Great analogy Marilyn. It is such a pity that these researchers don't bother to talk to women who have had a c/s and a vaginal birth (vbac) because these women are aware of the realities, risks, benefits, outcomes and recovery following c/s and vaginal birth. Why not look at what has happened to a group of women with their birth type and outcomes rather than control and manipulate the research. it is interesting to note how many women who have achieved a vbac say they would prefer a vaginal birth to another c/s, i can only remember only 1 woman telling me that she would prefer a c/s rather than a vaginal birth following her 1st vbac. If this trial goes ahead it will be a very sad event for women and their babies. One does wander about the hidden agenda here. Will the day come when we not only say that we don't see vaginal breech births anymore, but we no longer see vaginal births anymore except for the woman who arrives pushing with head on view!!!!!!! kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marilyn Kleidon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:00 AM 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.
