Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

BornAtTheRightTime

New Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BornAtTheRightTime

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. "Table 9: Method of delivery by method of onset of labour, 2009-10" Not all deliveries involve labour... Yes, you misunderstand. You should be looking at Table 8: Method of delivery, 1980 to 2009-10. That covers all births.
  2. You have attempted to pervert the numbers by assuming all unknowns are c-sections. Unknowns have to be excluded - these aren't unknown c-sections, they are unknown birth methods and will likely follow the published ratios anyway ie 62.4% spontaneous natural etc etc. You have also claimed Spontaneous births, ie natural births, are some kind of C-section! According to your quoted source there were 652,377 deliveries of which 16,636 were unknown birth method in 2009-2010. Excluding unknown, natural births with no intervention (ie Spontaneous) accounted for 62.4%, with a further 12.8% natural using forceps, ventouse or similar. The important stats are the 10% Elective c-section and 14.8% Other/Emergency c-section. These numbers agree wth my previous post. As stated previously, the proportion of that 10% Elective c-section which is not medically necessary is not published. For anyone that wants to check out these numbers and decide for themselves, it's Table 8 on the XLS file, second atttachment on the link above. You'll need to add the XLS file extension name to make it readable.
  3. For the same reasons I am getting similar crap I suspect. Some people like to believe the worst of others and promote their distorted viewpoint loudly, particularly where women's issues are concerned, but anywhere where they can see 'their' taxes not being directly spent on them instead.
  4. They are running at 25%, split into less than 10% of all births being planned c-section, and the remainder of those, ie 15%, being emergency c-sections. Of the planned c-sections numbers are not published distinguishing between how many are 'too lazy to push' as you put it, and how many considered medically necessary, but as you should clearly see by far the large majority of all c-sections are medically necessary., planned or not. All this information is given in the link I provided earlier but it appears you have chosen not to read it. Why not choose to be educated instead of persisting in a mysogynystic viewpoint?
  5. Did you read my post entirely? if I thought I had a strong likelihood of a successful labour and a baby without a serious neck condition, I would be happy to go along with the natural birth. However, I believe I have a stronger risk of ending up with an emergency c-section with triple the risk to baby and myself compared to a planned c-section. I am trying to make the point that in my current experience it isn't the 'too posh to push' sentiment that is being targeted. It is ALL potential planned c-sections regardless of medical history, which will result in a drop in planned c-sections and an increase in emergency c-sections. On a macro level maybe the number of c-sections in total will reduce overall, but with at increased overall risk. And in my own case, my greater-than-average risk of complications in natural childbirth is being ignored for the sake of budget.
  6. US statistics are not relevant. Try this instead, which helped form my opinion and refers to the UK.
  7. On the contrary. The ante-natal classes preach avoiding c-sections wherever possible and I was simply following their advice until given a sound reason to do otherwise. Even the midwife on the Trust which would have me bound to a bed for 48 hours immovable used the word barbaric. As did the midfwife at the new Trust who had evidently become aware of this new process. If I am 'shopping' it is purely to find a Trust which will prioritise my previous history rather than their current budget. No, it wasn't. But you clearly choose to believe the worst of me rather than the words I have written. Why is that I wonder?
  8. Complete and utter misogynistic ********. A huge number of babies survive now thanks to c-sections that would simply have died back in history or indeed in other countries. Of course there are women who do not want to go through the pain or indignities of labour, but they are hardly having the majority of c-sections.
  9. I've been expecting this story to appear in the media given the treatment I have received from my home NHS Trust regarding my current pregnancy. My first child was born in 2009 under a c-section due to being an undiagnosed breech birth. After my waters breaking I spent 3 days waiting to go into labour. During this time a scan revealed the breech position and I then experienced several shift-changes of Consultants all doing their best to convince me to abandon my plan for a natural birth and elect for a c-section later that night. A second scan revealed that the baby could not be turned (no fluid left) and there was a risk that she would not fit through my 'geometry', hence I eventually agreed to what turned out to be an easy op and I was back running on the treadmill 3 weeks afterwards. At the time the Consultants were quite clear that I could try a natural birth in future (VBAC) if I wanted, but with my geometry, the scar on my uterus and the fact I never went into labour I would be best advised to book an elective c-section. Added to that fact was my daughter, having being stuck head upwards for several weeks prior to birth, developed a condition called torticolis. This is a potentially serious condition in which the neck muscles do not develop properly preventing the baby turning their head to one side, and the facial features on the affected side can 'migrate' around the face if it is not fixed. It also causes a flat head on one side and rounded on the other giving a terribly-upsetting lop-sided appearance. Fortunately intensive physio over 18 months avoided the need for an op for her and she is now mostly symmetrical. Fast forward to my current pregnancy. I have moved area and am now under a different NHS Trust - Mid-Essex Health Authority - some 150 miles from the previous. At 16 weeks I was summoned to a meeting to discuss VBAC (seriously - I was told this was a mandatory meeting and I couldn't give birth without it!). At this meeting I was informed that despite my fears over a natural birth and the advice I had been given at my previous pregnancy, there was a new (2-3 month old) policy of forcing all mum-to-be into a 48-hour 'trial of labour'. As I had a previous section, I would have to be on a drip with a catheter, therefore stuck on a bed unable to eat, drink or move for the entire time. In the event my labour did not progress (ie exactly like last time) they would try different methods of trying to start labour - which is both more painful and more dangerous. At no point during this time would I be able to have a c-section unless the baby or myself were classed as in danger. Plus as the baby is due at Christmas they would prefer to avoid pushing me too hard and into an emergency c-section as staffing levels are low at this time... Incidentally, the statistics of interest are: 60-70% of attempted VBACs end in success. Ie 30-40% of MOTIVATED women attempting a natural birth after a c-section do not succeed and end up with an emergency c-section. Added to this, the risks of an emergency c-section are 3 times that of a planned c-section. So, pretty much a third to a half of such women treble their risk. These stats really don't add up for me, or allay my fears given that I never made it into labour last time AND have a higher risk of baby becoming stuck. However, a cynic might be able to prove that overall it saves money. I was also told that I could discuss my fears at a consultant meeting, but not until 31-34 weeks and a decision would be taken then over my 'wish' to have a planned c-section. However as this was a new process there was as yet no process of appeal over the decision - not that there would be time to do so successfully anyway. So all in all I have been given the threat of utterly barbaric treatment from an NHS Trust which has no interest in my previous medical notes or the likelihood of my second child developing torticolis. This includes a hugely stressful 15-week wait to hear my fate during which time I cannot sleep or eat properly - hardly ideal conditions for a pregnant lady and one brought about by a callous new process devised by people who should know better. I am clearly not motivated to have a successful VBAC and think it highly likely I will need a true emergency c-section if forced down the VBAC route, at 3 times the risk to myself and baby. Along the way I have found this Trust's literature promoting VBAC unbalanced, comparing as it does the risks of VBAC versus emergency c-section, when it ought to be the risks of VBAC which include a possible emergency c-section, versus planned c-section. Fortunately, I have just been able to switch Trust and meet with a Consultant this week (22 weeks' pregnant) to discuss my history and fears. I believe this Trust to be more balanced in their approach and hope that I can get a sensible resolution. To anyone else faced with this dilemma I can only say "exercise your right to choice, force your surgery to switch you to a different Trust (and believe me they will do it but you have to be prepared to make a pain of yourself) and assume things can't get any worse at the new Trust. Rope in friends and family for support because trying to tackle this on your own when pregnant, knackered, sick and hormonal is not a good recipe for a healthy pregnancy." I hope my story has helped someone.
  10. Perhaps the EA meant he can't get there from his house? Assuming he doesn't live at the office. I have a clear run to the motorway, if only I could get out of my road...
  11. 10 million people will be playing the expansion to World of Warcraft on Dec 7th... Perhaps the protestors should choose a different day.
  12. So from what I've read on this site, if I spend my house fund on gold it could get confiscated. If I put it towards a house, it could get confiscated. If I buy USD, it'll be worth nothing as the US is imploding. If I buy Euros, they'll be worth nothing once the Euro is abandoned. If I buy stocks and shares, they'll be worth nothing eventually as the markets are well overvalued thanks to all the newly minted money floating around. if I keep it in sterling, it'll be worth nothing due to hyper inflation, or possibly be confiscated. At least if I buy a house I have the option of living in it in the meantime, far more comfortably than continuing to rent. And somewhere to build a shelter and grow beans...
  13. When Des was looking after the wee undergraduates 20 years ago it was "Take the 3 month placement in Halewood or else!" Glad to see he hasn't lost his touch...
  14. Billericay is one of the most desirable places in southern Essex, mainly thanks to the well paid Ford engineers working locally. (Isn't that right, Feed?!).
  15. Seems like a nice thing to do all round. Go for it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.