidemiological sense, I mean isn't/wouldn't it be comparing the proverbial apples and oranges? Isn't it a bit like randomising a group of healthy people (who agreed to be in such a trial??) to prophylactic appendicectomy (sp) or appendicectomy for symptons only to see if elective removal of the appendix was a safer procedure? Now wouldn't the prophylactic group have better outcomes at least in the immediate post surgery period than those who waited for onset of acute sx? fewer post surgery infections etc?? I mean for such a trial to have any meaning over the life time wouldn't you also need a group of healthy people who never had an acute episode which needed an intervention? Even so it is a fruitless meaningless trial which could only prove that prophylactic surgery was better?
The same with the c/s trial. It has to be stopped. It is a set up. marilyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "*G and S*" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] C/S in Sydney Morning Herald > 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 > > > *I think we'll be at the same fishing spot and in the same boat!* > Sonia. > > -- > 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.
