My argument was that C Sections are not performed only in emergencies, as you implied; but for other reasons, including- to avoid malpractice suits, which you stated. I?m still trying to understand how a surgery is less risky than a vaginal birth.
In testimony before the U.S. Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality, Marsden Wagner MD, European Director of the WHO, suggested the need in the U.S. for a "strong independent midwifery profession as a counterbalance to the obstetrical profession in preventing excessive interventions in the normal birth process."
'Mothering Magazine has calculated that using midwifery care for 75% of the births in the U.S. would save an estimated $8.5 billion per year." (Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, The Future of Midwifery in the United States, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p. 15 November 23, 1996 issue of the British Medical Journal.)
***A few reasons why the mortality rate could be higher with hospital, MD assisted births (versus home births): hospital deliveries include most of t he high-risk pregnancies, mid-wives will not accept these cases (it's difficult enough for mid-wives to practice in the first place). Also, there are just more germs in the hospital, and we all have to take that risk when we decide to go into a hospital for whatever reason.***
?Could be??. but isn?t:
"Every study that has compared midwives and obstetricians has found better outcomes for midwives for same-risk patients. In some studies, midwives actually served higher risk populations than the physicians and still obtained lower mortalities and morbidities. The superiority and safety of midwifery for most women no longer needs to be proven. It has been well established." (Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, The Future of Midwifery in the United States, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p.30)
Further:
three times greater likelihood of cesarean operation if a woman gave birth in a hospital instead of at home with the hospital standing by. The hospital population revealed twenty times more use of forceps, twice as much use of oxytocin to accelerate or induce labor, greater incidence of episiotomy (while at the same time having more severe tears in need of major repair). The hospital group showed six times more infant distress in labor, five times more cases of maternal high blood pressure, and three times greater incidence of postpartum hemorrhage. There was four times more infection among the newborn; three times more babies that needed help to begin breathing. While the hospital group had thirty cases of birth injuries, including skull fractures, facial nerve palsies, brachial nerve injuries and severe cephalohematomas, there were no such injuries at home. [Dr. Lewis Mehl, "Home Birth Versus Hospital Birth: Comparisons of Outcomes of Matched Populations." Presented on October 20, 1976 before the 104th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. For further information contact the Institute for Childbirth and Family Research, 2522 Dana St., Suite 201, Berkeley, CA 94704]
***The 1:5 mortality rate because of childbirth was a long time ago, like a couple hundred years ago, this was before we had safe C-sections and antibiotics. This is what I read in nursing school, and it's pretty much common knowledge.***
Yes, I knew the 1:5 rate was a couple of centuries ago. I?d say a little more than a ?few? years ago, as you first stated. ?A few? sounds like 30, 40, 50. And if you know that, you also know that the primary reasons for lower mortality rates has to do with better sanitation (sewer installations), more food- better nutrition, clean water, etc? thanks to the ?Progressives?.
***Additionally, there are risks in everything, including herbal treatments, ect... Just what "safer methods of treatment that carry no risk" are you talking about?***
Answered that in an earlier post. I guess you didn?t read it.
***While I do not know specifically how much cash is paid out every year in malpractice awards, I do know the effects that malpractice suits bring on each and every doctor, healthcare provider, hospital, clinic and practice.***
You?d know if you?d read the link I provided. Are you engaged in the discussion or simply compelled to defend your boyfriend?s profession?
***By the way, do you know the number of lawsuits brought against doctors/hospitals each year? I don't***
You would if you had read my link.
***, but I figure that with the sort of money awarded to the plaintiffs in these cases (such as Celebrex, manufacture ordered to pay $250 million to one person) we only need one or two cases a year to have the kind of effects on healthcare that I see every day.***
I think you mean Vioxx? Cry me a river. When you conceal research findings that show risk of death, you probably should give some of the billions you earned back to the victims. But that?s just me. How bout those poor fuckers who went blind taking Viagra? Were they informed? Deserve any compensation?
***However, these lawsuits can have a profound effect in the psyche of the doctor, shaking their confidence, weakening the trust and relationship between doctor/patient, and driving up malpractice insurance rates.***
Rates have gone down. Malpractice suits are actually low. 2-4%. You?d know that if you read the links I provided. Perhaps medical students should consider the high risk involved with the profession before they invest in an education. I think it has more to do with the inadequateness of western medical training. They should consider being trained in ?Integrative? medicine so they have some safer options and aren?t so inclined toward unnecessary invasive procedures and risky drugs, except in crisis.
http://www.integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/wei1bio-1You're right, Shrub isn't a doctor... but he sure knows how to protect the profits of daddy's cronnies at the Drug Houses.
