Rachel is that the Wesley Hospital in Townsville? Knowing the rates of C-section up here it does not surprise me. I think their rate is around 50%. (Although they seem to be the better of the two Private Hospitals) hmmmm the way of the future??? Honey
----- Original Message ----- From: "wump fish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Fw: 'Higher risk' in midwife deliveries (http://theaustralian.com.au report) > Thanks Denise! What a lovely response. > > Moving to Australia has re-ignited my fighting spirit regarding women's > birth rights. There is so much to fight for and so many motivated, strong > midwives and birthing women. I am looking forward to what we can all achieve > together for the future of childbirth in Australia. > > By the way, is anyone going to the Wesley Hospital (Qld) on Saturday for the > 'C-section: the way of the future' conference? Should be > interesting/infuriating. > > Rachel > > > >From: "Denise Hynd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Fw: 'Higher risk' in midwife deliveries > >(http://theaustralian.com.au report) > >Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:18:02 +0800 > > > >Dear Rachel > >I find your fedd back very perceptive > > > >it seems that the obs are behaving > >>like threatened children. > >And previously > > > >Regarding the 3rd degree tear stats. I would be interested to know where > >this research is from. As far a I know no-one has researched physiological > >birth and it's impact on the perineum - probably because so few women > >experience it. > > > >I hope all future midwives have half the abilities you have shown on this > >list in only 2 emails > >You have given me great cheer for the futre of midwifery!! > > > > > > > >Denise Hynd > > > >"Let us support one another, not just in philosophy but in action, for the > >sake of freedom for all women to choose exactly how and by whom, if by > >anyone, our bodies will be handled." > > > >- Linda Hes > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "wump fish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[email protected]> > >Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:02 PM > >Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Fw: 'Higher risk' in midwife deliveries > >(http://theaustralian.com.au report) > > > > > >>As a newcomer to Australia from the UK - it seems that the obs are > >>behaving like threatened children. > >> > >>Firstly, their stats can flawed. Other developed countries have also > >>looked at the evidence and concluded that midwife-led, community-based > >>care is effective, efficient and safe. For example, the UK is moving > >>towards a midwifery-led birth centre model based on research about what > >>women want and what is safe. > >> > >>Secondly, even if midwifery-led birth is unsafe (which it is not). Surely > >>women's right to choose this option should be maintained. Women should be > >>able to access a wide range of birth options from independent mws to > >>elective c-section. Interesting that a woman's right to opt for an > >>elective c-section/induction is upheld by the obs despite the wealth of > >>research demonstrating it is not the safest choice for mother or baby. > >>However, they want to block a woman's right to choose midwifery-led care > >>based on safety claims. Is this about safety or power? > >> > >>I am deeply disturbed by the amount of hostility directed at mws by obs. > >>We should be working together - mw being the experts in physiological > >>birth, and obs being the experts in complicated birth. > >> > >>Rachel > >> > >> > >>>From: "Sally-Anne Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Reply-To: [email protected] > >>>To: <[email protected]> > >>>Subject: [ozmidwifery] Fw: 'Higher risk' in midwife deliveries > >>>(http://theaustralian.com.au report) > >>>Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:23:49 +1000 > >>> > >>> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: Sally > >>>To: Sally-Anne Brown > >>>Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:11 AM > >>>Subject: 'Higher risk' in midwife deliveries (http://theaustralian.com.au > >>>report) > >>> > >>> > >>> Sally ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) suggested you might be interested in > >>>this http://theaustralian.com.au report. > >>> > >>> > >>> 'Higher risk' in midwife deliveries > >>> Adam Cresswell, Health editor > >>> 30 August 2005 > >>> > >>> THE safety of midwife-led birthing units has been doubted > >>>and the most reliable evidence suggests babies born in such centres are > >>>85 per cent more likely to die during or shortly after birth, compared > >>>with babies born in major hospitals. > >>> > >>> > >>> Leading obstetrician Andrew Pesce said yesterday that a > >>>review by the international Cochrane Collaboration - considered the best > >>>source of evidence for medical claims - found that home-like settings for > >>>births were associated with "modest benefits". > >>> > >>> Dr Pesce said these benefits included higher rates of > >>>breastfeeding, more satisfied mothers and slightly higher rates of > >>>spontaneous vaginal childbirth (as opposed to surgical deliveries). > >>> > >>> However, the Sydney-based Dr Pesce - who is also secretary > >>>of the industrial lobby group the National Association of Specialist > >>>Obstetricians and Gynaecologists - said the review, published late last > >>>year, also found babies born in home-like settings such as midwife-run > >>>centres ran an 85 per cent higher risk of death around the time of > >>>childbirth. However, the overall rate is still very low - about eight > >>>babies in 1000 live births in 2002, according to the Australian Bureau of > >>>Statistics. > >>> > >>> Dr Pesce also said studies that midwives sometimes used to > >>>back up their safety claims were scientifically inferior, usually because > >>>their subjects were not randomised - an accepted technique to remove > >>>bias. > >>> > >>> "Everybody says it's been shown to be safe - but it's not. > >>>It's been shown to be reasonably safe, but without question there's a > >>>worry about increased risk of perinatal mortality," he said. > >>> > >>> "There's a positive effect (of birthing centres), but it's a > >>>lot lower than you would be led to believe by people who advocate this > >>>model." > >>> > >>> Kathleen Fahy, professor of midwifery at the University of > >>>Newcastle, said Dr Pesce was using the Cochrane deaths data "to imply > >>>that something is significant when it isn't". > >>> > >>> "What's going on here is a desire to prevent midwives from > >>>practising their profession, and using safety to do so," she said. > >>> > >>> Sally Tracy, associate professor of midwifery practice > >>>development at the University of Technology Sydney, said she had recently > >>>finalised a study using data from more than 1million Australian births, > >>>which would be published shortly in a major medical journal. > >>> > >>> Although prevented under medical journal requirements from > >>>discussing the findings before publication, she said the results were > >>>positive for midwife centres. > >>> > >>> In an article to be published next month in NASOG's > >>>newsletter, Dr Pesce - who also represents obstetricians and > >>>gynaecologists on the Australian Medical Association's federal council - > >>>said the Cochrane review looked at the results of six different trials, > >>>together involving 8677 women. > >>> > >>> The review found birth centre care was associated with > >>>"modest" reductions in some medical interventions, such as episiotomies - > >>>where a cut is made in the perineum to assist birth and prevent > >>>uncontrolled tearing. > >>> > >>> However, Dr Pesce wrote that the study found higher perineal > >>>lacerations in midwife care, so the overall rate of injury in that area > >>>was similar. > >>> > >>> "In summary, there is now good-quality evidence of higher > >>>risk of perinatal death in birth centres, with only modest reductions in > >>>some medical interventions," he wrote. > >>> > >>> > >>> Click here to sign > >>> up for daily headlines > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- > >>> > >>> > >>>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > >>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >>>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: > >>>22/08/2005 > >> > >> > >>>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > >>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >>>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: > >>>22/08/2005 > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________ > >>Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! > >>http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters > >> > >>-- > >>This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > >>Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. > >> > >> > >>-- > >>No virus found in this incoming message. > >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.17/84 - Release Date: 29/08/2005 > >> > >> > > > >-- > >This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > >Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! > http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters > > -- > 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.
