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

I'm not sure 're legal aid either but given their economic situation they must have a good enough case (not proven yet, that's part of the point) to be given legal advice and support

I agree with sleeponeday, obviously.

hasn't Katy price had all her kids via c section?

and Victoria Beckham?

there must be a change in the advice given now since they have had several between them

You are just inventing facts to suit your position, and then accusing anyone who makes that observation of "being sheep". It's hardly an intelligent position to hold. Sure, she may have made it all up about the admission and apology, but she'd be fairly stupid to do so as it would prejudice her own claim if she appeared dishonest

I'm not inventing any facts, just the opposite, I'm stating the facts you think you have are likely not facts at all. Do keep up.
She'd be fairly stupid to do so, but she was fairly stupid to have so many sections in such a short time. And she may have legal people to tell her, but she ignored all medical advice so why would you imagine she wold follow legal advice?

Katie price had her first child vaginally
I think the advice has always been 3 or 4 but presumably it depends on how your own body repairs. I'd stopped at two (emacs and ecs) , but had unplanned third and no way would I want a fourth section. The third one was horrendous. But even then the hospital said I could have another, just to wait 9 months

That's the thing owl

fir some the first or second would have been horrific

others would heal much quicker and better.

some people are still wincing weeks amd weeks later.

one person I know was back in tight jeans getting drunk and dancing within days.

we are only assuming she went against medical advice.

drs could well have advised against.

or they could have weighed up the risks and decided that fir her a c section was better.

that's between her and her drs.

and whatever we think re family size she's entitled to not have to explain her reasons fir wanting a section.

and she deserved the best care she could get. as anyone does.

will be interesting to find out if that happens or if there were indeed mistakes.

Oh Hodooooooooor, bless your heart.

I'm sure your next words will be as erudite, thought-provoking, compassionate and sensible as everything else you have shared thus far, but I'm especially intrigued by your claim to be "applying my medical/lega knowledge". Have you watched a lot of Holby City, then?

My first was horrific Giles but I don't want to make you all wince :o

Someone up thread asked why they hadn't detected the accretion of the placenta - it's not always possible to visualise on scans. The likelihood of it increases with increased number of sections but it's possible to have it on your first pregnancy. You can't always see it on an ultrasound so it's possible they had no idea until midway through. She's lucky to be alive. She did not 'deserve' this.

There are some really nasty opinions on this thread. Have some compassion - she has life altering injuries. Having eight kids, being a 'doley scrounger' and being unwise about the number of c sections does not mean it's some sort of karmic payback ffs.

I remember another thread about this where 'experts' said that it completely depends on the state of the uterus. Several people with experience of going privately said that the surgeon evaluated the uterus at the time of the current c-section and said yay or nay depending on...something medical. Whereas the NHS gives a one size fits all recommendation based on the averages.

sleep you sound bitchy charming

As I have said earlier, the NHS Litigation Authority encourages hospital Trusts to apologise if things go wrong for patients. It does not mean an admission of legal liability.

She's on the route of making a clinical negligence claim (usually on a no win no fee basis) and most possibly the Trust will settle out of court as it is cheaper than to litigate.

I do wonder whether this story is in the Mail as part of the NHS attacks, or whether it's her being set up as an Aunt Sally by the nation's favourite puveyor of misogyny . Dreadful as it is for her, individually, most of us get a perfectly good level of care from the NHS, and most of us would struggle to pay for anything approaching that same level of care without serious hardship, if we relied on insurance instead.

Really sorry you had such a bad time too, Owl. It's a lot more common than people ever seem to admit to anyone but other mothers, poor birth experiences, isn't it.

Yeah, gonetosee you're right. Cumulative irritation isn't an excuse I would accept from my kids if they spoke to someone that way, so I shouldn't succumb to it myself.

I've only read half the thread. My understanding is that the complainant is suing for the lack of appropriate care after her CS, not because the CS went wrong or was badly managed. Therefore the rights and wrongs of number of children or CS are irrelevant.

Someone close to me had a minor op that went badly wrong. It resulted in three weeks in a coma, several blood transfusions, post traumatic stress disorder, intubated pneumonia, two tracheotomies, scars from ribcage to pubic bone, life long mobility issues. She was medically retired from work.

The hospital agreed to settle immediately, without admission of liability. 3 and a half years later, the case rumbles on. The settlement on the table is one third of the lawyers' fees. 3.5 years of benefits have to be repaid, and all of the settlement will be used for living expenses as the sum takes her over the benefit threshold for savings. No recompense at all for the living hell she has been through.

It's a stinking system. The NHS is being milked, not by patients who sue, but by the feeding frenzy of the lawyers.

If she was in an induced coma, then she would have been in ICU and have a dedicated nurse that sit with them at the end of the bed. They have one to one care, she would have had those airy pressure stocking things on as well (they blow up on the legs to sustain circulation).

I have no idea why she lost her legs, my heart does go out to her. But all those c-sections carry risks especially with the other factors that come into play. She seems to have been quite blasé about the whole thing going into it, being a 'pro' at c-sections. She may not have really taken on board all the risks and just thought 'I'll be alright,' as she was before.

All operations are a risk. Surgeons should have refused the 4th
never mind the 8th.

the 8th one there was no medical option.

they had to do it

On top of thinking it's a horrific thing to happen (refuarldless of any judgement on her decisions, it is) I was also intrigued as to why she had to be put under general anestetic. Surely that wouldn't help matters? Not that I really know.

I had my EMCS with spinal block and healed extreamly well and quickly (MW and Docs words) but even so, would not put my body through pregnancy again, let alone CS within a year....

I've had 5 sections but these were spread over a 16 year period. My consultant advised me that it wasn't the number of c/sections that were the problem but rather the time in between. In fact as there was only 15 months between babies no 2 and 3 that was more of a worry than c/ s no 5. I chose to be sterilized at c/s 5 due to the number of pregnancies and my age!!!

Having been under epidural for the beginning of my elcs which turned into an emergency hysterectomy whilst conscious. I can safely say you do not want to have an emergency hysterectomy without a general.

The sensations you feel inside are beyond those of a normal c section. I had two emcs before my elcs with hysterectomy due to placenta accreta.

Nothing prepared me for the experience. I asked to be put under general once I had kissed goodbye to my newborn son and husband not knowing if I would wake up to see them again.

*reguarldess

concertplayer what should they have done then when she pitched up pregnant?

Just let her go it alone?

Whoa anotherstichintime I bet. Do you reckon that's why she went under genera, as there must have been a high risk of needing a hysterectomy with her placenta?

I would think so Request

AnotherStitch that sounds awful
Was the placenta accreta diagnosed beforehand? What were the symptoms of you don't mind me asking?

Currently pregnant and facing 3rd section soon. Had a 21 month gap then this will be 23 month gap and I'm so worried about all the risks. I've got an anterior placenta this time which can sometimes be an indicator of placenta accreta I think?

Hope you're ok now

WellErr

Placenta praevia diagnosed at 20 week scan.

Major bleed and blue lighted in by ambulance at 26 weeks.

Further bleeding for two months, kept in hospital. Doppler ultrasound and MRI both showed high likelihood of accreta into bladder.

I am fine now thank you.