Green Party pledge to reduce c section rates

[TTCaxristi]

Is this something a political party should even get involved in?

I had understood that a focus on keeping c sections below an arbitrary threshold was at least partially responsible for the Shrewsbury maternity scandal.

https://news.sky.com/story/shrewsbury-maternity-scandal-the-babies-who-died-in-the-uks-worst-hospital-childbirth-scandal-12576727

It looks as though the greens are reviewing the policy now but am I alone in finding this chilling? What does it say about their attitude to women? I really strongly believe that it’s up to the individual woman how she gives birth, and the focus on arbitrary targets is misguided at best and dangerous at worst.

YABU - this is something a political party should have a policy on
YANBU - this is not something a non medical entity should have policy on

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/green-party-nhs-lbc-b1162105.html#

If women's health and babies lives are one of your top priorities, then you'll be pleased to know they're mine too.

As explained already, The Green Party have already said they're listening to experts, and reviewing the policy. Hopefully changing it. So, I would advise you to keep tabs on that before you're too hard on a wide-eyed well-meaning 20-year-old canvasser who's trying to save the planet.

By them even mentioning that c section rates are too high means that they've raised a conversation essentially blaming women for looking for medical intervention when it's not necessary. Do you know how many "too posh to push" "easy way out" "were you just scared of the pain" comments i had after my EMCS in which my baby almost died?

Far too fucking many.

So the green party can fuck off whether they are going to now quietly drop this policy or not. If i get a green canvasser at my doorstep ill give them hell over it.

What does a stance on Gaza matter to those people living in the UK? What does having a stance on Gaza change? Gaza, Gaza, Gaza. Nothing anyone in the UK says will change anything. Most people in the UK see that. Most political parties see that.

If you read my comments you'll see that I've condemned the policy totally. I'm as horrified by it as you. Women's health and babies lives are a top priority for me.
I just think people are being weirdly inconsistent. Somehow suggesting The Green Party are uniquely bad when it comes to women's health, which is simply untrue. Labour and Tory policies have literally cost lives.

I suspect, and have in fact heard on the political grapevine, that powerful Labour/press people are deliberately peddling this story to dissuade lefties from protest voting Green. I've heard Stella Creasey MP and her team are at the epicenter of this. Many in her constituency who normally vote Labour, are protest voting Green due to the treatment of Faiza Shaheen in the neighbouring constituency of Chingford. So, they're panicking and trying to get those votes back. Dirty politics.
Green policies, good or mad, rarely make headlines; so I think this is very likely.

The fact that they proposed the policy is enough.

A 20 year old is old enough to know that they would be in for when giving birth in the future.

And due to the nature of my constuency, it’s mostly the actual candidates themselves knocking on doors. So that’s what I had in mind.

Gaza not relevant here.

The Greens posted it on their website.

What is this hot political grapevine you speak of? A pal of yours?

You seem very naive, tbh. Don’t ask them hard questions, they’re only young etc. It’s been a long time since the greens wanted to save the world; they’re more interested in erasing women’s rights these days. The happy home for misogynists and their supporters.

If you care about women's health and babies lives (which I'm sure you do) Labour's policies on Gaza and the NHS should trouble you way more than this.

Don’t be silly, @TryingToSeeTheFunnySide, the leader of the Labour Party couldn’t tell you what a woman is if his life depended on it.

@Wheeeeee

I don't deny for a second that some women are receiving substandard care, or that many still struggle to get access to elective caesarians, but this particular one isn't at NICE's door.

I’m not blaming NICE for this: I understand they have to make difficult economic judgments and resources are finite. I am just making the point that even economic arguments are subjective and come with some bias.

The whole approach to caesareans on the part of policymakers seemd to be that they are unnecessary unless needed to preserve the life of the mother or baby. So the premise seems to be that enhancing comfort or tolerability isn’t a consideration with childbirth.

Which is definitely not the case with other branches of medicine. I don’t know why that perspective is applied but it seems likely that the rhetoric about childbirth being “natural” (and therefore something women should be able to handle without “intervention”) plays a part in this.

Funny how medical interventions are something to be reduced when it's C-sections, but not when it's exogenous testosterone, double mastectomies and hysterectomies to further the delusions of girls or women who think they're men.

@Maray1967 sorry @Maray1967 this tag is a mistake! Not meaning to tag you into this post. I pressed it by mistake, and it won't let me delete it!

Meaning to tag @GettingFrustrated1 in what way am I being silly? I'm not voting for The Labour Party! Not for the same reason as you. It's because I'm so upset that they've become so right-wing. Surely there's nothing silly about caring for the NHS, the housing crisis, the climate emergency, Gaza etc?

If i get a green canvasser at my doorstep ill give them hell over it.

@Bullsey what will this achieve though? It'd just cause upset to a volunteer who's given up their time to engage politically, who probably have no say in policy making.
I completely understand you being really upset about this policy. Totally.
I am too.
But, surely calmly explaining how you feel, and asking them to report back to HQ, or better still contacting HQ directly, would be more likely to make a positive difference?
I have to say I'm always polite to the door knockers - even Tories! With Tories I explain I'd never vote for them. With Labour, I explain I used to vote for them, can't now because of x, y, z. I always give the caveat that I don't blame those individuals personally. They're human beings ultimately, and I don't want to upset them.

I know it's infuriating. An elective c-section is safer than either many (most?) vaginal births or an emergency c-section.

Yep the irony didn't escape me either. The greens are clowns.

I also chose a c section, as it turns out I would have had to have one anyway but my choice was so that I didn't have the long term (elderly) issues from vaginal birth.

I’ve had 2 sections, the first was an emergency because the hospital didn’t have enough staff in delivery suite to help progress my labour at 42 weeks. Got to the point where my son was in distress. So the EMCS may improve if they sort the staff and the culture out.

The other reason for increased c sections is the increase in more complex births, eg women giving birth older, IVF and other women giving birth who would have previously been encouraged not to do so, such as women with type 1 diabetes.

A thousand times this

Exactly. Medical intervention in the pursuit of “gender reassignment” is definitely not life saving, not medically necessary and certainly much more expensive than a caesarean section.

I realise there are far more sections performed than gender reassignment procedures and you can build an argument around mental health in these cases etc.

But this is a blatant example of a lack of consistency in the application of cost benefit in health economics. And again the suspicion is that interventions performed to support the comfort and wellbeing of women in labour are not deemed to be as important.

As far as I can tell, Green policy is typically the result of a members passion project.

And most of those passions stem from an unhealthy social media bias.

Exactly. Medical intervention in the pursuit of “gender reassignment” is definitely not life saving,

It is life saving. Suicide rates significantly reduce in trans people who have had reassignment surgery.

This

That's been comprehensively debunked

No problem!!

That’s not actually true…

They don't:

https://statsforgender.org/medical-transition/

But back to the topic, why do the Greens want to reduce choice and safety for maternity care? Why is that where they start? The Greens have a serious misogyny problem

Your attitude appears to be that they won't get in and therefore it doesn't matter.

It does matter. It matters what politicians say even if they are stupid idealistic ones who haven't got a shot of getting in. If an extent right wing party said something about withdrawing aid to gaza, I'm pretty sure that you would feel it was relevant even though they have no hope of winning the election.

I don't believe you have a grapevine of political spies. Not everything is a labour plant. Labour didn't make the green party target pregnant women. Call it dirty politics but you've got no actual evidence. We do have evidence of what the green party said.

There is another way of describing them.

Grossly naive, ideologically driven and lacking in real world life experience.

And green issues are no longer their key focus.

Yes this matters even as a minor party because they still drive public discussions because legally they have to be given fair airtime. This can lead to the perpetuation of pretty ignorant views (such as stuff about the cost of C-sections which was examined and dismissed by NICE who are very cost focused). They are every bit as bad as the hard right (who also have a problem with the cost of C-sections).

I find their righteousness about being kind both hypocritical and frightening.