RE: [ozmidwifery] developmental hip dysplasia

[Megan & Larry]

Are you able to access an Osteopath? I havn't any 
experience with hip dysplacia, but have been very happy with all sorts of 
treatment from an Osteopath, even if its complimentary to what else you look 
into.
 
cheers
Megan


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kylie 
CarberrySent: Saturday, 17 September 2005 8:03 AMTo: 
ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] developmental 
hip dysplasia


Hi eveyone,
I am just wondering if anyone can enlighten me a little on my 18 month old 
daughter just-diagnosed developmental hip dysplasia.  I am still in 
disbelief that this was not picked up when she was first born and my 
paediatrician agreed.  To make things worse he told us that in Wollongong 
Hospital (where she was born) they used to have a paediatrician who did a 
routine check for DDH on all of the newborns and all were picked up.  To 
cut costs the IAHS got rid of this service and according to my paed one or two 
children are now overlooked.  What angers me is that even with treatment, 
because she is older, my daughter will face the possibiliity of having ongoing 
hip problems.  If anyone has any info on this condition (stories you've 
heard etc) I would greatly appreciate it if you could get in touch with 
me.  Also, what is the general procedure for the testing the hips and do 
you guys think a paediatric examination should be routine?
Thanks so much for having a read of my email,
Kylie Carberry[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit 
to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] protocols for occipito posterior position

[Honey Acharya]

Do you know of the Rotational 
Positioning Technique developed by Nikki MacFarlane? It is fantastic and so 
simple to use.
I think she presented it at last 
years midwifery conference in Adelaide. It is also available as a presentation 
through her www.childbirthinternational.com 
website.
I'd also be looking into the effects 
having an epidural may have with a posterior baby in labour.Rotational 
Postioning can also be used with an epidural in place.
Cheers
Honey

[ozmidwifery] protocols for occipito posterior position

[Samantha Saye]

 
Hello all,
 
I'm a first year B.Mid student at UTS and I'm (attempting) doing an Evidence Based Practice assignment on occipito posterior position in pregnancy/labour, and have to write a protocol(as in hospital protocol).  I'm after some ideas on best practice principles, hazards and unwanted outcomes, other related protocols..?? I've read the cochrane systematic review and the RCT on hands and knees posture, and how it doesn't seem to be effective.  Does anyone have any ideas information?
 
Thanks,
 
Samantha







_ FREE Emoticons for your email! Click Here!

Re: [ozmidwifery] *Elizabeth Meryment: Unnecessary birth pain*

[Janet Fraser]

Ah Philippa, music to my ears! 
Fanbloodytastic!
J

Re: [ozmidwifery] perinatal stats

[Jan Robinson]

Hi Tania, Sue et al

Many stats are never reported. The point I was trying to make was that most members of the public (lay people) would not be aware of the Public Health Act (or other relevant Acts) that affect maternity care in their state or territory. Women who choose to birth unattended may not have anyone with any knowledge of state laws in attendance.  Often a mother, other relative or close friend attends the birth and they would not be expected to have knowledge of the Public Health Acts.  That's what their health professional is supposed to update them on.

New parents mostly go and get their baby registered as without a birth certificate they can't claim the relevant family allowances through CentreLink.  Even then our Births Deaths and Marriages Department tells me that many itinerant workers do not bother to register their child until it comes time to start school. BD&M assure me they do not prosecute parents for late registration. The fact that some children are not registered until they are older means that the home birth data constantly alters.  When I talked to BD&M last week they gave me ten more home births (recently submitted) to add to the numbers for the year 2003.

I regularly participate in refresher programs for registered midwives and I'm sorry to report that many of the refreshing midwives DO NOT HAVE A CLUE on what Acts govern their practice (other than the Nurses Acts). Nor do many of my colleagues working in public hospitals. They simply avoid the issue that they see as being the responsibility of the ward clerk.  
I'm sure Sue must get very frustrated when she is sticking her neck out to do the right thing while her so called 'professional colleagues' do not.  

I should remind all on this list that ignorance is not seen as an excuse in the eyes of the law. Any registered midwife that fails to furnish the completed NOTIFICATION OF BIRTH FORM with the matching data to the NSW MIDWIVES DATA COLLECTION runs a huge risk of a large fine and/or a jail sentence.

Cheers
Jan










Jan Robinson Independent Midwife Practitioner
National Coordinator  Australian Society of Independent Midwives
8 Robin Crescent   South Hurstville   NSW   2221 Phone/Fax: 02 9546 4350
e-mail address: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  website: www.midwiferyeducation.com.au
On 16 Sep, 2005, at 08:36, Tania Smallwood wrote:

What actually happens when women choose to birth unattended?  Are their stats just lost, or never reported?  Surely a woman could do her own stats and post them in without the fear of being punished for holding herself out to be a midwife?  I have been wondering about that here in SA, where there are several women I know of, and probably lots that no-one hears about that choose to birth in this way, and wondering how they are accounted for in the numbers? 

  

Tania

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan Robinson
Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2005 4:30 PM
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] perinatal stats

 

Hi Andrea
 Yes it is a huge discrepancy but the law only relates to births attended by registered doctors or midwives. Registered health professionals have an obligation to report the details of each birth they attend whether they occur at home or in a hospital. They have to provide the NOTIFICATION OF BIRTH to BD&M and submit the perinatal data to the appropriate department of their Dept of Health. It is the parents responsibility to register the birth of their child.

 I assume that MOST of the unreported home births are that way because lay people would be unaware of their state laws. 
 Individuals who are aware of the laws also understand that if they DO report any births that they attend also run the risk of "holding themselves out to be a midwife" and that is PUNISHABLE by law.

 It would be interesting for midwives to approach their own state/territory Dept of BD&M as to the number of babies registered as being born at their home address and then get the figures from the perinatal data collections to compare.
 Anyone want to get cracking in their state? I'd love to get data from around the country. I have some Tasmanian figures and I have some from Victoria but they are not as easy to interpret as the NSW data.

 At the moment we are using the NSW figures to try and convince the Health Minister to publicly fund the home births and therefore provide a legitimate choice of skilled home birth practitioner for ALL women wanting a home birth. 

 Cheers
 Jan


 Jan Robinson Independent Midwife Practitioner
 National Coordinator Australian Society of Independent Midwives
8 Robin Crescent South Hurstville NSW 2221 Phone/Fax: 02 9546 4350
 e-mail address: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> website: www.midwiferyeducation.com.au
 On 15 Sep, 2005, at 08:23, Andrea Quanchi wrote:

Jan that is a huge discrepancy, How many of these ones not reported to Data Collection are attended by registered midwives do you think? Surely the data collection cou

Re: [ozmidwifery] developmental hip dysplasia

[Andrea Quanchi]

He is kidding you if he says that having a doctor would pick up all 
cases of this.  Of course none of this is any comfort to you right now.
It is routine procedure forl babies to be tested for this by many 
people they may have met and that is where the system has gaps in it.  
These people include midwives, registrars, paediatricians, gps and 
matenal and child health nurses.   The most common presentation is as a 
click felt on manipulation of the hips. There are two maneouvres done 
and they have names Ortolani's and Barlow's maneouvre. They are feeling 
for the head of the femur slipping onto or off  the pelvis where the 
hip should be sitting. Of course like any test it is only as useful as 
the people doing it are proficient at it and the baby being co 
operative on the day.   This is the reason that people keep doing it.
If many people have felt your childs hips over the first twelve months 
of her life and not picked it up then either you were just unlucky or 
it was a particularily difficult one to diagnose. If you have seen any 
of the 'professionals' mentioned and they haven't felt her hips in the 
first twelve months then they need to be told that they have missed 
this to motivate them to be doing it so other children dont get 
overlooked. And if you didn't see any of these professionals then that 
is why it was not picked up


As I said none of this is of any comfort to you at the moment and I 
sympathise with you and raise this as a motivator to midwives at 
becoming proficient at doing the maneouvres  and in the treatment so 
that they can inform parents of what to expect in the coming twelve 
months when they find that clicky hip on a check after birth,


Andrea Q
On 17/09/2005, at 8:33 AM, Kylie Carberry wrote:



Hi eveyone,

I am just wondering if anyone can enlighten me a little on my 18 month 
old daughter just-diagnosed developmental hip dysplasia.  I am still 
in disbelief that this was not picked up when she was first born and 
my paediatrician agreed.  To make things worse he told us that in 
Wollongong Hospital (where she was born) they used to have a 
paediatrician who did a routine check for DDH on all of the newborns 
and all were picked up.  To cut costs the IAHS got rid of this service 
and according to my paed one or two children are now overlooked.  What 
angers me is that even with treatment, because she is older, my 
daughter will face the possibiliity of having ongoing hip problems.  
If anyone has any info on this condition (stories you've heard etc) I 
would greatly appreciate it if you could get in touch with me.  Also, 
what is the general procedure for the testing the hips and do you guys 
think a paediatric examination should be routine?


Thanks so much for having a read of my email,

Kylie Carberry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit  to 
subscribe or unsubscribe.

--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

RE: [ozmidwifery] latest article - the australian

[wump fish]

What a fantastic example of 'totally missing the point'. I am not even going 
to waste my energy responding to this kind of ignorance.

Rachel



From: Jennifairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: [ozmidwifery] latest article - the australian
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:55:11 +0930

*Elizabeth Meryment: Unnecessary birth pain*
Elizabeth Meryment
17 September 2005

ANYONE who has given birth or who has witnessed the birth of a baby knows 
that it is one of life's most frightening experiences. After a cousin of 
mine had her baby, a cheery nurse commented: "Dear, you had a good birth." 
"A good birth?" my cousin replied incredulously. "But that was the worst 
experience of my life!"


Pregnant women are usually, and understandably, obsessed with how and where 
they are going to deliver their babies. Indeed, women face overwhelming 
choices as they approach their due date: to use private or public care, to 
book a private obstetrician or to seek out a midwife, to stay at home for 
the birth, use a birthing centre, have a water birth, a pain-free birth, a 
planned caesarean, an epidural, a birth partner, a birth plan and so on.


To confuse matters further, especially for first-time mothers, whose 
pregnancy is often their first crucial experience in the healthcare system, 
a row has broken out again between obstetric and midwife groups, with both 
camps arguing their form of care is best. Midwives believe many 
obstetricians employ unnecessary medical intervention in a natural process. 
Some obstetricians have argued that to choose a midwife-led birth is to 
invite a higher than usual risk of death for mother and baby.


National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 
secretary Andrew Pesce produced figures arguing that babies born in 
home-birth-like settings had an 85 per cent greater chance of dying during 
childbirth than babies born in large hospitals. Midwives were furious, 
claiming the study from which Pesce drew his findings was flawed and that 
otherstudies showed midwife-led care produced better outcomes, meaning less 
use of pain relief, lessintervention (episiotomies, caesareans, epidurals 
and the like) and better success for the mother with breastfeeding.


Patients observing this debate may be led to believe that obstetricians and 
midwives work independently of each other, which they do not. First-time 
expectant mothers should know that in large maternity hospitals most of 
their labour will be monitored by midwives, with obstetricians called in 
for the delivery. So women who want to have midwives involved in their 
deliveries should be assured that this occurs even if they have an 
obstetrician.


No matter what type of care a woman chooses for her pregnancy, unhappily 
there remains a great deal of pressure asserted about how one should give 
birth, mainly by other mothers and pregnant women.


Politically correct group-think has it that so-called intervention is bad 
and that pain relief during childbirth is also somehow bad; ergo, 
midwife-led care must be good. Many birth books seriously advise expectant 
mothers to try stoically to make it through each contraction during labour 
without crying out for drugs. Some books go so far as to encourage women to 
tell their birth partners to prevent nurses responding to their screams for 
pain relief during each contraction. It is common for birth announcements 
to be accompanied by a message that a baby was born "drug-free" or "without 
help". Well, if it was, so what?


Mothers are also often made to feel like failures if they have caesareans 
or forceps deliveries. One woman I know who had an emergency caesarean 
after a very dangerous attempt at a vaginal birth said glumly later, "Oh 
well, next time I'll do a better job", as though it was something she could 
have controlled had she been braver and stronger (of course she could not). 
Another who gave birth by caesarean because her baby was in the breach 
position was likewise glum and made her husband tell people not only that 
the baby had been born but the reason for the caesarean. "I just feel like 
something has been taken from me," she said sadly.


While these women recognised that the safe arrival of their babies was the 
most important thing, there was still a lingering sense of their own 
failure. They felt they had not done as well as other women and this was 
reinforced by the superiority of those who had given birth vaginally, 
especially those who crowed about doing it drug-free. (And let's not even 
begin on the breastfeeding nazis, who make those who struggle with 
breastfeeding feel like criminals.) Talk about women knocking each other 
down.


Both of these "failed" mothers, however, were lucky to have been in expert 
hospital care in the circumstances instead of, for example, trying to 
deliver their babies at home with perhaps only a midwife to assist.


While t

[ozmidwifery] *Elizabeth Meryment: Unnecessary birth pain*

[Philippa Scott]

re: *Elizabeth 
Meryment: Unnecessary birth pain*Elizabeth Meryment17 September 
2005
It is evident to me as a mother having had both a 
c/s & a Vaginal birth that you (Elizabeth Meryment) have absolutely no idea 
of what the issues surrounding birth choices really are. Women who chose to give 
birth without drugs and intervention dont choose to do it for the glory, but 
because it is safer for themselves & their babies. It is in 
fact 80% of the time (says WHO) safer to have your baby away from 
hands on obstetric care. If you consider even Continuos Electronic Foetal 
monitoring, an intervention which reduces a woman's capacity to move freely 
during labour & thus deal better with the pain. Research shows that 
Continuos EFT does not improve foetal outcomes, which is the reason you would 
use it, and yet it does increase the rate of surgical & instrumental 
delivery. In turn c/s increase a mothers & babies chance of dying by four. 
So lets see. If I have Continuous EFT I am unlucky to prevent any complications 
for my child but I am more likely to increase the risk of death. That does not 
sound safer to me. 
The argument really is not about how women should 
give birth, each should choose what is right for them. Did you know that in New 
Zealand one to one midwifery is offered to all and 75% of women choose that 
option. It is also considerably cheaper & we have all seen the blow out 
caused by obstetric costs to the Medicare safety net. 
This is not about making women feel good or bad 
about their choices, no one can do that we all choose how we feel. This is about 
giving women back the freedom to exercise their right to choose a care provider 
that is right for them. 
Lets use OB's for complicated pregnancies and 
birth's as they are trained for & use midwives for the other 80%. We will 
ultimately have more successful maternity service for it. If health pregnant 
women still want to use an OB because they feel safer even after being presented 
with the facts then that's ok too. But give us the choice to decide for 
ourselves, lets make it truly informed consent. Which means that reporters 
should keep their personal agenda's to themselves.
Regards,
Philippa ScottDoulaBirth 
BuddiesSupporting Women ~ Creating LifePresident - Friends of the Birth 
Centre Townsville

[ozmidwifery] Ina May's quote of the week

[Jan Robinson]

Hi all
Probably Mary has already pasted this but couldn't resist sharing it again in case some midwives missed it.
I came upon it on Ina May's website
Cheers
Jan








 It's  not just the making of babies, but the making of mothers that  midwives see as the miracle of birth. 


-- Barbara Katz Rothman, Sociologist, Author of The Tentative Pregnancy, Genetic Maps and Human Imaginations and other books.


Jan Robinson Independent Midwife Practitioner
National Coordinator  Australian Society of Independent Midwives
8 Robin Crescent   South Hurstville   NSW   2221 Phone/Fax: 02 9546 4350
e-mail address: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  website: www.midwiferyeducation.com.au

Re: [ozmidwifery] care of the newborn

[Belinda]

try www.savethechildren.org
www.healthynewborns.com
Save the Children have guidelines otherwise WHO has them as well and 
once you find them you can print them off, they have great info packs, 
can be a bit tricky to find but they are in there


sally williams wrote:


I am sure we have discussed this before but as usual discarded info coz not
relevant to me at that point!!

Does anyone have guidelines for care of the normal healthy term infant? I am
embarrassed to ask, really, because for me it is not an issue. However, some
midiwves in our unit are doing pre-feed obs on all newborns until they go
home!!!

Very frustrating, but true. I need something in black and white to put in
front of them to show it is utterly and completely unnecessary.

Thanks in advance

Sally
- Original Message -
From: "Jo Bourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...


 


I can't give you a bunch of references but my understanding is that there
   


is a lot of research out there supporting this and none that contradicts it,
at least in terms of fertility, I don't know as much regarding pregnancy.
IVF clinics break down their stats by age for a reason. Here are SIVFs
stats:
 


http://www.sydneyivf.com/pages/success/index.cfm

Most clinics give stats slightly differently (ie by clinical pregnancy or
   


by live birth, by transfer or stim cycle) but they all break them down by
age and SIVFs stats are probably better than average for older women. If you
ask your Fertility Specialist (if you are unfortunate enough to need one)
about your specific chances a  good clinic can give you stats for your age
and diagnosis. Age ALWAYS comes into it.
 


The older you get the greater the chance is that a small problem that
   


might have delayed conception will become a big problem that prevents it.
Sometimes women who needed IVF for #1 fall pregnant naturally or more easily
the second time around but I seem to hear far more often that #2 turns out
to be even harder - the initial problem having been worsened by a couple
more years passing.
 


Also to address something from the article that is not really correct
   


here - in Australia the highest risk of multiples is with lower end assisted
reproduction such as ovulation induction or IUI, not IVF. In my case for
example we abandoned ovulation induction in favour of IVF to prevent
multiples. In fact putting back only one embryo at a time you have less
chance of twins doing IVF than conceiving naturally (you can still get
identical twins, at a slightly higher rate than natural identicals, but you
rule out fraternal twins which are far more common).  Not really relevant to
the age thing but it's an annoying misconception.
 


cheers
Jo


At 10:04 PM +1200 16/9/05, Safetsleep wrote:
   


wonder how many studies involved .i would be interested to see the
 


actual studies and stats.,
 


miriam

- Original Message - From: "Jennifairy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
 



 


Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:37 PM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...

 


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm

Delaying babies 'defies nature'
*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature
   


and risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. *
 


Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly
   


and the average age of mothers has gone up.
 


Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility
   


specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who have
problems.
 


They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.

Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first
   


baby has risen from 26 to 29.
 


* The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' *
Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk
   


pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related fertility
problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40.
 


Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too
   


late.
 


* 'Having it all' *

In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of
   


IVF may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner
and concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable
living standard."
 


But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure
   


rate and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful.
 


For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father
   


children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.
 


Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of
   


miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnanc

[ozmidwifery] care of the newborn

[sally williams]

I am sure we have discussed this before but as usual discarded info coz not
relevant to me at that point!!

Does anyone have guidelines for care of the normal healthy term infant? I am
embarrassed to ask, really, because for me it is not an issue. However, some
midiwves in our unit are doing pre-feed obs on all newborns until they go
home!!!

Very frustrating, but true. I need something in black and white to put in
front of them to show it is utterly and completely unnecessary.

Thanks in advance

Sally
- Original Message -
From: "Jo Bourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...


> I can't give you a bunch of references but my understanding is that there
is a lot of research out there supporting this and none that contradicts it,
at least in terms of fertility, I don't know as much regarding pregnancy.
IVF clinics break down their stats by age for a reason. Here are SIVFs
stats:
>
> http://www.sydneyivf.com/pages/success/index.cfm
>
> Most clinics give stats slightly differently (ie by clinical pregnancy or
by live birth, by transfer or stim cycle) but they all break them down by
age and SIVFs stats are probably better than average for older women. If you
ask your Fertility Specialist (if you are unfortunate enough to need one)
about your specific chances a  good clinic can give you stats for your age
and diagnosis. Age ALWAYS comes into it.
>
> The older you get the greater the chance is that a small problem that
might have delayed conception will become a big problem that prevents it.
Sometimes women who needed IVF for #1 fall pregnant naturally or more easily
the second time around but I seem to hear far more often that #2 turns out
to be even harder - the initial problem having been worsened by a couple
more years passing.
>
> Also to address something from the article that is not really correct
here - in Australia the highest risk of multiples is with lower end assisted
reproduction such as ovulation induction or IUI, not IVF. In my case for
example we abandoned ovulation induction in favour of IVF to prevent
multiples. In fact putting back only one embryo at a time you have less
chance of twins doing IVF than conceiving naturally (you can still get
identical twins, at a slightly higher rate than natural identicals, but you
rule out fraternal twins which are far more common).  Not really relevant to
the age thing but it's an annoying misconception.
>
> cheers
> Jo
>
>
> At 10:04 PM +1200 16/9/05, Safetsleep wrote:
> >wonder how many studies involved .i would be interested to see the
actual studies and stats.,
> >miriam
> >
> >- Original Message - From: "Jennifairy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;

> >Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:37 PM
> >Subject: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...
> >
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm
> >>
> >>Delaying babies 'defies nature'
> >>*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature
and risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. *
> >>
> >>Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly
and the average age of mothers has gone up.
> >>
> >>Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility
specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who have
problems.
> >>
> >>They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.
> >>
> >>Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first
baby has risen from 26 to 29.
> >>
> >>
> >>* The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' *
> >>Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
> >>
> >>The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk
pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related fertility
problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40.
> >>
> >>Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too
late.
> >>
> >>* 'Having it all' *
> >>
> >>In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of
IVF may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner
and concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable
living standard."
> >>
> >>But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure
rate and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful.
> >>
> >>For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father
children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.
> >>
> >>Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of
miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy-related
diseases.
> >>
> >>They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged.
> >>
> >>"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe an
underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages brought
about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, wome

[ozmidwifery] latest article - the australian

[Jennifairy]

*Elizabeth Meryment: Unnecessary birth pain*
Elizabeth Meryment
17 September 2005

ANYONE who has given birth or who has witnessed the birth of a baby 
knows that it is one of life's most frightening experiences. After a 
cousin of mine had her baby, a cheery nurse commented: "Dear, you had a 
good birth." "A good birth?" my cousin replied incredulously. "But that 
was the worst experience of my life!"


Pregnant women are usually, and understandably, obsessed with how and 
where they are going to deliver their babies. Indeed, women face 
overwhelming choices as they approach their due date: to use private or 
public care, to book a private obstetrician or to seek out a midwife, to 
stay at home for the birth, use a birthing centre, have a water birth, a 
pain-free birth, a planned caesarean, an epidural, a birth partner, a 
birth plan and so on.


To confuse matters further, especially for first-time mothers, whose 
pregnancy is often their first crucial experience in the healthcare 
system, a row has broken out again between obstetric and midwife groups, 
with both camps arguing their form of care is best. Midwives believe 
many obstetricians employ unnecessary medical intervention in a natural 
process. Some obstetricians have argued that to choose a midwife-led 
birth is to invite a higher than usual risk of death for mother and baby.


National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 
secretary Andrew Pesce produced figures arguing that babies born in 
home-birth-like settings had an 85 per cent greater chance of dying 
during childbirth than babies born in large hospitals. Midwives were 
furious, claiming the study from which Pesce drew his findings was 
flawed and that otherstudies showed midwife-led care produced better 
outcomes, meaning less use of pain relief, lessintervention 
(episiotomies, caesareans, epidurals and the like) and better success 
for the mother with breastfeeding.


Patients observing this debate may be led to believe that obstetricians 
and midwives work independently of each other, which they do not. 
First-time expectant mothers should know that in large maternity 
hospitals most of their labour will be monitored by midwives, with 
obstetricians called in for the delivery. So women who want to have 
midwives involved in their deliveries should be assured that this occurs 
even if they have an obstetrician.


No matter what type of care a woman chooses for her pregnancy, unhappily 
there remains a great deal of pressure asserted about how one should 
give birth, mainly by other mothers and pregnant women.


Politically correct group-think has it that so-called intervention is 
bad and that pain relief during childbirth is also somehow bad; ergo, 
midwife-led care must be good. Many birth books seriously advise 
expectant mothers to try stoically to make it through each contraction 
during labour without crying out for drugs. Some books go so far as to 
encourage women to tell their birth partners to prevent nurses 
responding to their screams for pain relief during each contraction. It 
is common for birth announcements to be accompanied by a message that a 
baby was born "drug-free" or "without help". Well, if it was, so what?


Mothers are also often made to feel like failures if they have 
caesareans or forceps deliveries. One woman I know who had an emergency 
caesarean after a very dangerous attempt at a vaginal birth said glumly 
later, "Oh well, next time I'll do a better job", as though it was 
something she could have controlled had she been braver and stronger (of 
course she could not). Another who gave birth by caesarean because her 
baby was in the breach position was likewise glum and made her husband 
tell people not only that the baby had been born but the reason for the 
caesarean. "I just feel like something has been taken from me," she said 
sadly.


While these women recognised that the safe arrival of their babies was 
the most important thing, there was still a lingering sense of their own 
failure. They felt they had not done as well as other women and this was 
reinforced by the superiority of those who had given birth vaginally, 
especially those who crowed about doing it drug-free. (And let's not 
even begin on the breastfeeding nazis, who make those who struggle with 
breastfeeding feel like criminals.) Talk about women knocking each other 
down.


Both of these "failed" mothers, however, were lucky to have been in 
expert hospital care in the circumstances instead of, for example, 
trying to deliver their babies at home with perhaps only a midwife to 
assist.


While there's no doubt that midwives are wonderful people who do a 
tremendous job, they usually do not have the surgical expertise of 
obstetricians. Indeed, the hospital system is there to help people give 
birth successfully, whether that involves drugs and scalpels or not. 
Midwife-led birth centres away from hospital sites, nice and 
touchy-feely as they may be, can 

Re: [ozmidwifery] developmental hip dysplasia

[Jenny Cameron]

Midwives are capable of performing the test for hip 
dysplasia. It was always part of the routine examination at birth and is, or 
should be, taught to all students learning to be midwives. I think we have 
become a bit lazy with more paeds available now. Every baby should have a top to 
toe check at 4 - 7 days of age and this should include the hip check. This can 
be an important role for midwives. Cheers
Jenny
Jennifer Cameron FRCNA FACMPO Box 
1465Howard Springs NT 0835
 
0419 528 717

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kylie Carberry 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:03 
  AM
  Subject: [ozmidwifery] developmental hip 
  dysplasia
  
  
  Hi eveyone,
  I am just wondering if anyone can enlighten me a little on my 18 month old 
  daughter just-diagnosed developmental hip dysplasia.  I am still in 
  disbelief that this was not picked up when she was first born and my 
  paediatrician agreed.  To make things worse he told us that in Wollongong 
  Hospital (where she was born) they used to have a paediatrician who did a 
  routine check for DDH on all of the newborns and all were picked up.  To 
  cut costs the IAHS got rid of this service and according to my paed one or two 
  children are now overlooked.  What angers me is that even with treatment, 
  because she is older, my daughter will face the possibiliity of having ongoing 
  hip problems.  If anyone has any info on this condition (stories you've 
  heard etc) I would greatly appreciate it if you could get in touch with 
  me.  Also, what is the general procedure for the testing the hips and do 
  you guys think a paediatric examination should be routine?
  Thanks so much for having a read of my email,
  Kylie Carberry[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
   -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. 
  Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.
  
  

  Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG 
  Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 
  11/08/2005

[ozmidwifery] Hip Dysplasia instead of renal probs !

[brendamanning]

Kylie,
 
As soon as I read your email on the oz mid list I knew 
this was her deal, I am sorry I was right, no one want to be right about a 
missed diagnosis.
 
Actually the check for CDH is routine for all newborns 
& doesn't require a specialist to screen, all midwives are taught to do them 
in their training.
In fact  I did an extensive study on CDH as a 
major in my training (probably forgotten 50% of it now).
 
Probably the  realistic, workable solution is not 
paed checks for all babies but better training for midwives to ensure 
that they pick up the easily dislocatable hips & unstable 
ones (the potential DHD ) as well as those actually dislocated this 
would enable a referral to be made to an orthopaedic specialist 
early.
Somehow she has just slipped through the net even 
though her symptoms are absolutely classic.
 
There is heaps of available info on the net, 
support groups etc you could utilise.
Presumably you are being referred to an ortho & if 
so he would be the best source of information relevant to your child. Resist the 
temptation to apply other peoples treatment  experiences to your little one 
as they are all different people after all & it'll only freak you right out 
(worse than you are probably feeling already). Probably the ortho or paeds 
secretary/receptionist knows of the information groups in your area, just phone 
and ask her.
 
Rest assured you couldn't have known about this, you 
are doing all you can now & with the right professional help she will do 
well.
 
Brenda Manning www.themidwife.com.au
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;brendamanning
FN:brendamanning
ORG:the midwife
TEL;WORK;VOICE:03 59862535
TEL;WORK;FAX:03 59862535
ADR;WORK:;;79 Besgrove St;Rosebud;Victoria;3939;Australia
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:79 Besgrove St=0D=0ARosebud, Victoria 3939=0D=0AAustralia
URL;WORK:http://www.thhmidwife.com.au
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REV:20050916T234743Z
END:VCARD

RE: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...

[Dean & Jo]

Not surprising who was on the 'for' team...not sure that particular
person would even know where the vagina is...!

Jo


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date:
9/10/2005
 
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

RE: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...

[Jo Bourne]

Thanks for the conference update! Fantastic that the against team won!

At 10:21 PM + 16/9/05, wump fish wrote:
>If we stop defying nature we would be having babies from our teens until our 
>menopause. Drs would be out of a job because we would not be meddling in 
>nature (illness and death) with medicine and operations.
>
>Women make reproductive choices based on their own individual circumstances. 
>They can't win. If they have a baby at the physically 'best' time they are 
>irresponsible teen mothers. If they wait until they have a reliable partner 
>and the means to comfortably support their family they are selfish and 'want 
>it all'.
>
>Maybe we should stop judging and focus on creating a society which supports 
>all kinds of parenthood.
>
>We had our babies young and spent their childhood struggling to make ends 
>meet, study and get careers. It would have been much easier to wait until I 
>was past my sell by date.
>
>Rachel
>
>ps. the Wesley Conference re. c-section the way of the future, was fantastic. 
>Very interesting and inspiring. In a nutshell - First speaker talked about 
>'fetal surveilance' and I phased out after he got excited about the concept of 
>taking the fetus out of the womb to 'examine' it. He had clearly forgotten 
>that babies grow inside women. Second speaker = labour is generally better for 
>baby as opposed to an elective c-section. Third speaker = the state of your 
>pelvic floor has very little to do with birth (genetics, weight and 
>lifestyle). Fourth speaker = Denis Walsh fighting the corner for midwifery led 
>care. The debate was very entertaining and the 'against' team won, ie. 
>c-section is not the way of the future. Dr David Molloy was on the 'for' team 
>- what a horrible little man.
>
>
>>From: Jennifairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
>>Subject: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...
>>Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:00 +0930
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm
>>
>>Delaying babies 'defies nature'
>>*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature and 
>>risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. *
>>
>>Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly and 
>>the average age of mothers has gone up.
>>
>>Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility 
>>specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who have 
>>problems.
>>
>>They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.
>>
>>Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first baby 
>>has risen from 26 to 29.
>>
>>
>>  * The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' *
>>Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
>>
>>The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk 
>>pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related fertility 
>>problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40.
>>
>>Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too late.
>>
>>* 'Having it all' *
>>
>>In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of IVF 
>>may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner and 
>>concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable living 
>>standard."
>>
>>But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure rate 
>>and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful.
>>
>>For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father 
>>children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.
>>
>>Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of 
>>miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy-related 
>>diseases.
>>
>>They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged.
>>
>>"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe an 
>>underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages brought 
>>about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, women still bear full 
>>domestic burdens as well as work and financial responsibilities."
>>
>>
>>  * The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always 
>> will be *
>>Dr Susan Bewley
>>
>>Dr Bewley told the BBC News website: "We are saddened because we are dealing 
>>with people who can't get pregnant or are having complications.
>>
>>"Most women playing 'Russian Roulette' get away with it, most people are 
>>fine. But I see the casualties.
>>
>>"The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will be.
>>
>>She added: "I don't want to blame women, or make them feel anxious or 
>>frightened.
>>
>>"The reasons for these difficulties lie not with women but with a distorted 
>>an uninformed view from society, employers, and health planners.
>>
>>"Doctors and healthcare planners need to grasp this threat to public health 
>>a

[ozmidwifery] developmental hip dysplasia

[Kylie Carberry]

Hi eveyone,
I am just wondering if anyone can enlighten me a little on my 18 month old daughter just-diagnosed developmental hip dysplasia.  I am still in disbelief that this was not picked up when she was first born and my paediatrician agreed.  To make things worse he told us that in Wollongong Hospital (where she was born) they used to have a paediatrician who did a routine check for DDH on all of the newborns and all were picked up.  To cut costs the IAHS got rid of this service and according to my paed one or two children are now overlooked.  What angers me is that even with treatment, because she is older, my daughter will face the possibiliity of having ongoing hip problems.  If anyone has any info on this condition (stories you've heard etc) I would greatly appreciate it if you could get in touch with me.  Also, what is the general procedure for the testing the hips and do you guys think a paediatric examination should be routine?
Thanks so much for having a read of my email,
Kylie Carberry[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

RE: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...

[wump fish]

If we stop defying nature we would be having babies from our teens until our 
menopause. Drs would be out of a job because we would not be meddling in 
nature (illness and death) with medicine and operations.


Women make reproductive choices based on their own individual circumstances. 
They can't win. If they have a baby at the physically 'best' time they are 
irresponsible teen mothers. If they wait until they have a reliable partner 
and the means to comfortably support their family they are selfish and 'want 
it all'.


Maybe we should stop judging and focus on creating a society which supports 
all kinds of parenthood.


We had our babies young and spent their childhood struggling to make ends 
meet, study and get careers. It would have been much easier to wait until I 
was past my sell by date.


Rachel

ps. the Wesley Conference re. c-section the way of the future, was 
fantastic. Very interesting and inspiring. In a nutshell - First speaker 
talked about 'fetal surveilance' and I phased out after he got excited about 
the concept of taking the fetus out of the womb to 'examine' it. He had 
clearly forgotten that babies grow inside women. Second speaker = labour is 
generally better for baby as opposed to an elective c-section. Third speaker 
= the state of your pelvic floor has very little to do with birth (genetics, 
weight and lifestyle). Fourth speaker = Denis Walsh fighting the corner for 
midwifery led care. The debate was very entertaining and the 'against' team 
won, ie. c-section is not the way of the future. Dr David Molloy was on the 
'for' team - what a horrible little man.





From: Jennifairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:00 +0930

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm

Delaying babies 'defies nature'
*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature 
and risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. *


Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly and 
the average age of mothers has gone up.


Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility 
specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who 
have problems.


They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.

Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first baby 
has risen from 26 to 29.



* The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' *
Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk 
pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related fertility 
problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40.


Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too late.

* 'Having it all' *

In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of IVF 
may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner and 
concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable 
living standard."


But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure 
rate and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful.


For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father 
children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.


Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of 
miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy-related 
diseases.


They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged.

"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe an 
underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages brought 
about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, women still bear 
full domestic burdens as well as work and financial responsibilities."



	* The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will 
be *

Dr Susan Bewley

Dr Bewley told the BBC News website: "We are saddened because we are 
dealing with people who can't get pregnant or are having complications.


"Most women playing 'Russian Roulette' get away with it, most people are 
fine. But I see the casualties.


"The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will 
be.


She added: "I don't want to blame women, or make them feel anxious or 
frightened.


"The reasons for these difficulties lie not with women but with a distorted 
an uninformed view from society, employers, and health planners.


"Doctors and healthcare planners need to grasp this threat to public health 
and support women to achieve biologically optimal childbirth.


"Where we can, we should be helping women to have children earlier."



HAVE YOUR SAY
*The choice is still clear, have a career or have children late. I would 
advise other women to leave it and take the gamble *

Victoria 

[ozmidwifery] Re another fyi...

[G Lemay]

Perhaps the headline should read :*Women who wait until their late 30s 
to have children and then fall under the care of an obstetrician are 
defying nature and risking heartbreak, leading midwives have warned. *


I have only observed one thing about older mothers in my 29 years in the 
birth business and I tell every mother over 35-- "The older the mother, 
the cuter the kid."   Gloria



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm

Delaying babies 'defies nature'
*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying 
nature and risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. *


Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen 
markedly and the average age of mothers has gone up.


Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility 
specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see 
who have problems.


They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.

Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first 
baby has risen from 26 to 29.



* The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' *
Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with 
high-risk pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned 
age-related fertility problems increase after 35 and dramatically 
after 40.


Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too late.

* 'Having it all' *

In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of 
IVF may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable 
partner and concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a 
comfortable living standard."


But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high 
failure rate and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is 
successful.


For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to 
father children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.


Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of 
miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and 
pregnancy-related diseases.


They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged.

"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe 
an underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages 
brought about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, women 
still bear full domestic burdens as well as work and financial 
responsibilities."



* The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and 
always will be *

Dr Susan Bewley

Dr Bewley told the BBC News website: "We are saddened because we are 
dealing with people who can't get pregnant or are having complications.


"Most women playing 'Russian Roulette' get away with it, most people 
are fine. But I see the casualties.


"The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always 
will be.


She added: "I don't want to blame women, or make them feel anxious or 
frightened.


"The reasons for these difficulties lie not with women but with a 
distorted an uninformed view from society, employers, and health 
planners.


"Doctors and healthcare planners need to grasp this threat to public 
health and support women to achieve biologically optimal childbirth.


"Where we can, we should be helping women to have children earlier."



HAVE YOUR SAY
*The choice is still clear, have a career or have children late. I 
would advise other women to leave it and take the gamble *

Victoria Finney, Brighton

Clare Brown, Chief Executive of Infertility Network UK, said "Delaying 
having children until you are in your thirties is a choice many people 
make but they need to be aware of the added problems when trying to 
conceive, particularly over the age of 35 when a woman's natural 
fertility declines.


"When this is exacerbated by a further complication such as blocked 
tubes or low sperm count the chances of a successful pregnancy even 
using IVF are much less."


Peter Bowen-Simpkins, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and 
Gynaecologists, said: "The biological clock is one thing we cannot 
reverse or change.


"The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late'."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4248244.stm

Published: 2005/09/15 23:08:39 GMT






--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...

[Jo Bourne]

I can't give you a bunch of references but my understanding is that there is a 
lot of research out there supporting this and none that contradicts it, at 
least in terms of fertility, I don't know as much regarding pregnancy. IVF 
clinics break down their stats by age for a reason. Here are SIVFs stats:

http://www.sydneyivf.com/pages/success/index.cfm

Most clinics give stats slightly differently (ie by clinical pregnancy or by 
live birth, by transfer or stim cycle) but they all break them down by age and 
SIVFs stats are probably better than average for older women. If you ask your 
Fertility Specialist (if you are unfortunate enough to need one) about your 
specific chances a  good clinic can give you stats for your age and diagnosis. 
Age ALWAYS comes into it.

The older you get the greater the chance is that a small problem that might 
have delayed conception will become a big problem that prevents it. Sometimes 
women who needed IVF for #1 fall pregnant naturally or more easily the second 
time around but I seem to hear far more often that #2 turns out to be even 
harder - the initial problem having been worsened by a couple more years 
passing.

Also to address something from the article that is not really correct here - in 
Australia the highest risk of multiples is with lower end assisted reproduction 
such as ovulation induction or IUI, not IVF. In my case for example we 
abandoned ovulation induction in favour of IVF to prevent multiples. In fact 
putting back only one embryo at a time you have less chance of twins doing IVF 
than conceiving naturally (you can still get identical twins, at a slightly 
higher rate than natural identicals, but you rule out fraternal twins which are 
far more common).  Not really relevant to the age thing but it's an annoying 
misconception.

cheers
Jo


At 10:04 PM +1200 16/9/05, Safetsleep wrote:
>wonder how many studies involved .i would be interested to see the actual 
>studies and stats.,
>miriam
>
>- Original Message - From: "Jennifairy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
>Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:37 PM
>Subject: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm
>>
>>Delaying babies 'defies nature'
>>*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature and 
>>risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. *
>>
>>Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly and 
>>the average age of mothers has gone up.
>>
>>Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility 
>>specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who have 
>>problems.
>>
>>They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.
>>
>>Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first baby 
>>has risen from 26 to 29.
>>
>>
>>* The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' *
>>Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
>>
>>The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk 
>>pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related fertility 
>>problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40.
>>
>>Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too late.
>>
>>* 'Having it all' *
>>
>>In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of IVF 
>>may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner and 
>>concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable living 
>>standard."
>>
>>But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure rate 
>>and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful.
>>
>>For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father 
>>children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.
>>
>>Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of 
>>miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy-related 
>>diseases.
>>
>>They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged.
>>
>>"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe an 
>>underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages brought 
>>about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, women still bear full 
>>domestic burdens as well as work and financial responsibilities."
>>
>>
>>* The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will be 
>>*
>>Dr Susan Bewley
>>
>>Dr Bewley told the BBC News website: "We are saddened because we are dealing 
>>with people who can't get pregnant or are having complications.
>>
>>"Most women playing 'Russian Roulette' get away with it, most people are 
>>fine. But I see the casualties.
>>
>>"The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will be.
>>
>>She added: "I don't want to blame women, or make them feel anxious or 
>>frightened.
>>
>>"The reasons for these difficulties lie not with women but with a 

RE: [ozmidwifery] baby poo

[Mary Murphy]

 

Thanks to everyone for your replies.  I
have cut & pasted all your replies (without addresses) and printed it out
for the woman to read for herself.  Cheers,. Mary M

Re: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...

[Safetsleep]

wonder how many studies involved .i would be interested to see the 
actual studies and stats.,

miriam

- Original Message - 
From: "Jennifairy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 


Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 9:37 PM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] another fyi...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm

Delaying babies 'defies nature'
*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature 
and risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. *


Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly 
and the average age of mothers has gone up.


Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility 
specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who 
have problems.


They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.

Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first 
baby has risen from 26 to 29.



* The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' *
Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk 
pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related fertility 
problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40.


Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too late.

* 'Having it all' *

In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of IVF 
may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable partner and 
concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a comfortable 
living standard."


But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure 
rate and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful.


For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father 
children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.


Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of 
miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy-related 
diseases.


They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged.

"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe an 
underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages brought 
about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, women still bear 
full domestic burdens as well as work and financial responsibilities."



* The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will 
be *

Dr Susan Bewley

Dr Bewley told the BBC News website: "We are saddened because we are 
dealing with people who can't get pregnant or are having complications.


"Most women playing 'Russian Roulette' get away with it, most people are 
fine. But I see the casualties.


"The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always will 
be.


She added: "I don't want to blame women, or make them feel anxious or 
frightened.


"The reasons for these difficulties lie not with women but with a 
distorted an uninformed view from society, employers, and health planners.


"Doctors and healthcare planners need to grasp this threat to public 
health and support women to achieve biologically optimal childbirth.


"Where we can, we should be helping women to have children earlier."



HAVE YOUR SAY
*The choice is still clear, have a career or have children late. I would 
advise other women to leave it and take the gamble *

Victoria Finney, Brighton

Clare Brown, Chief Executive of Infertility Network UK, said "Delaying 
having children until you are in your thirties is a choice many people 
make but they need to be aware of the added problems when trying to 
conceive, particularly over the age of 35 when a woman's natural fertility 
declines.


"When this is exacerbated by a further complication such as blocked tubes 
or low sperm count the chances of a successful pregnancy even using IVF 
are much less."


Peter Bowen-Simpkins, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and 
Gynaecologists, said: "The biological clock is one thing we cannot reverse 
or change.


"The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late'."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4248244.stm

Published: 2005/09/15 23:08:39 GMT



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.24/101 - Release Date: 
13/09/2005


--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.




--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

[ozmidwifery] another fyi...

[Jennifairy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4248244.stm

Delaying babies 'defies nature'
*Women who wait until their late 30s to have children are defying nature 
and risking heartbreak, leading obstetricians have warned. *


Over the last 20 years pregnancies in women over 35 have risen markedly 
and the average age of mothers has gone up.


Writing in the British Medical Journal, the London-based fertility 
specialists say they are "saddened" by the number of women they see who 
have problems.


They say the best age for pregnancy remains 20 to 35.

Over the last 20 years the average age for a woman to have their first 
baby has risen from 26 to 29.



* The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late' *
Peter Bowen-Simpkins, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

The specialists, led by Dr Susan Bewley, who treats women with high-risk 
pregnancies at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, warned age-related 
fertility problems increase after 35 and dramatically after 40.


Other experts said it was right to remind women not to leave it too late.

* 'Having it all' *

In the BMJ, the specialists write: "Paradoxically, the availability of 
IVF may lull women into infertility while they wait for a suitable 
partner and concentrate on their careers and achieving security and a 
comfortable living standard."


But they warn IVF treatment carries no guarantees - with a high failure 
rate and extra risks of multiple pregnancies where it is successful.


For men, there are also risks in waiting until they are older to father 
children as semen counts deteriorate with age, they say.


Once an older woman does become pregnant, she runs a greater risk of 
miscarriage, foetal and chromosomal abnormalities, and pregnancy-related 
diseases.


They add: "Women want to 'have it all' but biology is unchanged.

"Their delays may reflect disincentives to earlier pregnancy or maybe an 
underlying resistance to childbearing as, despite the advantages brought 
about by feminism and equal opportunities legislation, women still bear 
full domestic burdens as well as work and financial responsibilities."



	* The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always 
will be *

Dr Susan Bewley

Dr Bewley told the BBC News website: "We are saddened because we are 
dealing with people who can't get pregnant or are having complications.


"Most women playing 'Russian Roulette' get away with it, most people are 
fine. But I see the casualties.


"The best time to have a baby is up to 35. It always was, and always 
will be.


She added: "I don't want to blame women, or make them feel anxious or 
frightened.


"The reasons for these difficulties lie not with women but with a 
distorted an uninformed view from society, employers, and health planners.


"Doctors and healthcare planners need to grasp this threat to public 
health and support women to achieve biologically optimal childbirth.


"Where we can, we should be helping women to have children earlier."



HAVE YOUR SAY
*The choice is still clear, have a career or have children late. I would 
advise other women to leave it and take the gamble *

Victoria Finney, Brighton

Clare Brown, Chief Executive of Infertility Network UK, said "Delaying 
having children until you are in your thirties is a choice many people 
make but they need to be aware of the added problems when trying to 
conceive, particularly over the age of 35 when a woman's natural 
fertility declines.


"When this is exacerbated by a further complication such as blocked 
tubes or low sperm count the chances of a successful pregnancy even 
using IVF are much less."


Peter Bowen-Simpkins, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and 
Gynaecologists, said: "The biological clock is one thing we cannot 
reverse or change.


"The message that needs to go out is 'don't leave it too late'."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4248244.stm

Published: 2005/09/15 23:08:39 GMT



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.24/101 - Release Date: 13/09/2005

--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

[ozmidwifery] nepalese women... fyi

[Jennifairy]

apologies for x-posting...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4250506.stm

Women hail menstruation ruling
By Sushil Sharma
BBC News, Kathmandu


Nepalese women
The women are kept in the cow sheds for four days

*Women's rights activists in Nepal have hailed a Supreme Court order to 
end discrimination against women during their menstrual cycle.*


There is a tradition in parts of Nepal of keeping women in cow-sheds 
during their period.


The practice is common in far western districts of the country.

The Supreme Court has ordered the government to declare the practice as 
evil and given it one month to begin stamping the practice out.


The court reached its decision on Wednesday.

*'Not enough'*

Women's rights activists say the court has upheld their right to equality.

Pushpa Bhusal, a leading lawyer, said it was a positive move in removing 
the traditional discrimination against women.


She warned however, that a change in the law alone would not be enough.

She said people needed to be educated against such a scourge of society.

Women in poor villages in much of western Nepal are forced to stay in 
dirty cow-sheds outside the home for four days during their monthly period.


They are often given unhygienic food and suffer verbal abuse.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.24/101 - Release Date: 13/09/2005

--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] synthetic oxytocin

[Janet Fraser]

Title: Message



LOL learnt that one a while 
ago. Agar agar now!

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  brendamanning 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:26 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
  oxytocin
  
  But do you eat jelly 
  Worse.
  B
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Janet 
Fraser 
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 

Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:02 
PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
oxytocin

LOL that was my suspicion. 
It's what gets used in shampoos for the same reason. Yes, I'd love hair like 
a pig...
Ta for confirming my worst 
suspcions, Jo ; )
J

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean & Jo 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 5:11 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
  oxytocin
  
  do you really want to knw what the old source 
  was?
   
  What animal has the most compatible organs for 
  humans?
   
  Pigs...yep! that is right, it USED to be pig 
  semen
   
  Nowdays I think synto is purely synthetic...
   
  pick your jaw off the floor dear! ;o)
   
  Jo 
  

-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet 
FraserSent: Friday, September 16, 2005 3:50 PMTo: 
ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] 
synthetic oxytocin
Hi all,
I can't find which 
animals are being pillaged for Synto/Pit production. The literature says 
"mammals" so can anyone pin it down for me?
TIA
J
Joyous Birth Home 
Birth Forum - a world first!http://www.joyousbirth.info/forums/
 
Accessing Artemis 
Birth Trauma Recoveryhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/accessingartemis
--No virus found in this incoming 
message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus 
Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date: 
  9/10/2005
  --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked 
  by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - 
  Release Date: 
9/10/2005

Re: [ozmidwifery] synthetic oxytocin

[brendamanning]

Title: Message



But do you eat jelly 
Worse.
B

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Janet 
  Fraser 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:02 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
  oxytocin
  
  LOL that was my suspicion. 
  It's what gets used in shampoos for the same reason. Yes, I'd love hair like a 
  pig...
  Ta for confirming my worst 
  suspcions, Jo ; )
  J
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Dean 
& Jo 
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 

Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 5:11 
PM
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
oxytocin

do 
you really want to knw what the old source was?
 
What animal has the most compatible organs for 
humans?
 
Pigs...yep! that is right, it USED to be pig 
semen
 
Nowdays I think synto is purely synthetic...
 
pick your jaw off the floor dear! ;o)
 
Jo 

  
  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet 
  FraserSent: Friday, September 16, 2005 3:50 PMTo: 
  ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
  oxytocin
  Hi all,
  I can't find which 
  animals are being pillaged for Synto/Pit production. The literature says 
  "mammals" so can anyone pin it down for me?
  TIA
  J
  Joyous Birth Home 
  Birth Forum - a world first!http://www.joyousbirth.info/forums/
   
  Accessing Artemis 
  Birth Trauma Recoveryhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/accessingartemis
  --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked 
  by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - 
  Release Date: 9/10/2005
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by 
AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release 
Date: 9/10/2005

Re: [ozmidwifery] synthetic oxytocin

[Janet Fraser]

Title: Message



LOL that was my suspicion. 
It's what gets used in shampoos for the same reason. Yes, I'd love hair like a 
pig...
Ta for confirming my worst 
suspcions, Jo ; )
J

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dean 
  & Jo 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 5:11 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
  oxytocin
  
  do 
  you really want to knw what the old source was?
   
  What 
  animal has the most compatible organs for humans?
   
  Pigs...yep! that is right, it USED to be pig semen
   
  Nowdays I think synto is purely synthetic...
   
  pick 
  your jaw off the floor dear! ;o)
   
  Jo 
  

-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet 
FraserSent: Friday, September 16, 2005 3:50 PMTo: 
ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
oxytocin
Hi all,
I can't find which animals 
are being pillaged for Synto/Pit production. The literature says "mammals" 
so can anyone pin it down for me?
TIA
J
Joyous Birth Home 
Birth Forum - a world first!http://www.joyousbirth.info/forums/
 
Accessing Artemis 
Birth Trauma Recoveryhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/accessingartemis
--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by 
AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release 
Date: 9/10/2005
  --No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by 
  AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release 
  Date: 9/10/2005

RE: [ozmidwifery] baby poo

[Ken WArd]

They 
do say to ignore what's in bubs' nappies, as long as bub is happy, content and 
thriving. Colour of poo is not everything

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Michelle 
  WindsorSent: Friday, 16 September 2005 10:01 AMTo: 
  ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: Re: [ozmidwifery] baby 
  poo
  Hi Mary,
   
  Was talking to a friend of mine recently who is a midwife and had 
  twins.  Her boys were fully breastfed and absolutely thriving one 
  always had the typical yellow breastfed poos and one always had green 
  poos!  So perhaps it has something to do with the baby's own 
  digestion?  
   
  Cheers
  MichelleMary Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  




Hi all.  An enquiry from a 
mother of a 3 week old baby re the colour of baby’s poo.  Baby has 
never had yellow “breast milk “ poos.  He has always had greeny brown 
poo, a good one every day, the same consistency of newborn yellow poo, but 
just never yellow.  He  breast feeds frequently, seems content 
after feeds, has lots of wet nappies.  Any suggestions?  Thanks, 
Mary M
  
  
  Do you Yahoo!?Find a 
  local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search

RE: [ozmidwifery] Advice on positions for sleeping while pregnant

[Dean & Jo]

Title: Message



check 
out www.spinningbabies.com
 
Jo

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ilana 
  SoloSent: Friday, September 16, 2005 2:47 PMTo: 
  ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] Advice on 
  positions for sleeping while pregnantI am wondering if anyone can give me some 
  advice. I am 31 weeks pregnant and 
  my baby has been lying head down with it's back on my right hand side for 
  about a month. I have heard that 
  it is good for me to lie on my left side to encourage the baby to move to the 
  left side to reduce the chance of it going posterior during labour. Apparently 
  this is because they like to turn clockwise. I have also heard that it is good for me to avoid 
  slouching back as this could encourage the baby to move into the posterior 
  position prior to labour. This has 
  made me worried about whether I should avoid lying on my back for the same 
  reason? The problems for me is 
  that I am finding sleeping quite hard anyway, and I prefer sleeping on my back 
  or my right side. I also love lying on my beanbag, which I would say is 
  probably slouching! Do you think I 
  should worry about all of this now, in a few weeks, or just lie how I feel 
  comfortable? Thanks in 
  anticipation Regards 
  Ilana 
  --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by 
  AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release 
  Date: 9/10/2005


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date: 9/10/2005
 

RE: [ozmidwifery] synthetic oxytocin

[Dean & Jo]

Title: Message



do you 
really want to knw what the old source was?
 
What 
animal has the most compatible organs for humans?
 
Pigs...yep! that is right, it USED to be pig semen
 
Nowdays I think synto is purely synthetic...
 
pick 
your jaw off the floor dear! ;o)
 
Jo 

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet 
  FraserSent: Friday, September 16, 2005 3:50 PMTo: 
  ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] synthetic 
  oxytocin
  Hi all,
  I can't find which animals 
  are being pillaged for Synto/Pit production. The literature says "mammals" so 
  can anyone pin it down for me?
  TIA
  J
  Joyous Birth Home Birth 
  Forum - a world first!http://www.joyousbirth.info/forums/
   
  Accessing Artemis Birth 
  Trauma Recoveryhttp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/accessingartemis
  --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by 
  AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release 
  Date: 9/10/2005


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date: 9/10/2005