To think seven Caesareans in eight years is a recipe for disaster?

[ElizabethG81]

What's happened to this woman is horrific, but surely having so many Caesareans in such a short period of time is recklessness bordering on insanity? www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3615027/Mother-eight-relives-nightmare-waking-C-section-discover-legs-amputated.html

Redtoothbrush. So she didn't have a choice on having 8 children? Didn't know we disallowed contraception in this country?

And she will fully ignored advice on the dangers of her choice (selective deafness I presume) so therefore she didn't have a choice?

I am well aware of NICE guidelines on many issues. I am also well aware that to ignore medical advice and risk you own health and your family's future is a choice she took.

She can't blame everyone and the world for her own decisions,

That is quite a different thing to what you said in your last post - and I have already said what I think on the matter of having so many CS.

You seem to have an inability to understand why what you've posted might be problematic to women reading this thread.

I don't understand where the problem is? I've never said anywhere elective csection shouldn't be allowed for mental issues, and it's a perfectly valid choice.

I'm sorry if I sound unsympathetic but I just feel people should just forge blindly ahead without thinking their choices through.

And of course if there was something the NHS was negligent on then they should change their practices, but there is no way they are entirely responsible but the poor outcome.

In fact the woman is lucky to be alive.

There are some nasty posts on here!

Yes the woman probably made an unwise choice in having that many c sections but afaik amputation is not one of the risks women are warned about. Blood loss and hysterectomy are not unheard of in cases like this but she is not complaining about that, just the medical negligence that led to her blood clots going unnoticed for so long her legs turned necrotic! You only need to read the postnatal care campaign thread on here to see that women are routinely being failed and in this case it has led to devastating, life changing consequences.

If this woman is awarded compensation this will come from insurance funds that are already set aside, not take anything away from frontline services.

Wow. Not read all of the thread yet but it didn't take long richer nasty.
There was the bit about benefits and victim blaming.
The hospital admitted failings but it's clearly her fault as she had so many sections.

How on earth can she say she wasn't checked for 6 hours if she was in a coma. even if the family had been with her and no nurse or doctor approached (and I cannot believe that is the case) she would have been remotely monitored.

The problem with that is that the hospital has admitted its oversight and apologised. The letter attached to the Metro article seems to admit there were no observations between around 1 a.m. and 5.30 a.m.

So unless you are more qualified and have access to some research that NICE don't I suggest you stop peddling shit which is ignorant, judgemental, adds to stigma and just generally is anti-women and anti-evidence based medicine

What a load of horseshit.

This site is full of whatever term you want to use for the opposite of victim blaming. The idea that no-one is ever at fault for anything, no-one ever needs to take responsibility for their own choices, and if you ever dare to point out that someone had a hand in their own life and what happens to it, you are "victim blaming". Quite apart from the patronising notion that we are all victims just because something has gone wrong, its infantilising and ant-feminist.

There is no NICE guideline that suggests 7 sections in as many years is anything other that fucking idiotic.

It's gone way beyond saying she should take some responsibily Hodooo

The woman in question has been dignosed insane by the OP who has fucked off out of it, been called st**py by another twat, and others have mentioned benefits.

At the centre of this is someone who has lost both legs and who could be a mumsnetter or who will have family or friends that are.

Tearing her apart online the way she has been and basically saying she deserves what she got is sickening.

afaik amputation is not one of the risks women are warned about

As I remember it, the consent form is very comprehensive. It lists many, many complications and explicitly states that you could die. I signed it in a bit of a hurry, but I'm pretty certain it mentioned DVTs and the possible complications of them.

Additionally, I had my consultant at my bedside the day after I gave birth strongly advising me not to conceive for at least 12 months and wanting to discuss birth control. This was after 1 relatively straightforward C-section. I can't believe that the risks involved in having so many abdominal surgeries year after year for 8 years were not discussed with this woman.

Agree with RedToothBrush re the 'choice' of a CS.

I had an emergency CS with my first - my second was supposed to be VBAC, right up until the week of my due date when the consultant decided I needed a CS again.

It was scheduled for the due date, which was a couple of days away and as such it was called 'elective' - which suggests that I'd had it voluntarily and 'elected' (chose) to have it.
I didn't choose to, I simply did what the professionals told me to do in the interests of mine & my baby's health.

I don't understand where the problem is? I've never said anywhere elective csection shouldn't be allowed for mental issues, and it's a perfectly valid choice.

See my post for exactly what 'elective' means.

It doesn't mean the woman chose it over a natural birth, it just means it wasn't an emergency procedure.

I didn't choose to, I simply did what the professionals told me to do in the interests of mine & my baby's health

And thats fine and good. But anyone who has 7 sections in 7 years is NOT doing what any professional has told them to do, and is actively going against their own health.
So not remotely comparable.

I totally agree memyselfandaye. What does it matter if she knew the risks, didn't know the risks, it doesn't change a thing. I wouldn't wish this upon anyone, I'll educated or otherwise. There's a poor woman who has had a life changing tragedy. Not to mention a family whose lives will be forever altered.

Lucky you op. I signed my C-section consent in theatre seconds before being put to sleep. No one went through form and no consultant came for a cosy chat next day. Certainly no-one said not to try for a year.

I also signed my form in the theatre

I wasn't informed or if I was I was so drugged up that I don't remember but I read up on cs before and after and I remember very clearly it was advised not to have more than three and that your body needs time to heal which is stating the obvious

Is she and her husband that irresponsible they didn't bother reading up on the operation she had chosen to have a number of times

It's very sad what has happened to her but the lack of responsibility can not be ignored

People are getting the context wrong here and underestimating that she was saved from death.

You assume it was a venous clot (DVT) but it is medically very unlikely you'd get bilateral DVTs causing tissue necrosis in a matter of hours.

It is lack of arterial blood supply that causes necrosis because arteries are bringing oxygenated blood. DVT won't cause you to lose your leg the main risk of DVT is pulmonary embolism. The loss of her legs was likely a direct result of deranged blood clotting (DIC) because of the huge haemorrhage and multiple transfusions and this is often fatal. It is very unlikely it could have been prevented by her being checked.

This is not a case of a lady on a post natal ward after a normal C-section being so negligently cared for that she somehow lost both legs. This is a case of a woman who took some very big, irresponsible risks which led to life threatening haemorrhage and yet her life was saved. She is literally lucky to be alive and in many parts of the world she would be dead now. In that kind of scenario all kinds of horrific complications can happen which may not be possible to avoid. The main focus was on saving her life which they achieved. Death was a very likely outcome. No doctor is going to amputate both legs of a young woman unless there is absolutely no other choice.

The hospital apologising for not doing checks is NOT the same as an admission of liability for the clots and amputation. For her to win in court she'll need to prove both that the care was seriously substandard (not the same as imperfect) AND that it directly affected the outcome. We shall see if she can do that.

Genuinely if it was me I would be thanking them for saving my life not suing them.

Agree with MamaDoc here.

She presumably chose to ignore medical advice time after time, the risks mounting with each successive section.
That said, What happened to her is appalling.

I've now read the letter attached to the Metro article and it does say it was arterial thrombosis.

They couldn't have stopped that happening and once it did she was at high risk of losing her legs. They are admitting they MIGHT have possibly identified it sooner but there is still no guarantee at all her legs could have been saved.

She was in a very bad situation which I'm afraid was of her own making and she will certainly have been warned many times of the risks of further pregnancies and it just comes across that she accepts no responsibility and insists it is all the hospitals fault over one missed check (only a missed 3am check is mentioned in the letter)

It's not that people who take ill advised risks will get worse care. The joy of the NHS is that they won't. The letter also mentions all the different teams (obs, paeds, ITU, surgeons, radiologists) who were involved in trying to save her and the baby.

NHS Drs, nurses and other staff have no problem treating alcoholics with liver failure, smokers with lung cancer or COPD or boy racers injured in RTAs. I never hear anyone complain or blame patients. It's just that it sticks in your throat a bit to actually get sued when you've struggled to save someone's life.

I agree with mamadoc 100%.

Shitting fuck, the woman has lost her legs. If she ever read the sanctimonious judgements on here, she might become suicidal.

People take risks, we are a free country, it was up to her.

Of course the risk was up to her, Hockey. And no one wants to see someone lose his/her legs. But it was due to a condition which was going to kill her.

NHS Drs, nurses and other staff have no problem treating alcoholics with liver failure, smokers with lung cancer or COPD or boy racers injured in RTAs. I never hear anyone complain or blame patients. It's just that it sticks in your throat a bit to actually get sued when you've struggled to save someone's life.

^^This

Sleepyjean, I signed my consent form while a cannula was being put in my other hand. I understand that it's not possible in that kind of situation to take in all the risks. However, if you're getting to your 7th C-section, there's no excuse for not knowing the risks. I've had one C-section and have seriously considered whether it would be worth the risk for me to another child. I can't comprehend having a 6th C-section then, while that child was still under 1, deciding to "leave things to chance" and not use any contraception. The consequences have undoubtedly been horrendous for this woman, and if it's found that the NHS was at fault then she should get compensation. But that doesn't negate her own lack of personal responsibility.

I was out of my tree on Gas and air when I signed consent forms for my EMCS - if someone went through the risks then I don't remember it. The doctor came round the next day and advised no further pregnancies for a year.