Sorry, I too have seen some dreadful injuries, but not with Kielland, and
my
own experience with the Kielland was okay, no episi and only a very small
tear. Which I thought was pretty good considering the huge epises I'd had
with the others. It was the Neville Barnes forceps that did the damage,
not
to me but the baby, and I think it was the stuck shoulders that caused the
neck. Some of the worse injuries I have seen have been wriggleys lift
outs.
Dreadful placement of the blades, although my 2 wriggleys births were
fine,
no probs with me or the babies. We do need to remember that not all forcep
births result in injury, and are sometimes necessary
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of brendamanning
Sent: Sunday, 16 October 2005 12:12 PM
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Scottish dads push wives toward C-sections? I
don't think so
Ken,
Your story is a very common one.
I think we all saw a good many Keillands Rotations in our day & often the
dreadful resulting lacerations & pain, injury & suffering that went along
with them for mother & baby.
I agree with Rachel in that often this was caused by operator error, the
Reg
'practising' (foot on the end of the bed stuff, makes me shudder to think
about it).
Fourth degree tears were not uncommon & the long-lasting damage to babies,
womens minds, pelvic floors & pelvic organs was horrendous.
BUT.............and I realise this could be construed as inflammatory but
it's not intended to be, really !!
Perhaps in the age of 'new obstetrics' if women ceased sueing OBs for
everything that went wrong then they (the OBs) wouldn't all be resorting
to
C/S at absolutely any excuse.
Really it's a very emotive argument & the OBs are damned if they do &
damned
if they don't. Sometimes we midwives are in the same boat !!
I'm not defending them overly here, just telling it like it is.
The OB is the story below emerges as skilled but he could just as easily
have had the arse sued off him for mishandling or something if the outcome
had been less favourable couldn't he?
With kind regards
Brenda Manning
www.themidwife.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken WArd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Scottish dads push wives toward C-sections? I
don't think so
I have experienced 4 assisted vaginal birth myself. The second was
dreadful,
and injured the baby, dislocated his neck. Number four was posterior, 2
hrs
of no descent in 2nd stage. I could feel she was stuck and tried
everything.
In the end I demanded an epidural and forceps. Once the doctor rotated
her
into oa she just about fell out. I saw his a lot in my mid. An op rotated
into a oa with forceps and then the mother birthing with no further
assistance.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of wump fish
Sent: Sunday, 16 October 2005 9:24 AM
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Scottish dads push wives toward C-sections? I
don't think so
I wonder if he told her that it would be better for her baby if she
experienced some labour - even if she then had a c-section. Although I
doubt
that option would fit with his schedule.
I also think that it is a shame that women are missing out on the option
of
an assisted vaginal birth due to the lack of obs skills. I have observed
some fantastically gentle and effective instrumental births by
experienced
and skilled obs. Including brow presentations manouvered and delivered
with
intact perineums. Far better than abdominal surgery. Perhaps if the obs
in
Australia concentrated on their own area (abnormal birth) instead of
wasting
time in ours (normal birth) they may develop the skills women need them
for.
Rachel
From: "Susan Cudlipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
To: <ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au>
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Scottish dads push wives toward C-sections? I
don't think so
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:52:48 +0800
Rachel, you raise an interesting point.
One of our obs was talking to a woman in clinic last week, she is 4'9"
and
baby is posterior and not engaged at 39 weeks (primip) so he was
advising
her to go straight for C/S - now I do not necessarily agree that she
could
not deliver - given some time to allow her body to do it's thing so
please
don't flame me, but his words were that he felt she would have a
struggle
and that these days it was felt that it is better to have a C/S than a
difficult vaginal birth, whereas in past times there was no choice but
to
attempt vaginal birth.
On the plus side, we have had several successful ECV's of late and even
have had obs talking women into VBAC!!!!
Sue
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing"
Edmund Burke
----- Original Message ----- From: "wump fish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Scottish dads push wives toward C-sections? I
don't think so
I wouldn't be too impressed by UK c-section rates. What is more
important
is the 'normal' birth rate. I worked in a large regional referral unit
in
the UK (5000 births per year). The Consultant was always bragging to
new
drs that the c-section rate was around 20%. He used to get rather
p**sed
off when I interrupted to point out that the normal birth rate for a
'low
risk' primip was 49%. The instrumental birth rate was very high.
I have noticed here (Queensland public hospital) that the c-section
rate
is around 30+%. But, women very rarely have instrumental births. Often
the
c-sections are done at full dilatation and the baby's head has to be
dis-impacted from the pelvis. I asked about it (I ask far too many
questions), and was told it was because the drs don't have the
experience
or skill of instrumental births, therefore prefer c-section. Those
women
that do have instrumental births often end up with 3rd degree tears.
I can only speak for the hospitals I have worked in (both public
sector),
but my observations are the 'normal birth' is higher than the rate in
the
UK.
Rachel
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Scottish dads push wives toward C-sections?
I
don't think so
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:12:57 EDT
I just wish we had their C/S rate!! Ours is about 5 times that
lately. The
other week I counted 18 out of 30 women on one ward had had the chop -
there
were also a few antenates, believe it or not! We're a major tertiary
hospital,
I know, but they weren't all fulminating P.E.T's, or grade 3&4 plac.
praevias!
But don't ya just love some of those threatening stand over
tactics
by
"support" (now there's a loose term) people demanding you give pain
relief? We've
had to call security a few times - it can be so distressing for the
women
and
the birth process, eh! GW
_________________________________________________________________
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: 267.12.1/135 - Release Date:
15/10/2005
--
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.
--
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.
