It would probably be better to develop a policy/protocol for women who suffer the condition. The protocol/policy would need a collaborate approach with obstetricians, midwives & mental health input following a review of the evidence.
Cheers
Pam
Honorary Research Fellow & Research Assistant
Melbourne university
Sent from my iPhone
On 01/11/2011, at 8:35 AM, "jenny hall" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I suspect that they would be as concerned about the rumours as we are as
> midwives. However my concern of this is who is going to actually diagnose
> the 'tokophobia' which is a label for a suggested psychiatric condition? Is
> this going to be left to the obstetricians or will the women be referred to
> a psychiatrist for appropriate diagnosis then counselling/support? If women
> have mental health issues such as this we should be picking them up in
> pregnancy and getting the appropriate therapy. If it is still required that
> women need a caesarean then of course this will not be in doubt. However I
> am concerned that we will be still in the situation at the moment where obs
> see a woman who says they are really scared and then nothing is done about
> counselling/appropriate care but a tick in the box for CS. Perhaps as
> midwives we need to be more proactive in ensuring this counselling is
> available for women
> Best wishes
> jenny
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pamela Harnden
> Sent: 31 October 2011 21:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Rocg statement
>
> http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-st
> atement-draft-nice-caesarean-section-guidelines
>
> Interesting that they have felt the need to respond.
>
> Pam Harnden
> Honorary Research Fellow & Research Assistant Melbourne university
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4587 - Release Date: 10/31/11
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4587 - Release Date: 10/31/11
>
|