[ozmidwifery] new idea article again
Hican the person who posted that new idea article a few weeks back about c/section vs vaginal birth send it again please? You can send off list to [EMAIL PROTECTED]Thanks so much, i just need it for a uni assignmentRegardsEmily __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [ozmidwifery] new idea
Isn't the chance of losing a baby to a uterine rupture in VBAC approximately 0.03%? Approximately 1 in ten ruptures? I'll just go look it up Rachele - Original Message - From: Dean Jo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] new idea Great letters everyone! But remember when anyone is spouting stats on rupture rates, the 1 in 200 ruptures are not all fatal ruptures. In fact the .2% was an 'estimated' rate (quote) from the 2001 Australian vbac management study. There were NO maternal deaths, only hysterectomies and there were no feotal mortalities: only morbidities. So we must be very clear that when we discuss vbac that by using the 1 in 200 stat, we are not confusing women to think they have a 1 in 200 chance of having their baby die due to rupture. Cheers Jo -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/327 - Release Date: 4/28/2006 -- 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.
RE: [ozmidwifery] new idea
Oooh yes please, will someone please give the woman some REAL facts!!! Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood BellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rachele Meredith Sent: Thursday, 4 May 2006 11:50 PM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] new idea Isn't the chance of losing a baby to a uterine rupture in VBAC approximately 0.03%? Approximately 1 in ten ruptures? I'll just go look it up Rachele - Original Message - From: Dean Jo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] new idea Great letters everyone! But remember when anyone is spouting stats on rupture rates, the 1 in 200 ruptures are not all fatal ruptures. In fact the .2% was an 'estimated' rate (quote) from the 2001 Australian vbac management study. There were NO maternal deaths, only hysterectomies and there were no feotal mortalities: only morbidities. So we must be very clear that when we discuss vbac that by using the 1 in 200 stat, we are not confusing women to think they have a 1 in 200 chance of having their baby die due to rupture. Cheers Jo -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/327 - Release Date: 4/28/2006 -- 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.
[ozmidwifery] new idea
heres my letter i tried to be nice and respectful and kept trying to keep in mind that everyone has good intentions theyre just obviously uninformed and scared !! it worked for a second and then i was just furious again hahaha we'll see what my reply is Hi, I am a 4th year medical student and feel the need to write after reading your recent article on caesareans vs vaginal birth. While I'm sure this was an attempt to provide useful information to your readers about an obviously thought-provoking issue of great interest to your readers, the result I'm sorry to say is a biased article that provokes fear and perpetuates many myths. In the current era of sky-rocketing intervention rates and theterrible hospitalbirth experiences that go with them, it is little wonder that 80% of gynaecologists would choose a caesarean ! Obstetrician/Gynaecologists are usually only called on to deal with problems and complications of pregnancy and birth and as such, often develop a skewed view of the inherent risks, despite the evidence. This does not mean however, that other women should be encouraged to make this choice. There are many medical complications, only a very small number of which are pointed out in the article, associated with caesareans. This is not to mention the psychological complications that can come with caesareans due to separation from their babies and the difficulty of caring for a small baby while recovering from major abdominal surgery. We only need to look to the US, with around a 30% caesarean rate and still rated 31st for perinatal mortality rates to see that caesarean sections are not the safe and inert procedure they are often made out to be and do not help countriesto keep more babies alive.The point made about scheduling the day of birth is a particularly sad one. It is shocking that our society puts the health and wellbeing of their babies (who will be born when they are fully ready to be) behind their quest for instant gratification and control over their lives. If ever, this is one time that we should give over to nature and forget our need to schedule, organise and plan everything to the minute detail. It is also sad that our 'husbands' may not be able to make time to be with us when their child is born unless it fits neatly into a schedule !The statistic given for uterine rupture during a vaginal birth after caesarean is in fact quite accurate (1 in 200.) The reasons it is biased are firstly, because very few readers have any experience with which to guage this against (for example that common interventions like amniocentesis that arerecommended every day havedouble this risk of miscarriage ie 1 in 100,) that half of all uterine ruptures occur in women who have not everhad a prior caesarean and that not all uterine ruptures are fatal anyway.The risks given for 'natural birth' are particularly misleading and fear provoking and are extremely dangerous suggestions to be putting out to a generation of women. The risk of 'uncontrolled tearing' which we call a 3rd or 4th degree tear is in fact very low. This does however, become a more common problem when the birth process is interefered with by cutting the perineum - another intervention. The risk of urinary incontinence has been shown time and time again to be unrelated to the mechanism of delivery. Women who undergo caesarean sections experience urinary incontinence at the same rates as those who have vaginal births. And yes, as you have pointed out, caesareans are usually relatively quick but what you fail to mention is the long period of recovery and pain that goes with this surgery and the fact that women who have vaginal births are usually much quicker to be up and about and leave hospital.I hope that you will think again before printing information of this nature again. It does discredit New Idea to those who know the evidence surrounding these issues. Although there may be no outright lies in this article, it is blindingly biased and really unhelpful in helping women and families in their birth journey. I also hope that you will be printing an apology and some evidence, perhaps care of a midwife, as they are the experts of normal birth, not us medical people. If not I will be recommending to all the GPs, hospitals and birth centres that I'm involved with not to buy or allow your magazine in waiting rooms, due to it's fear-provoking and over-simplified articles.Regards Emily Dorman New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
RE: [ozmidwifery] new idea
You go girl! From: Emily [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] new ideaDate: Wed, 3 May 2006 01:06:55 -0700 (PDT) heres my letter i tried to be nice and respectful and kept trying to keep in mind that everyone has good intentions theyre just obviously uninformed and scared !! it worked for a second and then i was just furious again hahaha we'll see what my reply is Hi, I am a 4th year medical student and feel the need to write after reading your recent article on caesareans vs vaginal birth. While I'm sure this was an attempt to provide useful information to your readers about an obviously thought-provoking issue of great interest to your readers, the result I'm sorry to say is a biased article that provokes fear and perpetuates many myths. In the current era of sky-rocketing intervention rates and theterrible hospitalbirth experiences that go with them, it is little wonder that 80% of gynaecologists would choose a caesarean ! Obstetrician/Gynaecologists are usually only called on to deal with problems and complications of pregnancy and birth and as such, often develop a skewed view of the inherent risks, despite the evidence. This does not mean however, that other women should be encouraged to make this choice. There are many medical complications, only a very small number of which are pointed out in the article, associated with caesareans. This is not to mention the psychological complications that can come with caesareans due to separation from their babies and the difficulty of caring for a small baby while recovering from major abdominal surgery. We only need to look to the US, with around a 30% caesarean rate and still rated 31st for perinatal mortality rates to see that caesarean sections are not the safe and inert procedure they are often made out to be and do not help countriesto keep more babies alive. The point made about scheduling the day of birth is a particularly sad one. It is shocking that our society puts the health and wellbeing of their babies (who will be born when they are fully ready to be) behind their quest for instant gratification and control over their lives. If ever, this is one time that we should give over to nature and forget our need to schedule, organise and plan everything to the minute detail. It is also sad that our 'husbands' may not be able to make time to be with us when their child is born unless it fits neatly into a schedule ! The statistic given for uterine rupture during a vaginal birth after caesarean is in fact quite accurate (1 in 200.) The reasons it is biased are firstly, because very few readers have any experience with which to guage this against (for example that common interventions like amniocentesis that arerecommended every day havedouble this risk of miscarriage ie 1 in 100,) that half of all uterine ruptures occur in women who have not everhad a prior caesarean and that not all uterine ruptures are fatal anyway. The risks given for 'natural birth' are particularly misleading and fear provoking and are extremely dangerous suggestions to be putting out to a generation of women. The risk of 'uncontrolled tearing' which we call a 3rd or 4th degree tear is in fact very low. This does however, become a more common problem when the birth process is interefered with by cutting the perineum - another intervention. The risk of urinary incontinence has been shown time and time again to be unrelated to the mechanism of delivery. Women who undergo caesarean sections experience urinary incontinence at the same rates as those who have vaginal births. And yes, as you have pointed out, caesareans are usually relatively quick but what you fail to mention is the long period of recovery and pain that goes with this surgery and the fact that women who have vaginal births are usually much quicker to be up and about and leave hospital. I hope that you will think again before printing information of this nature again. It does discredit New Idea to those who know the evidence surrounding these issues. Although there may be no outright lies in this article, it is blindingly biased and really unhelpful in helping women and families in their birth journey. I also hope that you will be printing an apology and some evidence, perhaps care of a midwife, as they are the experts of normal birth, not us medical people. If not I will be recommending to all the GPs, hospitals and birth centres that I'm involved with not to buy or allow your magazine in waiting rooms, due to it's fear-provoking and over-simplified articles. Regards Emily Dorman New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: [ozmidwifery] new idea
That's an excellent letter Emily. You will certainly rock the medical world when you are unleashed! Your passion is wonderful. Love Abby Emily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: heres my letter i tried to be nice and respectful and kept trying to keep in mind that everyone has good intentions theyre just obviously uninformed and scared !! it worked for a second and then i was just furious again hahaha we'll see what my reply is -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: [ozmidwifery] new idea
Go Emily! :-) - Original Message - From: Emily To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:06 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] new idea heres my letter i tried to be nice and respectful and kept trying to keep in mind that everyone has good intentions theyre just obviously uninformed and scared !! it worked for a second and then i was just furious again hahaha we'll see what my reply is Hi, I am a 4th year medical student and feel the need to write after reading your recent article on caesareans vs vaginal birth. While I'm sure this was an attempt to provide useful information to your readers about an obviously thought-provoking issue of great interest to your readers, the result I'm sorry to say is a biased article that provokes fear and perpetuates many myths. In the current era of sky-rocketing intervention rates and theterrible hospitalbirth experiences that go with them, it is little wonder that 80% of gynaecologists would choose a caesarean ! Obstetrician/Gynaecologists are usually only called on to deal with problems and complications of pregnancy and birth and as such, often develop a skewed view of the inherent risks, despite the evidence. This does not mean however, that other women should be encouraged to make this choice. There are many medical complications, only a very small number of which are pointed out in the article, associated with caesareans. This is not to mention the psychological complications that can come with caesareans due to separation from their babies and the difficulty of caring for a small baby while recovering from major abdominal surgery. We only need to look to the US, with around a 30% caesarean rate and still rated 31st for perinatal mortality rates to see that caesarean sections are not the safe and inert procedure they are often made out to be and do not help countriesto keep more babies alive. The point made about scheduling the day of birth is a particularly sad one. It is shocking that our society puts the health and wellbeing of their babies (who will be born when they are fully ready to be) behind their quest for instant gratification and control over their lives. If ever, this is one time that we should give over to nature and forget our need to schedule, organise and plan everything to the minute detail. It is also sad that our 'husbands' may not be able to make time to be with us when their child is born unless it fits neatly into a schedule ! The statistic given for uterine rupture during a vaginal birth after caesarean is in fact quite accurate (1 in 200.) The reasons it is biased are firstly, because very few readers have any experience with which to guage this against (for example that common interventions like amniocentesis that arerecommended every day havedouble this risk of miscarriage ie 1 in 100,) that half of all uterine ruptures occur in women who have not everhad a prior caesarean and that not all uterine ruptures are fatal anyway. The risks given for 'natural birth' are particularly misleading and fear provoking and are extremely dangerous suggestions to be putting out to a generation of women. The risk of 'uncontrolled tearing' which we call a 3rd or 4th degree tear is in fact very low. This does however, become a more common problem when the birth process is interefered with by cutting the perineum - another intervention. The risk of urinary incontinence has been shown time and time again to be unrelated to the mechanism of delivery. Women who undergo caesarean sections experience urinary incontinence at the same rates as those who have vaginal births. And yes, as you have pointed out, caesareans are usually relatively quick but what you fail to mention is the long period of recovery and pain that goes with this surgery and the fact that women who have vaginal births are usually much quicker to be up and about and leave hospital. I hope that you will think again before printing information of this nature again. It does discredit New Idea to those who know the evidence surrounding these issues. Although there may be no outright lies in this article, it is blindingly biased and really unhelpful in helping women and families in their birth journey. I also hope that you will be printing an apology and some evidence, perhaps care of a midwife, as they are the experts of normal birth, not us medical people. If not I will be recommending to all the GPs, hospitals and birth centres that I'm involved with not to buy or allow your magazine in waiting rooms, due to it's fear-provoking and over-simplified articles. Regards Emily Dorman New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
RE: [ozmidwifery] new idea
Great letters everyone! But remember when anyone is spouting stats on rupture rates, the 1 in 200 ruptures are not all fatal ruptures. In fact the .2% was an 'estimated' rate (quote) from the 2001 Australian vbac management study. There were NO maternal deaths, only hysterectomies and there were no feotal mortalities: only morbidities. So we must be very clear that when we discuss vbac that by using the 1 in 200 stat, we are not confusing women to think they have a 1 in 200 chance of having their baby die due to rupture. Cheers Jo -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/327 - Release Date: 4/28/2006 -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
