Printable View
I would be very interested in seeing different Dr's individual rates if I was going private and could choose who I saw.
If you don't have an OB (I don't have one, never have, never will ) then knowing the rate of the hospital you are going to can be a useful thing to know. It can also be a good idea to have a chat to a few of the midwives where you are thinking of booking in - many will be quite honest in telling you if they think too many unnecessary c/s are being performed.
She may as well name and shame women who have abortions too while she's at it. :rolleyes:
MP's with nothing better to do bore me.
There are so many factors like people say. Sigh, and we financially support these people in our government. Meh. :wall:
Are World Health Organisation Recommendations superfluous to our needs? Should they just save their breath as they attempt to advise us of best practise health policies? Maybe they have an evil secret agenda? Why on earth would they recommend a c/section rate of between 5 - 15% ??? Why I wonder?
YES!
Our local private hospital has a rate of above 80% - they bulldoze people into intervention and then decide to caesar them when it gets close to knock off time.
Prospective clients need to be made aware of this!:pray:
But I agree that the figures need to be carefully categorised - but of course no money-making venture like that will agree to releasing that information.
That is seriously messed up. That is the exact sort of thing that people need to know about!:
Basically on the grounds that this article is surface only. The comments made by MP Sandra Kank seems to be sensationalised for the mere purpose of getting attention and barely covers any really substance at all.
Why are these hospitals performing caesareans?
How many of these stats were elective?
What are the age & circumstances of all these women?
Why does she view the practice in such a negative manner?
Why are there more stats for private hospitals over public?
What other options were these women offered?
What were the risks if a caesarean was not performed?
Just a few questions not factored in to this shallow survey.
When you get to the bottom of her comments, she mentions the 'worst performing' hospitals.
What does this mean anyway? Very vague. Does she imply that caesarean procedures bring down the standard of a hospital?
I would be more interested in understanding the reasons behind an increase in caesareans and then taking a look at success rates (I mean healthy baby & mother), low death rates, reduced birth complications than wondering which hospital does more surgery and why they should have a black mark put across their name.
I dont think its is any of her business to start with. from what i understand of the situation is that an OB recomends it in thier professional opinion as being the safest option for mother and baby. Is she an OB? and is it going to stop peolpe from delivering in that hospital? I would have to say i would favor it for the reason that if it was going to look trickey at least they are not affriad to do one!
I'm sure Kelly would have the exact stats but I believe that the countries with the highest c/section rates (Australia and USA) have much higher infant/mother mortality rates than countries with lower c/section rates; Scandinavian countries for example. I wonder how that works then if c/sections are so "safe"?
I really can't believe that this is an issue that an MP is involved.
Seriously though, why should private hospitals release these details. Yes I get that you want to know to choose where you want to have your baby, but really. This is nobody's business from the private hospitals prespective. The rate will be higher in private hospitals anyway, everyones knows that. So why not then just choose to go to public hospital?
This is really small things amusing small minds. There are much worse things going on in the world than worrying about what the c/s rate of your local hospital is. I am so over people in Australia having a opinion on c/s. It is the mother's choice and she will make that choice by recommendation from her doctor.
So my vote is NO
Yup Aus is *just* higher than the USA, but the USA has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world. More isn't better, best care and best technology are completely different and far apart. I'm shocked so many people don't care for the statistics of where they are giving birth, but what is important to one isn't the other.
Kelly I don't think that you would have to question what is going on there. I think it would be pretty obvious that a majority of women going to that hospital are electing to have c/s's. Just because that hospital does have a high c/s rate doesn't mean that you couldn't go there and have a v/b. I think it would be a matter of having a good relationship with your ob, and having a plan as to how you were going to approach the birth. speaking from my own labour and birth (vb without epi) I couldn't have had a more positive experience, and I am sure that the private metro hospy that I went to would have a high rate of c/s's. Even if they had a 70% c/s rate I would go back there again.:
Many women are making a choice to have c/s's these days, and I don't think the beaurocracy (sp) of a hospital should have the choice in telling a woman that they are not allowed to have a c/s. therefore if we are going to be naming and 'shaming' hospitals for giving women what they want (whether you or I or anyone agrees with their decision or not) then we are also going to be 'shaming' the women for the decision that they have made. I am all for hospitals providing information on all of their practices from birthing through to medical operations, but I don't think that the hospital or the women involved should be shamed or feel shamed for making a choice.
This is the last time I am going to come in here and say this: Can we please all stay on the topic because this is NOT a vaginal v c/s birth debate. If anything is posted off topic or not relevant to the discussion then it will be removed.
I just checked out a chart on infant mortality rates... and yes, much safer to give birth in all of the Scandinavian countries who have low C/section rates, more in line with World Health Organisation recomendations.
If C/sections are the "safest" means of having a baby you'd think that the countries that have the most c/sections would have the best mortality rates... why is the opposite the case?
ETA: sorry Trillian... I hope I haven't been out of line in this thread. I'm just trying to work out if high c/section rates equate with safety... delete my post if I'm OT. I was just trying to compare country of birth to hospital of birth.... drawing a comparison. I'm not suggesting that all c/sections are unsafe.
I voted yes... simply to help aid those who wish to make informed choices. Hard to do if no-one gives the facts.
C-section rates should absolutely be available for all hospitals which have maternity services!!! Women have an absolute right to information which absolutely informs their chances of having an operative birth. Rates would be best broken down to elective and emergency c-sections, as well as c-section rate per induction.
How on earth are women supposed to make an informed decision about maternity services when this kind of information is not available? Private OBs in private hospitals are still seen as the "gold standard" of care. Perhaps if more women were aware of the greater likelihood of a c-section, regardless of an absence of pregnancy complications, they may be able to see more clearly what type of maternity care truly benefits them.
Another telling statistic would be c-section rate per obstetrician.
I agree that more important than the CS rate is the intervention rate. There are loads of unnecessary interventions which do lead to an emergency CS, but there are also loads of VBs with high intervention. A CS is an intervention.
I am concerned at the hospitals that choose to CS because the staff want to go play golf, or have dinner reservations and I would be wanting to see that stats on that, But I am more concerned about interventions than the actual CS rate. I think I will vote for the extreme circumstances, as I believe these will be the ones CSing for golf or dinner.
just to be clear I was not debating vaginal v c/section. I was simply stating that to me the c/s rates do not mean that the hospital is good or bad, therefore they shouldn't have to be published as part or a "name and shame" campaign which would or course shame the mother too. However all public hospitals should have to provide detailed information about their practices and procedures so that women can find a hospital that suits them best.
I voted "no" on the "shaming" aspect of the question. While there's no harm in information being available forums such as this one allow women to research and discuss hospitals and make informed decisions.
The hospital I gave birth at has a very high c-section rate, I knew that in advance and I spoke to my ob my about it because I was worried. He told me the figures are distorted because they include all the women who have chosen elective c-sections, of which there are a high number on the Gold Coast.
As it turned out, the number of emergency c-sections at my hospital was very low compared with other hospitals. My doctor never even suggested it to me, it never came up in conversation again after I asked about it on our first consultation.
Perhaps hospitals with high c-section rates are simply honouring a woman's right to choose the birth she wants, not forcing c-sections on unsuspecting women.