Monday, November 12, 2007

This week's Bias in the Media moment...

Ok. The article is so underfed with facts that it looks like a starving animal voraciously feeding on biases alone.

-"Doctors are growing wary...."

No. Obstetricians are refusing to do VBACs.

-"women..more and more difficulty in finding..."

NO. Obstetricians are choosing to refuse to have clients that want a vaginal birth. Think it's limited to vbac moms? Guess again. Over 35? "Obese"? First time mom? Your birth will be induced or sectioned. The odds of you getting an untampered with birth are under 3% and that's if you are birthing outside of a hospital and without an obstetrician.

-"a risk of uterine rupture, or a bursting of the C-section scar"

A BURSTING? You must be kidding me. Scar ruptures are rare and cover widely varying degrees between an unnoticed separation of muscle to a full split in the tissue or shredding in muscle tissue. The imagery here is hideous from a "reporter"...

-"advocates of vaginal...say fear of lawsuits.."

No. The Obstetricians say that. Or that they can't do them because of their malpractice insurance. Amazing that the same insurance doesn't say "wow, more mothers and babies being damaged is too risky for us" but their job is to protect obstetricians...not women.

-"I really think it's not too far in the future that no hospitals will allow it, just because the liabilities are too big."

Wow. So it's up to hospitals to tell us that we have no rights to use our own vaginas? We aren't "allowed" simply because the hospital might lose money? Are they going to give us back the money they make on our cesareans? Are they going to post the list of damages they are doing to mothers and babies in order to protect themselves from liability?

For every cesarean done, the stillbirth risk for the next pregnancy can as much as double.

-"Some doctors would disagree. A vaginal birth after Caesarean carries about a 1 percent risk of uterine rupture, which can result in brain damage or death to the baby, as well as severe injury or death for the mother."

And yet, EVERY cesarean is a "controlled uterine rupture," slicing open the abdomen and raising the risks for the exact same things for both mother and baby and for far longer into the future.

-For that reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended in 2004 that a doctor and an anesthesiologist be available during all VBACs.

Wow. You mean that the trade union for OB's has decided that all OB's actually must be at the births they are getting paid to attend! Or, even better yet, if they can't be at the births they are getting paid to attend, it's ok to refuse to do them!

-"When it happens, physicians have only minutes to perform an emergency C-section to save the baby and also tend to the mother, who could hemorrhage."

And yet, every cesarean is twice the blood loss to mom...not to mention quick cord cutting for baby, putting them at risk as well.

It just goes on and on...but the famous last words belong to this "intellectual"...
"Dr. Susan Hardwick-Smith, for example, who practices privately and delivers at Memorial Hermann-The Texas Medical Center, now refers patients who insist on having one to another physician. She would never take those risks with her own children, she said, so she doesn't take them with her patients' unborn babies."
Um..."Dr." might want to note that every time you refuse to do a vaginal birth and yet, continue to do elective repeat are not only forcing risks on unborn are raising them for us all... and that mother and baby are being harmed by you. are causing stillbirths, hysterectomies, infertility, possible slicing injuries to babies, greater risks of allergies and asthma, greater risks of dying due to respiratory issues for baby and mom could throw a PE. All in the name of "prevention"...

This kind of one-sided thinking endangers us all...

Cesareans are not safe simply because they are sometimes necessary. Turning all mothers into cesareans regardless of individual risk may not legally be malpractice (for those who can understand the difference between what is right and wrong vs what is a legal term) but it is damn sure unethical to do so in the name of protecting your practice. It makes one wonder when the humanity left the practice and only the fear was left. As one OB stated it several years ago: "After 38 weeks, the baby is my enemy"...

All in all, though, I can't help wondering how much revenue the newspaper gets from local hospital advertising. I'd like to think it was simply greed that kept them from publishing the truth, but I have the sneaking suspicion that they just simply don't understand how to give both sides of the story.

(Psst...saying repeatedly "advocates for..." doesn't make you unbiased or fair and balanced. It just means that it saved you from fact checking)

No comments: