Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

[theeedude]

I think the woman wanted to try a vaginal birth.

c-sections are at epidemic numbers. No other nation in the world has a higher rate of c-sections than the USA. This is also while we have some of the highest infant motility rates out of all developed nations.

In short, in the USA we have more c-sections and more babies die than in other developed nations.

We talk about womens rights, yet hospitals, doctors and judges trample womens rights, and people justify it?

What if she "tries" a vaginal birth and her uterus ruptures at the previous c-section scar when the baby's head is in her birth canal?
You also didn't answer my question. What if a woman with a breach baby wants to "try" a vaginal birth?

 

[Texashiker]

You also didn't answer my question. What if a woman with a breach baby wants to "try" a vaginal birth?

That is why their are operating rooms near the delivery area.

Its like anything else in life. Riding a motorcycle, scuba diving, skydiving, even driving a car,,,, everything has some kind of risk.

What right does the hospital and judge have to say "no, you can no take that risk."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What the hell are you even talking about?

Somehow vaginal birth is the same as shooting someone?

So only women who want vaginal births have the right to do with their bodies as they will? Only they can force others to do something harmful? How discriminatory of you.

 

[MrPickins]

I am defending a womans (and mans) right to make medical decisions for their body.

So you're pro-choice then, right? :hmm:

 

[mirageracerx]

TH does have *some* validity in his point that it is a slippery slope when a judge can make decisions concerning your body in the "name of safety". still it seems odd that litigation got into the mix. if she wanted a vaginal birth, why stay with that hospital? especially if they were so one way about it? just seems strange.

 

[Naeeldar]

How is the analogy stupid?

The hospital announced its intentions to get a court order and force the woman to have an unwanted medical procedure against her will.

A judge refused to issue a restraining order against the hospital.

The judge and hospital both said the woman does not have a right to make decisions for her body.

So what is stopping a doctor from forcing you to have gastric bypass surgery? Taking certain medicines?

Did you read the article? She was only a week from delivery.

This case is not "just" about this one doctor. A great number of doctors and hospitals will not allow vaginal birth after c-section.

Just about everyone is ignoring that the hospital is telling the woman to submit to a c-section, or the hospital will get a court order and do the c-section against her will.

You act like this is something new in medicine. When patients try and make decisions that could get them seriously hurt or killed, doctors can overule the patient to save their lives. This isn't new. Hell there has been countless news stories over the years of extreme religious parents who have prayed for their children instead of getting treatment. Guess who the courts sided with there?

Plenty of hospitals allow birth without c-sections if it's not a high risky pregnancy or as in this case those without previous c-sections. You don't have to like it but Doctors are licenses for a reason and there is a reason why so much research is done in this area (both medical and insurance). If you don't want the birth done that way you can always choose to stay at home and have it naturally. But contrary to what you believe - you can't force a doctor/hospital to perform a risky procedure because you think you know better.

Not sure why I bothered posting as I know TH is just going to just make some comparison about how if I believe this then that means a doctor can do whatever they want. And the reality is the doctor can do whatever is medically necessary with the sign off of other doctors/boards. That's the world we live in Doctors do have powers and they have it to save your life - same way police do. IF they truly did get abused then they would be shut down over the long haul. Yes it sucks for the people who got abused but in the need security this way is far better for far more people. You can have freedom and you can have security as one increases the other decreases. The world we live in is nothing more then trying to balance the two.

 

[werepossum]

You have any evidence for this statement?

For example from the article:

Good info, thanks. Evidently the doctor and/or hospital think otherwise in this particular case though.

Another very poor analogy...

Show me how purchasing a cake for a gay wedding could cause the deaths of a mother and/or child.

See, if you were reading your Republican National Committee mailers you wouldn't even have to ask this. Hell, you probably killed a couple just asking about it.

No, I am not missing anything.

The woman is trying to make a decision for her body. The hospital and the judge says she does not have such a right.

When do people not have a right to make decisions for their bodies?

She has a perfect right to make decisions for her body. She has absolutely no right to enforce her preference on medical experts whose expertise rule her decision foolishly dangerous.

I would say she has every right to find a holistic nail technician/midwife willing to tackle her case, but given the baby's right to not unduly be put at risk this may well not be the case.

 

[theeedude]

That is why their are operating rooms near the delivery area.

Its like anything else in life. Riding a motorcycle, scuba diving, skydiving, even driving a car,,,, everything has some kind of risk.

What right does the hospital and judge have to say "no, you can no take that risk."

Yes, there are operating rooms near the delivery area, where an emergency c-section will be performed.

 

[MrPickins]

See, if you were reading your Republican National Committee mailers you wouldn't even have to ask this. Hell, you probably killed a couple just asking about it.

I better go check in on my Mormon family members

 

[Slew Foot]

Many hospitals wont do any VBACs due to the risk. This is just some stupid bitch trying to force her will on the hospital. dont like the policy, go somewhere else.

 

[First]

A woman who had a cesarean section and was pregnant again asked the hospital about having a vagina birth. The administration said if she set foot inside the hospital they would get a court order and force her to have a cesarean section against her will.

Not only would the hospital get a court order and do a cesarean section against her will, she would also be reported to the Department of Children and Family Services.

The woman tried to get a restraining order to stop the hospital from doing an involuntary cesarean section, the judge refused to issue the order.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/31/hospitals-forcing-c-section-deliveries/



For those of you who staunchly defend a womans right of "her body her choice", how do you feel about this?

Even though it is your body and your choice, a judge will issue an order to make someone go through an involuntary medical procedure.

Derp.

 

[Jaskalas]

It is not "just" hospital policy. A judge refused to side with the woman.

In effect, the judge said the woman does not have the right to make medical decisions for herself.

If she places herself under the care of THAT hospital, then they decide what is established and sound medical procedure and they get to choose how they treat their patients.

If she doesn't like how they would treat her, then she should GTFO. Her previous c-sections have left her at HIGH risk from a vaginal birth. It should not be done. If she wants to risk killing herself and her child, the hospital has every right not to be a part of that malpractice.

 

[Exophase]

In short, in the USA we have more c-sections and more babies die than in other developed nations.

A big issue is not with c-sections period but scheduling pre-term deliveries. Largely because that's what the patient wants, not what the physician pushes for.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/reducing-infant-mortality-in-the-united-states/

Then there are just broader issues with lack of medical care for poor people...

 

[Texashiker]

If she places herself under the care of THAT hospital, then they decide what is established and sound medical procedure and they get to choose how they treat their patients.

You like a lot of other people are missing one of the big points.

This is not "just" about the hospital; a judge sided with the hospital and told the woman she did not have the right to make medical decisions for her own body.

Think about that. A judge told a woman she does not have the right to make decisions for her own body.

Reminds me of when kids were sterilized. Its for the good of the community.

Whats next? You have no right to eat that cheeseburger, your gastric bypass is scheduled for next friday?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

No, I am not missing anything.

The woman is trying to make a decision for her body. The hospital and the judge says she does not have such a right.

When do people not have a right to make decisions for their bodies?

They don't have the right to force the hospital to perform a risky procedure on her. If this was an abortion that had a high chance of complications would you say these particular doctors must perform it?

 

[MrPickins]

They don't have the right to force the hospital to perform a risky procedure on her. If this was an abortion that had a high chance of complications would you say these particular doctors must perform it?

Don't bother asking Texashypocrite. He didn't deign to answer that line of questioning earlier.

 

[Jaskalas]

By 2010, ACOG was back to saying that VBAC was largely safe.

An analysis of 203 previous papers on VBAC found mixed outcomes. Overall rates of harm were low for both VBAC and repeat elective c-sections. The newborn mortality rate was 1.3 per 1,000 births with VBAC, compared to 0.5 for repeat c-section. Maternal mortality was 13.4 percent per 100,000 births for repeat c-section, compared to 3.8 percent for vaginal delivery. The authors concluded that "VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean." They also noted mounting evidence that the more c-sections a woman has, the riskier the surgery becomes.

Repeat c-section is 3x as likely to kill her than VBAC. :hmm:

This got a whole lot messier.

 

[Exophase]

Repeat c-section is 3x as likely to kill her than VBAC. :hmm:

This got a whole lot messier.

Could stand to cite its sources. Doesn't help that the quote is a total mess that intermixes percentages and parts per 100,000. I'm going to assume that they meant to say that maternal mortality is 13.4 in 100,000 with repeat c-section and 3.8 in 100,000 with vaginal delivery (note that it doesn't actually say VBAC either!). A more literal reading, ignoring the laughable "percent per 100,000", is 13.4 per 100,000 vs 3800 per 100,000, which would flip things around pretty dramatically.

The thing is, it's not enough to take a higher mother mortality rate with c-sections and conclude that it's more dangerous for her to have a c-section. These are not totally independent variables, for example c-sections could be more strongly correlated with pre-existing conditions that are more likely to result in death.

And it's kind of misleading to look at the risk purely proportionately. What if the numbers instead were 20 out of 100 infant deaths for VBAC vs 19 out of 100 for repeat c-section, but 5 out of 100 billion for the mother vs 1 out of 100 billion? That'd be 5 times worse risk for the mother for only barely 5% more risk for the baby, but still an astronomically low risk for the mother while a much more tangible one for the baby. I used exaggerated numbers to illustrate my point, but the rates given in this quote still place the baby at much, much higher added risk than the mother. It almost seems to insult the reader to conclude that going from 0.5 to 1.3 per 1000 is no big deal, then bother mentioning 3.8 to 13.4 per 100,000 at all.

 

[werepossum]

Could stand to cite its sources. Doesn't help that the quote is a total mess that intermixes percentages and parts per 100,000.

The thing is, it's not enough to take a higher mother mortality rate with c-sections and conclude that it's more dangerous for her to have a c-section. These are not totally independent variables, for example c-sections could be more strongly correlated with pre-existing conditions that are more likely to result in death.

And it's kind of misleading to look at the risk purely proportionately. What if the numbers instead were 20 out of 100 infant deaths for VBAC vs 19 out of 100 for repeat c-section, but 5 out of 100 billion for the mother vs 1 out of 100 billion? That'd be 5 times worse risk for the mother for only barely 5% more risk for the baby, but still an astronomically low risk for the mother while a much more tangible one for the baby. I used exaggerated numbers to illustrate my point, but the rates given in this quote still place the baby at much, much higher added risk than the mother. It almost seems to insult the reader to conclude that going from 0.5 to 1.3 per 1000 is no big deal, then give 3.8 to 13.4 per 100,000 as relevant (assuming I'm reading their percentage screw up correctly, but I'm pretty sure I am)

Good thoughts. Very good thoughts since I was about to post the same.

 

[Exophase]

Good thoughts. Very good thoughts since I was about to post the same.

The quote was more screwed up than I originally realized too, I edited the post to clarify how confusing it is ;p

 

[Texashiker]

They don't have the right to force the hospital to perform a risky procedure on her. If this was an abortion that had a high chance of complications would you say these particular doctors must perform it?

Vaginal birth after c-section is "not" risky.

As per webmd,

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/vaginal-birth-after-cesarean-vbac-overview

The most serious risk of a trial of labor is that a C-section scar could come open during labor. This is very rare.

You see those words "very rare?"

University of Maryland,

http://umm.edu/health/medical/pregnancy/labor-and-delivery/vaginal-birth-after-csection-vbac

Statistically, about 60-80% of women who try TOLAC are able to deliver vaginally.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Vaginal birth after c-section is "not" risky.

As per webmd,

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/vaginal-birth-after-cesarean-vbac-overview



You see those words "very rare?"

Medicine is done on a per case basis with decisions made by doctors who know the patient's conditions and history. Not from WebMD stats.

 

[Texashiker]

Medicine is done on a per case basis with decisions made by doctors who know the patient's conditions and history. Not from WebMD stats.

See my edit.

Per University of Maryland, 60% - 80% of women can have a vaginal delivery after c-section.

Explain to me why so many people in this thread think it is dangerous.

The posters in this thread are going on about how vaginal after c-section is dangerous, when the numbers do not support their claim.

Womens rights are being violated and nobody gives a crap.

 

[Exophase]

Medicine is done on a per case basis with decisions made by doctors who know the patient's conditions and history. Not from WebMD stats.

Or from the point of view of this woman, medicine is done by patients reading the internet and thinking they know better than their doctors.

 

[Texashiker]

You act like this is something new in medicine. When patients try and make decisions that could get them seriously hurt or killed, doctors can overule the patient to save their lives. .

Proof?

University of Maryland says there is something like a 1 in 2,000 chance of serious danger.

See my previous links.