----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:06
PM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] new idea
heres my letter
i tried to be nice and respectful and kept trying to keep in mind that
everyone has good intentions theyre just obviously uninformed and scared !! it
worked for a second and then i was just furious again hahaha we'll see what my
reply is
Hi,
I am a 4th year medical student and feel the need to write after reading
your recent article on caesareans vs vaginal birth. While I'm sure this was an
attempt to provide useful information to your readers about an obviously
thought-provoking issue of great interest to your readers, the result I'm
sorry to say is a biased article that provokes fear and perpetuates many
myths.
In the current era of sky-rocketing intervention rates and
the terrible hospital birth experiences that go with them, it is
little wonder that 80% of gynaecologists would choose a caesarean !
Obstetrician/Gynaecologists are usually only called on to deal with problems
and complications of pregnancy and birth and as such, often develop a skewed
view of the inherent risks, despite the evidence. This does not mean however,
that other women should be encouraged to make this choice. There are many
medical complications, only a very small number of which are pointed out in
the article, associated with caesareans. This is not to mention the
psychological complications that can come with caesareans due to separation
from their babies and the difficulty of caring for a small baby while
recovering from major abdominal surgery. We only need to look to the US, with
around a 30% caesarean rate and still rated 31st for perinatal mortality rates
to see that caesarean sections are not the safe and inert procedure they are
often made out to be and do not help countries to keep more babies
alive.
The point made about scheduling the day of birth is a particularly sad
one. It is shocking that our society puts the health and wellbeing of their
babies (who will be born when they are fully ready to be) behind their quest
for instant gratification and control over their lives. If ever, this is one
time that we should give over to nature and forget our need to schedule,
organise and plan everything to the minute detail. It is also sad that our
'husbands' may not be able to make time to be with us when their child is born
unless it fits neatly into a schedule !
The statistic given for uterine rupture during a vaginal birth after
caesarean is in fact quite accurate (1 in 200.) The reasons it is biased are
firstly, because very few readers have any experience with which to guage this
against (for example that common interventions like amniocentesis that
are recommended every day have double this risk of miscarriage ie 1
in 100,) that half of all uterine ruptures occur in women who have not
ever had a prior caesarean and that not all uterine ruptures are fatal
anyway.
The risks given for 'natural birth' are particularly misleading and fear
provoking and are extremely dangerous suggestions to be putting out to a
generation of women. The risk of 'uncontrolled tearing' which we call a 3rd or
4th degree tear is in fact very low. This does however, become a more common
problem when the birth process is interefered with by cutting the perineum -
another intervention.
The risk of urinary incontinence has been shown time and time again to be
unrelated to the mechanism of delivery. Women who undergo caesarean sections
experience urinary incontinence at the same rates as those who have vaginal
births.
And yes, as you have pointed out, caesareans are usually relatively quick
but what you fail to mention is the long period of recovery and pain that goes
with this surgery and the fact that women who have vaginal births are usually
much quicker to be up and about and leave hospital.
I hope that you will think again before printing information of this
nature again. It does discredit New Idea to those who know the evidence
surrounding these issues. Although there may be no outright lies in this
article, it is blindingly biased and really unhelpful in helping women and
families in their birth journey. I also hope that you will be printing an
apology and some evidence, perhaps care of a midwife, as they are the experts
of normal birth, not us medical people. If not I will be recommending to all
the GPs, hospitals and birth centres that I'm involved with not to buy or
allow your magazine in waiting rooms, due to it's fear-provoking and
over-simplified articles.
Regards
Emily Dorman
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call
regular phones from your PC and save big.
