|
Well, I’ve given it a go and sorry
if I’ve pinched anybody’s lines but in the end what matters
is that as many of us as possible tell them that it wasn’t acceptable. From: jayne
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Liz, I
watched the 60 minutes report on birth via caesarean section –v-
nature’s way with at first, great interest and as the story unfolded,
with dismay. Great dismay that it was a very biased report. Justine
Cairnes mentioned evidence supported that natural birth was the safest for
mother and baby but your report failed to give it any coverage. Why did
you not interview an expert on ‘natural’ birth – a midwife?
I noticed you took the very glamorous Tracey Curro and let her run wild
with her absurd claim “compelling medical reasons why it was a good
thing” (caesarean section) – namely “preservation of the
pelvic floor”. Pelvic floor dysfunction is and can be a
condition for any group of women, whether they have birthed a baby through
their vagina or not. For the benefit of any women out there now assuming
that they must have a caesarean section to preserve their pelvic floor, PLEASE
EXPLAIN? By the way, I’ve birthed 3 children naturally and my
pelvic floor function is 100%. Perhaps Tracey’s obstetrician failed
to mention to her the benefit of pelvic floor exercises? As for Dr David Molloy, and his comment on
hysterectomies and the average birth rate of 1.7 - does he mean it is okay to
remove women’s uteruses as a result? I wonder if he wouldn’t
mind his scrotum being removed after he has completed his 1.7 children. I also felt it was really a low blow to feature
Vanessa Gorman. Did I miss where you mentioned that babies die during and
as a result of caesarean sections as well? This was just sensationalism
journalism at its best. Yours sincerely, |
