Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: out talking to the crocuses
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
|Originally posted by pamamidwife
Well, it's fine to personalize what you want for yourself. However, to make blanket statements that insinuate that an organization is purposefully lying to women and thereby endangering them is inappropriate.
The true risk of VBACs is a legal system that has pushed a medical system into so much fear that it has long left evidence-based medicine.
And that is hardly downplaying the situation.
I'm merely asking for fact that ICAN downplays the rupture rate.
|Originally posted by LisaG
Kim, it sounds to me like your problem with ICAN was lack of support for your decision than thinking they fudge numbers? Not wanting to speak for you, but that was the gist of what I got. As well as feeling that the numbers do not reflect the frequent interventions that occur and that that should be taken into consideration? To me that sounds vastly different than saying that ICAN downplays the uterine rupture rates for VBAC.
|Originally posted by Greaseball
By the same token, ACOG should really get into the risks of elective c/s, but they don't. They maintain a c/s is the safest way for a baby to be born. In ACOG publications, they make it sound like the serious consequences of a c/s will never happen to you. You'll be on your feet in 8 hours, not need any medication after 3 days, and "definitely have the edge in sitting," according to books like What to Expect (endorsed by ACOG.) Quick and easy recoveries are not as common as they would like you to think. They also point out that having a scheduled c/s allows one to "relax and enjoy the birth."
The ACOG website even says that although Pitocin increases the risk of rupture, it's "not a contraindication" for a VBAC.:
And their ethics committee decided it was ethical to perform a c/s when no medical reason was present. (I would have loved to be in on that discussion...: )
|I am sorry, but there is not two sides really presented.|