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

You wouldn't sue on your child's behalf even though getting the damages he would be fully entitled to would make a massive difference to his quality of life, Shazza? Then you would be failing your child.

I hope the woman in this awfully sad case isn't a MNetter. Fucking horrible thread

And that is between herself and her midwife and dr. it is not something to be used to excuse nit taking basic care of a person.

given it could have happened during the first second or third pregnancy all of which are within the recommended limits for c sections...

as I said I'd not have risked it myself.

yes I do think someone taking the chance if so many sections so close together is irresponsible and should think of herself and the existing chikdren.

but

that should have zero impact on the care a person receives in hospitals.

and appalling care happens all the time..

I have 2 kids.

only one was born in a hospital.

I'd not trust them.to deliver a pizza let alone a baby and id take my chances on a cardboard box on the street befire I let a hospital get their hands on my baby again

one hospital baby.

lousy care.

see....

It may not actually be related to the number if sections she has had. No one can actually tell you with absolute certainly that it is. People have such problems without being pregnant! However the hosp may have been able to prevent such awful consequences.

It does underline though that people somehow think that risks can be totally removed somehow. People have died from ear piercing in this country, no surgery is totally safe.

Really? You wouldn't be worried about securing your child's long term financial needs if they were left disabled for life? No concerns about how they'd get through life when benefits and facilities are being cut?

Of course she should sue if they were negligent! She is going to need so much in terms of wheelchairs, prostetics, medical appointments, childcare to help her when her partner goes back to work, and so much more. She shouldnt have to pay for all that herself due to someone else's negligence. Shazza you cant seriously say you would be bumbling in through life without suing for costs incurred in these circumstances.

Ok serious question, do you honestly think without the nhs this woman could have had 8 babies safetley?

do you really think that huge amounts treatments given by the nhs aren't correcting mistakes they made in the first place?

What point are you making shazza?

Why is that a relevant question, Shazza? The fact is that with the NHS she didn't have one baby safely.

That's so sad :(

It doesn't seem to be fact that this woman received negligent care. It is what she alleges. Maybe she did but I'm confused as to why people are stating it like it did happen. Are you reading other articles? It doesn't change the outcome, of course; a young mother has been left severely and tragically injured.

Purple, it says the hospital accepted its oversight and apologised. Plus, realistically, a thrombosis won't reach the point of amputation being necessary if a hospital carries out standard checks.

If you have 7 kids to look after, do you take the risk of getting pregnant again if you are likely to have a VERY high risk pregnancy?

That's the bit I think people are struggling to get past. The lack of responsibility for those children at that point or even considering 'what if I do die'. Having another child is one probably one of the most risky things in life she could have done to her body after that many CS. Perhaps she did not have this stressed enough to her, and that's a failing of HCPs. From the comments she made in the story, it does seem like she didn't think of possible problems and was rather blaisé about the whole thing.

I feel for her, but I still find it hard to get past, why you would put the potential future of your whole family at that much risk. It was a conscious decision to carry on having children.

I think that's probably the reason people have been harsh about her.

This is also the reason the Mail ran the story.

They are not interested in 'Woman receives poor post-natal care'. They want outrage at her having 8 CS.

Otherwise they could probably run a story every couple of weeks about someone having extremely poor post natal care.

No one is interested in the story of thousands of women having shocking care. They can't blame the women for it. It won't sell advertising space.

According to the DM link, the nhs trust have apologised to the woman. This strongly implies they are at fault. Post operative care following a near death experience such as this is within an ITU. There are extremely stringent and clearly documented checks that are carried out on a basis so regular that no sooner one lot is done the nest are due. Whoever said 'how would she know?' Is unbelievably ignorant. That is the purpose of medical records...to record what has been done and what was found.

This woman would have been informed of risks of surgery, including haemorrhage and clots. Amputation of both legs is not a general risk of caesarean, even multiple caesarean. The case lies on whether the hospital have been negligent, which seems likely if they have apologised, and more crucially, did that negligence lead directly to the injury? (Causation ).

All that said, eight pregnancies did increase her risks of serious complications. This is well documented and may mitigate the hospital I suppose. I expect she has a long fight ahead of her both medically and legally.

Shazza. What sort of question is that? You are inferring that because she's had 8 babies it's ok for her to have sub standard care now.

FFS

I think people would have more sympathy if this was baby 1 or 2.

The fact that she has had so many previous C-sections and then decided to keep going makes people less sympathetic. At some point actions are going to have consequences. You can't keep doing something risky and think that problems will only happen to other people.

Regardless of how the woman ended up in a coma, the result of her care being mismanaged whilst in the coma has resulted in a double amputation.

Of course she should get compensation this has changed her life & that of her families forever.

Equipment, wheelchair, alterations to house, these things are bloody expensive.

Some of the comments on this thread are an absolute disgrace.

I don't understand this story it doesn't add up?

• why was this woman allowed 6 caesareans through choice? This isn't in NICE guidelines (I was refused for severe pre eclampsia).
• why did they continue to agree to caesareans
• why was she not warned seriously that 3 was the max limit and no more caesareans or sterilisation
• why didn't they insist On natural birth ASAP as woman wanted larger family

It's well documented that there are high risks after 3 c sections and it is not recommended at all

But she wanted to have a large family and that trumps any dangers that might occur

If she was responsible she would have read up on the dangers and I find it hard to believe she was not made aware

But again I want overrides common sense

Just re-read, they did not apologise. They offered sympathy and an investigation. It wouldn't be shocking if it was negligence but people are making assumptions, on both sides.

Purple, you've missed the paragraph where it says "The couple were informed of the hospital's oversight and were issued an apology."

foxykins, how do you think the hospital could have refused caesarians? Were they supposed to say "No, you've had three sections, we know you're pregnant, we know giving birth naturally after three sections will be dangerous for you and the baby, but we're going to make you do so just to punish you"?