Anyone see this BBC article?

[mum2sarah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7576544.stm

"But the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital study suggested that women, given an informed choice, were less likely than the professionals treating them to take a more cautious approach."


???!!! calling a c-section a "cautious" approach??? Last I checked an unnecessary c-section carries much more risk with it for both mother and baby than a vaginal birth...

[Montse]

A cautious approach means less liability for the doctor but greater liabilities for mother and baby. Apparently, women don't know what they want!
Interesting article!

[D'sMama]

Originally Posted by mum2sarah

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7576544.stm

"But the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital study suggested that women, given an informed choice, were less likely than the professionals treating them to take a more cautious approach."


???!!! calling a c-section a "cautious" approach??? Last I checked an unnecessary c-section carries much more risk with it for both mother and baby than a vaginal birth...

Ah, but who gets to decide if the C-section was "necessary" or not?

I think it was actually a rather good article - I read it as docs are too quick to jump to surgery because they don't want to see any complications (or maybe variations of normal), whereas women prefer to accept the risks of having a NCB, and that perhaps docs should respect women's desires a bit more.

[forthebest]

Who considers what the risks are and are they valid or just thought up out of fear of the natural process, I mean are the percieved risks actually real in every or any pregnancy?