No Mary, only one has arrived in my inbox. Another virus pending?? Kerry 1st yr BMid (ext) UniSA
> Mary Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is the 5th time I have received this tonight. Anyone else having > the same problem? MM > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kate &/or Nick > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 2:10 PM > Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story > > > Jo > > Remarkably calm! > > A wonderful response - well thought out, well expressed. > > Maybe it might have an effect! > > Kate > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dean & Jo > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:44 PM > Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story > > > Hi everyone, > > Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: > > > > Dear Glenda, > > I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate > on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean > Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support > companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased > story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in > doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances > medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our > society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information > provided by 'experts' and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth > when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to > offer this opinion. > > > > The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old > doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. > Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited > to speak. For every one OB who believes that a woman's body is > fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who > support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is- however channel 9 > never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and > expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater > understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when > they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on > complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a > safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even > further, as I have said before. > > > > Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually > portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that > midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing > women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last > word or the CS mum who says "my baby would have died without a cs". > (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as > well.) > > > > After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others > around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the > story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in > their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and > even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free > reign to insult these women's trauma by stating that birth is not a > right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by > Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an > Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and > pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth > can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information > presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many women's > desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show > more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very > least accurate. > > > > I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the > population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge > these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions > from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. > > > > It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not > graced our screens so frequently in the past. > > > > I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues > include not what is 'better', but: > > > > ~ Why is it that the rare but extremely serious risks of Caesarean > births are steadily on the increase and yet the safety of CS is > continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and women are not being > told these risks? Some of these risks are more common than the risk of > uterine rupture in a VBAC (vaginal birth after cs) and yet VBAC is > consider too risky for many women! > > ~ Why is vaginal birth considered so risky in a day and age where > women are the healthiest and well educated? > > ~ Why has birth become so medicalized; and is it possible that the > perceived damaged caused by vaginal birth is actually damage caused by > intervening in a process that is in fact normal. > > ~ Why it is that women who birth in the private sector are > subjected to more interventions that those in the public sector? > > ~ Why is it that even though birth centres and midwifery led > programs are perpetually full (women having to book almost at > conception!) and yet these models of care are not expanded? > > ~ Why is it that New Zealand women can access government covered > midwifery services including homebirth and we can not? Over 70% of > birthing women in NZ use midwives and our best Australian midwives > desperately want to leave our shores to work in an environment that > sees birth as a healthy event in women's lives and not one that can > only be experienced with the 'aid' of a surgeons knife? > > > > All of this is proven by research. > > > > I could go on but wont. I wish you luck with your debate and hope > that there is opportunity for some real issues to be discussed. I hope > that this will not be yet another story that leaves women misinformed, > insulted and outraged as the 60 minutes segment and many of the ACA > segments have done so in the past. I personally feel that our society > is getting tired of this discussion topic and would be more interested > in looking deeper into the issues of birthing. > > I don't mean this to be an attack on you personally, but as you can > well imagine the many CS stories in the media have caught my attention > and even involvement, and unfortunately all have, without exception, > been aired with heavy biased editing and (as I have mentioned so > frequently) seriously subjective information. This can and does impact > on women in more ways than can be imagined. The station/newspapers may > get letters of concern after these stories are aired/printed, but > groups like CARES are left to deal with the emotional distress caused > by these stories. > > > > Yours sincerely > > > > J Bainbridge > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philippa > Scott > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:58 AM > To: ozmidwifery > Subject: [ozmidwifery] Fw: �/S Story > > > > > > Philippa Scott > Birth Buddies > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Philippa Scott > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:54 AM > > Subject: �/S Story > > > > I would love for this to be a story that actually has some positive > effect on this situation. Glenda, it is not about a debate between > supporting elective c/s or opposing elective c/s. It is about truly > informed choice & women being responsible for their own decisions. If > you are going to do a story that will do justice to this issue then I > would be pleased to participate. As it stands though I dont have faith > in Channel Nine to present a fair & well balanced story. You use the > same "experts" each time & end with some celebrity saying how pleased > she was. Have you ever spoken to a woman who has had a c/s & would not > go down that road again unless in an emergency? I can tell you there > are plenty of women out there who prefer Vaginal births to c/s after > having had both. Also lets look at the effect on the tax payer. If a > c/s is truly elective then why is the taxpayer being made to pay for > it. They want us to pay for some peoples choice & yet wont pay for > other peoples choice. Some women want a personal midwife & the option > to birth where ever they choose including at home. This is considerably > less costly but the taxpayer is not asked to pay for this, they are > forced to pay more for that woman's unwanted choice of a Dr./hospital > birth. Lets make this about informed choice & the right of women to > choice what is best for them & then I would be happy to talk to you. > > Regards, > > Philippa Scott > Birth Buddies > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004 > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004 -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
