beebs wrote (see)
skotty a lot of women are also intelligent, wel informed and make decisions based in fact.
I agree with Beebs that a c section is not a 'simple op', it is major abdominal surgery and should not be undertaken lightly. Even when things go well, it leads to more time in hospital and a longer recovery time in general.
Caz, I also agree with your point about weighting the potential risks and benefits. These should be presented in a way that is easy to understand, with some indication of prevalence and significance of each.
AllNew wrote (see)
Skotty - are you really saying that the majority of women who choose to have kids are not very bright? You got any other ill-informed sweeping statements you want to throw into the debate?
no. i am saying that in general more intelligent women have fewer children than less intelligent women.
so when it comes to the number of births involved the balance is tilted towards the lower end of the spectrum.
Not sure where I stand on this.
I wonder if the cost implications of this will come to bite the NHS. At this stage it's hard to judge whether it'll just be a handful of particularly phobic women electing to have this, or whether it'll literally open the flood gates to a huge number of people who don't want to be in agony for a day.
I do think we need to distinguish between "wants" and clinical "needs".
I bet if people could elect to have a GA for dental fillings or tooth extractions, many people would opt to have it regardless of clinical need and the risks involved in GAs, in order to avoid facing fears. But should that mean the NHS should pay?
Looking at midwifery capacity locally, I know our LHB has got a real problem and it's the same midwifery recruitment crisis across the board. I doubt they have enough time to be able to meaningfully address fears etc with mum's to be. They're literally flying from one woman to the next with huge case loads. If we were to build capacity in midwifery (which we can't due to national efficiency savings) we would have more midwives, smaller caseloads, more time spent with each mum to be, better ability to really work with someone's fears, support them etc...
It's ironic. The whole rest of the health service is trying to refocus away from acute hospital interventions towards capacity building in community-based outpatient services, but here it's going exactly the other way?
There is a place for C-Sections based on medical need but as a general choice.
A standard birth is painful but once done generally you are up and about fairly quickly.
C-Sections is indeed 6 weeks not doing much and not lifting and that isn't easy when you have just had a child especially as somebody said if you have older ones.
My wife was absolutely dead-set against having one and when it was discussed during a difficult birth she pretty much refused. Had it naturally in the end, quite a few stitches but was OK fairly quickly. Actually the worst ongoing pain was due to the epidural, she was tryng to avoid that as well but is came dfown to that to avoid the C-section. They kept the needle in place with sticking plaster which she is allergic to and it took half the skin off her back. yep I should have remembered but it was getting fraught and no way was she having a C-Section.
My wife is intelligent though and can process the facts. I think part of the issue is celebrities chosing C-Sections to fit with with their lives. Well that is fine because they hire a nanny so they can do nothing for six weeks without a problem. Not so easy for a standard mum.
I think an elective c-section is just going further down a road that many women have already travelled by having cosmetic surgery.
Not so many years ago most people outside of Hollywood would have thought it bizarre that you would actually choose to have somone cut open your face, chisel your nose, suck fat out of your gut with a surgical vacuum cleaner or pump yourself full of silicone or botox but times have changed, although I still think that.
C-sections should only be performed for genuine medical reasons - unless the parents are prepared to pay, in which case it's up to them.
If those who have no clinical need, but feel it's necessary to have a c-section, fancy stumping up the £1000 difference between a V-birth and a C-section privately, they're welcome to it. I have no problem with that.
I just can't see why, when cash in the NHS is tighter than ever, we're prioritising £5,000,000 of funding towards something deemed not to reflect clinical need?
if men gave birth there'd be no whining about the pain or looking for the "easy" option.
Would someone really, really tell the media "I decided to have major surgery because I can't be bothered with the whole birth thing." No, they don't. We just assume every time we hear about a celeb having a c-section that they're 'too posh too push'.
exactly the point.
they wouldn't tell the media that but the basis of your argument is that she never told the media that!
the whole celebs thing comes down to the fact that they mostly seem to have c-sections, a far higher percentage than in the public at large.
which is fair enough I suppose when they're paying for it.
AN: I would actually think that it's more to do with the policy of private hospitals. I imagine they want to run things according to strict timetables in those places.
Imagine having a very expensive medical team waiting around for hours for a natural birth - the cost would be astronomical. And then celebrity X's birth might "overrun into celebrity "Y's birth who has the same team and whole complicated schedules have been organised around both celebrity lives....
You can see why it would all be a bit "conveyor belt".
Posh popped out her first at the Portland... Consultant led price list for a elective c-section is just over 8k and you'll be shunted out after 24 hours (or pay an extra grand and a half for each extra day, subject to quality of accommodation...)
But you get 10% off with their loyalty card when you pop out your subsequent sprogs there...
XFR Bear wrote (see)
Does the figure of an extra £1000 include things like increased length of stay etc? It seems rather low to me.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2014 |