C -Sections

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Stoic Phoenix, Mar 13, 2017.

  1. Stoic Phoenix

    Stoic Phoenix Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Especially for Milled to digest (hopefully logically with an unbiased mindset for a pleasant change) away from the thread that he hijacked.

    Australia has one of the highest rates of caesarean births in the world, and some are concerned that mothers are being coerced.

    The World Health Organisation recommends caesarean sections should only be performed when medically necessary. It has stated "there is no justification for any region to have higher caesarean rates than 10-15%".

    Out of 137 countries that report their rates, Australia's is one of the highest, with 32 per cent of all births delivered through a caesarean section. In comparison, New Zealand's rate is 20 per cent, the UK's is 22 per cent, France's is 18 per cent and Norway's is 16 per cent.

    Australia's C-section rate has nearly doubled since 1991, where it was 18 per cent.

    Hannah Dahlen from the Australian College of Midwives says the rate rise is unwarranted.

    "There's no doubt women are feeling bullied and coerced into caesareans. It can be very, very subtle, and it's about not giving them the full information, and moving them towards a direction you want to take," she said,

    "You can find a medical reason for anything," said Dahlen. "Whether or not it's a good medical reason is the question, and a lot of pseudo reasons are being used to argue women into C-sections."

    Private hospitals have a higher caesarean section rate than public hospitals. In 2011 43 per cent of women in private hospitals have birth by caesarean section compared with 30 per cent in public hospitals.
     
  2. raven

    raven Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Victoria
    Why ?
    Is it altering the natural evolution of the species ?
     
  3. Currawong

    Currawong Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2015
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Melbourne
    It actually is according to a thing I read somewhere Raven.
    C-Section is artificially selecting for women with narrow hips. What this means is that because women who previously may have died in childbirth or had an extremely painful birth (and thus decided to only have one kid) are now having C-Sections it's increasing the amount of girls being born with narrow hips and boys who may carry the gene for narrow hips and then pass it on to their offspring.

    Wish I knew where I read it but it was only recently.
     
  4. Gullintanni

    Gullintanni Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    358
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    New Zealand
    We were offered a c-section for the twins but the missus at the time pushed on through without it and everything was fine.
    Child birth is always going to be painful and the "excuses" i have heard for c-section range from i want them born on such and such day to i was told i have narrow hips and everything in between.
    C-sections are dangerous and should only be used in case of medical emergency , unless your insurance company is going to pay for it.
    I look at it as a waste of taxpayer money here in NZ when the operating theater could be used for REAL medical events.
     
  5. raven

    raven Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,452
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Victoria
    We were spruiked on having a c section for our first born, and elected to have a normal birth !
    My wife has beautifull child bearing hips, and all went well !
    The next birth was even easier.

    On the second birth, the crew of the day, harvested the umbilical cord for the stem cells, and complained about its' short length.

    Bloody hell mate. "Get your own kids I say"
    :)
     
  6. serial

    serial Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    wa
    C sections are designed to make child birth more surgical and predictable. Meaning the doctor can make it to the golf course in time. It reduces the psychological connection that a mother makes with their child during the birthing process which is meant to be painful to release natural hormones designed to aid the bonding process. Medical intervention should be a last resort not best practice and having recently gone through the process with my wife I can assure you there is huge pressure and coercion to allow the doctors to dictate the birthing plan to the parents to the point we had to sign a waiver in front of the manager of the hospital who had to be called into a meeting with us because we wanted delayed clamping and a natural non chemically induced birth. They didn't like the latter because it was likely to occur on a long weekend when they would have staffing issues and they wanted to induce the baby before the weekend. Needless to say we got what we wanted and my son was born 4.36kg after a natural drug free birth, was referred to as the "big baby" by the hospital staff and is over the 97th percentile size wise. At 8mths he took his 1st steps and is far more advanced than any other child in his playgroup which we strongly attribute to the delayed clamping.
     
  7. sammy

    sammy Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2015
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Sydney
    That argument doesn't make sense. If women couldn't have children because of their hips, then that gene wouldn't have survived until today. Women have been having children since before they were human woman. The fact is that natural selection has given 95% of us the means to reproduce effectively, and whilst modern medicine helps the other 5%, their genes shouldn't be enough to drown out our gene pool.
     
  8. serial

    serial Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    wa
    that's another industry in its self, you know that naturally the stem cell blood would be pumped into the baby at birth "topping" them up. That blood would be around 20% of the child's initial blood supply and was designed to kick start the babies development. Now they clamp as soon as possible to harvest this stem cell blood and sell it for r&d.
     
  9. Skyrocket

    Skyrocket Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,571
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne

    They probably want to stay tight for their hubbies :D
     
  10. wrcmad

    wrcmad Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    6,031
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Northern NSW
    Nailed it.
    I am surprised it took this far down the page for the real reason to surface.
    While it is politically correct to blame being pressured for medical reasons or for convenience, fact is it has become an option of choice for many.
    My missus in in the medical industry and sees this choice being made all the time to "maintain" pre-birth characteristics (for want of a better term). And the idea that these characteristics are maintained via c-section is no fallacy either. ;)
     
  11. serial

    serial Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    wa
    I would suggest people watch the Business of being born if they are considering having a child, I personally don't agree with home births and a lot of other hippy shit however this movie did get us started on researching the areas properly that we wanted to decide on and make our own decisions on the birthing plan rather than those that suited the hospital's staffing and risk management levels
    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCiQrcP0Qas[/youtube]
     
  12. Currawong

    Currawong Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2015
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Melbourne

    Perhaps but with so many people electing to give birth by C-Section scientists are starting to find changes. I found the article here:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38210837
     
  13. millededge

    millededge Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,491
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    camp x-ray, spelling division
    I'm happy to play devil's advocate here, with logic and bias. I read a great article on the wandering uterus recently and hope to post some excerpts when nature allows.

    Please understand, I don't even know where the dog is now. Everywhere is raining. It is a canoe mission out of where I am right now. Internet is patchy. But, debating this is as good as any issue right now.

    After Stoic provocatively and most likely with good reason brought up the issue of C-section in another thread, let's have at it.

    The issue is an increase in c-section but also the disparate stats between the taxpayer funded surgical birth and the private sector.

    The private sector has definitely a higher C-section rate versus the public sector.

    What are we to make of this? Do we want socialism to kill the c-section when it is preferred, when people have the cash?

    Maybe, the issue is what people do when they have the means to do so?

    In WA, I see C-section was especially high during the boom, 50% in one hospital.

    I think it thus as devil's cheer squad: women with means are older at the time of the decision to birth. They have means because they worked and that delayed the decision. This issue can be boiled down to a directive on high to be "independent", using divisiveness to subvert population growth from within a nation.

    The women with money are older and older mothers, people in their 30s and 40s, but less able to afford an obstetric tragedy, with less biological reserve, less of a lot of things, all because of the push to make them worker bees when young.

    The smarter women are steered into being worker bees rather than IQ factories.

    That's the devil viewpoint.
     
  14. tolly_67

    tolly_67 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In small part, it is probably also a function of the relative wealth of people and the personal/family aspirations that accompany such a situation.
    In the past, a large family was the only solution to the reality of old age and the means to live. The superannuation schemes were not like today and government pensions were minimal. Savings could be destroyed after a few years of high inflation. We now look at the benefits that come with having only a few children for both the sake of the children and for ourselves. We are certainly more materialistic than the past and as such are willing to sacrifice quantity (of children) for quality (of life ).
    A C-section was not always an option as you would be restricted to only 3 or 4 children before you risked severe tearing of the area which has been weakened by multiple extraction operations.

    It cannot be ignored, however, that the c-section procedure has been improved as a result of the demand. In the past it was not so.
     
  15. millededge

    millededge Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,491
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    camp x-ray, spelling division
    Even now, the large family is the solution, but not so much for old age as the survival of a group with a common identity, all of which is gleefully subverted by information distribution moguls, deliberately, as any cursory ten second excerpt of modern media will point towards, as intended.

    The only issue is who has the large family and under what terms.

    Right now, the anti-nationals have the airwaves and monetary sway.
     
  16. tolly_67

    tolly_67 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Wow....even an innocuous topic such as a C-section can be twisted into an argument about immigration and religion.
    What next...a Banana's in Pyjamas topic into the 'Banana in striped Pyjama' anti-semetic rant...
     
  17. millededge

    millededge Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,491
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    camp x-ray, spelling division
    Well, will I take the Devil's cudgel here again? What more contemporary Devil than the antisemite (to Jews mostly I expect), maybe a Christian is worse, what a dilemma for some...The rate of C-section is a correlate to fundamental issues of population. Like it or not, people are influenced to be family or influenced otherwise. There are **shock horror** people out there deliberately trying very hard to influence others to their will, in war, as in peace. One of those targets is reproduction and the entire structure of a society.

    Is this an issue with you?

    For the C-section rate, significant variables are the private sector, wealth, older mothers. Looking at why this is the case is not off limits afaik.
     
  18. Stoic Phoenix

    Stoic Phoenix Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    +1
    The breakdown of why and the influencing factors would be an interesting research paper.
    There are a number of sound reasons for C-Sections, there are also many unsound ones.
     
  19. millededge

    millededge Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,491
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    camp x-ray, spelling division
    Other (biological) factors for c-section are already delineated and apolitical so probably garner little interest.

    A key issue is why are women reproducing later?

    C-section is more common amongst older mothers and if the first was a caesar, the next is also quite likely.

    A biological argument against the rise in c-section is the increased incidence of placental issues such as placenta accreta, where the placenta adheres to and invades the wall of the uterus from within. Being a very vascular organ, a problem with the placenta might lead to major blood loss or exsanguination, ie catastrophic. Advocates one way or the other don't generally pick up the pieces, that is at the individual level.

    Let's say an older mother, in her late 30s, first timer "primiparous" goes for a c-section. She has the means after working to make sure she has a home and the money to give the child as good as a life she has. She intends, due to age, to only have two children, The second is also delivered by c-section.

    Does this person carry a substantially greater risk of placenta accreta? I don't know.

    For those in the "too many" camp, if there is a reason for "too many" it is surely the complications of surgery, which are real.
     
  20. Stoic Phoenix

    Stoic Phoenix Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You claim to have been an undergrad in obstetrics (which a bachelor of arts student could class themselves as) but you are saying you know better than the midwife quoted in the story who states there are too many?
     

Share This Page