Hospital attempts to force woman to have a cesarean.

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 3/9/2013 by jalapenette in NSBR Board
1 2 3 >
 

jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 4:20:00 PM
So, saw this article just now:


A woman has consented to have a Cesarean section after Waterford Regional Hospital sought a High Court order to have the procedure carried out.
The hospital said the woman is 13 days overdue and if she gave birth naturally there would be a grave risk to both her and the baby.
At an emergency sitting this morning, lawyers for the hospital said the woman was refusing consent for the procedure.
However, the woman later consented to an emergency Caesarean section.
Judge John Hedigan said if it is not necessary, then it is appropriate that no court order is made.
The court had heard that if the woman delivers naturally, her uterus could rupture and there would be a grave risk to her and her baby.
In an affidavitt by a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, the court was told that the baby could die or have severe brain damage, and the mother would be at a serious risk of a haemhorrhage.
The woman at the centre of the case cannot be identified a. She is known as 'A'.
Lawyers for the hospital told the court that the woman previously delivered a baby boy in 2010 by Caesarean section.
The court heard that that baby was high and not engaged and an emergency section was carried out. The baby weighed 3.6kg.
Lawyers for the hospital said there is a similarity now.
The court heard there is a scar on the mother's uterus and if it ruptures there is a risk to mother and baby.
Another consultant obstetrician, who gave evidence by telephone, said the latest scan carried out this morning on the woman was not reassuring and he told the court he had advised her strongly that she needs a Caesarean now.
He said he would have done it already.
The court heard that the mother had said that she would like to deliver naturally.
She said that if there is an emergency over the weekend she would consent to a Caesarian.
But later the court was told that the woman is vacillating between having it carried out on Monday or tomorrow when her husband is due to return.
The court also heard that the mother is disputing the estimated date of delivery, insisting that her due date is 18 March.
The hospital says that she was due to deliver on 24 February and there is a possibility that she is further along than they estimate.
During this morning's sitting, Senior Counsel for the hospital Eileen Barrington had said that what was at issue was the woman's constitutional right to refuse treatment versus the right to life of the unborn and the judge had to balance these.


So basically, the only risk factor was that the woman was overdue, and that she had previously had a cesarean birth. She didn't want a c-section, and the hospital TOOK HER TO COURT to try to make her have one.

The woman basically says that if there was a concrete reason to have a c-section, she would, and she ended up having one in the end. Why oh why did the hospital feel it was ok to try make this choice for her?

Thoughts?


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



moveablefeast
do justice, love mercy

PeaNut 265,707
June 2006
Posts: 12,559
Layouts: 0
Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:33:03 PM
I don't think the only risk factor was being "overdue". Th article indicated that the baby is high and not engaged, which makes an induction less favorable and more likely to result in complications, and that the mom has a previous cesarean, which also makes induction or augmentation less favorable. Induced VBAC has more risks than spontaneous VBAC.

The article does not indicate whether there were other factors involved in the recommendation to undergo cesarean, such as indicators of stress in mother or baby, blood pressure, how th doctors felt the baby was faring, and so on.

I would rather an unnecessary cesarean and a healthy baby than missing a necessary cesarean any day of the week. If mom and baby were at risk, maybe the hospital forcing the issue was appropriate. Believe it or not, medical professionals want to see people have positive outcomes, too - they are not just out to make a buck.

gryroagain
PeaAddict

PeaNut 463,630
April 2010
Posts: 1,762
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:34:21 PM


No. Just...no. You can't force someone to have major surgery, you can't! Even if they are stupid, and wrong, (it doesn't sound like this is the case, either) you just can't. Can you?

That's really scary if so.

gryroagain
PeaAddict

PeaNut 463,630
April 2010
Posts: 1,762
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:35:09 PM
But moveable, you would rather...but would she? Isn't it her body and child?

*HuskerFaninIL*
Mommy of TWO LMM-O-Peas

PeaNut 51,325
October 2002
Posts: 14,729
Layouts: 310
Loc: Husker fan in the Illini State

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:36:43 PM
Many, many doctors/hospitals won't do a VBAC. She's lucky she had a choice at all, as soon as I hit 30 weeks my 2nd section was scheduled for 39 weeks. There's no way in hell my Dr. Would have let me carry til 42 weeks.

While a c-section is no walk in the park I'd do everything to keep myself and my baby alive and healthy.


Michelle
Wife to Eric and Momma to Lindsay Marie and Lydia Mae and a Husker fan through and through



My Blog:Adventures of Linds and Lyds

biochemipea
likes shiny things

PeaNut 114,614
November 2003
Posts: 22,668
Layouts: 499
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:38:27 PM
That is so crazy wrong.

My babies were always "high and not engaged" until I was well into labour. Not everyone carries babies the same or is built the same.







See things that shine on Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.


Maryland
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 87,597
May 2003
Posts: 11,075
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:39:55 PM
They should not be able to force a woman to have a ceasaren. It is her choice as to how to have her baby.

sweetandsour
PeaAddict

PeaNut 134,862
March 2004
Posts: 1,560
Layouts: 4
Loc: north of 49

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:46:28 PM

My babies were always "high and not engaged" until I was well into labour. Not everyone carries babies the same or is built the same.

Me too. The on-call OB told me that I should go straight to c-section (I had one 18 months previously) because I was high and not engaged. I declined for a trial of labour for a VBAC and she said she would check on me after she finished a scheduled c-sec.

She came back, as promised, after her surgery and I was holding my 10 lb baby girl in my arms already


Tee
mum to 2 hockey crazy kids

dottyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 2,051
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:49:45 PM
I think the report has focused on the wrong reason IMO by saying the baby is high and not engaged as well as being overdue. Yes those reasons might be a factor but I think they've overlooked the higher risk of what they say here


The court heard there is a scar on the mother's uterus and if it ruptures there is a risk to mother and baby.


Was this reported in the media? if so the story is far more exciting to focus on the woman's choice rather than the " real" risk don't you think?

She was obviously prepared to put her and her baby at risk against not one, but two medical specialists. I think I'd listen to the experts!



moveablefeast
do justice, love mercy

PeaNut 265,707
June 2006
Posts: 12,559
Layouts: 0
Loc: Northern Virginia

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:50:14 PM

But moveable, you would rather...but would she? Isn't it her body and child?



Yes, and you are right that this is not really consistent with my opinions on other matters of reproduction.

But she went to the hospital for an ultrasound - which was "not reassuring" - and then basically refused to accept medical advice that could well have been necessary for her own life and that of the baby.

I guess the reason I feel differently about this than about the surrogacy case we discussed recently is because the surrogate was deciding whether to take action to directly end the life of an unborn baby, a choice she alone was responsible for; and this mom was deciding whether to take action to potentially save the life of an unborn baby frm a complication that may or may not have arisen - and she was choosing to risk it, and the hospital, now responsible in part for the outcome, felt it necessary to intervene.

Roe v. Wade is written in such a way that t each stage of pregnancy, it recognizes the state's interest in protecting life as increasing as the viability of that life progresses. That is why late term abortion is so strictly regulated. As a result, even the blanket statement of "her body, her choice" would not necessarily apply under Roe v. Wade, and one could make a legal argument for compelling a pregnant woman to undergo a cesarean to save the life of her baby, because st that point in pregnancy the Supreme Court has already expressed that the state's interest in protecting life outweighs the woman's right to make private medical decisions with her doctor without the interference or restriction of the state.


My babies were always "high and not engaged" until I was well into labour


Were you induced or did you go into labor spontaneously? Where the baby is located in the pelvis and the state of the cervix are precisely the factors that doctors use to decide whether an induction is likely to succeed. It's a simple numerical formula. Below a certain score, the likelihood of a failed induction nears 100%, and above a certain score, the likelihood of a successful induction with no further intervention is very high.

Had you had a prior cesarean? Do we know whether her incision was horizontal or vertical? Because those are factors in whether a VBAC is even advisable - the uterus really can rupture along the scar line, it does happen and it is usually tragic. These are factors that would determine whether her uterus could withstand the stress of an induced labor.

And did you have a doctor telling you that their professional observation of your baby's well-being was "not reassuring"?

These are all matters that would make it difficult to compare anyone's labor to the one described in the article. It is quite likely you were starting from a very different place than this mom, and that it was perfectly fine to start labor high and unengaged.

jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 4:56:52 PM
The woman was trying to avoid an unnecessary c-section. Without any more risk factors present than the ones listed in the article, I don't think it was unreasonable for her to attempt a VBAC.

And man, I can imagine being dragged through court at 42 weeks pregnant. Not to mention that the hospital was trying to take away this woman's right to choose her medical care.

I mean, we already do enough unnecessary c-sections in this country, and c-sections are not without risk. The mother weighed her choices and felt that the best choice for her was to wait longer. In the end, she had a cesarean which shows that when it came down to it, she was willing to do what was necessary for her baby.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



MontanaCowgirl
TaWanDa Riot!

PeaNut 298,090
February 2007
Posts: 7,542
Layouts: 53
Loc: Big Sky Country

Posted: 3/9/2013 4:57:03 PM

She was obviously prepared to put her and her baby at risk against not one, but two medical specialists. I think I'd listen to the experts!


I agree, if she's not prepared to listen to those experts that she choose of her own accord then why not just leave and have a home birth with midwife. It's so irritating to me when someone hires a doctor or specialist and then doesn't listen to the advice. The first and foremost object of the pregnancy is to deliver a healthy baby.


Stephi

"people generally see what they look for,
and hear what they listen for.

-To Kill a Mockingbird-




jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 5:00:07 PM
The article did not mention inducing labor... I would guess that since she said she wished to have the baby naturally, she was waiting to go into labor on her own. Which is why she was still pregnant at 42 weeks.

Just a guess, though.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



biochemipea
likes shiny things

PeaNut 114,614
November 2003
Posts: 22,668
Layouts: 499
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:03:46 PM

I agree, if she's not prepared to listen to those experts that she choose of her own accord then why not just leave and have a home birth with midwife.
This makes it sound like you think homebirth/midwife-attended births are for moms who don't care about medical advice. I hope you didn't mean it that way.







See things that shine on Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.


TinCin
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 29,331
February 2002
Posts: 6,720
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in the palm of the hand.

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:05:24 PM
I can understand why the hospital took her to court, a full press CYA there. However she has the right to refuse surgery, as stupid as I feel that decision is, she has the right to make it. It's a tough call but in the end, it is still her body and her right.


PROUD MEMBER OF UAW LOCAL 659 - Home of the Sit-Down Strike!

dottyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 2,051
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:06:51 PM

Not to mention that the hospital was trying to take away this woman's right to choose her medical care.



Would she also have relinquished her rights to sue the hospital for malpractice if something had happened to her or her baby?



KikiNichole

PeaNut 69,597
February 2003
Posts: 27,801
Layouts: 2
Loc: Follow the Yellow Brick Road

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:08:15 PM
I'll keep my opinion to myself...because it's a convoluted one...but I just wanted to add that I have a 14 year old nephew who was born vaginally when a C-Section should have been performed. He has had multiple surgeries and will have a life time of learning disabilities and health issues because of it.

In his case, the doctor missed the mark and it's been a hard lot to accept. I can't imagine how his mother would deal with it if it had been *her* call.


~Kristen~

biochemipea
likes shiny things

PeaNut 114,614
November 2003
Posts: 22,668
Layouts: 499
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:08:56 PM

Would she also have relinquished her rights to sue the hospital for malpractice if something had happened to her or her baby?
I don't think the fear of malpractice suits should mean that we are subject to obeying the decision of a hospital or team of doctors. Doctors give medical ADVICE. Not medical rules or ultimatums.







See things that shine on Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.


MontanaCowgirl
TaWanDa Riot!

PeaNut 298,090
February 2007
Posts: 7,542
Layouts: 53
Loc: Big Sky Country

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:11:11 PM

This makes it sound like you think homebirth/midwife-attended births are for moms who don't care about medical advice. I hope you didn't mean it that way.


absolutely not Ashely, but why is she there if she doesn't even care to listen to the best medical advice they have, she obviously thinks she knows more than they and doesn't want the c-section.

At the very least I hope she has to sign some sort of a waiver that doesn't hold the hospital or surgical team at fault; if things don't go well for her or the baby.


Stephi

"people generally see what they look for,
and hear what they listen for.

-To Kill a Mockingbird-




biochemipea
likes shiny things

PeaNut 114,614
November 2003
Posts: 22,668
Layouts: 499
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:15:24 PM
OK, good!
Have you ever seen a doctor and not followed their advice?

I have. During pregnancy, even.







See things that shine on Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.


biochemipea
likes shiny things

PeaNut 114,614
November 2003
Posts: 22,668
Layouts: 499
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:18:18 PM

It seems if government controls health care delivery and payments, they may also be inclined to make decisions that are in their best interest financially.
I'm not speaking for other national health care systems, but I promise that this is never, ever even a consideration here in Canada. The only time I ever hear this topic come up is when Americans start getting worried about the evils of a national health care system.







See things that shine on Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.


MontanaCowgirl
TaWanDa Riot!

PeaNut 298,090
February 2007
Posts: 7,542
Layouts: 53
Loc: Big Sky Country

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:18:23 PM

Have you ever seen a doctor and not followed their advice?


for something minor yes.

Would I if my own or my babies life were in danger AND I had 3 specialists and my own personal doctor telling me the same thing?

Hell to the F no, no freaking way.


Stephi

"people generally see what they look for,
and hear what they listen for.

-To Kill a Mockingbird-




biochemipea
likes shiny things

PeaNut 114,614
November 2003
Posts: 22,668
Layouts: 499
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:19:32 PM
I bet she'd say the same thing. She probably doesn't believe her life is in danger.







See things that shine on Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.


jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 5:20:37 PM
The problem to me is that currently doctors over-prescribe c-sections.

Now, in this particular case maybe the doctors were right and a c-section was warranted, but without knowing all of the details of everything you can't really know.

I personally think the woman wanted to go into labor on her own, which does not have the same risks as being induced, especially in her situation.

In any case, because c-sections are sometimes prescribed unnecessarily, it makes it even more important that the mother is the one who has the right to choose whether or not she has a c-section.

The c-section rate in the US is somewhere around 33%, and it should only be at 10% at the highest, according to medical research. Unnecessary c-sections have adverse affects on both mother and baby.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



dottyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 2,051
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:22:08 PM


Would she also have relinquished her rights to sue the hospital for malpractice if something had happened to her or her baby?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the fear of malpractice suits should mean that we are subject to obeying the decision of a hospital or team of doctors. Doctors give medical ADVICE. Not medical rules or ultimatums.




I didn't suggest that there was a fear of malpractice suits.

But if her right is " her body her choice" as mentioned in the post I was replying to, was she also going to take the resposibility of the risk that she was taking and relinguishing her right to sue having already been given the ADVICE to have a caesarean.

Whilst I agree that it is her body and her right but she also can't subsequently blame anyone else if things go wrong.



jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 5:23:50 PM
I didn't catch the the hospital was in Ireland- I was assuming it was in the USA.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 5:25:10 PM

Whilst I agree that it is her body and her right but she also can't subsequently blame anyone else if things go wrong.



Yeah, that's probably true. Assuming that the doctors still do their best to treat her with her decision, I would think that she shouldn't be able to sue them for the choice she made.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



biochemipea
likes shiny things

PeaNut 114,614
November 2003
Posts: 22,668
Layouts: 499
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:26:43 PM

Whilst I agree that it is her body and her right but she also can't subsequently blame anyone else if things go wrong.

I agree.






See things that shine on Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.


MontanaCowgirl
TaWanDa Riot!

PeaNut 298,090
February 2007
Posts: 7,542
Layouts: 53
Loc: Big Sky Country

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:30:05 PM

I bet she'd say the same thing. She probably doesn't believe her life is in danger.


there's a huge difference, her doctors are SAYING her life is in danger as is her babies.
If they told me that, then of course I would heed their advice.

It is not the same thing as me choosing to ignore a doctor's advice for something minor. When they say your LIFE is in danger....that would be your sign.


Stephi

"people generally see what they look for,
and hear what they listen for.

-To Kill a Mockingbird-




dottyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 2,051
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:41:49 PM

It seems if government controls health care delivery and payments, they may also be inclined to make decisions that are in their best interest financially.


The government does not directly control delivery or payments.

Each health authority,in England,Wales & Northern Ireland is each given a pot of money to deliver & pay for the care that those local health authority sees fit to cover the needs of their patients. It's the various Hospital Authority Trusts that are responsible for delivering the care and their own finance, not the main Westminster Government.

I doubt very much that this has anything to do with the cost. A caesarean operation would cost MORE than a natural birth which, in normal risk free deliveries, is covered by a fully trained midwife/s.

I can't speak for Southern Ireland though but I would guess it would be similar.



dottyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 2,051
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK

Posted: 3/9/2013 5:54:14 PM

The c-section rate in the US is somewhere around 33%,


It's 25% in the UK ( at the end of 2011, latest figures) and 28% in Ireland.



angievp
Ideay pues?

PeaNut 143,106
April 2004
Posts: 7,420
Layouts: 36
Loc: Miami

Posted: 3/9/2013 7:43:01 PM

It seems if government controls health care delivery and payments, they may also be inclined to make decisions that are in their best interest financially.


And you don't think this happens now? Medicare anyone?

Compwalla
Pastafarian Pea

PeaNut 11,942
March 2001
Posts: 20,489
Layouts: 39
Loc: Midland, TX

Posted: 3/9/2013 7:53:12 PM
The rate of c-section depends more on what hospital you go to than on what the actual risk may be. Some hospitals refuse to allow any VBAC attempts no matter how safe the evidence says they are. It is hard to make a truly informed decision when you know that the advice you're getting isn't evidence-based but based on habit and anecdote and "policy" and other baloney.


Virginia

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. --Susan B. Anthony

Blog link - Dryer Lint
Aprons and More

melanell
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 26,836
January 2002
Posts: 19,090
Layouts: 86

Posted: 3/9/2013 8:06:37 PM

Have you ever seen a doctor and not followed their advice?

I have. During pregnancy, even.


I have. To both of these things. In fact I left a hospital against medical advice.


And there is an extremely long story to back up my choice, that I am certainly not about to go into here.

I made the right choice. I have no doubt.

Whether or not she was making the right choice, I have no clue.

But, generally speaking, I feel people should be allowed to make their own medical choices.

If she wanted a vbac, and this doctor was not willing to go that route, did she try to find another who would? Because while I support her right to choose her medical care, I also support the doctor's right to say "Listen, I believe what you are doing is dangerous, and I am choosing to no longer see you as a patient.".

I don't know the answer to that question or to a long list of others, so I really can't voice an opinion on this particular situation, but in general, I wouldn't want courts stepping in to force people to have medical procedures against their will. But I also do not want hospitals held liable for people who choose to go against medical advice. (Including when I did it. )


Mind you, I have had 2 c-sections, so it's not like I have some vendetta against them or anything. My specialist actually did offer me a VBAC option with my 2nd one, despite the fact that my regular OBGYNs all were on;y discussing a 2nd c-section. So again, I was given options.


The first time I was given the option of trying for a vaginal delivery even though we weren't sure it would work. And we all tried for a freaking long time. And finally at 9 am on Tuesday (I arrived there at 10pm on Sun.) they said that they thought we had done all we could do and it was time to talk about a c-section. He was born via c-section at 10:10. So I didn't need anyone to force my hand.

I got to try. They got to try. And we all moved on to plan B together.

I chose those doctors and that hospital because I trusted them. I chose them again for baby #2.

I'm going to guess that there isn't much trust happening in the the situation being presented here.



jodster70
To the right, To the right

PeaNut 51,257
October 2002
Posts: 6,307
Layouts: 28
Loc: Usually NSBR, an un"pea"dictable place :)

Posted: 3/9/2013 8:12:19 PM
I know of a healthy baby who died because of an attempted VBAC.

I don't blame the hospital at all.


**Jody**

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

SabrinaM
Proud Member of THE MOB

PeaNut 5,735
August 2000
Posts: 25,256
Layouts: 2

Posted: 3/9/2013 8:14:19 PM

I'll keep my opinion to myself...because it's a convoluted one...but I just wanted to add that I have a 14 year old nephew who was born vaginally when a C-Section should have been performed. He has had multiple surgeries and will have a life time of learning disabilities and health issues because of it.

In his case, the doctor missed the mark and it's been a hard lot to accept. I can't imagine how his mother would deal with it if it had been *her* call.


I chose OBs that were the best in the field because I planned to take their advice (not blindly, though. I stayed informed on what was going on etc and would question him/her if the need arose.) That being said, if my OB said that my baby was in distress as indicated by an ultrasound and/or fetal monitor-- which they probably had her hooked up to as well-- you bet your bippy my butt would be getting a c-section. "Stat!"

My Mom was a L&D RN for many, many years in one of the best hospitals in the state. She currently works in Triage doing scans/ultrasounds. That being said, I chose to have a c-section with my 2nd child because my 1st was a "failure to progress" c-section and I refused to have a VBAC.

Not that long ago my Mom had a family that fought tooth and nail against a c-section despite having a baby in fetal distress because they wanted a "natural birth." Instead they went to another hospital or birthing center (can't remember which). In the end, they went home without a child. Buried it 2 days later.


***********
Sabrina

Recession: When your neighbor loses his job
Depression: When you lose yours
Recovery: When Obama loses his







I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 3/9/2013 8:21:45 PM

A CS to potentially save the baby may seem like a good idea, but what about a forced abortion of a seriously deformed child? Is there a big difference in principle if the medical procedure is said to be the best option for all concerned despite the mother's objections?


The difference, IMHO, is one is being a recommended by the physician for safety reason (life of mother or child) and the other is being recommended for a quality of life issue. The first makes sense for obvious reasons, the second should be left to the mother/parents to decide what they can handle. So yes, there's a big difference, in my opinion.

As to the topic at hand... the first thing I noticed was the hospital was in Waterford ( home of my favorite crystal) so I figured it was Ireland, and wondered whether National Health came into play.

I'm not sure why doctors bother going to medical school if their educated opinions are disregarded by an unqualified patient who doesn't 'think' the doctor is right. That attitude blows me away. Would you ask for the pilot on your plane to change course because you don't 'think' he's going the right way? Would you challenge the conductor of the Boston Philharmonic because you didn't 'think' he was doing his job correctly? Would you argue with your attorney because you didn't 'think' his knowledge of the law was right?

You might ask whether the pilot was really going the right way, or ask your lawyer to explain the law to you, or question your doctor about safe alternatives to a c-section....but if you insist you're right, and they're wrong, to the point they feel it's necessary to ask the courts to intervene....maybe you're pushing the bounds of good sense a little to far. Running to the courts is not any hospital, or doctor's first line of defense. They must have really thought this situation was getting desperate, and the patient too intransigent, to have gone to this extreme.

ScrapWench*
Seems a pity to miss such a good pudding.

PeaNut 247,139
February 2006
Posts: 18,899
Layouts: 0
Loc: Spokane, WA

Posted: 3/9/2013 8:42:51 PM
I know a woman who had had a c-section and wanted to try for a vbac. After hours of labor, her dr and her hd begged her to have a c-section after baby had many decels and labor was not progressing. She didn't want to, was determined to have it naturally and her previous section scar burst open and the baby suffocated before they could get her out. Fast forward 3 years and she was pregnant again and wanted to try for a vbac and NOBODY would take her as a patient unless she agreed to a scheduled c-section. When baby #3 was born they said her scar was incredibly thin and they were shocked that she and the baby survived this pg.

She sued the dr and the hospital and won 800k in a lawsuit. I know several L&D nurses, many who worked the floor the night her baby died and they were *pissed* that she sued for something that was adamant about doing when her dr and others involved in her case begged her *begged her* to have a cs.

I think if the hospital and providers feel they need to protect themselves, I totally understand.


----Theresa

doesitmatter?
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 509,811
May 2011
Posts: 6,639
Layouts: 27

Posted: 3/9/2013 9:06:29 PM
I think huge doctor and hospital were worried about her and the baby- if something happened to either the baby or the mom, they would have sued. Won't let her deliver vaginally? Gonna get sued. Sounds like he doctors and hospital are screwed either way. Forcing her? Not good either, but endangering her or the baby us worse imho. I don't know the answer here. I do know if something went wrong the family would be all over the doctor for not doing a c-section though ...

And fwiw I don't consider a c-section a big deal, it's a standard procedure and low risk.

(but


Child of God, follower of Jesus, and so thankful for His presence in my life <><
Uploaded with iPhone client

jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 9:27:22 PM
Unfortunately, the birth culture in America is still following practices that have been proven scientifically to be detrimental to the well-being of mothers and babies.

Right now we are in the middle of a culture change surrounding birth practices, and at the head of the change are the expectant mothers, who are realizing the problems in the system and demanding better care.

Because c-sections are over prescribed, it is a good idea for a pregnant mother who is advised to have a c-section to evaluate whether there is a real reason to have one. It puts women in a difficult position, because whether or not their doctor is "right" is not an easily answered question.

I have talked to women whose doctors have recommended c-sections because they were short. No other reason. Doctor said they were short, and therefore "too small" to deliver vaginally. They didn't have a malformed pelvis. Some doctors recommend c-sections based on the "baby being too big", which is impossible to predict accurately and not likely a good reason to have a c-section anyway.

So yes, in many cases doctors are wrong in regards to whether or not a c-section is needed.

However, there ARE cases where a woman needs a c-section and often when that happens it is an emergency and there is no time to "question authority". I guess that's why it is important to find a doctor that you trust to make the right decision, so if whether or not you need a c-section comes up, you do not feel the need to research the decision on your own. The L&D room is obviously not the time to decide whether or not you trust your doctor.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



biochemipea
likes shiny things

PeaNut 114,614
November 2003
Posts: 22,668
Layouts: 499
Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted: 3/9/2013 9:30:27 PM

I don't consider a c-section a big deal
C-sections ARE a huge deal! It is a major surgery. It also carries significantly higher risk to both mother and baby than a vaginal birth under normal circumstances does. Yes, c-sections are sometimes necessary, but they are greatly overused.







See things that shine on Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube.


blinks14
PeaAddict

PeaNut 41,620
June 2002
Posts: 1,419
Layouts: 133
Loc: Reading, PA

Posted: 3/9/2013 9:30:29 PM
I work in a NICU. And while I understand the desire to deliver naturally the risks to deliver a post-term baby naturally can be immense. I think that the woman is being selfish and putting her desire to deliver naturally ahead of her baby's safety. I've seen it before. In fact I see it all the time while caring for these little ones.


Uploaded with iPhone client

jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 9:57:41 PM
I don't think this baby was post-term, though.

First of all, she was 13 days overdue, which is still in the "normal" range, although almost out of it, it's true...

except that she believed her due date was off and she was actually only 38 weeks along, so two weeks early. The fact that the baby was only 6 lb some ounces supports this.

ETA: Whoops, it appears I misread the article. The baby whose weight is mentioned is not the same baby that the mother went to court over. The article does not mention the weight of the baby who is being discussed.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



jalapenette
PeaAddict

PeaNut 415,025
March 2009
Posts: 1,353
Layouts: 176
Loc: Southwest USA


Count: 1
Posted: 3/9/2013 10:01:06 PM

I think that the woman is being selfish and putting her desire to deliver naturally ahead of her baby's safety.


Also, the desire to deliver naturally stems from the desire to do the best thing for the baby. C-sections, as Ashley mentioned, pose significantly higher risk to mother AND baby. Most women who desire a natural birth desire it because they are trying to do the best thing for their baby.


-Rachelle


*Mommy to Adam, born October 2010, and Tommy, July 2012*



redboots
BucketHead

PeaNut 399,301
November 2008
Posts: 915
Layouts: 0

Posted: 3/9/2013 10:01:28 PM
The most important goal of any labor and delivery should to to have a healthy mother and child at the end.

I do find the assumption that doctors are always completely right and mothers are always completely wrong strange. Does an OB, with years of extensive training and experience, know more than I do about L&D? Absofreakinglutely. That does not necessarily mean that the recommendations that same OB makes are always based on fact and science and not on convenience and liability avoidance.

I also find it interesting that there is such judgment of this woman and others we feel have put their children in harm's way by avoiding c-sections when many of us champion procedures that essentially force nature and create and sustain life for children who will ultimately be born with devastating illnesses and birth defects. Why does the well-being of a child not come before someone's desire to have a child at all costs? I am thinking of the responses on the surrogacy thread and other similar issues and am not referring to any specific pea. I just find this contradiction interesting.

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,385
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 3/9/2013 10:55:38 PM

That does not necessarily mean that the recommendations that same OB makes are always based on fact and science and not on convenience and liability avoidance.


No, of course not, but if the doctor is standing in front of you, telling you he believes a CS to be vital for the health and well being of your baby...and, if you continue to refuse, they are going to take you to court to force a decision....I think I'd believe he had my best interests in mind, and not just doing this because he had a golf game scheduled.


Mary Mary
NOT IN UTAH

PeaNut 140,474
April 2004
Posts: 35,044
Layouts: 13
Loc: Pemberley

Posted: 3/9/2013 11:21:47 PM
i think each one of my mother's babies were 3 to 4 weeks overdue. Women used to go that far overdue all the time, and it wasn't a big of a deal. What happened to make doctors freak out about it so much these days?

Anyway, I think this article is very upsetting. Women should be allowed to decide how they deliver.


Mary

IScrapCrap
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 570,639
October 2012
Posts: 2,808
Layouts: 0
Loc: pea formerly known as GIPfunny

Posted: 3/9/2013 11:53:11 PM

Unfortunately, the birth culture in America is still following practices that have been proven scientifically to be detrimental to the well-being of mothers and babies.


And America is a litigious culture. I have no doubt doctors make their decisions based on the choices of the hospital and how their careers will be affected because of the fear of being sued.

I do not blame the doctors at all for taking these precautions. ScrapWench's post says it all.

IleneTell
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 434,842
August 2009
Posts: 2,838
Layouts: 654

Posted: 3/9/2013 11:59:04 PM

I do not blame the doctors at all for taking these precautions. ScrapWench's post says it all.


I agree. I think if the woman felt so strongly that she was perfectly healthy and could have a perfectly healthy, natural delivery, then she was free to hire a midwife and deliver at a birth center or at home.

If she wants to go to a hospital to have access to doctors and more technology, then she is signing up for following those doctors' advice.



dottyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 2,051
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK

Posted: 3/10/2013 5:49:56 AM

I doubt very much that this has anything to do with the cost. A caesarean operation would cost MORE than a natural birth which, in normal risk free deliveries, is covered by a fully trained midwife/s.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

no, I'm well aware that CS costs much more than a natural birth. I'm looking at the long term costs, if indeed they truly believed that a) the child could be harmed and end up with life-long handicaps due to birth trauma and b ) the woman could have her scar from the previous CS rupture her uterus and require repair, etc.



I can confidently say that what you have suggested regarding long term care would have no bearing whatsoever on the medical advice given to this woman.

For a hospital to go to court in this country to obtain a decision in medical cases would be the last course of action. I would imagine that it would be the same in Ireland( their laws and medical practices are very similar except on abortions).

There had to be something more than what has been reported on the scan for them to take such drastic action as to override her rights.A pre-planned CS is far more acceptable than waiting until labour has started and then be faced with an emergecy CS.

In fact, natural varginal births are encouraged over here and CS is offered only as an alternative on medical grounds with good reason behind the decision.I'd be interested to know why she had to have a CS for the previous birth!


Nightowl - I'm not sure if you fully understand how the National Health System actually works when you make suggestions as per the above. Our Dr's and hospitals are not controlled by the government as to how and on what they spend their money or on the ethical and medical decisions thay make as to the care of their patients.
Is the system perfect, no nothing ever is but the only decisions the government do apart from the allocation of the allowable finance to each Trust based on the number of people they serve, is more administrative..
ie. Patients must be seen by a specialist within two weeks if their primary care Dr suspects cancer for instance.

I don't know how medicare works so I can't compare.


1 2 3 >
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}