Turkey Turkish doctors face fines for elective caesareans

[WidowWadman]

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/13/turkish-doctors-fines-elective-caesareans?INTCMP=SRCH

I find these news disturbing. Under the false premise that natural = better and protecting ickle women who don't know what's good for them from the nasty doctors who only want to make a profit choice is removed from women.

Who decides the threshold of what is an Emergency anyway? Will there be now an increased risk of damage to women and babies because the fear of legal redress means doctors will push for vaginal birth even if there are medical indications?

Law is the wrong way to approach the problem of 48% electives. It should be about informed choice but seems some doctors are making money out of scaremongering. Is that how you read it?

But why are 48% of ELCS a problem? If it's the mother's choice, and she's happy with it, I can't see anything wrong with it.

It's wrong if women are persuaded into having an ELCS against their will, when there's no real medical reason, granted. But it is just as wrong if a woman is persuaded to do a TOIL when she doesn't want to.

Both VB and ELCS carry risks, but EMCS carry even greater risks. So why should a woman not be allowed to choose to forego the risk of needing an EMCS by opting for an ELCS?

Before I had an EMCS, I was quite blazé about the idea of surgery - including c-section. Now that I've had one (smooth, easy, nice healing - forgetting the fact that it was because DS was in trouble) I know that I'm re-thinking my opinions on all forms of surgery. I highly doubt that I'd have cosmetic surgery for instance.

The law is poor for choice, but I don't actually think it's because they are women that it's implemented (CSes being just for women is just a biological thing) but more because they want people to realise that surgery is serious, and that there are alternatives.

It's hard - but people severely underestimate the risks and affects of an operation, but can vividly imagine giving birth vaginally. This is a heavy-handed, but well meaning law - perhaps they should extend it to cosmetic surgery though.

Ww, I think the article is making the point that the women don't have accurate imformation to make their decision. 48% is very high surely?

This law is not in place because the government has looked dispassionately at the level of CS and the private health system and carefully thought about how to reduce rates of "unnecessary" CS in a safe yet effective way.

It has come about because of the views of the current prime-minister which you can see reported here.

Choice elements:

"Speaking last week at a conference on population and development, Mr Erdogan said "there is no difference between killing a baby in its mother's stomach and killing a baby after birth".

Continue reading the main story
Prime Minister Erdogan

Began third term of office in June 2011
Leader of Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP)
Has steered Turkey through period of stability and economic growth
Denied wanting to impose Islamic values on Turkey
"I consider abortion to be murder. No-one should have the right to allow this to happen."

Mr Erdogan also said he was "a prime minister that is against birth by caesarean" because "unnecessary" elective caesareans were "unnatural".

Mr Erdogan, who is known to advocate having large families, caused yet more anger when he compared abortion to the aerial bombardment of civilians."

"Perhaps inevitably, Mr Erdogan received the backing of the Turkish parliament's human rights committee chairman, Ayhan Sefer Ustun.

Mr Ustun, who belongs to the ruling Islamist-rooted AKP (Justice and Development Party) of Mr Erdogan, said abortion should be banned as it constitutes "a crime against humanity"."

""I believe the law should prevent abortions as much as possible, except in cases when they are medically necessary. When making a decision, politicians will take into account both the scientific and moral aspects of the issue," he said.

In a reference to babies born as a result of rape, Mr Akdag said that the state would look after the babies if "the mother has been through something bad"."

He sounds like a super chap. One with real and genuine concerns for the womenfolk of his country, and a deep concern that women might be having unnecessary surgery. Yes that is most definitely his motivation.

Ah, well, that does put a rather different light on it. At least they're blaming doctors rather than going after the women themselves - perhaps there is some hope of people (other than the prime minister) showing some sense about this.

interesting article about the prime minister. He sounds like a right charmer

SQ - That is sad - I had thought that Turkey was modernising, but it seems I'm 10 years out of date and they've slipped back under this guy's rule.

Why does it matter whether the figure is high or low? Having something the size of a baby in one's tummy and needing to get it out some way or other should be all the indication a woman needs to be allowed a choice of how she wants to go about it.

I'm all for not forcing women to have CS they don't need nor want. But I don't want that at the expense of forcing women to try vaginal birth and only allowing CS if it goes wrong.

Maybe I'm biased. I had an EMCS and was relieved to be allowed an ELCS secont time round without having to put up a huge fight. The idea of undergoing the pain and fear of labour again filled me with dread.

This proposal is just replacing one set of rules forced upon women with another. Both is coercive, and denies women decision over their own bodies and denies their capability to make their own decisions.

The superiority of vaginal birth is ultimately a misogynist myth

I gave birth in a private hospital in Turkey. The obstetrician was amazed that I didn't book a c-section. Once she'd got over her shock, she was delighted and very supportive (and she was a fantastic doctor!), but the culture did seem to be 'if you could afford a caesarian, that's what you had.' Almost all the Turkish women I knew there chose to have a caesarian either because (a) their husbands wanted them to (b) it would 'stop them stretching' or (c) it was 'less painful'. .

Choice is important, but there's a world of difference between 'informed' and 'uninformed' choice, eg. having a caesarean because 'your husband wants you to.'

Don't get me started on Erdogan.

crescentmoon NI is a part of the UK.

And I'm not sure what your point is?

I can have negative views about what is happening in Turkey, and in NI at the same time. This thread isn't about NI though, I am not sure of the relevance?

If you wish to find out more about the situation in NI, or in the US in certain states, with regard to abortion, there are plenty of other threads in this section about it.

or am I supposed to be surprised and amazed to hear that roman catholic countries don't go in for abortion, quite often, and stunned to learn that some of these countries are in europe?

If the preference is for large families, then a rate of 48% would be more dangerous, than a rate of 48% in countries where the preference is for just one or two children. You have to take into consideration access to birth control as part of this....

Cultural reasons are also interesting. I'm more familiar with the example of Iran which has a very high rate as natural childbirth is viewed as something for the poor only and it was barbaric to put women through all that pain in a 'civilised society' where there is an alternative, and I imagine there is a similar thought process going on in Turkey. And of course theres 'perserving the woman for the man's pleasure myth' too.

The truth is there should be a choice and I'm very pro-ELCS as there are psychological arguments for them as well as physical. The point is it needs to be an educated choice and at the moment there is a very distinct preference for ELCS, driven by biased financial and cultural reasons rather than good quality information. So there isn't really a choice for many women as it stands anyway - the decision is made by social pressure and by husbands - not the women.

I think there is reason to be concerned and that Turkey does need to take some sort of action to resolve the issues going on for the best interests of women, but this obviously isn't the right way to go.

Of course I do.

And the reason I brought it in was because the proposals to do with CS were in a speech in which the PM also spoke about abortion, and that was widely reported. The two matters are related and are to do with his views about what is "natural" and controlling women and their fertility, as opposed to any concerns about women undergoing unnecessary procedures.

Context, yes?

Of course I do feel strongly about the situation in NI, obviously. It is preposterous that a part of the UK can have such different laws, which go against the mainland so utterly, and it is just accepted. So much damage is done.

If it is the doctors who are pushing c-sections then we may see a massive increase in the number of babies reported to have health complications that make vaginal birth too dangerous, or mothers with health complications.

The superiority of vaginal birth is ultimately a misogynist myth

How so?

Yes, I'm interested to know why vaginal births are misogynistic?

I think FORCING women to have VBs is misogynistic.
But then I think FORCING women to have a ELCS is also misogynistic.

I think there is an argument to say that there is definitely a misogynistic thing going on here, as at no point are women really in control over what is happening to their body in childbirth because of a lot of cultural and financial influences.

I also think there is something to be said to say that the same is also true to a lesser extent in the uk.