Yes definitely interesting to involve other countries
Jette

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne af Soo Downe
Sendt: 31. maj 2016 10:26
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM

What kind of letter are you thinking of writing Sophie?

Susan, Chris, Alison and I have been talking about holding an event (maybe a debate?) for journalists (and lawyers?) in the UK...maybe we should coordinate a series in a range of countries?!

All the best

Soo

-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alexander Sophie
Sent: 30 May 2016 14:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM

Thank-you.
I think I should write a letter to Archives? Do you?
>
I agree with you, but journalists who are not experts in a particular field and therefore may be unaware of the evidence and may be swayed by the people who are still resisting the fact that research didn't prove what they wanted it to.
>
>It's difficult to know what can be done. I am copying in Connie St Louis, our Senior Lecturer in Science Journalism. She runs City's Science Journalism programme, which aims to train journalists to assess the validity of claims being made.
>
>Alison
>
>From: Soo Downe [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 27 May 2016 11:26
>To: Macfarlane, Alison; A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research.
>Subject: RE: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>I agree Alison, but I think this is the crucial difference. It is not the same to express an opinion in the absence of evidence as it is to refuse to take into account evidence when it does actually exist.. journalism (at least at the high quality end) is not supposed to be about deliberate misinformation, but about disseminating facts and information (along with opinion, but as commentary on the facts) in the public interest. The phrase in bold is the mantra of the press. It is not in the public interest to tell women that they should be using techniques and approaches that are more likely to damage their health and that of their babies (and to cause high levels of resource use that cannot then be used for effective health care in maternity or other fields) than an alternative approach, based on good quality evidence. They are more than keen to get the NHS to ban complementary therapies despite the huge numbers of people who choose to use them, on the grounds of a lack of evidence of effect and waste of resources; why don't they call for the same in terms of, for example, hospital birth for healthy women and babies, or routine elective CS with no medical, psychological or social reasons, especially as the evidence here is not just lack of effect, but actual harm ?.
>
>I think we have to call them out on this.
>
>all the best
>
>Soo
>
>From: Macfarlane, Alison [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 27 May 2016 11:04
>To: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research.; Soo Downe
>Subject: RE: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Highly regrettable but hardly new! In the past they could claim that there was no evidence. Now there is evidence which doesn't support their position they are carrying on.
>
>Alison
>
>From: Soo Downe [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 26 May 2016 10:52
>To: 
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>.UK>
>Subject: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Yes we are having the same issues - usually credible/ sympathetic sources such as the guardian newspaper and the new scientist journal are writing anecdotal non- evidence based  pieces based on blogs and personal views or non- published data that are pro caesarean, doctors and hospitals and anti normal birth and midwives....
>
>From: Sophie ULB [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 26 May 2016 05:43
>To: 'A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research.'
><[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>C.UK>>; Soo Downe <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>Subject: RE: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>I have tried to answer individually to avoid "polluting" the list, but this is more general so back to the list.
>
>One of the things which is remarkable to me, is that as a rule, "Le Soir" tends to err in the other direction.  They listen very attentively to the anti-vaccination lobby for instance.
>It is probably a mixture of "selling the paper" and not understanding English well.
>Will get a pdf of the full one (large) page article and send it to the list.
>
>I think setting up an event would be thought provocative for both sides.  I remember one such event at a Cochrane Colloquium where they invited people working in government.  And the substance was that they wanted a yes / no statement, with arguments that held in one page, and could be read in the lift going up to the meeting.  So of course somebody in the audience said "better for science when your meetings are on the 15th floor than the 1st " and everyone laughed...
>
>De : A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Soo 
>Downe Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 20:54 À :
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>UK> Objet : Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>yes, we are also getting an increasing number of (usually female) journalists writing articles like this about home birth, or midwife care, or normal birth, on the basis of one badly done study, or what someone wrote on a blog. Im getting very concerned about this remarkably sloppy and damaging approach to reporting, even in good quality papers - I think it is social media norms that super-value charismatic individuals views over carefully done studies and good quality evidence. Im wondering about setting up an event and inviting all these journalists to it, and just talking to them about what they think their duty of care is, and about how they understand journalistic integrity. I honestly think they think they are reporting unbiased facts and representing the whole picture (based on an email exchange I have had with one of these journalists). Given the impact they have on womens views and beliefs, I seriously think there is an urgent need to get into dialogue with them...
>
>All the best
>
>Soo
>
>From: Sophie Alexander [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 25 May 2016 17:38
>To: 'A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research.'; Soo Downe
>Subject: RE: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>From one of our two main newspapers...
>
>http://www.lesoir.be/1218104/article/selection-abonnes/2016-05-23/l-acc
>ouchement-sous-l-eau-une-mode-dangereuse
>
>Even for those who can't read much French well worth looking at.
>After that I am afraid I will have to draft a "droit de réponse"...
>
>Sophie Alexander MD, PhD
>PERU (Perinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive health Unit) Ecole de 
>Santé Publique Universite Libre de Bruxelles
>808 route de Lennik
>1070 Brussels
>Belgium
>Tel +32 2555 4063
>
>De : A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Soo 
>Downe Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 17:30 À :
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>UK> Objet : Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Nothing wrong with paranoia!
>
>All the best
>
>Soo
>
>From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sophie 
>Alexander
>Sent: 25 May 2016 16:29
>To: 
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>.UK>
>Subject: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>
>1.       Source of excitement
>Got it I think : 1 fatal legionellosis (attach)
>
>2.       Thanks and possibly one more request (?)
>Thanks to all who are being really helpful.
>There is one more thing I would love to have, there is an EPUB ahead of print paper coming out in Archives:
>
>Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and 
>meta-analysis.<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27127204>
>
>Taylor H, Kleine I, Bewley S, Loucaides E, Sutcliffe A.
>
>Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016 Apr 28. pii: 
>fetalneonatal-2015-309600. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309600. [Epub ahead of print] Can't access it, so if someone has it that would be great.
>
>3.       Possible cause for such a strong parliamentary position
>Also, mild paranoia maybe, but there is a hospital in Ostend who does a lot, and I was wondering whether they was not something fishy about this sudden excitement ?
>
>Sophie Alexander MD, PhD
>PERU (Perinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive health Unit) Ecole de 
>Santé Publique Universite Libre de Bruxelles
>808 route de Lennik
>1070 Brussels
>Belgium
>Tel +32 2555 4063
>
>De : A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de 
>Sandall, Jane Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 16:52 À :
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>UK> Objet : Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Dear Sophie
>You are correct and evidence summarized in NICE intrapartum guidelines. But there may be new publications since then as you say.
>Regards
>Jane
>
>From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Soo 
>Downe
>Sent: 25 May 2016 15:49
>To: 
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>.UK>
>Subject: Re: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Sophie, your understanding is correct - in general the evidence from a range of settings is that waterbirth is beneficial. Indeed, there is much better evidence for the benefits of waterbirth than there is for hospitalisation for all healthy women and babies, or for obstetric led care for such women and babies  (both of which are NOT recommended based on good quality evidence) so it would be better for ONE to investigate the benefits of birth centre/home birth or the lower rates of prematurity with continuity of midwife led care than to react to one study from the US on waterbirth!
>
>  Ethel, can you send your latest data on waterbirth to Sophie?
>
>All the best
>
>Soo
>
>From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health 
>research [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sophie 
>Alexander
>Sent: 25 May 2016 15:54
>To: 
>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>.UK>
>Subject: TR: QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Dear list colleagues,
>One of the things I do, is serve as "counselor" for ONE our Belgian French speaking agency for maternal and child welfare.
>This entails, among other things answering parliamentary questions (that is questions that any citizen may ask the parliament).
>
>Maybe you can help me for a new one on water births, as I have a vague feeling that this topic has been discussed recently on the list (?).  The document says that there has been a new American publication highlighting the risks of waterbirths.  And in addition a demand that ONE should, elaborate to inform women about the risks.
>
>I will be looking at PUBmed, and looking for said US paper, but my globalopinion was that there is good evidence that laboring in water is helpful, and not much evidence - in one direction or the other - about under water second stage.
>
>So if you have got a ready made review to send on, I would be truly grateful.
>
>Sophie Alexander MD, PhD
>PERU (Perinatal Epidemiology and Reproductive health Unit) Ecole de 
>Santé Publique Universite Libre de Bruxelles
>808 route de Lennik
>1070 Brussels
>Belgium
>Tel +32 2555 4063
>
>De : DE JONGHE Cédric [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Envoyé : mercredi
>25 mai 2016 14:16 À : Alexander; CEYSENS; Chaumont; DENOO; Fivet; 
>Hernandez; Masson; MAUROY Marie-Christine; MORALES Ingrid; RIBESSE 
>Nathalie Cc : ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
>Objet : QO 16 06 Accouchement sous eau -CM
>
>Madame, Monsieur,
>
>Avez-vous des éléments de réponse qui nous aideraient à répondre à cette question parlementaire ?
>Nous devons y répondre pour ce vendredi .
>Bien cordialement à vous.
>
>