JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives


MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives


MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH  October 2011

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH October 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: c-section for all women who request it by NICE?

From:

"Scamell, Amanda" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research." <[log in to unmask]>, Scamell, Amanda

Date:

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:03:47 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (246 lines)

Hi everyone,

Great thread, some really interesting discussion.

I would just like to add a couple of personal reflections

Firstly, is a concern that NICE policy (or any policy come to that)  is being represented, in some posts, as being somehow immune from the process of interpretation.  Surely policy should never be thought of as existing within a cultural vacuum, but instead is best understood as a process of interpretation in which the media will inevitably play a crucial role.  (I'm not talking about bias or anything like that here, simply the day to day operations of policy in practice.)

Secondly and in support of Rena's point, is my surprise at the grounds upon which the case for physiological birth is being defended; is financing really all that is at stake?  
To be the devil's advocate, if normal birth care did prove to be more expensive than c-section care, would this be considered to be justification for wholesale professional abandonment of our commitment to the preservation and facilitation of normal birth?  If not, why not?  Are these not the grounds upon which our defence should rest, despite current economic conditions?

Thanks again to everyone this is a really fascinating debate.


Mandie Scamell 
________________________________________
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LUCIA ROCCA [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 October 2011 11:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: c-section for all women who request it by NICE?

My impression is that the new updated version of the guideline is going to be publishes in November 2011.

I am concerned not because of women who will expect an elective CS but all those women who will feel entitled in requesting it in grey areas, for instance after starting an IOL, which is taking time etc....in this case the real problem is the lack of one-to -one midwifery care these women get and lack of info, support and communication form the professional, but the result will be that women might request a cs, when in fact if they had more support they would have been able to go through events.
In addition NHS Trusts will not have the human resources in place for providing on-demand cs and it would be an increadible waste of resources.

I would consider more appropriate to invest in offering REAL one-to-one care to women first, before discussing anything else.


Best wishes

Lucia

2011/10/31 Macfarlane, Alison <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Can I repeat Carolyn Roth’s advice. Don’t believe what you see on Sky News. Read the consultation documents on the proposed revision to the caesarean section guideline. The consultation closed in June.
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/index.jsp?action=folder&o=54526

The current guideline is here:
http://www.nice.org.uk/CG013

Alison Macfarlane

From: Rena Papadopoulos [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 31 October 2011 10:52

To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: c-section for all women who request it by NICE?

I am not familiar with this study, and I totally agree that whoever came up with this proposal are wrong. But when it comes to figures, we all know how these can be manipulated to suit sinister plans.
rena

From: McCourt, Christine [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 31 October 2011 10:46
To: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research.; Rena Papadopoulos
Subject: [SPAM: 25.100] Re: c-section for all women who request it by NICE?

Dear Rena

If so, they are misinformed. The review of evidence on costs undertaken by Petrou et al showed that CS is more expensive.


On 31/10/2011 11:41, "Rena Papadopoulos" <[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I cannot help thinking that this retrograde step is based on economics. Is it possible that routine booked births via cs are cheaper (more efficient use of staff) than the unpredictable natural start and length of labour of normal births? Someone must have put forward such an immoral argument which obviously has fallen on economically fertile ears. Forgive me for putting a conspiracy theory forward but the cs proposal is so bizarre….As far as I know the WHO is supporting natural birth.
Regards,
rena


Irena Papadopoulos, PhD, MA, BA, DipNEd, DipN, RGN, RM, NDNCert, RNT, FHEA,
Professor of Transcultural Health and Nursing,
School of Health and Social Sciences,
Middlesex University,
Archway Campus,
Highgate Hill, London N19 5LW.
Tel: 0208 411 6626
Fax: 0208 411 6106

To subscribe to our Transcultural mailing list send a message to: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]> with the command SUBSCRIBE TRANSCULTURAL-EUNET-L in the message body


From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Soo Downe
Sent: 30 October 2011 22:50
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: c-section for all women who request it by NICE?


Just in case you cant download the information I have just sent:



Increased with CS

• Abdominal pain

• Bladder injury

• Ureteric injury

• Need for further surgery

• Hysterectomy

• Intensive therapy/high dependency unit

admission

• Thromboembolic disease

• Length of hospital stay

• Readmission to hospital

• Maternal death

• Antepartum stillbirth in future pregnancies

• Placenta praevia

• Uterine rupture

• Not having more children

• Neonatal respiratory morbidity



No difference after CS

• Haemorrhage

• Infection

• Genital tract injury

• Faecal incontinence

• Back pain

• Dyspareunia

• Postnatal depression

• Neonatal mortality

(except breech)

• Intracranial haemorrhage

• Brachial plexus



Reduced with CS

• Perineal pain

• Urinary incontinence

• Uterovaginal prolapse



All the best



Soo
________________________________

From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Soo Downe [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 10:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: c-section for all women who request it by NICE?

Hmm - CS is now safe? Maybe it depends on what outcomes you look at: These are the risks cited in the current NICE CS guidelines:



NICE 2004 Cesarean section: Quick reference guide. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10940/29333/29333.pdfdopwnloaded on 6th Oct 2011 <http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10940/29333/29333.pdfdopwnloaded%20on%206th%20Oct%202011>











Longer term, CS has also been linked to type one diabetes in the neonate, athsma, excema, and, most recently, multiple sclerosis:



Mult Scler. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21982872>  2011 Oct 7. [Epub ahead of print]
Cesarean delivery may increase the risk of multiple sclerosis.
Maghzi AH <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Maghzi%20AH%22%5BAuthor%5D> , Etemadifar M <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Etemadifar%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D> , Heshmat-Ghahdarijani K <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Heshmat-Ghahdarijani%20K%22%5BAuthor%5D> , Nonahal S <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Nonahal%20S%22%5BAuthor%5D> , Minagar A <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Minagar%20A%22%5BAuthor%5D> , Moradi V <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Moradi%20V%22%5BAuthor%5D> .
Source
IRCOMS, Iran/Neuroimmunology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience & Trauma, Blizard Inst. of Cell &Molecular Sci.,UK/Med. Schl, Isfahan Uni. of Med.Sci, Iran.
Abstract
Background: Prenatal and perinatal factors are believed to contribute to the risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS). Objective: This study was designed to evaluate whether mode of delivery (vaginal versus cesarean section), as a perinatal factor, affects susceptibility to MS. Methods: MS patients were recruited from the MS registry of Isfahan Multiple Sclerosis Society (IMSS) and were compared with their healthy siblings. Data regarding mode of delivery, birth order, and gestation week of birth were obtained through a specially designed questionnaire. Preterm or post term deliveries were excluded. We used conditional logistic regression statistics and adjusted for gender and birth order. Results: This study included 1349 participants (449 MS patients and 900 controls). Subjects who were born by cesarean sectionhad significant risk of MS (odds ratio, OR = 2.51; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.43-4.41; p = 0.001). There was significant MS risk for females who were born by cesarean section (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.30-5.58; p = 0.008), but not for males (OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.90-5.63; p = 0.082). The mean age at onset was lower in MS patients born by cesarean section (24.58 ± 6.33) compared with that of patients born by vaginal delivery (27.59 ± 7.97; p = 0.041). There was no significant difference between the two groups for birth order (p = 0.417). Conclusion: Our results suggest that those born by vaginal delivery are at a lower risk of subsequent MS. These preliminary findings will need to be addressed in a much larger and preferably prospective study.

PMID:
21982872
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

________________________________

From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Pamela Harnden [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 10:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: c-section for all women who request it by NICE?

Dear Lucia,



The impression in Australia is that it is true and that the risks are so small now because the obstetricians are so expert at it, the suggestion is that it is actually safer than birthing normally!



Pam

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:18 AM, LUCIA ROCCA <[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear All,

I am sure this must be misinformation but I am a bit worried about the news from Sky news:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16099301

about NICE publishing a new report saying that women must have the right to ask, at NHS expenses, a CS without medical indication.

could please somebody reassure me ( while I am on holiday...) that I got it wrong?

Thanks

Lucia



--
Lucia Rocca-Ihenacho
Senior Midwife and Research Fellow
Barts and the London NHS Trust

07989 230313

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager