Great news - mum relaxed, all is now normal and fine with every aspect of her monitoring. I had a feeling it was only anxiety. And thank goodness it was good old white coat syndrome... we can all breathe now.
Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood BellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Janet Fraser Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2006 5:55 PM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: Re: Fw: [ozmidwifery] Blood pressure... By obtaining information from an internet > list and offering this in opposition to the care the woman receives from the > hospital can have a potentially damaging effect on her trust of the carers > at the hospital that she has chosen. I'm afraid I see trust as something to be earned and trusting professionals because they're professionals is unwise. No one suggests we trust other professionals uncritically so why are midwives and doctors different? A second opinion is always recommended in other medical situations. Offering a woman genuine evidence that saves her and her baby from unnecessary intervention may not enhance her relationship with those she has employed but it might just save her life! Why should she uncritically trust everything she's told just because it's in a hospital? The woman should take her birthing > plan and her queries regarding the blood pressure to the people at the > hospital, where she can discuss what an induction means and why she may or > may not need this. No, this woman should seek outside sources to confirm for herself what she feels comfortable with, not ask the people who want to intervene. What will their response be? "Oh sure, we just offered induction because our time and motion issues and surgeons' timetables mean we prefer to induce women to our needs not theirs." Or will it be, "Yes, you're deathly ill and if we don't induce you your baby might die." I know the latter response is the one I hear most reported back from consumers. > My defense over the interference in hospitals stands only on this- that > people interfere when they are concerned of the potential risk to the mother > and baby, if we did nothing we are also putting them at risk. No, people interfere when the nexus of commerce, misogyny and ignorance around what birth really is comes together. We all know that rates of intervention in hospitals are way out of control and overservicing is the name of the game. You can't possibly be saying that primary c-sec rates are appropriate in this country and that all interventions are performed with pure hearts and women's lives in the balance? Birth isn't inherently dangerous but if you look at the outcomes in this country clearly birth in institutions is a risky business. There are no excuses for our outrageous rates of intervention but every reason for our concomitantly poor outcomes. As WHO says, when all women are treated in high tech units as if they are high risk, outcomes are crap. Too true! J -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
