|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » Re: [I] Tenor of afp
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #250433] |
Di, 04 April 2006 23:19 |
|
Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
(on Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:52:54 GMT):
> Lesley Weston wrote:
> > in article e0q0sc$rcq$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com, Arthur Hagen at
> <snip>
> >> Isn't there a rule that you have to pay for not only cosmetic but
> >> also self-inflicted damages, unless you suffer from mental illness?
> >
> > Women don't normally choose a c-section - it leaves a lot more
> > damage than the other way, even if it doesn't go wrong like it did
> > for my friend. In her case, she wasn't even offered the choice, and
> > the spectacularly wrong that it went made her life painful and
> > miserable until it was fixed. I know what you actually mean, but it
> > seems like a good idea to defuse your post by misunderstanding it.
>
>
> Actually, Art is right at least to some extent.
>
> There is a controversy now--subject of a recent 60 Minutes show, I
> think--about women requesting C-sections.
>
> Many are now performed at the request of the woman.
Ng. At the request of the woman who is listening to *whose advice*?
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #250461 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 00:36 |
|
Ailbhe <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
> (on Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:52:54 GMT):
> > Lesley Weston wrote:
> > > in article e0q0sc$rcq$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com, Arthur Hagen at
> > <snip>
> > >> Isn't there a rule that you have to pay for not only cosmetic but
> > >> also self-inflicted damages, unless you suffer from mental illness?
> > >
> > > Women don't normally choose a c-section - it leaves a lot more
> > > damage than the other way,
> > Actually, Art is right at least to some extent.
> >
> > There is a controversy now--subject of a recent 60 Minutes show, I
> > think--about women requesting C-sections.
> >
> > Many are now performed at the request of the woman.
>
> Ng. At the request of the woman who is listening to *whose advice*?
Life style magazines, I wouldn't be surprised.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #250493 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 02:37 |
|
Ailbhe wrote:
> Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
<do I really have to say "snip" here?>
>> Actually, Art is right at least to some extent.
>>
>> There is a controversy now--subject of a recent 60 Minutes show, I
>> think--about women requesting C-sections.
>>
>> Many are now performed at the request of the woman.
>
> Ng. At the request of the woman who is listening to *whose advice*?
That, I couldn't tell you. Some doctors are okay with it, some aren't. The
docs are concerned about malpractice because of all the risks to the baby
during vaginal birth. Anson got sort of . . .stuck . . .for a bit. They
probably *should* have got him out by c-section, but it was too late.
It's my understanding that scheduling your delivery (whether by C or by
induced labor I'm not sure) has been the trend in Japan for some years now.
I could be mistaken or out of date about this, but it seems to be a growing
trend in industrialized countries.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #250845 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 19:34 |
|
Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
(on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:37:27 GMT):
> Ailbhe wrote:
> > Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
> >> There is a controversy now--subject of a recent 60 Minutes show, I
> >> think--about women requesting C-sections.
> >>
> >> Many are now performed at the request of the woman.
> >
> > Ng. At the request of the woman who is listening to *whose advice*?
>
> That, I couldn't tell you. Some doctors are okay with it, some aren't. The
> docs are concerned about malpractice because of all the risks to the baby
> during vaginal birth. Anson got sort of . . .stuck . . .for a bit. They
> probably *should* have got him out by c-section, but it was too late.
>
> It's my understanding that scheduling your delivery (whether by C or by
> induced labor I'm not sure) has been the trend in Japan for some years now.
> I could be mistaken or out of date about this, but it seems to be a growing
> trend in industrialized countries.
Scheduling a delivery to reduce risk is not the same as scheduling it to
suit one's own convenience.
I am not denying that some people schedule a delivery for their own
convenience - I have spoken to women who scheduled inductions so that their
babies would have the "right" birthday, and their obstetricians allowed this -
but I am very aware that I am having an "elective" c-section in August. I've
elected to have a section because the alternative is... bad. Not "possibly
a risk" or "significant risk" but "almost guaranteed disaster."
BUT it is my "choice" and I could theoretically withold consent. I do wonder
how many other choosers are in a similar position.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #250884 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 23:47 |
|
in article bjEYf.546$BS2.83 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, Stacie Hanes
at house_damodred [at] yahoo.com wrote on 04/04/2006 5:37 PM:
> Ailbhe wrote:
>> Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>
> <do I really have to say "snip" here?>
>
>>> Actually, Art is right at least to some extent.
>>>
>>> There is a controversy now--subject of a recent 60 Minutes show, I
>>> think--about women requesting C-sections.
>>>
>>> Many are now performed at the request of the woman.
>>
>> Ng. At the request of the woman who is listening to *whose advice*?
>
>
> That, I couldn't tell you. Some doctors are okay with it, some aren't. The
> docs are concerned about malpractice because of all the risks to the baby
> during vaginal birth. Anson got sort of . . .stuck . . .for a bit. They
> probably *should* have got him out by c-section, but it was too late.
>
> It's my understanding that scheduling your delivery (whether by C or by
> induced labor I'm not sure) has been the trend in Japan for some years now.
> I could be mistaken or out of date about this, but it seems to be a growing
> trend in industrialized countries.
Scheduling an induced birth is one thing, though t'aint naaatural still, and
unnecessary surgery is another. Both my labours were induced and it was no
big thing; I'm really thankful that I didn't need a c-section either time.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #250918 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 02:16 |
|
Ailbhe wrote:
> BUT it is my "choice" and I could theoretically withold consent. I
> do wonder how many other choosers are in a similar position.
Good question. I don't pretend to know.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251004 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 15:19 |
|
on 06/04/2006 18:34 Ailbhe said the following:
<snip>
> I am not denying that some people schedule a delivery for their own
> convenience - I have spoken to women who scheduled inductions so that their
> babies would have the "right" birthday, and their obstetricians allowed this -
> but I am very aware that I am having an "elective" c-section in August. I've
> elected to have a section because the alternative is... bad. Not "possibly
> a risk" or "significant risk" but "almost guaranteed disaster."
I do wonder at the use of 'elective' here. It seems wrong to bundle this
in with all of the trivial reasons that are sometimes used for
c-sections. Given that we're talking about a damage limitation exercise
here, I think that it would be better if this kind of c-section were
termed 'recommended' or similar.
> BUT it is my "choice" and I could theoretically withold consent. I do wonder
> how many other choosers are in a similar position.
A significant number, I would guess, though I have no access to any
statistics on the subject.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251005 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 15:14 |
|
on 06/04/2006 22:47 Lesley Weston said the following:
<snip>
> Scheduling an induced birth is one thing, though t'aint naaatural still, and
> unnecessary surgery is another.
I think there's an unspoken assumption here that 'natural' is always
Good and 'unnatural' is Bad. That's just not the case, IMO. Nature can,
and does, screw up spectacularly and medical intervention is often the
only way of dealing with Nature's mistakes. Scheduled medical
intervention can sometimes just mean that there is forewarning of a
serious problem so let's minimise the short, and long term, risks to mum
and baby.
> Both my labours were induced and it was no
> big thing; I'm really thankful that I didn't need a c-section either
> time.
All three of my labours were normal and 'natural' - with two being
drug-free. But then I consider that I was very lucky. Some women aren't
so lucky and there are cases where it is obvious that B simply ain't
gonna fit through A easily without serious trauma for both parties.
Since putting a unborn child on a diet is out of the question, a
scheduled c-section would seem to be eminently sensible rather than
adopting a 'wait and see if B gets stuck' policy.
So, it really depends upon your definition of 'unnecessary'.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251031 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 18:57 |
|
Ailbhe <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
> (on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:37:27 GMT):
> [...]
>> It's my understanding that scheduling your delivery (whether by C or by
>> induced labor I'm not sure) has been the trend in Japan for some years now.
>> I could be mistaken or out of date about this, but it seems to be a growing
>> trend in industrialized countries.
>
> Scheduling a delivery to reduce risk is not the same as scheduling it to
> suit one's own convenience.
According to a study that's often cited (but which I
haven't seen myself yet) here in Germany there are
considerably more babies born on Fridays than any
other days and considerably less children born on
Sundays than any other days.
The reason given is that staff in clinics do not want
to work on weekends.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251037 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 19:19 |
|
esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> on 06/04/2006 22:47 Lesley Weston said the following:
> <snip>
>> Scheduling an induced birth is one thing, though t'aint naaatural still, and
>> unnecessary surgery is another.
>
> I think there's an unspoken assumption here that 'natural' is always
> Good and 'unnatural' is Bad. That's just not the case, IMO. Nature can,
> and does, screw up spectacularly and medical intervention is often the
> only way of dealing with Nature's mistakes. [...]
That's certainly true.
However. I have heard a few too many stories of clinics
inducing (more, stronger) labours first, then slamming
on the brakes, because it was too much, and afterwards
sewing up the damage done, indicating that the woman was
lucky to be in a clinic where medical intervention was
available for the unforeseen problems that appeared.
Three out of my three children were born with only the
help of a midwife who knew what she was doing. (With my
second child, she was too late, with the third child,
she choose to have another one coming for councel.)
I was prepared that at some point the woman will feel
like she can't do no more and I was told that that's
actually a good sign, as it marks the beginning of the
last stage. I remember the midwife looking at me and
secretly giving me a thumb-up when my girlfriend said
this last time.
When I compare that to what friends tell about their
experiences, then this is the point where in clinics
they start interfering.
I find it enraging how spectacularly this is messed
with, obviously without proper knowledge about how
things work if they are let to work themselves.
One midwife who had worked in a clinic for ten years
before she choose to do it differently told me that
in all her years in that clinic, she has never seen a
doctor seeing a birth the way it ought to be. Doctors
always were called when there were any problems or at
the very last moment. They simply don't know how it
is supposed to be.
(BTW: interestingly, AFAIK in Germany doctors are not
allowed to help giving birth without a midwife being
present. Midwifes are allowed to help alone. So this
seems to be one of the very few corners cases were
common sense won.)
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251040 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 19:15 |
|
Hendrik Schober <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote
(on Fri, 7 Apr 2006 18:57:26 +0200):
> According to a study that's often cited (but which I
> haven't seen myself yet) here in Germany there are
> considerably more babies born on Fridays than any
> other days and considerably less children born on
> Sundays than any other days.
> The reason given is that staff in clinics do not want
> to work on weekends.
I believe that one reason my delivery was so rushed and traumatic towards
the end is that my daughter was born at 17:14 on a Friday. The duty
obstetrician was not a sympathetic man.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251047 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 19:53 |
|
Hendrik Schober <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote
(on Fri, 7 Apr 2006 19:19:19 +0200):
> esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> > I think there's an unspoken assumption here that 'natural' is always
> > Good and 'unnatural' is Bad. That's just not the case, IMO. Nature can,
> > and does, screw up spectacularly and medical intervention is often the
> > only way of dealing with Nature's mistakes. [...]
> Three out of my three children were born with only the
> help of a midwife who knew what she was doing. (With my
> second child, she was too late, with the third child,
> she choose to have another one coming for councel.)
My mother delivered five daughters without intervention or need for
pain relief. My sister delivered one son by emergency section without
ever having gone into labour and two daughters without intervention
of any kind.
I delivered one daughter under circumstances that could easily have
resulted in both of us dying had medical intervention not been available.
Yes, the excessive medicalisaiton of childbirth is doing a disservice to
women and babies - not least because when someone presents with problems,
real problems, staff don't know how to tell what's going on, because many
of them have never seen an intervention-free birth to begin with.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251065 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 20:53 |
|
Ailbhe <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> Hendrik Schober <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote
> (on Fri, 7 Apr 2006 18:57:26 +0200):
>
>> According to a study that's often cited (but which I
>> haven't seen myself yet) here in Germany there are
>> considerably more babies born on Fridays than any
>> other days and considerably less children born on
>> Sundays than any other days.
>> The reason given is that staff in clinics do not want
>> to work on weekends.
>
> I believe that one reason my delivery was so rushed and traumatic towards
> the end is that my daughter was born at 17:14 on a Friday. The duty
> obstetrician was not a sympathetic man.
This is where two of my children were born:
http://www.geburtshaus-am-arnimplatz.de/deutsch/geburtszimme r.php
(The first one was >9 years ago, so the rooms
looked different. But their were similar.)
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251102 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 22:32 |
|
on 07/04/2006 18:19 Hendrik Schober said the following:
<snip>
> However. I have heard a few too many stories of clinics
> inducing (more, stronger) labours first, then slamming
> on the brakes, because it was too much, and afterwards
> sewing up the damage done, indicating that the woman was
> lucky to be in a clinic where medical intervention was
> available for the unforeseen problems that appeared.
I wouldn't have thought it was possible to induce a stronger labour than
the woman was capable of - although I can appreciate that, near the end,
thing do need to go slowly, if at possible, to minimise damage.
Having said that, each woman's reaction to oxytocin is likely to be
individual and sometimes this sensitivity isn't obvious until well into
the labor. I had an oxytocin drip for my first child to speed up a very
slow labor[1]. The dosage was increased in a slow and controlled manner
but, nevertheless, about two hours in, I hit some kind of threshold and
went into contraction-hell[2]. Fortunately, all that was needed was an
adjustment in the dosage rate and then labor proceed normally for the
next 5 hours. However, I can see that this could create a problem at a
later stage which might result in a faster-than-advisable delivery.
All I'm saying is that some of those overly strong labors may not be due
to staff acting out of convenience but genuine differences between women.
esmi
[1] Son No.1 needed to be delivered within 12 hours due an infection risk.
[2] aka 'four-minute-long contractions'. The average contraction lasts
about 90 seconds, IIRC, and even that feels like forever.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251117 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 23:10 |
|
esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote
(on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:32:33 +0100):
> on 07/04/2006 18:19 Hendrik Schober said the following:
> > However. I have heard a few too many stories of clinics
> > inducing (more, stronger) labours first, then slamming
> > on the brakes, because it was too much, and afterwards
> > sewing up the damage done, indicating that the woman was
> > lucky to be in a clinic where medical intervention was
> > available for the unforeseen problems that appeared.
>
> I wouldn't have thought it was possible to induce a stronger labour than
> the woman was capable of - although I can appreciate that, near the end,
> thing do need to go slowly, if at possible, to minimise damage.
It is possible to cause uterine rupture with incautious use of
oxytocin / pitocin.
> All I'm saying is that some of those overly strong labors may not be due
> to staff acting out of convenience but genuine differences between women.
Yup. And some staff aren't adequately aware of the differences.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251125 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 23:33 |
|
Ailbhe <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote
> (on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:32:33 +0100):
>> on 07/04/2006 18:19 Hendrik Schober said the following:
>
>> > However. I have heard a few too many stories of clinics
>> > inducing (more, stronger) labours first, then slamming
>> > on the brakes, because it was too much, and afterwards
>> > sewing up the damage done, indicating that the woman was
>> > lucky to be in a clinic where medical intervention was
>> > available for the unforeseen problems that appeared.
>>
>> I wouldn't have thought it was possible to induce a stronger labour than
>> the woman was capable of - although I can appreciate that, near the end,
>> thing do need to go slowly, if at possible, to minimise damage.
>
> It is possible to cause uterine rupture with incautious use of
> oxytocin / pitocin.
That's what I heard about.
>> All I'm saying is that some of those overly strong labors may not be due
>> to staff acting out of convenience but genuine differences between women.
>
> Yup. And some staff aren't adequately aware of the differences.
Yes. Especially since they can "undo" later by giving
other nice things.
Being the father of three kids and having spend a
comparative big amount of time on playgrounds, I heard
a lot of different stories. I have not heard many good
ones from women/couples who where in some clinic. I
have not heard more than one or two not so good ones
from women/couples who only had a midwife.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251171 ] |
Sa, 08 April 2006 01:16 |
|
Hendrik Schober <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote
(on Fri, 7 Apr 2006 23:33:05 +0200):
> Ailbhe <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> > esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote
> > (on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:32:33 +0100):
> >> on 07/04/2006 18:19 Hendrik Schober said the following:
> >
> >> > However. I have heard a few too many stories of clinics
> >> > inducing (more, stronger) labours first, then slamming
> >> > on the brakes, because it was too much, and afterwards
> >> > sewing up the damage done, indicating that the woman was
> >> > lucky to be in a clinic where medical intervention was
> >> > available for the unforeseen problems that appeared.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't have thought it was possible to induce a stronger labour than
> >> the woman was capable of - although I can appreciate that, near the end,
> >> thing do need to go slowly, if at possible, to minimise damage.
> >
> > It is possible to cause uterine rupture with incautious use of
> > oxytocin / pitocin.
>
> That's what I heard about.
>
> >> All I'm saying is that some of those overly strong labors may not be due
> >> to staff acting out of convenience but genuine differences between women.
> >
> > Yup. And some staff aren't adequately aware of the differences.
>
> Yes. Especially since they can "undo" later by giving
> other nice things.
>
> Being the father of three kids and having spend a
> comparative big amount of time on playgrounds, I heard
> a lot of different stories. I have not heard many good
> ones from women/couples who where in some clinic. I
> have not heard more than one or two not so good ones
> from women/couples who only had a midwife.
Uterine rupture is very rare, but when it happens, highly likely to be
fatal. I doubt you've heard of it happening often, though you may often
have heard of it happening.
I could tell you a few stories about terrible things happening to women
who had midwife-only care *until the point at which the midwife needed
to call obstetric help*. No responsible midwife would attempt to deal
with a serious complication requiring surgical intervention alone unless
he or she had no choice. This does not mean that the obstetric intervention
caused the problem.
A.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251256 ] |
Sa, 08 April 2006 11:48 |
|
Ailbhe <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> [...]
>> Being the father of three kids and having spend a
>> comparative big amount of time on playgrounds, I heard
>> a lot of different stories. I have not heard many good
>> ones from women/couples who where in some clinic. I
>> have not heard more than one or two not so good ones
>> from women/couples who only had a midwife.
>
> Uterine rupture is very rare, but when it happens, highly likely to be
> fatal. I doubt you've heard of it happening often, though you may often
> have heard of it happening.
I didn't mean to say I heard a lot about uterine
rupture. :^?
> I could tell you a few stories about terrible things happening to women
> who had midwife-only care *until the point at which the midwife needed
> to call obstetric help*. No responsible midwife would attempt to deal
> with a serious complication requiring surgical intervention alone [...]
Right. A responsible midwife will try to estimate
the risk before-hand and send the woman/couple to
some clinic when she thinks there is a risk. I
certainly agree to that.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251430 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 00:50 |
|
"Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote in message
news:e1816t$dvc$1 [at] murphy.mediascape.de...
> Ailbhe <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Being the father of three kids and having spend a
> >> comparative big amount of time on playgrounds, I heard
> >> a lot of different stories. I have not heard many good
> >> ones from women/couples who where in some clinic. I
> >> have not heard more than one or two not so good ones
> >> from women/couples who only had a midwife.
> >
> > Uterine rupture is very rare, but when it happens, highly likely to be
> > fatal. I doubt you've heard of it happening often, though you may often
> > have heard of it happening.
>
> I didn't mean to say I heard a lot about uterine
> rupture. :^?
>
> > I could tell you a few stories about terrible things happening to women
> > who had midwife-only care *until the point at which the midwife needed
> > to call obstetric help*. No responsible midwife would attempt to deal
> > with a serious complication requiring surgical intervention alone [...]
>
> Right. A responsible midwife will try to estimate
> the risk before-hand and send the woman/couple to
> some clinic when she thinks there is a risk. I
> certainly agree to that.
>
> Schobi
>
> --
> SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
> I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
>
> "The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
> Eric Jarvis
>
>
i know that in previous places i've lived, a lot of hospitals were offering
midwife suites as a delivery option. that way you could have a midwife
delivery at the hospital, but all the options were still handily nearby if t
hings should go bad for any reason...
was something i had considered before finding out that I couldn't have any
children myself... so i've no idea what options my local hospital has to
offer... still hoping to adopt though.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251434 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 01:20 |
|
in article e15pot$8ks$1 [at] mud.stack.nl, esmi at esmi [at] lspace.org wrote on
07/04/2006 6:14 AM:
> on 06/04/2006 22:47 Lesley Weston said the following:
> <snip>
>> Scheduling an induced birth is one thing, though t'aint naaatural still, and
>> unnecessary surgery is another.
>
> I think there's an unspoken assumption here that 'natural' is always
> Good and 'unnatural' is Bad. That's just not the case, IMO. Nature can,
> and does, screw up spectacularly and medical intervention is often the
> only way of dealing with Nature's mistakes. Scheduled medical
> intervention can sometimes just mean that there is forewarning of a
> serious problem so let's minimise the short, and long term, risks to mum
> and baby.
Yes of course - see my reply to Ailbhe. My labours were both started by
inducing them at precisely 9 am because that was convenient for the medical
staff. They were both induced because I appear to have elephant blood (let's
cross a few threads here), or was otherwise reluctant to part with my
babies, but it didn't matter to me or the babies what time the induction
started. If they had stayed in there until they felt like appearing, or
until I felt like letting them go, there could have been all sorts of
problems, so inducing their births was obviously the best way to go, natural
or not.
>
>> Both my labours were induced and it was no
>> big thing; I'm really thankful that I didn't need a c-section either
>> time.
>
> All three of my labours were normal and 'natural' - with two being
> drug-free. But then I consider that I was very lucky. Some women aren't
> so lucky and there are cases where it is obvious that B simply ain't
> gonna fit through A easily without serious trauma for both parties.
> Since putting a unborn child on a diet is out of the question, a
> scheduled c-section would seem to be eminently sensible rather than
> adopting a 'wait and see if B gets stuck' policy.
>
> So, it really depends upon your definition of 'unnecessary'.
I guess I mean that it's unnecessary when there's no reason to suppose that
there's going to be any problem, but there is the inexplicable wish on the
part of a pregnant woman with no present or potential problems to undergo
surgery and all its aftermath, rather than the normal, uncomplicated vaginal
delivery that she would probably have otherwise.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251435 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 01:25 |
|
in article e15pos$8kr$1 [at] mud.stack.nl, esmi at esmi [at] lspace.org wrote on
07/04/2006 6:19 AM:
> on 06/04/2006 18:34 Ailbhe said the following:
> <snip>
>
>> I am not denying that some people schedule a delivery for their own
>> convenience - I have spoken to women who scheduled inductions so that their
>> babies would have the "right" birthday, and their obstetricians allowed this
>> -
>> but I am very aware that I am having an "elective" c-section in August. I've
>> elected to have a section because the alternative is... bad. Not "possibly
>> a risk" or "significant risk" but "almost guaranteed disaster."
>
> I do wonder at the use of 'elective' here. It seems wrong to bundle this
> in with all of the trivial reasons that are sometimes used for
> c-sections. Given that we're talking about a damage limitation exercise
> here, I think that it would be better if this kind of c-section were
> termed 'recommended' or similar.
"Elective" does seem to have a rather odd meaning here, and presumably in
the UK too. Surgeries for fast-growing cancers that can be completely
stopped if the surgery happens soon enough are elective, and there's a
waiting list for them. Non-elective surgery seems to arise only out of being
rushed to Emergency (Casualty), and not always then.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251439 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 01:40 |
|
in article slrne3dsm7.k2d.ailbhe [at] frivolous.ossifrage.net, Ailbhe at
ailbhe [at] lspace.org wrote on 07/04/2006 4:16 PM:
> Hendrik Schober <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote
> (on Fri, 7 Apr 2006 23:33:05 +0200):
>> Ailbhe <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote:
>>> esmi <esmi [at] lspace.org> wrote
>>> (on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:32:33 +0100):
>>>> on 07/04/2006 18:19 Hendrik Schober said the following:
>>>
>>>>> However. I have heard a few too many stories of clinics
>>>>> inducing (more, stronger) labours first, then slamming
>>>>> on the brakes, because it was too much, and afterwards
>>>>> sewing up the damage done, indicating that the woman was
>>>>> lucky to be in a clinic where medical intervention was
>>>>> available for the unforeseen problems that appeared.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't have thought it was possible to induce a stronger labour than
>>>> the woman was capable of - although I can appreciate that, near the end,
>>>> thing do need to go slowly, if at possible, to minimise damage.
>>>
>>> It is possible to cause uterine rupture with incautious use of
>>> oxytocin / pitocin.
>>
>> That's what I heard about.
>>
>>>> All I'm saying is that some of those overly strong labors may not be due
>>>> to staff acting out of convenience but genuine differences between women.
>>>
>>> Yup. And some staff aren't adequately aware of the differences.
>>
>> Yes. Especially since they can "undo" later by giving
>> other nice things.
>>
>> Being the father of three kids and having spend a
>> comparative big amount of time on playgrounds, I heard
>> a lot of different stories. I have not heard many good
>> ones from women/couples who where in some clinic. I
>> have not heard more than one or two not so good ones
>> from women/couples who only had a midwife.
>
> Uterine rupture is very rare, but when it happens, highly likely to be
> fatal. I doubt you've heard of it happening often, though you may often
> have heard of it happening.
>
> I could tell you a few stories about terrible things happening to women
> who had midwife-only care *until the point at which the midwife needed
> to call obstetric help*. No responsible midwife would attempt to deal
> with a serious complication requiring surgical intervention alone unless
> he or she had no choice. This does not mean that the obstetric intervention
> caused the problem.
Yes indeed. I think the ideal arrangement for having babies is to be in a
hospital setting from the start in case anything goes wrong - if it does go
wrong there might not be enough time for the woman to travel from her home
to the hospital. But there's no need to have a doctor doing the delivery
while everything is going as it should; a midwife is perfectly well able to
handle a normal delivery, and if it becomes abnormal she can call a doctor
then. Here and now, midwives are regarded with suspicion and mostly kept out
of hospitals, which means that doctors are tied up with every delivery
whether or not they are needed, and yet we are short of doctors in all
specialties.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251476 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 10:47 |
|
Davina Stuart <327catpepe [at] mtaonline.net> wrote:
> [...]
> i know that in previous places i've lived, a lot of hospitals were offering
> midwife suites as a delivery option. that way you could have a midwife
> delivery at the hospital, but all the options were still handily nearby if t
> hings should go bad for any reason...
That's offered here (in Berlin), too.
> was something i had considered before finding out that I couldn't have any
> children myself... so i've no idea what options my local hospital has to
> offer... still hoping to adopt though.
There's always hope.
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251483 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 12:33 |
|
Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [...] I think the ideal arrangement for having babies is to be in a
> hospital setting from the start in case anything goes wrong - if it does go
> wrong there might not be enough time for the woman to travel from her home
> to the hospital. [...]
At the (midwife-owned) place my kids were born, the
midwifes have a rather practical approach to that:
They look for possibile complications before-hand
and refuse to take a woman if they are uncertain.
Of course, that doesn't mean there might not arise
something serious late in a delivery. However, the
place exists for 13 years, about a dozen midwifes
probably help deliver 40-50 babies a year each --
(that makes ~5000-7000 deliveries) and IIRC they
said they hadn't even ten such situations, none of
which ended desastrous. ISTR that they take more
than 90% of the women who decide that they want to
deliver there. Even if you take into account that
those 90% aren't representive and be conservative
about that, it means that at least 75% of all
deliveries could be done with nothing but a well-
prepared couple and the help of an experienced
midwife.
In a study I found regarding deliveries deliberately
not started in clinics (in 2003) of 9806 deliveries
that were not planned to happen in a clinic, only
105 women (1.07%) were transfered into a clinic in
an emergency, while 1152 (1.75%) were transfered
without it being called an emergency. Of the 105
emergencies, 52 women delivered within one hour
after the transfer -- which indicates that the
transfer really was necessary. The other half
mostly delivered within 6 hours, some within 2
days, indicating that the transfer was not really
necessary. (Interestingly: 214 [17%] of the 1257
women transfered to a clinic could deliver with
the help of the midwife they started with before
the transfer.)
Out of the 9806-1257=8649 not born in clinics
148 babies (1.5%) had to be transfered to a
child clinic within 7 days after birth, 263 of
the mothers (3%) had to be transfered.
(www.quag.de/downloads/qm_bericht2003.pdf)
Schobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251484 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 12:16 |
|
Lesley Weston posted:
....
> But there's no need to have a doctor doing the
> delivery while everything is going as it should; a midwife
> is perfectly well able to handle a normal delivery, and if
> it becomes abnormal she can call a doctor then.
This is what happened for both our kids, the doctor, when
present, "worked" for the midwife. I understood that would
have changed if there had been an emergency.
> Here and now, midwives are regarded with suspicion and
> mostly kept out of hospitals, which means that doctors are
> tied up with every delivery whether or not they are needed,
> and yet we are short of doctors in all specialties.
Definitely not the case in .de, births in hospital are
normally covered by a midwife (or team thereof), except in
medical emergencies, or if the patient insists (but why
should they?)
Didn't we do this thread a couple of years ago?
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Mine Horn Is Exalted In Om>
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #251587 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 20:30 |
|
on 09/04/2006 11:16 Thomas Zahr said the following:
> Lesley Weston posted:
<snip>
>Here and now, midwives are regarded with suspicion and
>>mostly kept out of hospitals, which means that doctors are
>>tied up with every delivery whether or not they are needed,
>>and yet we are short of doctors in all specialties.
> Definitely not the case in .de, births in hospital are
> normally covered by a midwife (or team thereof), except in
> medical emergencies, or if the patient insists (but why
> should they?)
Ditto in the UK - or at least in the hopitals that I attended.
> Didn't we do this thread a couple of years ago?
Almost certainly.
esmi
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Tenor of afp [message #252199 ] |
Mi, 12 April 2006 23:15 |
|
"Ailbhe" <ailbhe [at] lspace.org> wrote in message
news:slrne3ak8v.j59.ailbhe [at] frivolous.ossifrage.net...
> Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
> (on Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:37:27 GMT):
>> Ailbhe wrote:
>> > Stacie Hanes <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
> Scheduling a delivery to reduce risk is not the same as scheduling it to
> suit one's own convenience.
>
> I am not denying that some people schedule a delivery for their own
> convenience - I have spoken to women who scheduled inductions so that
> their
> babies would have the "right" birthday, and their obstetricians allowed
> this -
> but I am very aware that I am having an "elective" c-section in August.
congratulations Ailbhe :-)
>
> BUT it is my "choice" and I could theoretically withold consent. I do
> wonder
> how many other choosers are in a similar position.
Tricky to tell. At one point about 50 years ago when the c-section rate was
running at about 5%, most obstetricians thought that once the women with
polio/rickets/other skeletal abnormalites were out of their reproductive
years, the rate would plummet to include only the persistantly poorly
presently babies (lying tranversely and so forth) But instead of that the
rate keeps going up every year. Childbirth is a place where science and
culture meet and there are probably all sorts of reasons good and bad, from
better diagnosis of needed sections, to people who don't want a vaginal
birth for purely social reasons.
The whole arena is such a battlefield with midwives and obstetricans not
necessarily lining out on the same team , with politics and religion and
tradition and clinical judgement all jostling for elbow room in a small
place.
I'm sort of glad I've finished having babies and don't have to make
decisions any more about how to have them. I chose unmedicated childbirth
for all, and for 4 of the 5 children, at home with midwives, but I'd be
sort of a bit scared now. The odds are always better for a low tech birth,
but you aren't playing the odds, you only get one chance.
Louise
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 02:25:22 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,85211 Sekunden |
