RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Have you got time to send those names to me sweet? (The ones from the meeting in Mt B) Love to you and your fam Jo --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004
RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Title: Message Thanks Jackie, There wont be a reply thou I am sure Cheers Jo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jackie Doolan Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story I think this is a great letter. Jackie Doolan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean & Jo Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story Hi everyone, Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: Dear Glenda, I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information provided by ‘experts’ and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to offer this opinion. The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited to speak. For every one OB who believes that a woman’s body is fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is– however channel 9 never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said before. Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS mum who says “my baby would have died without a cs”. (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.) After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to insult these women’s trauma by stating that birth is not a right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many women’s desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very least accurate. I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not graced our screens so frequently in the past. I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues include not what is ‘better’, but: ~ Why is it that the rare but extremely serious risks of Caesarean births are steadily on the increase and yet the safety of CS is continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and women are not being told these risks? Some of these risks are more common than the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC (vaginal birth after cs) and yet VBAC is consider too risky for many women! ~ Why is vaginal birth considered so risky in a day and age where women are the healthiest and well educated? ~ Why has birth become so medicalized; and is it possible that the perceived damaged caused by vaginal birth is actually damage caused by intervening in a process that is in fact normal. ~ Why it is that women who birth in the private sector are subjected to more interventions that those in the public sector? ~ Why is it that even though birth centres and midwifery led programs are perpetually full (women havin
RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Title: Message I think this is a great letter. Jackie Doolan -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean & JoSent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:14 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story Hi everyone, Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: Dear Glenda, I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information provided by experts and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to offer this opinion. The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited to speak. For every one OB who believes that a womans body is fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is however channel 9 never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said before. Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS mum who says my baby would have died without a cs. (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.) After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to insult these womens trauma by stating that birth is not a right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many womens desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very least accurate. I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not graced our screens so frequently in the past. I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues include not what is better, but: ~ Why is it that the rare but extremely serious risks of Caesarean births are steadily on the increase and yet the safety of CS is continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and women are not being told these risks? Some of these risks are more common than the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC (vaginal birth after cs) and yet VBAC is consider too risky for many women! ~ Why is vaginal birth considered so risky in a day and age where women are the healthiest and well educated? ~ Why has birth become so medicalized; and is it possible that the perceived damaged caused by vaginal birth is actually damage caused by intervening in a process that is in fact normal. ~ Why it is that women who birth in the private sector are subjected to more interventions that those in the public sector? ~ Why is it that even though birth centres and midwifery led programs are perpetually full (women having to book almost at conception!) and yet t
Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Well done Jo. I have contacted her as well- let's see if she responds? Regards, Lynne - Original Message - From: Dean & Jo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:14 PM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story Hi everyone, Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: Dear Glenda, I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information provided by experts and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to offer this opinion. The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited to speak. For every one OB who believes that a womans body is fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is however channel 9 never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said before. Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS mum who says my baby would have died without a cs. (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.) After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to insult these womens trauma by stating that birth is not a right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many womens desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very least accurate. I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not graced our screens so frequently in the past. I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues include not what is better, but: ~ Why is it that the rare but extremely serious risks of Caesarean births are steadily on the increase and yet the safety of CS is continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and women are not being told these risks? Some of these risks are more common than the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC (vaginal birth after cs) and yet VBAC is consider too risky for many women! ~ Why is vaginal birth considered so risky in a day and age where women are the healthiest and well educated? ~ Why has birth become so medicalized; and is it possible that the perceived damaged caused by vaginal birth is actually damage caused by intervening in a process that is in fact normal. ~ Why it is that women who birth in the private sector are subjected to more interventions that those in the public sector? ~ Why is it that even though birth centres and midwifery led programs are perpetually full (women having to book almost at conception!) and yet these model
Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Jo I agree. Fantastic response. Regards kathy - Original Message - From: "Kate &/or Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story Jo Remarkably calm! A wonderful response - well thought out, well expressed. Maybe it might have an effect! Kate - Original Message - From: Dean & Jo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story Hi everyone, Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: Dear Glenda, I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information provided by 'experts' and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to offer this opinion. The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited to speak. For every one OB who believes that a woman's body is fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is- however channel 9 never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said before. Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS mum who says "my baby would have died without a cs". (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.) After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to insult these women's trauma by stating that birth is not a right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many women's desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very least accurate. I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not graced our screens so frequently in the past. I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues include not what is 'better', but: ~ Why is it that the rare but extremely serious risks of Caesarean births are steadily on the increase and yet the safety of CS is continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and women are not being told these risks? Some of these risks are more common than the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC (vaginal birth after cs) and yet VBAC is consider too risky for many women! ~ Why is vaginal birth considered so risky in a day and age where women are the healthiest and well educated? ~ Why has birth become so medicalized; and is it possible that the perceived damaged caused by vaginal birth is actually damage caused by intervening in a process that is in fact normal. ~ Why it is that women who birth in the private sector are subjected to more interventions that those in the public sector? ~ Why is it that even though birth centres and midwifery led programs are perpetually ful
Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Not me Denise Hynd "Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, they are the only ones who ever have." Margaret Mead - Original Message - From: Mary Murphy To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story This is the 5th time I have received this tonight. Anyone else having the same problem? MM - Original Message - From: Kate &/or Nick To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story Jo Remarkably calm! A wonderful response - well thought out, well expressed. Maybe it might have an effect! Kate - Original Message - From: Dean & Jo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story Hi everyone, Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: Dear Glenda, I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information provided by experts and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to offer this opinion. The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited to speak. For every one OB who believes that a womans body is fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is however channel 9 never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said before. Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS mum who says my baby would have died without a cs. (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.) After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to insult these womens trauma by stating that birth is not a right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many womens desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very least accurate. I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not graced our screens so frequently in the past. I actually think that this deb
Re: Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story
No Mary, only one has arrived in my inbox. Another virus pending?? Kerry 1st yr BMid (ext) UniSA > Mary Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is the 5th time I have received this tonight. Anyone else having > the same problem? MM > - Original Message - > From: Kate &/or Nick > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 2:10 PM > Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story > > > Jo > > Remarkably calm! > > A wonderful response - well thought out, well expressed. > > Maybe it might have an effect! > > Kate > - Original Message - > From: Dean & Jo > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:44 PM > Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story > > > Hi everyone, > > Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: > > > > Dear Glenda, > > I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate > on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean > Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support > companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased > story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in > doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances > medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our > society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information > provided by 'experts' and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth > when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to > offer this opinion. > > > > The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old > doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. > Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited > to speak. For every one OB who believes that a woman's body is > fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who > support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is- however channel 9 > never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and > expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater > understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when > they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on > complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a > safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even > further, as I have said before. > > > > Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually > portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that > midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing > women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last > word or the CS mum who says "my baby would have died without a cs". > (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as > well.) > > > > After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others > around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the > story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in > their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and > even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free > reign to insult these women's trauma by stating that birth is not a > right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by > Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an > Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and > pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth > can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information > presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many women's > desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show > more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very > least accurate. > > > > I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the > population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge > these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions > from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. > > > > It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not > graced our screens so frequently in the past. > > > > I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues > include not what is 'better', but: > > > > ~ Why is it that the rare but extremely s
Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story
This is the 5th time I have received this tonight. Anyone else having
the same problem? MM
- Original Message -
From:
Kate
&/or Nick
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 2:10
PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Jo
Remarkably calm!
A wonderful response - well thought
out, well expressed.
Maybe it might have an
effect!
Kate
- Original Message -
From:
Dean
& Jo
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:44
PM
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS
story
Hi everyone,
Here is the letter
I sent in yesterday:
Dear
Glenda,
I am writing to you to express
my concern about the proposed debate on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA
(Caesarean Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support
companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment
on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so
biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am again filled with
dread that women in our society are going to be subjected to non-evidence
based information provided by experts and women saying CS is the easiest
way to birth when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be
able to offer this opinion.
The trouble I have with this
type of journalism is the same old doctors have their say, without
opportunity for a decent rebuttal.
Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB
invited to speak. For every one OB who believes that a womans body is
fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support
vaginal birth as the safe option that it is however channel 9 never seems
to access these doctors! It
seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater
understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they
are trained in treating complications hence the expert on complicated births
not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can
comment about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said
before.
Even the pro vaginal birth
people are the same: women (usually portrayed as hippy home birthers) or
midwives (despite the fact that midwives are the international BEST
professional for healthy birthing women) and yet what they have to say is
dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS mum who says my baby would
have died without a cs. (Just
letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.)
After the recent 60 minutes
story my support group and others around the country were inundated with
deeply upset women who felt the story had trivialized what they relate as a
traumatic experience in their lives.
CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post
traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to insult
these womens trauma by stating that birth is not a right of passage into
motherhood. Also, the medical
reason given by Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect:
an Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and
pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can
do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented
by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many womens desires to choose
CS. I hope that in future a
journalist will show more professionalism by presenting information that is
at the very least accurate.
I implore you if this debate
does go ahead to serious consider the population that has been adversely
affected by CS birth and acknowledge these people. I assure you their grief and adverse
emotional reactions from their caesarean experiences are very real and very
damaging.
It would be great also to hear
the opinions of OBs that have not graced our screens so frequently in the
past.
I actually think that this
debate is futile. The real issues include not what is better,
but:
~ Why is it that the rare but
extremely serious risks of Caesarean births are steadily on the increase and
yet the safety of CS is continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and
women are not being told these risks?
Some of these risks are more common than the risk of uterine rupture
in a VBAC (vaginal birth after cs) and yet VBAC is consider too risky for many
women!
~ Why is vaginal birth
considered so risky in a day and age where women are the healthiest
Re: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Jo Remarkably calm! A wonderful response - well thought out, well expressed. Maybe it might have an effect! Kate - Original Message - From: Dean & Jo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story Hi everyone, Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: Dear Glenda, I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information provided by experts and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to offer this opinion. The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited to speak. For every one OB who believes that a womans body is fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is however channel 9 never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said before. Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS mum who says my baby would have died without a cs. (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.) After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to insult these womens trauma by stating that birth is not a right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many womens desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very least accurate. I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not graced our screens so frequently in the past. I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues include not what is better, but: ~ Why is it that the rare but extremely serious risks of Caesarean births are steadily on the increase and yet the safety of CS is continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and women are not being told these risks? Some of these risks are more common than the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC (vaginal birth after cs) and yet VBAC is consider too risky for many women! ~ Why is vaginal birth considered so risky in a day and age where women are the healthiest and well educated? ~ Why has birth become so medicalized; and is it possible that the perceived damaged caused by vaginal birth is actually damage caused by intervening in a process that is in fact normal. ~ Why it is that women who birth in the private sector are subjected to more interventions that those in the public sector? ~ Why is it that even though birth centres and midwifery led programs are perpetually full (women having to book almos
RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Hi everyone, As a journalist and mother of four I was disgusted by the 60 minutes debacle. Hence, the reason I freelance - and probably the reason no publication except for Wellbeing was interested in my "homebirth-not just for hippies" article. I'm thrilled the editor of Wellbeing liked it but it's kind of like preaching to the converted. Other's had a read but the same story was 'it's not for us'. I love being on this list and keeping up to date with birthing issues. Your responses to Glenda are wonderful and do not show signs of weariness. I only hope she takes notice of your points and the information you give her! Anyway just wanted to add my opinion two bobs worth, Kylie >From: "Dean & Jo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:44:22 +0930 > >Hi everyone, >Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: > >Dear Glenda, >I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate on >elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean Awareness >Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support companion) I am >dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment on caesarean >births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes >story was so biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am >again filled with dread that women in our society are going to be >subjected to non-evidence based information provided by experts and >women saying CS is the easiest way to birth when they in fact have never >experienced vaginal birth to be able to offer this opinion. > >The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old doctors >have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. Even in the >context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited to speak. >For every one OB who believes that a womans body is fundamentally >incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support vaginal birth >as the safe option that it is however channel 9 never seems to access >these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each >time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater understanding of a normal >healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they are trained in treating >complications hence the expert on complicated births not healthy ones??? >Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can comment >about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said before. > >Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually portrayed >as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that midwives are >the international BEST professional for healthy birthing women) and yet >what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS >mum who says my baby would have died without a cs. (Just letting you >know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.) > >After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others around the >country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the story had >trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in their lives. >CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post >traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to >insult these womens trauma by stating that birth is not a right of >passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by Tracy that >her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an Australian study has >shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and pregnancy hormones affect >the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can do nothing to prevent >it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented by Tracy Curo, a >journalist!, will have impacted many womens desires to choose CS. I >hope that in future a journalist will show more professionalism by >presenting information that is at the very least accurate. > >I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the >population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge >these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions >from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. > >It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not graced >our screens so frequently in the past. > >I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues include not >what is better, but: > >~ Why is it that the rare but extremely serious risks of Caesarean >births are steadily on the increase and yet the safety of CS is >continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and women are not being >told these risks? Some
RE: [ozmidwifery] CS story
Hi everyone, Here is the letter I sent in yesterday: Dear Glenda, I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed debate on elective caesareans. As co-ordinator of CARES SA (Caesarean Awareness Recovery education Support SA) and doula (birth support companion) I am dreading yet another sensationalistic biased story/segment on caesarean births that channel 9 seem to relish in doing. The recent 60 minutes story was so biased and in some instances medically incorrect; I am again filled with dread that women in our society are going to be subjected to non-evidence based information provided by ‘experts’ and women saying CS is the easiest way to birth when they in fact have never experienced vaginal birth to be able to offer this opinion. The trouble I have with this type of journalism is the same old doctors have their say, without opportunity for a decent rebuttal. Even in the context of debate, I am weary due to the type of OB invited to speak. For every one OB who believes that a woman’s body is fundamentally incapable of birthing vaginally, there are ten who support vaginal birth as the safe option that it is– however channel 9 never seems to access these doctors! It seems to be the same faces and expert opinions each time!? Why an obstetrician has a greater understanding of a normal healthy birth over a midwife amazes me when they are trained in treating complications hence the expert on complicated births not healthy ones??? Why a women who has never had a safe normal vaginal birth can comment about what is best amazes me even further, as I have said before. Even the pro vaginal birth people are the same: women (usually portrayed as hippy home birthers) or midwives (despite the fact that midwives are the international BEST professional for healthy birthing women) and yet what they have to say is dismissed by OB having the last word or the CS mum who says “my baby would have died without a cs”. (Just letting you know, babies die and even more women die from CS as well.) After the recent 60 minutes story my support group and others around the country were inundated with deeply upset women who felt the story had trivialized what they relate as a traumatic experience in their lives. CS does increase chances of post partum depression and even post traumatic shock, yet high profile journalists are given free reign to insult these women’s trauma by stating that birth is not a right of passage into motherhood. Also, the medical reason given by Tracy that her CS prevents incontinence is sadly incorrect: an Australian study has shown that lack of pelvic floor exercises and pregnancy hormones affect the function of the pelvic floor and CS birth can do nothing to prevent it. Pity though as the incorrect information presented by Tracy Curo, a journalist!, will have impacted many women’s desires to choose CS. I hope that in future a journalist will show more professionalism by presenting information that is at the very least accurate. I implore you if this debate does go ahead to serious consider the population that has been adversely affected by CS birth and acknowledge these people. I assure you their grief and adverse emotional reactions from their caesarean experiences are very real and very damaging. It would be great also to hear the opinions of OBs that have not graced our screens so frequently in the past. I actually think that this debate is futile. The real issues include not what is ‘better’, but: ~ Why is it that the rare but extremely serious risks of Caesarean births are steadily on the increase and yet the safety of CS is continuously being shouted from the roof tops, and women are not being told these risks? Some of these risks are more common than the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC (vaginal birth after cs) and yet VBAC is consider too risky for many women! ~ Why is vaginal birth considered so risky in a day and age where women are the healthiest and well educated? ~ Why has birth become so medicalized; and is it possible that the perceived damaged caused by vaginal birth is actually damage caused by intervening in a process that is in fact normal. ~ Why it is that women who birth in the private sector are subjected to more interventions that those in the public sector? ~ Why is it that even though birth centres and midwifery led programs are perpetually full (women having to book almost at conception!) and yet these models of care are not expanded? ~ Why is it that New Zealand women can access government covered midwifery services including homebirth and we can not? Over 70% of birthing women in NZ use midwives and our best Australian midwives desperately want to leave our shores to work in an environment that sees birth as a healthy event in women’s lives and not one that can only be experienced with the ‘aid’ of a surgeons knife? All of this is proven by research. I could go on but wont. I wish you l
Re: [ozmidwifery] Cs story
Jo You have written a fantastic letter here and I hope you will consider sending it to 60 minutes - With your previous experiences and way with words you have summed up the issues perfectly!! Helen Cahill - Original Message - From: Jo & Dean Bainbridge To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 9:59 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Cs story I am a mum whose first birth was by caesarean, the next birth with medical interventions (forceps etc), and then a natural vaginal birth. Pretty much done it all! It really concerns me when people like Tracy Curio can make statements like a vaginal birth is not a life changing essential rite of passage into mother or woman hoodwhen she has never done it! Women who make comments about experiences they have not lived should never make blanket comments. To say something like that is not only arrogant but ignorant. Nothing compares to birthing a baby naturally, with no complications, with no fear and surrounded by those people who truly care for you and your baby. There is nothing like it, there is no way to describe it. Complicated vaginal birth is something that I have experienced twice, it is for that reason that I feel that I can accurately compare the experiences. For me to finally birth a baby naturally and without fear or complications was a major accomplishment and healed many sorrows. I feel that it is understandable for Vanessa to chose her caesarean birth, but is her experience reflective of the general population? Many women do have traumatic vaginal birth experiences, but should we not be asking why? Why is it that some hospitals have induction rates of over 50% and coincidently have cs rates of 35% to 40%? Is there not correlation in this? Why is it that all birth centres around the country are booked out continuously? Why the newly introduced midwifery group practice in Adelaide is having to double it's numbers next year from 500 women per year to 1000 due to the demand for midwifery led care. What is happening in our labour wards under the medical model of care that makes major abdominal surgery a preferred option? The story presented by 60 minutes was fraught with incorrect information: pelvic floor being 'saved' by cs...it is more likely pregnancy hormones, botched or poorly timed medical interventions like forceps and episiotomies, and the lack of pelvic floor exercising by women that causes stress incontinences etc; and the story's total exclusion of the serious complications from cs that are sadly becoming 'less rare' as the more cs are done...life threatening events such as serious placental complications and even links with still birth in future pregnancies. Such biased and incorrect information being shown to our birthing mothers is a sad reflection of our society loosing the sacredness and importance of birth. On one aspect you are reporting caesareans as being as normal as a vaginal birth (however you only acknowledged the complicated vaginal birth scenario) but not once did the reporter or those involved in the story refer to caesarean as a caesarean birth. C-Section, or caesarean section is the medical terminology. We don't call the baby the foetus in every day speech do we? I watched the segment with interest, but sadly was left disappointed and thinking once again: "you just don't get it!" Jo Bainbridge Nairne, South Australia
Re: [ozmidwifery] Cs story
Jo, I hope you are able to forward a letter to 60 minutes because women need to hear what you have to say. kathy - Original Message - From: "Jo & Dean Bainbridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 9:59 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Cs story I am a mum whose first birth was by caesarean, the next birth with medical interventions (forceps etc), and then a natural vaginal birth. Pretty much done it all! It really concerns me when people like Tracy Curio can make statements like a vaginal birth is not a life changing essential rite of passage into mother or woman hoodwhen she has never done it! Women who make comments about experiences they have not lived should never make blanket comments. To say something like that is not only arrogant but ignorant. Nothing compares to birthing a baby naturally, with no complications, with no fear and surrounded by those people who truly care for you and your baby. There is nothing like it, there is no way to describe it. Complicated vaginal birth is something that I have experienced twice, it is for that reason that I feel that I can accurately compare the experiences. For me to finally birth a baby naturally and without fear or complications was a major accomplishment and healed many sorrows. I feel that it is understandable for Vanessa to chose her caesarean birth, but is her experience reflective of the general population? Many women do have traumatic vaginal birth experiences, but should we not be asking why? Why is it that some hospitals have induction rates of over 50% and coincidently have cs rates of 35% to 40%? Is there not correlation in this? Why is it that all birth centres around the country are booked out continuously? Why the newly introduced midwifery group practice in Adelaide is having to double it's numbers next year from 500 women per year to 1000 due to the demand for midwifery led care. What is happening in our labour wards under the medical model of care that makes major abdominal surgery a preferred option? The story presented by 60 minutes was fraught with incorrect information: pelvic floor being 'saved' by cs...it is more likely pregnancy hormones, botched or poorly timed medical interventions like forceps and episiotomies, and the lack of pelvic floor exercising by women that causes stress incontinences etc; and the story's total exclusion of the serious complications from cs that are sadly becoming 'less rare' as the more cs are done...life threatening events such as serious placental complications and even links with still birth in future pregnancies. Such biased and incorrect information being shown to our birthing mothers is a sad reflection of our society loosing the sacredness and importance of birth. On one aspect you are reporting caesareans as being as normal as a vaginal birth (however you only acknowledged the complicated vaginal birth scenario) but not once did the reporter or those involved in the story refer to caesarean as a caesarean birth. C-Section, or caesarean section is the medical terminology. We don't call the baby the foetus in every day speech do we? I watched the segment with interest, but sadly was left disappointed and thinking once again: "you just don't get it!" Jo Bainbridge Nairne, South Australia -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
[ozmidwifery] Cs story
I am a mum whose first birth was by caesarean, the next birth with medical interventions (forceps etc), and then a natural vaginal birth. Pretty much done it all! It really concerns me when people like Tracy Curio can make statements like a vaginal birth is not a life changing essential rite of passage into mother or woman hoodwhen she has never done it! Women who make comments about experiences they have not lived should never make blanket comments. To say something like that is not only arrogant but ignorant. Nothing compares to birthing a baby naturally, with no complications, with no fear and surrounded by those people who truly care for you and your baby. There is nothing like it, there is no way to describe it. Complicated vaginal birth is something that I have experienced twice, it is for that reason that I feel that I can accurately compare the experiences. For me to finally birth a baby naturally and without fear or complications was a major accomplishment and healed many sorrows. I feel that it is understandable for Vanessa to chose her caesarean birth, but is her experience reflective of the general population? Many women do have traumatic vaginal birth experiences, but should we not be asking why? Why is it that some hospitals have induction rates of over 50% and coincidently have cs rates of 35% to 40%? Is there not correlation in this? Why is it that all birth centres around the country are booked out continuously? Why the newly introduced midwifery group practice in Adelaide is having to double it's numbers next year from 500 women per year to 1000 due to the demand for midwifery led care. What is happening in our labour wards under the medical model of care that makes major abdominal surgery a preferred option? The story presented by 60 minutes was fraught with incorrect information: pelvic floor being 'saved' by cs...it is more likely pregnancy hormones, botched or poorly timed medical interventions like forceps and episiotomies, and the lack of pelvic floor exercising by women that causes stress incontinences etc; and the story's total exclusion of the serious complications from cs that are sadly becoming 'less rare' as the more cs are done...life threatening events such as serious placental complications and even links with still birth in future pregnancies. Such biased and incorrect information being shown to our birthing mothers is a sad reflection of our society loosing the sacredness and importance of birth. On one aspect you are reporting caesareans as being as normal as a vaginal birth (however you only acknowledged the complicated vaginal birth scenario) but not once did the reporter or those involved in the story refer to caesarean as a caesarean birth. C-Section, or caesarean section is the medical terminology. We don't call the baby the foetus in every day speech do we? I watched the segment with interest, but sadly was left disappointed and thinking once again: "you just don't get it!" Jo Bainbridge Nairne, South Australia
