Jo I agree. Fantastic response. Regards kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kate &/or Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:10 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.
