+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 171
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,726
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked
    479
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    My heart goes out to these women who have lost their precious babies, it was hard watching their interviews.

    I'm not sure what I thought of the story. From what I can gather the lady with twins birthed her first breech bub without any issues and the second had a placental abruption - which seems to be quite rare and can't be predicted (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if she had still decided against c/s (due to 1 twin being breech) but decided to birth in hospital the outcome would have been the same?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to decemberbubba For This Useful Post:

    Bubbles10  (15-07-2013)

  3. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Sorry DJ Nette, I thought it was pretty clear that by elective I meant those that choose a medically unnecessary c sect- I didn't mean to refer to people like yourself in my comment. I meant, even if we take out all people who choose a c sect for non medical reasons, I still believe that the number of c sects performed exceeds the number actually required.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Nette View Post
    All things being equal that might be true. But natural is not safer in a number of conditions (placenta previa, placental abruption etc). I also think that the use of the word 'elective' is very misleading. I will be having an 'elective' c-section in about 3 weeks. I have already spent 3 weeks in hospital and another 7 weeks on bed rest with a retro placental hematoma. There is a high chance that to enter labour naturally will result in another haemorrhage. Considering one previous episode saw me nearly die, this is a risk I (and my DH who is an equal part of this decision) am not willing to take.

    I agree that there are many people who use c-sections for their convenience (to get the ob they want, to match a partners FIFO schedule etc), to suggest that all electives could be done naturally with no risk is just not right.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    Mathermy  (15-07-2013)

  5. #123
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked
    42
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomsie View Post
    Childbirth in a low risk setting with proper prenatal care isn't dangerous though? If it were, how did we manage to populate the world so well before obstetricians? Ob's are relatively new... Heck around 150 years ago dr's wouldn't even attend births... And midwives were just normal women who had been through childbirth before. It's a natural thing out bodies are made to do.
    I'm not a home birther, and have never aspired to be- but I will fight for their right to have the type of birth they want in the environment they want, and I will definitely fight for it to become more of a standard.
    As for modelling our system off of great Britain's, I agree the financial benefits would merely be a perk, and not a major reason for the change... But I still think its a much better system than we have now.
    actually we don't need that higher "survival rate" for the species to continue. Thats a myth. and while low risk birth is relatively safe and therefore the location (home or hospital or a creek) doesnt change the outcome greatly, the fact still remains that childbirth carries risks and always will. It can't be eliminated. I understand why some people argue they want to avoid the "risks" of a hospital birth and I don't think homebirth is a more dangerous choice for most women. It IS a dangerous choice for a twin birth, breech birth, someone who has health problems etc. I don't understand why women even want to fight for the right to birth at home in those circumstances. It just seems that some people have lost sight of the fact that in many parts of the world and in our own history, women and babies REGULARLY died during birth. That was a regular occurrence.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bigbum For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (16-07-2013),snowqu33n  (15-07-2013)

  7. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked
    42
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Sorry DJ Nette, I thought it was pretty clear that by elective I meant those that choose a medically unnecessary c sect- I didn't mean to refer to people like yourself in my comment. I meant, even if we take out all people who choose a c sect for non medical reasons, I still believe that the number of c sects performed exceeds the number actually required.
    you "believe" it but what do you base your belief on?

  8. #125
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbum View Post
    you "believe" it but what do you base your belief on?
    Statistics.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    Bubbles10  (15-07-2013)

  10. #126
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked
    42
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Statistics.
    you have statistics which demonstrate that there are too many c-sections in Australia?

  11. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbum View Post
    you "believe" it but what do you base your belief on?
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbum View Post
    you have statistics which demonstrate that there are too many c-sections in Australia?
    Yes.

    From birth.com.au:

    "The average Caesarean rate in Australia was 21.9% in 1999 (up from 21.1% in 1998). This is up to twice the recommended rate (10 - 15%) by the World Health Organization (WHO). The high rates of Caesareans in western countries are usually attributed to them being performed too often for non-medical reasons."

    From this article http://theconversation.com/forget-to...-sections-4986

    "The proportion of Queensland women giving birth via caesarean section has increased by a staggering 74% in the past 20 years. This wouldn’t be of concern if more babies' lives were saved as a result but the evidence suggests otherwise.
    There’s a belief among some in the health industry and wider community that women who are “too posh to push” are driving the increase. But this myth has been consistently busted, most recently with a study from the University of Queensland’s Centre for Mothers & Babies (QCMB), which surveyed more than 22,000 Queensland mums about their maternity experience."

    Some stats here: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....25732C002077A2

    From this article http://www.ausmed.com.au/blog/entry/...s-in-australia

    "The latest report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on Australia’s mothers and babies stated that 31.6% of women giving birth in 2010 did so via a caesarean, compared with 25.4% in 2001. This contrasts with the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recommendations that the caesarean section rate should not be higher than 10% to 15%. It has been suggested that the rising age of first-time mothers is contributing to this rate, but a recent study by University of Western Sydney (UWS) suggests that the private sector is also playing a significant role in the increase.

    Public vs. private care and the rise of caesarean deliveries

    The study undertaken by UWS looked at a cohort of almost 700,000 women who gave birth in NSW between 2000 and 2008, and compared care and intervention rates in public and private health practices. It found that:

    the chances of having a “normal birth” were 20% lower in private facilities than public hospitals
    only 15% of first-time mothers had no birth interventions (ie. induction, episiotomy, caesarean) in private hospitals
    27% of women giving birth in the private sector had a caesarean compared to only 18% in public"

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    Bubbles10  (15-07-2013),Mathermy  (15-07-2013),Twinkling  (18-07-2013)

  13. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked
    42
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Yes.

    From birth.com.au:

    "The average Caesarean rate in Australia was 21.9% in 1999 (up from 21.1% in 1998). This is up to twice the recommended rate (10 - 15%) by the World Health Organization (WHO). The high rates of Caesareans in western countries are usually attributed to them being performed too often for non-medical reasons."

    From this article http://theconversation.com/forget-to...-sections-4986

    "The proportion of Queensland women giving birth via caesarean section has increased by a staggering 74% in the past 20 years. This wouldn’t be of concern if more babies' lives were saved as a result but the evidence suggests otherwise.
    There’s a belief among some in the health industry and wider community that women who are “too posh to push” are driving the increase. But this myth has been consistently busted, most recently with a study from the University of Queensland’s Centre for Mothers & Babies (QCMB), which surveyed more than 22,000 Queensland mums about their maternity experience."

    Some stats here: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....25732C002077A2

    From this article http://www.ausmed.com.au/blog/entry/...s-in-australia

    "The latest report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on Australia’s mothers and babies stated that 31.6% of women giving birth in 2010 did so via a caesarean, compared with 25.4% in 2001. This contrasts with the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recommendations that the caesarean section rate should not be higher than 10% to 15%. It has been suggested that the rising age of first-time mothers is contributing to this rate, but a recent study by University of Western Sydney (UWS) suggests that the private sector is also playing a significant role in the increase.

    Public vs. private care and the rise of caesarean deliveries

    The study undertaken by UWS looked at a cohort of almost 700,000 women who gave birth in NSW between 2000 and 2008, and compared care and intervention rates in public and private health practices. It found that:

    the chances of having a “normal birth” were 20% lower in private facilities than public hospitals
    only 15% of first-time mothers had no birth interventions (ie. induction, episiotomy, caesarean) in private hospitals
    27% of women giving birth in the private sector had a caesarean compared to only 18% in public"
    thanks for the links. I will read them soon. One point. I am fairly certain that the World Health organisation actually dropped their c-section rate recommendation a few years ago. I was aware that there was a difference between public and private hospital c-section rates. Is there any research on whether this is because the clients are different between the two settings?

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to bigbum For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (15-07-2013)

  15. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    538
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked
    176
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomsie View Post
    Childbirth in a low risk setting with proper prenatal care isn't dangerous though? If it were, how did we manage to populate the world so well before obstetricians? Ob's are relatively new... Heck around 150 years ago dr's wouldn't even attend births... And midwives were just normal women who had been through childbirth before. It's a natural thing out bodies are made to do.
    Weren't the mortality rates in birthing mothers and also the babies quite high though? Obviously the world was quite well populated, but the mortality rates are surely much lower now.

    I normally stay out of threads like this one because they usually get very heated!! I agree that c sections and other interventions do happen unnecessarily and this can be very traumatic for all involved, but part of me is thankful that we have these things available to improve outcomes, as in end up with living babies and mothers! I have nothing against home births for low risk pregnancies but I just don't understand how anyone can say that it is less of a risk for mum and especially baby to birth at home rather than have a medically necessary c-sect. And prenatal care is important too, like TamTam said, prenatal care meant not only could she prepare for the birth of her bub with a heart defect, but it meant that the medical care that her bub desperately needed would be available immediately to improve the outcome.

    I remember hearing about a local home birth advocate dying during childbirth, maybe a couple of years ago. She haemorrhaged postpartum. It's impossible to say that she would still be alive had she birthed in hospital but her chances would have been much higher.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bubintummy For This Useful Post:

    bigbum  (15-07-2013),HollyGolightly81  (15-07-2013),Tamtam  (15-07-2013)

  17. #130
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked
    42
    Reviews
    0
    I should probably say that I do acknowledge that some c-sections would be unnecessary. I have been at a few births with friends where there was a lot of interference and failed inductions etc.. I don't think hospitals are perfect. Some could benefit from being a lot more mother friendly and hands off. I just don't know how I feel about the idea that obs are "cut happy".. maybe they are just being conservative because even if they know that some c-secs are not needed, you wouldnt want to wait too long and end up with a dead mother or baby.


 

Similar Threads

  1. :-( **Trigger warning** Heart wrenching story.
    By M.2. in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 23-02-2013, 21:33
  2. Bullying *Possible Trigger Warning*
    By lolly137 in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-09-2012, 21:27

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
WaterWipes
Give your babies bottom a gift this Xmas! They are the only wipe made using just water and a drop of grapefruit seed extract and may help avoid nappy rash. Check out the great reviews on bubhub and see our website for more info and availability.
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
Wendys Music School
Wendy’s Music School. Experience, Quality and great service! For qualifying students we will get you playing or singing your favourite music in 90 days GUARANTEED! Book a free assessment online now!
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!