Where have I said that women shouldn't have medical care if they need it in labour? - You said ? ?How many Obs/Gyn have experiencience in attending mothers throughout active labour, as a midwife does?? ?They provide medical care if it is needed? and ?If you herd healthy women wanting to have vaginal births into unfamiliar, sterile environments, surround them with strangers, hamper their mobility and give them lots of drugs which distort the normal hormal cascade of labour, then you are going to get the sort of outcomes which we see regularly discussed on this board: high rates of 'failure to progress' resulting in emcs, long and painful labours, instrumental deliveries, knackered pelvic floors, episiotomies, and babies that won't breastfeed. Well - quelle surprise!? - OB/Gyn?s are medical doctors and provide full care for women in many countries including Canada. Many countries believe that Medically qualified doctors can be supported by OB nurses/midwives but that doctors should be providing the medical care. By your last statement you very clearly do not think women should have medical care!!!
"Lets let mothers suffer without pain relief"
Where have I said this? ? You said ? ?..that is birth which doesn't involve continuous monitoring, epidural analgesia? ? Women who want to have epidural analgesia are fully entitled to do so and any other thing that makes them comfortable in labour.
"Lets let mothers suffer emotional, physical and mental damage" ?
You said ? ?Well it is if they're involved in a disproportionate number of births which are physiologically abnormal!? ? Women should not suffer any emotional, physical or mental damage because a CS is ?physiologically abnormal?!.
Where have I said or implied that mothers should be denied the care they need to have the birth they want?
You said ? ?Midwives attend C/S's and accompany women through the event. They also care for women throughout normal labour. Doctors don't do this. They provide medical care if it's needed. What other role could they possibly have in normal birth? The majority of births would take place quite happily and healthily without any involvement from a doctor. Their skills are in sorting out problems in childbirth, not facilitating normal birth.? ? In many countries OB/Gyns do care for women in normal labour furthermore in the UK one can also choose to pay for a OB/Gyn to care for them in a normal labour, it is consultant led care. This is there choice and you by your statement are denying women this choice.
"Lets allow mothers and babies to die because CS rates are too high"
You said ? ?How can they if they are not able to help more women to birth their babies safely without needing major surgery? There are countries with half the C/S rates of the US which have better perinatal mortality.? ? It is glaringly obvious that you think rates are too high and from the statement above you disagree.
FACT - Currently in the United States slightly more than one in seven women experiences complications during labor and delivery that are due to conditions existing prior to pregnancy; these include diabetes, pelvic abnormalities, hypertension, and infectious diseases. In addition, a variety of pathological conditions that develop during pregnancy (such as eclampsia and placenta praevia) are indications for surgical delivery. These problems can be life-threatening for both mother and baby, and in approximately forty percent of such cases cesarean section provides the safest solution.
"You have judged enough."
No I haven't. I'm now going to judge you: you haven't read or understood any of the points I've made. I find your post bizarre. You've come out with a pile of nonsense - assumptions about my views on c-section that can't be justified by ANYTHING I've said here. For goodness sake - try responding to the argument rather than just going off half cocked and frothing at the mouth.
Response: I have read and responded to your arguments. Your arguments are poor, furthermore I have provided statistics and studies that support my arguments. You are the one who is one sided and full of assumptions. I have made it clear time and time again that mothers can have ANY TYPE OF BIRTH THEY WISH, I do not judge this! I do not think that there is any problems with CS births, you very obcviously do. This is apparent not only to me but many, many other posters who have made comments to you.
"Yes - I'd agree with that. I don't think anything I've said up to this point would suggest I believe otherwise, except in the case of the NHS under our present system." ? This is a complete and utter contradiction! Under pressure or not the safety and well-being of mother and baby should ALWAYS come first. You have brought up the cost issue a multitude of times, it is SAD.
So... unless I misunderstand you...I'm realising you don't believe anyone is entitled to an elective CS on the NHS, whatever the reason."
This is you not reading the thread correctly ? You need to respond to another poster not me
"What's so bad about having surgery to save lives? Would you refuse other life saving surgery? Just because of a statistic?"
There is nothing wrong with having surgery to save your life or your baby's. It's what every mother would do if she thought it was necessary.
"We really need to reevaluate whet we are talking about - before surgical and other interventions, millions of babies and mothers died in childbirth".
This is you not reading the thread correctly ? You need to respond to another poster not me
Actually fastest and greatest falls in maternal and infant mortality in the UK over the last century happened when antibiotics, the welfare state and universal health care was introduced, when the C-section rate in the UK was still under 5%. The majority of maternal deaths before this time were the result of perpeural fever and eclampsia. Good antenatal care, better infection control and good nutrition has made far, far more of a difference to maternal and infant mortality than the rocketing c-section rate.
Would also want to point out that the c-section rate in the UK has nearly doubled in the last decade alone, yet the stillbirth rate has remained stable at this time.
FACT - While there is sound reason to believe that cesarean section has been employed too frequently in some societies during the last two or three decades, the operation clearly changes the outcome favorably for a significant percentage of women and babies. In our society now women may be afraid of the pain of childbirth, but they do not expect it to kill them. Such could not be said of many women as late as the nineteenth century. Moreover, most women now expect their babies to survive birth. These are modern assumptions and ones that cesarean section has helped to promulgate. An operation that virtually always resulted in a dead woman and dead fetus now almost always results in a living mother and baby -- a transformation as significant to the women and families involved as to the medical profession.