Story in chat type mag- do not read if sensitive as quite harrowing

[BBwolefs]

Hi all

I read chat pick me up and full house mags yeterday whilst waiting at the hospital, I cant remember which of the three the story was in but I read about a lady who's daughter died in childbirth.

Her daughter was improperly positioned, head and body facing to the side instead of up or down. The lady repeatedly asked for a section but was told no. Towards b of labour forceps were used. User tried to Turn baby with them.

This resulted in breaking babys neck as turned head not body. Baby died shortly fter birth.

So im left wondering as this is s tragic ( made me cry) are forceps dangerous? Or was it the users fault? (im inclined to say user). Also is this common practice? The story really bothered me particularly as the health provider where she was (scotland) stood by the action and decisions. Seems such an avoidable waste.

This doesnt sound right to me. Forceps are used to help the baby down the birth canal when stuck. They do have thei downsides and their use when the baby is still high up is a little contraversial. They couldnt be used to turn a transverse (horizontal) baby in utero, they just dont work like that. Occasionally a baby is turned manually, but usually that is just in the case of a second twin after the first is born.
I think this story has been mis reported or simply made up tbh.

It was reported by the mother of the child. I was just shocked as to me the person using to forceps has killed the baby

That is how I was born in dec 1980 (in england) a keillands delivery, as i was transverse my mum says she didn't want a c-section, I'm strangely and uselessly angry with her for putting me at risk

The story has been badly misreported.

What the true version is, I have no idea. But as described here, the medical side is just a nonsense. Forceps cannot be used in early labour (actually impossible to use - you just cannot get them up through a non-dilated cervix), Even if transverse lie was not diagnosed before onset of labour, it would be discovered during routine assessments during labour. The only option then is C-section.

I think op means head down but facing the left/right side of the mother bit transverse.

Sad story

It sounds like someone has embellished the story to make money from the magazine.

I havent quoted verbtim (my memory isnt that good) but the story was reported as baby was facing complete to the left or right ie emerging on side. By the time forceps were used obviously too late for c section id guess but mother said condition was known before hence asking for section. Even if it wasnt surely anyone would figure twisting a baby by the head wouldnt be a sensible thing to do? May of been embellished i suppose to sell copies but still very sad that a little baby died. And just made me question when why an i forceps should still be used.

I think I read the same / similar story a while ago. The one I read was definitely a Keilland's forceps delivery (different to other forceps - in fact I believe they've been banned in north America). They definitely seem to be the worst kind of forceps and I think you would be well within your rights to state in your birth plan that you do not want them to be used. For what it's worth, it also sounded like the doctor who used them was inexperienced.

Actually, just found the story now, but haven't re-read yet: www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1253013/Forceps-killed-baby-doctors-using-them.html

Oh My God. That's horrendous. Poor poor people.

That's so terrible, i can't believe no one has been held accountable yet, not least the senior practitioner who refused the c section and then left a student to deliver the baby.

Sweet pea thats the story, i found it incredibly sad. Wouldnt that count as medical Negligence and manslaughter? It should! Poor little baby!

I know - I couldn't even bring myself to read the whole thing again... it's just so tragic. Like you, I remember freaking out at the time when I first read it (newly pregnant). It prompted me to do a lot of reading-up on forceps. In typical Daily Mail style, it sensationalises the story by referring in the headline and through most of the article to just "forceps" rather than, more specifically, "Keilland's forceps" which seem to be in a special category.

This led me to assume that all forceps posed the kind of danger described in the story. Having now done some research, I think I am comfortable with the use of most types of forceps (even though all instrumental interventions carry a certain level of risk), with the exception of Keillands. I just do not understand how hospitals can countenance their use when a C section is a viable alternative.

For anyone who doesn't want to read the article (which is quite distressing), this is the salient point:

*Unlike most forceps, which are used to speed up the delivery of a baby that has become distressed or obstructed in the final stages of delivery, Kielland?s forceps are used to rotate an infant stuck in a sideways position, usually higher in the birth passage.

The procedure is so tricky, says Professor Nick Fisk, former consultant obstetrician at Queen Charlotte?s Hospital, London, ?that even experienced senior consultants would not attempt a Kielland?s forceps delivery?.

Phil Steer, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Imperial College, London, is among the many who have abandoned forceps - they are a rarity in Chelsea & Westminster, where he is a consultant obstetrician, with Kielland?s forceps all but unknown.

... Some hospitals continue to use Keilland?s forceps; at the Royal Infirmary, where Alexandra was born, there are 170 such deliveries a year.*

BBwolefs - I agree with you that, as the story is presented, it does seem to be a case of medical negligence. However, it's hard to know without seeing the facts put before an inquest... not sure I really trust the Daily Mail's reporting!

sweetpea you expressed much more eloquently than me what I was trying to say. Im also pregnant and found it very distressing, and I must admit that not knowing much about forceps it makes me think they are dangerous. Im Electing this time having had an EMCS im just glad to of avoided that type of interference / assistance. Im aware that will be my fear talking but its made me so wary!

by the way my mum was a nurse (never went back after I was born) and I was transverse and delivered by a consultant my mum knew well

How was that then cjbk1?

Wghat a tragic story I feel so sorry for the poor parents. I'm currently 37wks with a transverse baby and I have been told categorically by the consultant that a natural birth is out of the question so an elcs has been booked. In fact he went as far to say that transverse babies were the ones that were lost many years ago. There is just no way to deliver them, and the mother has a good chance of ending up with a ruptured uterus - its by far the most dangerous position for a baby to be in. I find the fact that it was known to be transverse and yet a vb was attempted was negligent and highly arrogant of the medical team. I have heard of keilland deliveries - but though they had all been banned after many trade gives like the one in the magazine.

Boggler im glad your baby is being protected, i find the story totally abhorrent and the suffering of the poor family is just inconceivable when it seems like it was avoidable

Transverse baby = baby lying sideways in utero. Head not in pelvis.

The baby in the OP, and what many of you describe is a baby that is simply in an OT or OP position which means they are head down, in the pelvis, but the direction that the body is in isn't optimal for delivery. They can, and are born in this position. They can be born by normal vaginal birth (baby can rotate itself with the power and force of contractions and pushing) and babies can even come out facing the 'wrong' way - so looking up 'stargazing' instead of downwards. They can also be rotated and born by keilands forceps, but these forceps should be used by a skilled experienced practitioner.

I won't comment on the article, as it is sensationalised.