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

none of that though is anything to do with a complication. that can happen to anyone and nor is it an excuse for poor follow up care/inadequate observations etc.

she has a right to risk her own life if she so wishes.

but hospitals do not have the right to make that decision for her by witholding treatment or lapsing in their standards

And of yku think.tbis couldn't happen. to you merely cos you stuck to 2/3 kids you are sadly mistaken

mrgrouper, you are entitled to your opinion, but those disagreeing with you are equally entitled to say so and to give their reasons without being accused of being pathetic and sad. Indeed, the fact that you move so quickly to abuse shows how insecure your opinions are.

However, the problem is that your opinion is clearly based on a misapprehension as to the facts. You said that "she will have been warned of the risks." It's been pointed out to you that she will not have been warned of the risk of hospital staff failing to carry out their jobs. Do you accept that that is the case?

Racists and homophobics are entitled to their own opinion too.

It doesn't mean its either right, or something that should be voiced publically without it being picked up as unacceptable.

I know someone with 8 kids. The kids are very much looked after and cared for. Much more so than many with one child. Just because you couldn't do it doesn't mean others can't either.

YABVU - this is victim blaming. This woman did not ask for it or deserve this. She is the victim of very unfortunate circumstances. No one could ever have predicted that her having this child would result in loosing her legs. This woman deserves our sympathies and support. Those of you commenting negatively on irrelevant parts of her life and finding ways to blame her should be ashamed of yourselves!

I'm really surprised they didn't pick up on the accreta beforehand actually. It sounds like it took them completely by surprise. If they'd known about it before the op they could & should have planned care accordingly and she might not have ended up in the coma.
I totally agree with whoever said earlier that this woman & her fella were daft and selfish not to consider their existing children when they decided to crack on and have yet another very high-risk pregnancy. However, that is a completely seperate issue and not related at all to the fact that the hospital failed her in multiple ways. The accreta should have been picked up and planned for, the post-op care should have been up to standard. The hospital were definitely in the wrong; this woman shouldn't have lost her legs. But it does come across like she had absolutely no concept or understanding of the risks she was undertaking; I can see how people are finding it frustrating and getting distracted from the real issue.

I don't think this woman is a victim, just unlucky and a bit misguided in having 6 elective csections without a medical reason, therefore choice.

There are risks from these sections which impact on the events resulting in the amputations. The post op haemorrhage was a direct result of her choice and I am sure at every c section the risks would have been spelled out.

Also if she was in a coma she would have been on ICU and monitored by a nurse 1-1 all the time. The blood clots in her legs is a risk of all surgery and anti coagulants are routinely given, but I think because of the massive blood transfusions these may not have been given as the risks outweigh the benefits.

Legs are not routinely checked for blood clots as they don't usually show up except on ultrasound or specific blood tests, and only when you see signs of lack of blood to the extremities would you consider blood clots.

Sadly this woman made bad choices for herself and is having to live with the consequences, but I can't see how the nhs is culpable or that she is a victim.

you only have to look at the pregnancy and birth threads to see that actually it can be very difficult to push fir a C section

if drs felt that it was fir the best either fir her physical or mental well being then who are we to argue with that.

no one should have to justify having a c section. 1 in 4 is it?.that ends in a section.

Well this time a Cs was the only option due to the placenta praevia.

It does read as though she thought that she could keep having csection after csection & surely but surely there has to be a limit, doesn't there?

a bit misguided in having 6 elective csections without a medical reason, therefore choice.

Errr can we rewind on that one.

1. Mental health is medical reason and the NICE guidelines should be reworded to reflect this as its leading to stigma
2. A traumatic first VB delivery can mean that a second one could have potential medical consequences and an ELCS is more appropriate in some cases
3. After two CS, then another CS would probably be deemed as medically advisable because of the risks of a VBA2C

The issue by the time you get to 6 CS is whether you should be having anymore children at all rather than which method of birth you should be 'choosing'.

The word 'choice' is a very misleading one. One that definitely needs to be properly challenged and more appropriate and accurate language used.

The fact we are even discussing WHY she had a CS is bloody awful. Every bit as much as lots of the other crap on this thread.

My mother was left in a coma, with damage to hands, feet, and face (necrotising) after inadequate post-OP care.

It happens. It shouldn't.

She hasn't sued.

The hospital has therefore not come under any pressure to review it's practices. And my mother is one example of why we don't know, for sure, the true extent and effects of health cuts.

Agree: the CS issue is a red herring. It's about post-OP care.

Poor woman.

I think that, unless it has happened to you, or a relative, it's hard to believe how wrong things can go in the NHS, because of quite small things (not being checked;glitch in the system) and how big the wall of silence is when it comes down.

The experience with my DM really, really shocked me.

She says herself that her 6 sections were her choice. The last was the only one for medical reasons.

She would have been told of the risks and the implications at every one.

DVT is very unlikely to result in amputations (the main risk is clot breaking off and going to the lungs). I wonder if it was an arterial thrombosis which would develop much more quickly.

It isn't at all clear to me that this situation is due to hospital negligence. It will be tested in a court of law.

She is actually lucky to have only lost her legs and not her life from the sound of it. She could very well have died on the table from the massive haemorrhage. She then suffered an awful post op complication.

The story is presented as woke up from c-section to find both legs amputated which of course sounds negligent but the real scenario is that they struggled very hard to save her life which was hanging in the balance and in the process she lost her legs which is awful but it may not have been preventable given how unwell she was. If you are in a coma in ICU for 5 days by definition you are at high risk of dying. It seems a bit rich to me to complain about the bad outcome of a high risk situation you put yourself in and about people who saved your life from complications you were warned of.

She will certainly have been told after the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th pregnancies about the risks of further c-sections especially uterine rupture which could easily kill mother and baby. She will have been offered sterilisation and contraception but she did choose to ignore these risks. The risk of amputation could not have been foreseen or warned of but risk of death. Haemorrhage and uterine rupture will have been discussed.

She doesn't in any way deserve this. I do have sympathy for how hard her life will now be but she did put herself at high risk through her choices. The NHS can't always save you every time. Same as if you are paralysed in a mountain climbing or horse riding accident. We try to fix you but the risks are there and you chose to take them and we might not be able to make it all ok. You need to take that into account when putting yourself in a risky scenario especially with 8 DC to care for.

mamadoc, totally agree with all of this and at the end of the day we dont have the side of the Nhs we only have the side of the Daily Fail.

She says herself that her 6 sections were her choice. The last was the only one for medical reasons.

I suggest you reread my post and educate yourself with regard to problems with the word 'choice' and how misleading it is.

No one would "choose" major surgery unless the alternative was more risky/unthinkable to them.

vaginal birth has its own risk factors.

I had two c-sections and had a massive blood loss after the second which put me in ITU.

I would not have risked another, thinking my children needed their mum more than I needed another baby!

She says herself they were through choice.

having a traumatic labour with your first baby frequently happens and some people opt for c section and others choose to have counselling and a natural birth. They are not compulsory. I had a traumatic first birth but weighed up safety and had a normal second delivery.

If you do have multiple c sections the risk increases with each one, and she would have been informed of this. 6 is very risky and she should have weighed up these risks, with her continued insistence on c sections and her desire for more children.

I'm not blaming her for not making the wrong decision, I am saying she is wrong to sue the NHS for her choices.

But if what happened was the result of inadequate care, her choice had nothing to do with it.

it may have been a "choice" to have the sections along side the risks involved.

it was not a choice to receive inadequate care and the risk of staff incompetence would not have been outlined on a co sent form.

those were not choices she made.

Why the fuck do people keep banging on about the number of c-sections she had? This case has nothing to do with that. It's based on the fact that she wasn't properly monitored whilst in a coma which led to avoidable complications.

It's irrelevant what the surgery was. It doesn't matter if you're in hospital because of a car crash, a nose job or your eleventy millionth c-section. You are entitled to proper care.

Yes. It could so easily have been avoided. But not getting pregnant against medical advice FFS

and all the other people who have been left paralysed, brain damaged, lost limbs, died of sepsis/mrsa, or had their lives dramatically altered as a result of misdiagnosis or medical. blunders, are they at fault fir allowing the surgeries/procedures to go ahead?

or does it only apply to people who have lots of babies.

Her choices had everything do do with it! Placenta accreta is a direct result of c section and the more she had the more her risk. That's not difficult for anyone, including the woman to understand.

And where was the staff incompetence?

It stated in the article that she was meant to be checked every hour. yet was left 6