|
" 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?"
LOL - ok women - lets all line up for gall bladder op's - why wait
for the attack when lots of people have stones.
Lets just select an age and do them as preventative medicine.
Just to see if removing everyones gall bladder prevents attacks - bet
that would be a possitive result!
Where would it stop?
Have gall bladder - must need removal
Pregnant - must need a c/s
Have appendix - OUT IT GOES!
There will be little left to require treatment!
If they can't stick something into you then they want to take
something out - and we wonder why doctors have high insurance?
Rhonda - (couldn't help myself!)
-------Original Message-------
Date: Friday, October
24, 2003 07:17:30
Subject: Re:
[ozmidwifery] C/S in Sydney Morning Herald
I agree Marilyn. Another sneaking suspicion in my mind is
that in this
trial, I am sure they will bring forward a qualitative
arm, seeing if women
prefer it. This is one trial where I don't think
the researchers will stick
to scientific findings only - they need
women to prefer it, don't they?
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Marilyn Kleidon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent:
Friday, October 24, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] C/S in
Sydney Morning Herald
> 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.
--
This mailing list is sponsored
by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au>
to subscribe or unsubscribe.
. |
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved -
Click
Here
