[ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet?
Hi all Did anyone else see the article in todays Adelaide Advertiser with information on this? What do you think about it? http://www.pregnancystore.com/baby_gender_mentor.htm is the link to the test, and it claims to be 99.9% accurate as early as 5 weeks after conception, using a maternal blood sample which you collect yourself, and then send to a lab. They claim that the y chromosome can be found in the maternal blood if you are having a boy, wouldnt that require some crossing of the maternal and foetal blood? Isnt that what we dont want? Hmmm, not convinced on this one, but someone, please explain! Tania
Re: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet?
Phew, at *only* $275US, wot a bargain for all those who 'just need to know'! I notice that there are no testimonials included along the lines of Its great to know the gender of our baby at 5 weeks, as now we can have an early termination if its not the sex we want (yes Im being super cynical, but I have to wonder if its a big seller in China India). I quote from the site: *I was able to surprise my husband with an early birthday gift this morning when I checked my e-mail and got the results. Surprise!* Finding out the gender of yr baby via email - OMG! I can just hear George Orwell saying smugly I told you so... I have no idea whether the claims are true - Here's how it works: Your baby releases its DNA into your blood plasma. Because DNA between different people is so similar, the only way to distinguish baby DNA from maternal DNA is if the baby is a boy and has a Y chromosome. If the Y chromosome DNA is present in your maternal blood sample, it's a boy; if the Y chromosome DNA is not present, you're having a girl. *200% Money-Back Guarantee!! *go figure! jennifairy Tania Smallwood wrote: Hi all Did anyone else see the article in today’s Adelaide Advertiser with information on this? What do you think about it? http://www.pregnancystore.com/baby_gender_mentor.htm is the link to the test, and it claims to be 99.9% accurate as early as 5 weeks after conception, using a maternal blood sample which you collect yourself, and then send to a lab. They claim that the y chromosome can be found in the maternal blood if you are having a boy, wouldn’t that require some crossing of the maternal and foetal blood? Isn’t that what we don’t want? Hmmm, not convinced on this one, but someone, please explain! Tania No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 6/07/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 6/07/2005 -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
RE: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet?
Hmm, had some similar but longwinded thoughts myself Jennifairy, but you put it so succinctly! I note with interest that the Director of Obstetrics Brian Peat, calls it an exciting development, and says This is a novelty use for a technology that could become very important. Also, at the end of the article it talks about the woman pictured being impatient to know the sex of her baby in the week before the birth. Sad isn't it, how just about everything of any value from nature is being turned into pathology... Tania -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: [ozmidwifery] Single Uterine Artery
Dear Kylie Trythe non maternity parts of the Cochrane Database http://www.cochrane.org.au/ I feel sure you will find information here as I remember a documentary about Cochrane which talked about the issue of urinary reflex and the inappropriateness of prophylactic antibiotics was one of the first issues consedered byCochrane . 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: Kylie Carberry To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:05 AM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Single Uterine Artery Hi Everyone, I posted a few weeks back in regard to this as I had a SUA and was recommended my baby have an renal scan when a week old. Fortunately she did, as she did in fact have a urinary reflux. We actually saw a paediatric urologist last week as my bub (now 18 months) has had three UTI's despite being on antibiotics, and has kidney scarring due to the infections. He has recommended surgery and when I told him about the SUA he said babies who do have the reflux often have a SUA also. As I am right into the latest research about this condition I would be really interested if anyone knows of the latest info mentioned by Joy. cheers Kylie Carberry Freelance Journalist p: +61242970115 m: +612418220638 f: +61242970747From: "Joy Cocks" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auTo: "Ozmidwifery" ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] Single Uterine ArteryDate: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:28:09 +1000Further to discussion a few weeks ago - according to a localobstetrician/ultrasonographer, previous information that SUA increases thelikelihood of renal anomalies has now been disproven and there is no needfor the baby to undergo renal ultrasound unless a problem presents. Sorry,I don't have any references, just word of mouth.JoyJoy Cocks RN (Div 1) RM CBE IBCLCBRIGHT Vic 3741email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]--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 to subscribe or unsubscribe. No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 6/07/2005
Re: [ozmidwifery] Single Uterine Artery
Try this email [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Kylie Carberry To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:05 AM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Single Uterine Artery Hi Everyone, I posted a few weeks back in regard to this as I had a SUA and was recommended my baby have an renal scan when a week old. Fortunately she did, as she did in fact have a urinary reflux. We actually saw a paediatric urologist last week as my bub (now 18 months) has had three UTI's despite being on antibiotics, and has kidney scarring due to the infections. He has recommended surgery and when I told him about the SUA he said babies who do have the reflux often have a SUA also. As I am right into the latest research about this condition I would be really interested if anyone knows of the latest info mentioned by Joy. cheers Kylie Carberry Freelance Journalist p: +61242970115 m: +612418220638 f: +61242970747From: "Joy Cocks" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auTo: "Ozmidwifery" ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] Single Uterine ArteryDate: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:28:09 +1000Further to discussion a few weeks ago - according to a localobstetrician/ultrasonographer, previous information that SUA increases thelikelihood of renal anomalies has now been disproven and there is no needfor the baby to undergo renal ultrasound unless a problem presents. Sorry,I don't have any references, just word of mouth.JoyJoy Cocks RN (Div 1) RM CBE IBCLCBRIGHT Vic 3741email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]--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 to subscribe or unsubscribe. No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 6/07/2005
RE: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet?
HI, I originally heard of this concept while still living in Europe and heard that it was actually used and trialed in Hong Kong to not test the sex, but to test for Chromosomal abnormalities, it was by accident that they found Y chromosomes in the blood samples of pregnant women, and then started using it to test for Downs and the likes. Sad that someone honed in on the sex differentiating, what ever happened to good old waiting and being happy with a healthy babe? Just my two bobs worth. Melanie BMid1 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tania Smallwood Sent: Friday, 8 July 2005 19:46 To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet? Hi all Did anyone else see the article in todays Adelaide Advertiser with information on this? What do you think about it? http://www.pregnancystore.com/baby_gender_mentor.htm is the link to the test, and it claims to be 99.9% accurate as early as 5 weeks after conception, using a maternal blood sample which you collect yourself, and then send to a lab. They claim that the y chromosome can be found in the maternal blood if you are having a boy, wouldnt that require some crossing of the maternal and foetal blood? Isnt that what we dont want? Hmmm, not convinced on this one, but someone, please explain! Tania
RE: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet?
I have to agree with you Melanie. This couple: We are excited to tell you we are having a baby boy!!! My wife and I could not be more happy! Thanks to you and all the great people on your team for rushing our order through so quickly... the suspense was killing us! Robert Ann T. - would not have lasted long in the 'olden' days methinks. Cheers Judy --- Melanie Sommeling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI, I originally heard of this concept while still living in Europe and heard that it was actually used and trialed in Hong Kong to not test the sex, but to test for Chromosomal abnormalities, it was by accident that they found Y chromosomes in the blood samples of pregnant women, and then started using it to test for Downs and the likes. Sad that someone honed in on the sex differentiating, what ever happened to good old waiting and being happy with a healthy babe? Just my two bobs worth. Melanie BMid1 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tania Smallwood Sent: Friday, 8 July 2005 19:46 To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet? Hi all Did anyone else see the article in today's Adelaide Advertiser with information on this? What do you think about it? http://www.pregnancystore.com/baby_gender_mentor.htm is the link to the test, and it claims to be 99.9% accurate as early as 5 weeks after conception, using a maternal blood sample which you collect yourself, and then send to a lab. They claim that the y chromosome can be found in the maternal blood if you are having a boy, wouldn't that require some crossing of the maternal and foetal blood? Isn't that what we don't want? Hmmm, not convinced on this one, but someone, please explain! Tania Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
[ozmidwifery] Risk of uterine rupture
Hi, I know this has been talked about to death - but I didn't need the info then, so I just didn't take it in. but a friend told me she would be having an elective C/S because the risk of rupture was 1 in 200. Is that right? Barb Barb GlareMum of Zac, 12, Dan, 10, Cassie 7 and Guan 2www.mothersdirect.com.au
RE: [ozmidwifery] Risk of uterine rupture
The likelihood of uterine rupture with attempted VBAC is 0.5%. (0.2% uterine rupture, 1.1% asymptomatic dehiscence from case control studies). The risk of hysterectomy and perinatal death from uterine rupture are 0.05% and 0.07% respectively in hospitals equipped to provide rapid laparotomy. (Australian VBAC study) Major uterine rupture, before or during labour, after a classical Caesarean section is 5%. http://www.birthrites.org/ From the birthrites website. Love Sally Westbury
RE: [ozmidwifery] Risk of uterine rupture
Hi Barb, This is why caesarean section is not to be taken lightly in the first place. I have heard this figure quoted too (others will probably know more than me). What they don't seem to tell women, is that rupture can happen during pregnancy too. I have never seen one rupture. I have heard doctors say when they have done a repeat c/s that the 'scar was about to give way, it's a good thing we did a c/s'. What they don't seem to discuss is that there are complications of c/s too, associated with the anaesthetic, or immobility, or surgical error such as nicking the bladder or babe. I suggest a look at theCARES website. It is very informative. http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/caressa/ Regards, Nicole -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Barb Glare Chris BrightSent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 8:46 AMTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] Risk of uterine rupture Hi, I know this has been talked about to death - but I didn't need the info then, so I just didn't take it in. but a friend told me she would be having an elective C/S because the risk of rupture was 1 in 200. Is that right? Barb Barb GlareMum of Zac, 12, Dan, 10, Cassie 7 and Guan 2www.mothersdirect.com.au
Re: [ozmidwifery] Risk of uterine rupture
G'day Barb, 1:200 is the equivalent of 0.5%. According to Henci Goer in “Obstetric Myths and Research Realities” the uterine rupture rate for a prior caesarean is 0.3% (1995, 42). In addition, a study by Lyndon-Rochelle, Holt, Easterling and Martin in the New England Journal of Medicine Risk of Uterine Rupture During Labor (sic) Among Women with a Prior Caesarean Delivery (2001, v345:3-8) gives a uterine rupture rate of 0.77% for non-induced labour and 2.45% for prostaglandin-induced labour in a study covering 20,095 women. Interestingly, these figures are vastly below those quoted by ex-Queensland AMA Presdent Dr David Molloy who claims that the risk is between 5 and 20 percent (quoted in The Australian - 4 Feb 2005). I have written to Dr Molloy three times and he has been unable to provide me with any scientific references supporting his claim. Has your friend weighed up the other risks from having a caesarean so that her decision is fully-informed, or simply the risks of rupture? With best wishes, David x-tad-bigger- David Vernon Editor /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerHaving a Great Birth in Australia /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerand /x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerMen at Birth/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger GPO Box 2314 CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 AUSTRALIA Tel: 02 6230 2107 Em: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.acmi.org.au/greatbirth - /x-tad-bigger On 09/07/2005, at 8:45 AM, Barb Glare Chris Bright wrote: x-tad-smallerHi,/x-tad-smaller x-tad-smallerI know this has been talked about to death - but I didn't need the info then, so I just didn't take it in. but a friend told me she would be having an elective C/S because the risk of rupture was 1 in 200. Is that right?/x-tad-smaller x-tad-smallerBarb/x-tad-smallerx-tad-smallerBarb Glare/x-tad-smallerx-tad-smallerMum of Zac, 12, Dan, 10, Cassie 7 and Guan 2/x-tad-smallerx-tad-smallerwww.mothersdirect.com.au/x-tad-smaller
[ozmidwifery] accreta
Love when i have never heard of this has anyone hadexperience with accreta where the placenta is left to come away itself ie in this case 3 mths later , jan
RE: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet?
I can understand the need to know. I was desperate for a girl when pregnant with no. 3. It took ages for me to accept him. I feel that if I had known what sex I was having I could have accepted it during the pregnancy and been ready to welcome my boy. Although I really didn't care with no.4 I lined up for an amino (43yrs and diabetic) mainly to find out the sex. We don't all want to know the sex so we can terminate if it's wrong. No-one wants a sick baby. Not every=one wants a 'surprise' Isn't this part of choice in pregnancy? . -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Melanie SommelingSent: Friday, 8 July 2005 10:13 PMTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: RE: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet? HI, I originally heard of this concept while still living in Europe and heard that it was actually used and trialed in Hong Kong to not test the sex, but to test for Chromosomal abnormalities, it was by accident that they found Y chromosomes in the blood samples of pregnant women, and then started using it to test for Downs and the likes. Sad that someone honed in on the sex differentiating, what ever happened to good old waiting and being happy with a healthy babe? Just my two bobs worth. Melanie BMid1 -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tania SmallwoodSent: Friday, 8 July 2005 19:46To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] gender prediction test over the internet? Hi all Did anyone else see the article in todays Adelaide Advertiser with information on this? What do you think about it? http://www.pregnancystore.com/baby_gender_mentor.htm is the link to the test, and it claims to be 99.9% accurate as early as 5 weeks after conception, using a maternal blood sample which you collect yourself, and then send to a lab. They claim that the y chromosome can be found in the maternal blood if you are having a boy, wouldnt that require some crossing of the maternal and foetal blood? Isnt that what we dont want? Hmmm, not convinced on this one, but someone, please explain! Tania
RE: [ozmidwifery] Risk of uterine rupture
Doctors will tell you anything to get you to do what they want. Even if the risk is 1:200, isn't that pretty low anyway? Why even consider it. I agree, the risk is 0.5% -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of StringybarkersSent: Saturday, 9 July 2005 10:57 AMTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Risk of uterine ruptureG'day Barb,1:200 is the equivalent of 0.5%. According to Henci Goer in “Obstetric Myths and Research Realities” the uterine rupture rate for a prior caesarean is 0.3% (1995, 42). In addition, a study by Lyndon-Rochelle, Holt, Easterling and Martin in the New England Journal of Medicine "Risk of Uterine Rupture During Labor (sic) Among Women with a Prior Caesarean Delivery" (2001, v345:3-8) gives a uterine rupture rate of 0.77% for non-induced labour and 2.45% for prostaglandin-induced labour in a study covering 20,095 women.Interestingly, these figures are vastly below those quoted by ex-Queensland AMA Presdent Dr David Molloy who claims that the risk is between 5 and 20 percent (quoted in The Australian - 4 Feb 2005). I have written to Dr Molloy three times and he has been unable to provide me with any scientific references supporting his claim.Has your friend weighed up the other risks from having a caesarean so that her decision is fully-informed, or simply the risks of rupture?With best wishes,David-David VernonEditorHaving a Great Birth in Australia and Men at BirthGPO Box 2314CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601AUSTRALIATel: 02 6230 2107Em: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://www.acmi.org.au/greatbirth-On 09/07/2005, at 8:45 AM, Barb Glare Chris Bright wrote: Hi, I know this has been talked about to death - but I didn't need the info then, so I just didn't take it in. but a friend told me she would be having an elective C/S because the risk of rupture was 1 in 200. Is that right? Barb Barb Glare Mum of Zac, 12, Dan, 10, Cassie 7 and Guan 2 www.mothersdirect.com.au
[ozmidwifery] FW: [accessingartemis] VBAC Mortality Unchanged After Guideline Issued
Interesting also! This is all SO good to be discussing, considering the National Caesarean Awareness Day is coming up in September! Jo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lisa Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [accessingartemis] VBAC Mortality Unchanged After Guideline Issued VBAC Mortality Unchanged After Guideline Issued Damian McNamara Miami Bureau NEW ORLEANS — Neonatal and maternal mortality in California did not significantly change after the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended vaginal births after cesarean delivery be performed only in settings with “immediately available” emergency care, according to a study. Very low-birth-weight infants were the only group to experience significantly higher mortality associated with vaginal births after cesarean (VBACs). When the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) was contacted for comment, a representative criticized the study design and its implications. In 1996, ACOG encouraged VBACs, John Zweifler, M.D., said at the annual conference of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine. In 1998, the college changed its recommendations on VBACs and stated they should be attempted only where emergency care is “readily available.” The following year, ACOG further restricted the recommendations to settings where emergency care is “immediately available.” The college retained the wording of these recommendations in its latest update, Practice Bulletin No. 54 (Obstet. Gynecol. 2004;104:203-12). “But for those of us in rural settings, this could impair our ability to do VBACs,” Dr. Zweifler said. “We were concerned that a change in ACOG guidelines would have deleterious effect on our [residency] program.” Dr. Zweifler and research fellow Susan Hughes compared neonatal and maternal deaths from 1996 to 2002. They reviewed maternal demographics, birth data, and outcomes, noting previous C-sections and whether hospitals were in rural or urban areas. California Birth Statistical Master Files consider mortality to be associated with birth if it occurs within 72 hours of delivery, said Dr. Zweifler, director of the University of California, San Francisco's Fresno Family Medicine Residency Program. There were more than 3.5 million single births in California in the seven years, including 2.7 million vaginal births, 456,000 primary cesarean sections, and 386,000 deliveries to women with a history of C-section. Of the women with a history of cesarean delivery, 311,000 had a repeat cesarean, and 74,000 had an attempted VBAC. There were 61,000 successful VBACs and 13,000 failed ones. VBAC rates decreased from 1996 to 2002, reflecting national trends, Ms. Hughes said. The biggest decrease was in rural VBACs. “There were very few maternal deaths—about 35. So statistically, there were no differences in maternal mortality between time periods or attempted VBAC, versus repeat cesareans,” Ms. Hughes said. There was a statistically significant increase in mortality for infants weighing less than 1,500 grams. “Attempted VBACs in both time periods had higher death rates than repeat cesareans,” Ms. Hughes said. However, there were no significant differences in mortality for infants born weighing more than 1,500 grams, including those greater than 4,000 grams. Reliability of birth certificate data was a possible limitation of the study, Ms. Hughes said. In addition, there was no information on morbidities, such as uterine rupture or newborn encephalopathy. “The more restrictive ACOG guidelines have not improved VBAC-related neonatal or maternal mortality,” Dr. Zweifler said. “ACOG's recommendation is purely based on the fact there is no more catastrophic event that befalls women than uterine rupture,” said Gary Hankins, M.D., chair of the ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. “Studies clearly show that if you are not really available to respond to this emergency in a very quick fashion—generally less than 30 minutes—you can expect, in a significant number of cases, either the death of the baby or permanent neurologic injury of the baby from birth asphyxia.” “That being the case, we opt to promote standards of safety, and patient safety if our first order is why these recommendations are made,” said Dr. Hankins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas, Galveston. The data used for the study—derived from Birth Statistical Master Files—are insufficient to address all the safety issues concerning VBAC deliveries, Dr. Hankins said. “I would challenge either of these people to see if they have ever stood on the front line and dealt with a woman who has had a uterine rupture.” -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hope Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 4:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [accessingartemis] PTSD from childbirth without
RE: [ozmidwifery] Risk of uterine rupture + CARES
CARES SA web site is www.cares-sa.org.au The thing that we all have to keep in mind is that the research done into vbac is all done within the medical model with no known care providers, inductions, augmentations and epidurals included and yet still the actual rates of rupture is an ESTIMATED 0.2% Estimated because the actual events are so rare, as quoted in the actual research. What women need to take into considerations the things that make VBAC more risky…not being educated about why she had the first section; what information and support she has for this pregnancy and birth; what constraints they are wanting to impose on her; what risks they are willing to impose on her (like the above listed); and also she needs to seriously consider the long term serious risks of repeat cs. Women need to know that by having someone who is experienced with supporting vbac and who do not impose their own fears upon her, and if she allows herself to birth as naturally as possible the better her chances are. The research that is out there highlights that rupture rates are extremely low, but rupture is a serious situation…just like the risk of cs are rare but serious. The research also needs to be addressed from the point of view that it does NOT take into consideration midwifery expertise and continuous care. There is little to no research from midwifery with vbac and what there is says that women’s chances of success are as high as 90%. So if the conservative medical model can still have rates of rupture as low as 0.2% with all the crap that they still do to vbacs and the success rates for vbac is still 70% then imagine how good it is with midwifery care! Even a doula with vbac experience (if it is personal experience even better) can affect positive vbac outcomes. Women need to get educated or just go ahead with what doctor says. I know what type of person I am and it is not to just hand over my body, my baby and my potential mortality to someone who is only making choices that suit them – ie no REAL medical reason. Potential litigation and laziness are not reasons to encourage women to go under the knife once again. The long term serious risks of repeat cs are only just coming out now and we should be taking them very seriously. Jo -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 7/8/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 7/8/2005
