Printable View
I really disagree with Sandra Kanck when she opens her mouth it is usually only to change feet :rolleyes:. I get really angry with what she comes out with because more often than not she has no idea what she is talking about.There is no need to "shame" hospitals with high rates of c/s as there are many different circumstances to why women have a c/s .
I had to have a c/s with Johanna if I didn't she probably wouldn't be here.
Jodi
hmmm
My local paper did this big OBESE MUM RISK article on the front page today.
They were VERY quick to point out that more then 60% of pregnant women in my area are obese.
Yet - I bet they wouldnt give the c/s rate so freely or own up to doing so many of them (which I know they do)
My vote...yes...if I would have better education, their statistic for c/s and their methods from the start from there I may not have had to go down the dreaded c/s path.
ETA - the stastic's should out line emergency c/s and Doctor elective IFYKWIM ;)
But why did your labour end in c/s? Was there intervention that some women would prefer not to have? That's the thing women need to be able to make these decisions and they should be informed of what is the norm at their chosen hospital/obs.:
Yes- absolutely.
It is our right as Australian citizens to know what goes on in the hospitals in our country so that we can make informed choices about birth. It doesn't mean that the hospitals need to be 'shamed' as such- but the statistics should be available to the public. Why should people fear knowing the truth? I also think there should be a law to protect doctors from being sued, as i think this is the main reason doctors go into a pre-emptive-panic and recommend c/sections just because there is a 'chance' or a 'risk' of something going wrong. There are less risks involved in a natural birth, but doctors do not have full control of a natural birth so it seems to make them nervous?? I think they need the freedom to relax a bit more and let nature take its course. In the instance where something DOES go wrong, then appropriate action can be taken. But doing invasive surgery 'just incase' defies common sense in my opinion. Especially when it is common knowledge that c/section increases risk in future pregnancies- where is the logic in that? Ok- I am ranting here. Rest assured it is the medical system I have issues with- not women who have had c-sections!!
I'm not against c/sections if they are needed....but some women choose to have them because they want to choose what day they want their babies born on, others have to have them because of medical reasons....there are many different reasons why women have them....
a lady i work with, her daughter is having a c/section in december because of health problems...
as i'll be having my first baby in february, im going natural birth....but if need be, anything happens i'm reassured that the option to have a c/section is there...if they need to get her out quickly and they have to do a c/section i'm all for it....i want my baby and me to be safe....
depending on the situation, theres no real right or wrong answer to this topic....its good that we can all express our points of view and opinions
It's good to know hospitals stats on all sorts of medical procedures and issues etc, but I don't think the word "shame" should be in this sentence.
I found that a bit offensive when I first read it, as I have had both a natural birth and a c/s due to medical reasons, and will need another c/s this pregnancy too, not to any fault or choice of me or the hospital that I'm going to.
So, yes, stats are good but negativity isn't.
ABSOLUTELY! Get that knife away from me thanks!!!!
I vote no - I had emergency c/s for my first child as she got stuck in my pelvis and baby heartrate distress, I held off for 36 hours before having emergency c/s and tried everything my OB was very supportive. I pay for the Ob and chose the hospital I wanted, The birth of my 2nd child was elective c/s, as I could not go through the trauma again due to having PND and risk the health of my baby. Im sure there are mothers out there like me and chose the hospital and OB due to medical reason and think its unnecessary to "shame" anyone under the circumstances I had my c/s. If I was a mother who hadnt given birth before and chose a hospital which had midwife program and an OB allocated at the time of the birth (eg, a public hospital like RNS) I would want to know the statistics.
i find it interesting and weird that a few posts on here advise that c/s is a major surgery - for those who undergo the surgery we have done our research thanks and know this or most people would have, if they choose to educate themselves before birth to prepare themselves for all options in the birth. Some of us needed the emergency c/s for safety of the baby and are grateful for a wonderful OB and hospital support and do not think its needed to shame them.
I find the above comment bit harsh actually - Just curious HOPRAH - what if your 2nd birth doesnt go well and they say they recommend a emergency c/s? would you choose to have the emergency c/s? you have to sign a consent form when you have a c/s regardless of emergency or not.
I apologise in advance if I'm repeating points made by other posters - sorry, I just don't have time to read them all right now.
But I think the "name and shame" term is divisive - it inadvertently implies that women should feel ashamed if they have a caesarean and that is not helpful.
Hospitals' caesarean rates are already reported and people can do a Google search and it's not that hard to find them because hospitals have to report those rates to the Government.
I think the question should be "should caeserean rates be easily available and transparent so that women can make an informed choice." The answer to that question is of course yes.
But despite the fact that these figures are already available via the web, I don't know what a hospital's response would be if I simply rang them and asked. Maybe they would tell me, maybe they wouldn't. They should HAVE to give me the figures if I ask.
Similarly for private obstetricians, I am sure it would depend on which one you rang as to whether they would reveal their stats. It should not be up to their discretion, they should have to disclose those figures when asked.
I hate to use the jargon word "transparent" but that's what this is about.
I am due with my first and want to have a vaginal birth, but if my obgyn recommended it I wouldn't hesitate to have a c-section. Why should women feel "ashamed" of having a c-section? Its just another thing to add to the pile to feel guilty about, much like stopping breast feeding if its not right.
No one should tell anyone else how to have a baby nor should they place guilt an assumptions on such.
Well the polly is a democrat, she's just trying to keep the bastards honest :rofl:
The "shame" referred to is NOT directed at the women though, it's directed at the hospital. I agree completely that emergency c-sections and in some cases "elective" ones (where the choices are limited and the risks clearly lie more with VBAC than with c-section FOR THAT WOMAN, for example where a woman was badly injured during her first birth and has severe scarring) are of COURSE necessary.
But how would you feel if you got your labour notes and the foetal distress you had your c-section for was actually massively exaggerated or even invented by your Ob and you didn't really need the section? Sadly this DOES IN FACT happen. I know at least 4 women who have their labour notes which show early decelerations with fast recovery (which are normal heart tones for late labour) which they were sectioned for and one woman whose baby had a period of about 15 minutes of ditressed-type heart tones almost 3 hours before her baby was delivered by section - immediately following the distress they gave her an epidural and prepped her for surgery which she then waited 3 hours for. Her surgical notes show the baby's head was at +2 when he was removed through her abdomen - they had to use forceps to get him OUT of the birth canal - she could have delivered him safely and vaginally and she is gutted. That's what the "shame" is for, to target hospitals who use fear or blurring of medical facts to pursuade healthy women to have unnecessary and unwanted surgical births. Undoubtedly c-sections are better for Obs - they can be planned in advance, are a very controlled way of delivering babies and can be done in a prescribed amount of time for most women. Unfortunately the ideal candidate for a problem-free c-section is the healthy woman not in labour who is ALSO the ideal candidate for a safe low-intervention vaginal birth.
The shame is NOT FOR THE WOMEN it is for those cases where the doctors or other staff have used fear, exaggeration or deception to coerce a woman into accepting a section, or where they have failed to educate a woman fully on her options and the risks of them (both vaginal and surgical birth).
Bx
I fully agree that statistics regarding maternity care and outcomes be published.
Birth Options Association Australia (BOAA) has a page that can link you to some stats, but state to state varies in what they record, they are difficult to read and only cover some public hospitals.
What I would like to see is a system like BirthChoiceUK - Title Page
I made a choice not to birth in my local hospital because of the extremely high intervention rates. As a Level 1 hospital, all women/babies considered at risk would be sent to other hospitals. The rates of intervention should have been lower not higher then other hospitals.
I found out this information from the government, I had requested the information three times from the local hospital, only to be told three completely different answers.
I have found that policies, guidelines and statistics need to provided in writing. Verbal responses have proved to be incorrect.
Accountability and transparency is vital in our health services. If people would like to know the outcomes of a health service, they should be given access. For the people not interested ? you can then make a choice not to read them.
I coordinate the monthly Birth Options Information Sessions in Canterbury and every single time people come up to me after the sessions expressing thanks at having been told the truth and wanting access to further information.
Knowledge allows choices to be made that are right for you and support you in the path you wish to take.
I for one want the information so I can make an informed choice.
If anyone has the skills to put together a system like the one on the birthchoice site please let the Birth Options team know.
Deb
I agree with you completely.:
I have had two babies....Both caesarean....One emergency and one selective. I had my babies at Mitcham Private Hospital....Both times when I booked in there, I asked the caesarean rate in comparison to vaginal birth rate and they were most willing to tell me that data.
I vote yes, that it is a hospitals responsibilty to inform expecting moms what the rates are, not as a form of shaming the hospital, but as a form of informing expectant mothers of what experience the hospital has in caesareans....It allows mums to know this information, should the caesarean need arise...and that in turn will make the expectant mum and dad feel more comfortable that the hospital is most capable catering for both scenarios.
The higher the rate, the better to me....With vaginal births, the doctor and midwife are needed, but ones body does most of the work without very little help from the medics....Whereas with a caeserean, one fully relies on the doctoring capability.
Yes for statistics
NO to SHAMING - Noones flippin business what someone else is up to...I prefer to worry more about my own life than stick my beak into everyone elses. :kissing:
I am probably just repeating other posts here but I voted yes and I had an emergency c section with DS.
I wanted to be an informed parent and birthing mother. If stats are not published how can a mother/parents make a truly informed choice? At least if the data is available then you can look it up if you wish too. If you do not wish to know/don't really care then you don't have to look at it.
As for shamming, what does shamming ever do that is really of any use?
Absolutely they should be named and shamed! Why should these hospitals be allowed to encourage women to choose a c-section over normal (natural) labour? ALL hospitals should be held accountable for the c-section rates they perpetuate.
Ive also heard that some hospitals (possibly alot of hospitals) prefer c-sections because then at least they can 'schedule' their doctors etc and have the babies arrive at a time that 'suits' them! :wall: (how can they think think that circumventing nature like that is a positive thing???)
Plus its not just the danger to the mother, but also the effect it has on the baby (physical and psychological!)
Also, allowing mothers to 'choose' to have a c-section simply because its easier & less painful is ridiculous! You're choosing having a CHILD and labour is part of that... right? (though I am in no way saying that having a c-section out of medical necessity is wrong - I dont want to start an argument here! :D)
After reading these posts, I would have to say that a lot of women are narrow minded and ignorant when it comes to the reasoning to have a c-section. I do understand that some women do choose to have a c-section for convenience however the majority of the reasoning is for the safety of either the mother or the baby. I have recently had an elective c-section as I was having twins. I made this decision for the safety of my second twin. If I had a single birth, I would have chosen a natural birth but also had an open mind. All these threads do, is make women feel guilty for choosing a c-section and I think that you should all be ashamed of yourselves especially when you haven't been in that situation.
YES YES YES YES YES YES...
All stats should be published nationwide in major newspapers and made freely available on the internet for all hospitals PRIVATE and PUBLIC...
What I think should be made known:
CS rates
VBAC rates
VBAMultipleC rates
Vaginal birth rates
Natural birth rates
Instrumental birth rates
Number of births attended by MW's only
Number of births attended by OB's
Anything I've forgotten???
The only way to empower women and give back the right to birth (as women want to) is to ensure total transparency in the health care system, that way for those that it matters to, right decisions can be made about where to go for the best possible care.
When behind closed doors even those labelled "the best" have the tendency to let the shine wear off. Regardless of what your experience is (cs, vb, vbac, all or other!) we are all entitiled to great care and until accountability is highlighted to and noticed by all the care will remain inconsistent and often below acceptable standards.
Sarah :D
:
I have been guilty for thinking the worst about non c/s mum's who go on when they have no idea bout c/s's, but god...think from their point...they are only going on what they are feeling and luckily they have never had to go through a c/s.
The stastic's are NOT naming mothers or saying they are bad parents for having c/s.....the statistics are there to help us mummiys to be, to guide us into the birthing choices we make for our children. They are naming the dame hospitals people!!!! Not if jo blow had a vaginal birth and lucy Lue had a c/s.
Id be very interested to know if the hospitals would also show statistics of how many c/s mothers have had PND after birth compared to vaginaly birthed babies
My intention is only to clarify that THE SHAME IS NOT THE WOMAN'S!!!!
Brooksy's baby i had a homebirth and am (for ME) against even going into hospital for a birth, let alone having surgery, BUT if i had twins and the first one was breech i would have a section. If both or at least the first was head-down i would try for a vaginal but i would do so from an informed POV with many many female relatives who have birthed their twins vaginally - if you are informed and are having the section you feel is the safest option for your babies what shame is there? It is NOT the same as you having a singleton pregnancy and being told FOR NO GOOD REASON you must have a section you don't want for "safety".
It's hard, how to protect the choices of all and the feelings of all?
Is there anything wrong with having a c-section? OF COURSE NOT!
Is there anything wrong with forcing or coercing someone to have an unwanted and unnecessary c-section.....?
If a woman wants a natural birth should she not be able to find out the intervention rates of her local or chosen hospital? And if a woman wants a c-section should she not be allowed the same? I have a good friend who was raped repeatedly from the age of 3 by her grandfather. She has had 3 elective c-sections due to the associated psychological trauma with pain in or near her vagina. She knows the risks and made her choice and though FOR ME vaginal birth was very healing in relation to my past abuse, i know for her it was unthinkable and i completely support her. In her position would you not rather KNOW if you were going to an obstetric centre where women-requested c-sections were NEVER granted without serious medical reasons? The idea of her arriving in labour (she has laboured before all of her births, as she feels it's the best of both for her babies) to a hospital where she will be forced to go through what will amount, to her, to be a repeat of the horrific abuse in her past, is truly awful.
ALL WOMEN deserve to have access to ALL statistics for ALL hospitals so they can make their birth choices with a fullness of learning. Knowledge is power. If you KNOW you want a section, for WHATEVER reason, you need to know where you will have the best surgeons and most supportive team, if you know you DON'T want to have a section except in dire medical need, you need to know where you are most likely to be able to achieve your vaginal birth without intervention.
Whether a woman births vaginally or surgically doesn't she have the RIGHT to good, safe, transparent obstetric care? Doesn't EVERY WOMAN have the right to an informed choice? It is not better to force a woman to birth vaginally than surgically. Every woman has the right to birth her baby in safety and peace in the way she feels most confident about, and every woman deserves to be fully informed in her choice.
I am not against c-sections, i was BORN by elective c-section in the days when VBAC's were impossible to obtain. I am against coercion, scaremongering, secrecy and policies that are for the good of ANYONE but the mother and the baby. I want to know in the supermarket the ingredients and cost of what i'm buying - why would i want less in my obstetric care? I wouldn't take my car to an F1-team mechanic to get fixed and i wouldn't employ a zoo vet to vaccinate my dog. I want the right person for the job. That means if i want a vaginal homebirth i don't want an Ob, and if i want an elective section a midwife isn't going to be much use. I want to be able to choose a professional who will do the job i want doing. The job is irrelevant, the choice is EVERYTHING.
Bx
In terms of figures i'd want to know:
C-sections termed emergency
C-sections termed elective
C-sections termed elective with pre-existing medical condition (that one would be an eye-opener! As Kelly says, it's less than 1% of electives who are maternal-request for no medical reason!)
Vaginal births
Drug-free births
Epidural uptake
Labour artificially initiated
Labour artificially augmented
Instrumental birth rate by mode (forceps/ventouse)
episiotomy rate
2nd-4th degree tearing rates
midwife to patient ratios
ob to patient ratios
anaesthatist to patient ratios
average and mean times from prescription to birth of emergency c-sections
Think that's all for me....:)
Bx
Not wanting to sound like a broken record or anything, but this is the THIRD TIME I have had to come in here and post about keeping it on topic. I have removed several posts and this is honestly getting beyond a joke - if you feel that you cannot keep to the topic or cannot control your emotions, then please refrain from posting any further in this thread.
I'm sorry I have an issue with this statement. I think part of of why we have such high c/s rates now is because c/s is sold to women as being safer for mother and baby, when, if you look at the statistics, it's NOT.:
the majority of the reasoning is for the safety of either the mother or the baby
So if mums honestly believe they're having a c/s because it's for her or her baby's safety, then even more we should be publishing the names of the hospitals that perpetuate this sort of myth.
Because if women had c/s when they actually needed it, and not when they're coerced into believing it's the better thing for them to do (because it's not necessarily the better thing in most cases), then someone should be held accountable for the hundred and thousands of unnecessary surgeries women have undergone, which they would not have undergone if they were told the truth, which is you and your baby are statistically safer if you have a vaginal birth.
So let's not muddy the waters with emotion. The fact is, there are FAR too many c/s being done on women who don't need then, and who ordinarily wouldn't have one if they were not scared into it. So IMO anything that makes hospitals more accountable to their clients and to society in general is a good thing.
i think ive read more stastic's about the cow's going to abitors then then c/s rates at hospitals :ROFL:
Would like to know what circumstances c sections are performed under.
I vote no. Naming a hospital because they perform high c sections is an indication of what again??? Majority of the mothers to be ....have knowledge of both options and do their research as a result...the option they choose is based on a number of factors....and it is between the patient and the Doctor.
I am unsure as to how you could make that comparison, but I think that it stems from a basic misunderstanding of the matter at hand. It is the hospitals being named, not the women having the CS. Yes - there is no reason why statistics on TOPs shouldn't be published, as well as statistics on CS, and on various other forms of surgery. Hoobley said it best, when she said that given that these hospitals operate on public money, it should be a given that what that money goes to be made public as well. They're our tax dollars.:
As far as shaming is concerned, well, I guess that's up to each hospital to make it's case and justify it's level of CS, or whatever other surgery we happen to mention. But hospitals will only have to justify what they do once women (and their partners) are empowered to be able to ask that question. And the only way we will be able to ask, is if we have the statistics at hand.
I vote yes.
I really don't see why we should shame hospitals who perform a high rate of c-sections. What is it going to achieve? If there is a concern regarding this high rate of c-sections then it would be more beneficial to make pregnant women more aware of the dangers so they can make more informed decisions about how they choose to deliver their baby.
Women should always be able to choose between a vaginal birth and a c-section. As far as i know we still live in a free country where we are able to make choices for ourselves and our families without fear of persecution.
There is always a debate about natural delivery versus c-sections. I think in the end it comes down to personal opinion. if you ask a different Doctor each day what their opinion is, you would get a different answer from each Doctor.
I don't see why it is such a big deal. I am a mother of five. I've had 3 natural births and 2 c-sections. The first was an emergency and the second was elective. I am pregnant again now and will be having another c-section as it is my right as an Australian to have a choice.:dance:
Yep, well, I care about more than just myself (cos I'm going to prepare for a homebirth next time, so doesn't even personally apply to me, but I do like to stretch myself for the benefit of other people; I'm a bit of a lobbyist!) and because I care about safety of mother and baby, I'd like stats released for all hospitals performing CS's. Especially because CS's are NOT the safer option just because an OB says so, and because I know that the mortality rate for CS mother/infant dyads is higher than vaginal births. This alone says to me that it's BECAUSE safety of mother and baby is paramount that CS rates need to be transparent so that mothers can make informed choices.:
all i care is that both my baby and myself come out alive and healthy.
I'm not down with the spin about 'shaming', but identification of high rates, and (I agree) the breakdown on interventions etc, is important.
Bringing it back to the personal, it's because I am aware of our escalating rates of interventions (not just the CS rate, but inductions, internal exams, epi's etc) that I will avoid all hospitals, and even birth centres attached to them (I loved my FBC experience, BTW). Not all women know what I and many on BB know, where it takes a bit of rooting around to find these stats, so to have them readily available will hopefully start opening the eyes of many other women and get them asking questions the OB's don't want them asking ;)
By identifying the hospitals with higher CS rates, these hospitals will have to take a long hard look at their policies if they care about reducing their rates.
I also think that part of the problem is that OB's these days aren't trained or experienced in dealing with birthing 'complications' such as breeches and twins so all they know is surgery. It's a corner we've painted them into (as a society, not as individuals or even as a demographic) - they're not being trained in it, they don't get to see normal, undisturbed birth and they become proficient at surgery. So, who the hell is going to reverse this trend if the ones who DO know how to treat these things are retiring or long retired? OB's nowadays are a tending to be a liability in normal birth because of this, and this is why I believe OB's do not belong in normal birthing situations. A breakdown of stats indicates that OB's themselves are turning normal birth into emerg CS's, as well as misinformation, not enough information and the established vernacular about birth being dreadful, painful, geez, even death-defying!
In normal birthing situations, you're risking more by going to hospital than by staying at home. Women who have information about intervention rates may be able to make better choices about where they birth. I certainly don't want to be a maternity ward's excuse to rack up Medicare rebates for justifying the purchase of the latest whiz bang, super-expensive piece of obstetric equipment. And what a waste of money on PHI when the premiums pay for such equipment that I don't want anywhere near me, anyway.
This is just to illustrate how knowing figures and breakdowns has shaped my birthing choices.
Yes, there are other things going on in the world that also require our attention, and I'd rather work towards positive birthing so that I can add the great, constructive energy it has brought me so far to the world.
Risking PND, inability to establish breastfeeding, incontinence/uterine damage/prolapse etc, are all things that affect people's health and quality of life. It's pretty important to avoid things that compromise quality of life, if you can help it. Making people's lives better changes the world, and surely, a better start to life is better for mother and baby (not just mother, not just baby- they are one unit!), where they can make that informed choice, and plan to mitigate the effects of CS and other interventions if they then must be chosen, all things considered and made transparent :)
I voted yes! I would like to know. I will be home birthing with my next. My home has a 0% CS rate I like the sound of that!:clap:
I had an elective caesar. It was my choice and the end result was a healthy happy little boy. The title "name and shame" implies what was my choice is something to be ashamed of?! And I am certainly not ashamed.
I think its no-ones business what women choose to do. It frustrates me that women who have had caesars are made to feel like its the wrong thing to do. And like it has been said in past posts we dont know why people choose or even have to have caesars. What people want is their bubs to born happy and healthy. Does it really matter how they entered the world.
As far as the mortality rate being higher in caesars, do we know why? is it maybe because bubs was in a high risk category anyway and emergency was carried out to try and save them? therefore making the caesar mortality rate higher doesnt really prove much.
Charlie i know a woman who had a c-section because her ob said her baby was far too big to fit through her pelvis. He was 5lbs 12oz at birth and spent almost a week in NICU, during surgery she lost more than half of her blood volume and then her uterus. It matters to her.:
What people want is their bubs to born happy and healthy does it really matter how they entered the world.
As she now knows, her obs section rate is about 75% and he had had 3 other babies the month hers was born also in NICU due to being small at birth (all of them sections, all for "large baby"). If she had had access to the statistics for this hopsital and this Ob she would have certainly made different choices. SHe's in the US
Bx
ANYHOO...as for this topic i still don't think that we really need to know how many c/sects come from each hospital. we don't know peoples backgrounds. and its also a personal choice. whats good for one doesn't suit everyone. if you are not sure ask your OB and make sure the OB / hospital you choose is the right one for you.
I assume people choose the hospital or OB because they like it / them not on statistics. i chose My ob and went to the hospital he works at. (well kinda, but thats another story)
I definitely used statistics and medical research in choosing my birth. How are you supposed to MAKE your "personal choice" without any knowledge on the stats? How would it have been if your Ob had suddenly told you at 38 weeks that he couldn't sanction the c-section and you have to birth your twins vaginally, and then said all along he was only going to section for medical need? This is how it is for many women who want to birth vaginally - they go to appointments and are under the impression they will be able to try for a vaginal birth, only to be told in the last weeks of pregnancy a bunch of "reasons" why it has to be a section - if they had access to the stats they wouldn't have to rely on what anyone SAYS, they could see the factual outcomes at their chosen hospital. How on earth is the right to greater clarity in decision making a bad thing?
Bx
I'm sure someone will have said this in a previous post, but if a woman had a choice to go to a birthing place which has a lower level of intervention they would.
would you go to a hospital which had a high level of infection, high death rates, poor outcomes for surgery or just poor standards of care if you know about it? I would think that people would opt to go for a centre with higher standards.
there is sooo much politics involved in this , but why would it be bad to see the standards of each hospital and how they perform, maybe with the numbers of how many vaginal by-passes are done in each hospital the out come should also be given. i.e. how well mother and baby have faired and how many post operation complications have happened.??
That's a great point katnap! In fact i know of several women in Perth (scotland) who chose not to have and Ob and went midwife only purely because the number of MRSA cases in newborns at the nearest obstetric cnetre was terrifying - WELL above the national average. My friend had to have an emergency section there due to her bubs turning partially-breech (bum, one foot and one hand presenting) during labour and she was VERY concerned. The centre have since pulled their socks up, because the NHS's openness means everyone is fully accountable.
Bx
We need to know so we can make informed choices. If you had 2 hospitals next door to eachother would your choice be swayed by having this information at hand?
What needs to happen is for these c/s rates to be categorized and not lumped into one.
There are several different circumstances that c/sect occur and nobody is saying that the mother is the one that should be shamed.
The ones that should be shamed are the medicos/hospitals that create a culture of pushing anxious parents to be into unnecessary interventions that ultimately end up with a distressed baby that needs to be born via c/sect.
How do you then make sure if you don't have these figures? Eenie meenie minie moe?:
make sure the OB / hospital you choose is the right one for you
I'll second Bec and reiterate that it's the HOSPITALS that are supposedly being 'shamed', not the people having them (no-one's ever going to suggest this on BB without being censored for being rude and unreasonable!). I didn't think it was that subtle a difference, yet posters are still confusing this.
Yes
41% (547 votes)
No
44% (591 votes)
Only in extreme cases
14% (191 votes)
Total votes
Total of 1329 votes
I guess I'm always going to be taken aback when someone says "I'm just going to trust my OB/I'll do whatever the doctors say"... When people have interventions, I'd much rather they not be ostriches about it and actually know what's happening to them. From other people's experiences in my immediate sphere, this really helps with healing and debriefing when interventions have to be made and lets mummies get on with creating more positive energy for their bubbas.