Silver Stackers logo

Silver Stackers

Discussion forum for those
who love to stack precious metals

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Forum registration is open.

#1 2017-03-13 08:27:00

Stoic Phoenix
Silver Stacker
From: little things big things grow.
Registered: 2014-11-12
Posts: 2,905
Trades :   180 
Website

C -Sections

Especially for Milled to digest (hopefully logically with an unbiased mindset for a pleasant change) away from the thread that he hijacked.

Australia has one of the highest rates of caesarean births in the world, and some are concerned that mothers are being coerced.

The World Health Organisation recommends caesarean sections should only be performed when medically necessary. It has stated "there is no justification for any region to have higher caesarean rates than 10-15%".

Out of 137 countries that report their rates, Australia's is one of the highest, with 32 per cent of all births delivered through a caesarean section. In comparison, New Zealand's rate is 20 per cent, the UK's is 22 per cent, France's is 18 per cent and Norway's is 16 per cent.

Australia's C-section rate has nearly doubled since 1991, where it was 18 per cent.

Hannah Dahlen from the Australian College of Midwives says the rate rise is unwarranted.

"There's no doubt women are feeling bullied and coerced into caesareans. It can be very, very subtle, and it's about not giving them the full information, and moving them towards a direction you want to take," she said,

"You can find a medical reason for anything," said Dahlen. "Whether or not it's a good medical reason is the question, and a lot of pseudo reasons are being used to argue women into C-sections."

Private hospitals have a higher caesarean section rate than public hospitals. In 2011 43 per cent of women in private hospitals have birth by caesarean section compared with 30 per cent in public hospitals.

Last edited by Stoic Phoenix (2017-03-13 09:44:11)


www.searchnstay.com    ....for all your accommodation needs worldwide

Offline

#2 2017-03-13 15:43:59

raven
Silver Stacker
From: Victoria
Registered: 2014-04-27
Posts: 1,215

Re: C -Sections

Why ?
Is it altering the natural evolution of the species ?

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Currawong

#3 2017-03-13 18:53:09

Currawong
Silver Stacker
From: Melbourne
Registered: 2015-07-16
Posts: 171
Trades :   

Re: C -Sections

It actually is according to a thing I read somewhere Raven.
C-Section is artificially selecting for women with narrow hips. What this means is that because women who previously may have died in childbirth or had an extremely painful birth (and thus decided to only have one kid) are now having C-Sections it's increasing the amount of girls being born with narrow hips and boys who may carry the gene for narrow hips and then pass it on to their offspring.

Wish I knew where I read it but it was only recently.

Offline

#4 2017-03-13 19:16:52

Gullintanni
Member
From: New Zealand
Registered: 2016-06-15
Posts: 359
Trades :   

Re: C -Sections

We were offered a c-section for the twins but the missus at the time pushed on through without it and everything was fine.
Child birth is always going to be painful and the "excuses" i have heard for c-section range from i want them born on such and such day to i was told i have narrow hips and everything in between.
C-sections are dangerous and should only be used in case of medical emergency , unless your insurance company is going to pay for it.
I look at it as a waste of taxpayer money here in NZ when the operating theater could be used for REAL medical events.

Offline

#5 2017-03-13 20:57:46

raven
Silver Stacker
From: Victoria
Registered: 2014-04-27
Posts: 1,215

Re: C -Sections

We were spruiked on having a c section for our first born, and elected to have a normal birth !
My wife has beautifull child  bearing hips, and all went well !
The next birth was even easier.

On the second birth, the crew of the day, harvested the umbilical cord for the stem cells, and complained about its' short length.

Bloody hell mate. "Get your own kids I say"
smile

Offline

#6 2017-03-13 21:04:50

serial
Silver Stacker
From: wa
Registered: 2012-08-19
Posts: 3,341
Trades :   213 

Re: C -Sections

C sections are designed to make child birth more surgical and predictable. Meaning the doctor can make it to the golf course in time. It reduces the psychological connection that a mother makes with their child during the birthing process which is meant to be painful to release natural hormones designed to aid the bonding process. Medical intervention should be a last resort not best practice and having recently gone through the process with my wife I can assure you there is huge pressure and coercion to allow the doctors to dictate the birthing plan to the parents to the point we had to sign a waiver in front of the manager of the hospital who had to be called into a meeting with us because we wanted delayed clamping and a natural non chemically induced birth. They didn't like the latter because it was likely to occur on a long weekend when they would have staffing issues and they wanted to induce the baby before the weekend. Needless to say  we got what we wanted and my son was born 4.36kg after a natural drug free birth, was referred to as the "big baby" by the hospital staff and is over the 97th percentile size wise. At 8mths he took his 1st steps and is far more advanced than any other child in his playgroup which we strongly attribute to the delayed clamping.

Offline

The following 5 users say thank you for this post: raven, JulieW, Stoic Phoenix, Currawong, adze67

#7 2017-03-13 21:09:42

sammy
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2015-07-21
Posts: 203
Trades :   24 

Re: C -Sections

Currawong wrote:

C-Section is artificially selecting for women with narrow hips. What this means is that because women who previously may have died in childbirth or had an extremely painful birth (and thus decided to only have one kid) are now having C-Sections it's increasing the amount of girls being born with narrow hips and boys who may carry the gene for narrow hips and then pass it on to their offspring.

That argument doesn't make sense.  If women couldn't have children because of their hips, then that gene wouldn't have survived until today.  Women have been having children since before they were human woman.  The fact is that natural selection has given 95% of us the means to reproduce effectively, and whilst modern medicine helps the other 5%, their genes shouldn't be enough to drown out our gene pool.

Offline

#8 2017-03-13 21:12:32

serial
Silver Stacker
From: wa
Registered: 2012-08-19
Posts: 3,341
Trades :   213 

Re: C -Sections

raven wrote:

We were spruiked on having a c section for our first born, and elected to have a normal birth !
My wife has beautifull child  bearing hips, and all went well !
The next birth was even easier.

On the second birth, the crew of the day, harvested the umbilical cord for the stem cells, and complained about its' short length.

Bloody hell mate. "Get your own kids I say"
smile

that's another industry in its self, you know that naturally the stem cell blood would be pumped into the baby at birth "topping" them up. That blood would be around 20% of the child's initial blood supply and was designed to kick start the babies development. Now they clamp as soon as possible to harvest this stem cell blood and sell it for r&d.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: raven

#9 2017-03-14 00:12:16

Skyrocket
Silver Stacker
From: Melbourne
Registered: 2014-07-20
Posts: 4,842
Trades :   36 

Re: C -Sections

Stoic Phoenix wrote:

Especially for Milled to digest (hopefully logically with an unbiased mindset for a pleasant change) away from the thread that he hijacked.

Australia has one of the highest rates of caesarean births in the world, and some are concerned that mothers are being coerced.

The World Health Organisation recommends caesarean sections should only be performed when medically necessary. It has stated "there is no justification for any region to have higher caesarean rates than 10-15%".

Out of 137 countries that report their rates, Australia's is one of the highest, with 32 per cent of all births delivered through a caesarean section. In comparison, New Zealand's rate is 20 per cent, the UK's is 22 per cent, France's is 18 per cent and Norway's is 16 per cent.

Australia's C-section rate has nearly doubled since 1991, where it was 18 per cent.

Hannah Dahlen from the Australian College of Midwives says the rate rise is unwarranted.

"There's no doubt women are feeling bullied and coerced into caesareans. It can be very, very subtle, and it's about not giving them the full information, and moving them towards a direction you want to take," she said,

"You can find a medical reason for anything," said Dahlen. "Whether or not it's a good medical reason is the question, and a lot of pseudo reasons are being used to argue women into C-sections."

Private hospitals have a higher caesarean section rate than public hospitals. In 2011 43 per cent of women in private hospitals have birth by caesarean section compared with 30 per cent in public hospitals.


They probably want to stay tight for their hubbies  big_smile

Offline

#10 2017-03-14 00:35:44

wrcmad
Silver Stacker
From: Northern NSW
Registered: 2012-01-02
Posts: 6,100
Trades :   118 

Re: C -Sections

Skyrocket wrote:

They probably want to stay tight for their hubbies  big_smile

Nailed it.
I am surprised it took this far down the page for the real reason to surface.
While it is politically correct to blame being pressured for medical reasons or for convenience, fact is it has become an option of choice for many.
My missus in in the medical industry and sees this choice being made all the time to "maintain" pre-birth characteristics (for want of a better term). And the idea that these characteristics are maintained via c-section is no fallacy either. wink


Anything is possible, but not everything is probable.  wink

Manipulation..... If you want to continually subscribe to this idea then get out of precious metals. Only a fool would play a game that is completely rigged. As you still are in the game, I would say that you are not completely convinced of the manipulation ...

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Skyrocket

#11 2017-03-14 01:08:24

serial
Silver Stacker
From: wa
Registered: 2012-08-19
Posts: 3,341
Trades :   213 

Re: C -Sections

I would suggest people watch the Business of being born if they are considering having a child, I personally don't agree with home births and a lot of other hippy shit however this movie did get us started on researching the areas properly that we wanted to decide on and make our own decisions on the birthing plan rather than those that suited the hospital's staffing and risk management levels

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: adze67, Currawong

#12 2017-03-14 01:24:54

Currawong
Silver Stacker
From: Melbourne
Registered: 2015-07-16
Posts: 171
Trades :   

Re: C -Sections

sammy wrote:
Currawong wrote:

C-Section is artificially selecting for women with narrow hips. What this means is that because women who previously may have died in childbirth or had an extremely painful birth (and thus decided to only have one kid) are now having C-Sections it's increasing the amount of girls being born with narrow hips and boys who may carry the gene for narrow hips and then pass it on to their offspring.

That argument doesn't make sense.  If women couldn't have children because of their hips, then that gene wouldn't have survived until today.  Women have been having children since before they were human woman.  The fact is that natural selection has given 95% of us the means to reproduce effectively, and whilst modern medicine helps the other 5%, their genes shouldn't be enough to drown out our gene pool.


Perhaps but with so many people electing to give birth by C-Section scientists are starting to find changes. I found the article here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38210837

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: Topherclaus, sammy

#13 2017-03-18 03:24:13

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,411
Trades :   16 

Re: C -Sections

I'm happy to play devil's advocate here, with logic and bias. I read a great article on the wandering uterus recently and hope to post some excerpts when nature allows.

Please understand, I don't even know where the dog is now. Everywhere is raining. It is a canoe mission out of where I am right now. Internet is patchy. But, debating this is as good as any issue right now.

After Stoic provocatively and most likely with good reason brought up the issue of C-section in another thread, let's have at it.

The issue is an increase in c-section but also the disparate stats between the taxpayer funded surgical birth and the private sector.

The private sector has definitely a higher C-section rate versus the public sector.

What are we to make of this? Do we want socialism to kill the c-section when it is preferred, when people have the cash?

Maybe, the issue is what people do when they have the means to do so?

In WA, I see C-section was especially high during the boom, 50% in one hospital.

I think it thus as devil's cheer squad: women with means are older at the time of the decision to birth. They have means because they worked and that delayed the decision. This issue can be boiled down to a directive on high to be "independent", using divisiveness to subvert population growth from within a nation.

The women with money are older and older mothers, people in their 30s and 40s, but less able to afford an obstetric tragedy, with less biological reserve, less of a lot of things, all because of the push to make them worker bees when young.

The smarter women are steered into being worker bees rather than IQ factories.

That's the devil viewpoint.

Last edited by millededge (2017-03-18 03:41:25)

Offline

#14 2017-03-18 04:56:28

tolly_67
Member
Registered: 2010-05-17
Posts: 1,739
Trades :   

Re: C -Sections

In small part, it is probably also a function of the relative wealth of people and the personal/family aspirations that accompany such a situation.
In the past, a large family was the only solution to the reality of old age and the means to live. The superannuation schemes were not like today and government pensions were minimal. Savings could be destroyed after a few years of high inflation. We now look at the benefits that come with having only a few children for both the sake of the children and for ourselves. We are certainly more materialistic than the past and as such are willing to sacrifice quantity (of children) for quality (of life ).
A C-section was not always an option as you would be restricted to only 3 or 4 children before you risked severe tearing of the area which has been weakened by multiple extraction operations.

It cannot be ignored, however, that the c-section procedure has been improved as a result of the demand. In the past it was not so.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!

#15 2017-03-18 05:45:09

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,411
Trades :   16 

Re: C -Sections

tolly_67 wrote:

In small part, it is probably also a function of the relative wealth of people and the personal/family aspirations that accompany such a situation.
In the past, a large family was the only solution to the reality of old age and the means to live. The superannuation schemes were not like today and government pensions were minimal. Savings could be destroyed after a few years of high inflation. We now look at the benefits that come with having only a few children for both the sake of the children and for ourselves. We are certainly more materialistic than the past and as such are willing to sacrifice quantity (of children) for quality (of life ).
A C-section was not always an option as you would be restricted to only 3 or 4 children before you risked severe tearing of the area which has been weakened by multiple extraction operations.

It cannot be ignored, however, that the c-section procedure has been improved as a result of the demand. In the past it was not so.

Even now, the large family is the solution, but not so much for old age as the survival of a group with a common identity, all of which is gleefully subverted by information distribution moguls, deliberately, as any cursory ten second excerpt of modern media will point towards, as intended.

The only issue is who has the large family and under what terms.

Right now, the anti-nationals have the airwaves and monetary sway.

Offline

#16 2017-03-18 07:03:52

tolly_67
Member
Registered: 2010-05-17
Posts: 1,739
Trades :   

Re: C -Sections

Wow....even an innocuous topic such as a C-section can be twisted into an argument about immigration and religion.
What next...a Banana's in Pyjamas topic into the 'Banana in striped Pyjama' anti-semetic rant...

Offline

#17 2017-03-19 03:38:05

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,411
Trades :   16 

Re: C -Sections

Well, will I take the Devil's cudgel here again? What more contemporary Devil than the antisemite (to Jews mostly I expect), maybe a Christian is worse, what a dilemma for some...The rate of C-section is a correlate to fundamental issues of population. Like it or not, people are influenced to be family or influenced otherwise. There are **shock horror** people out there deliberately trying very hard to influence others to their will, in war, as in peace. One of those targets is reproduction and the entire structure of a society.

Is this an issue with you?

For the C-section rate, significant variables are the private sector, wealth, older mothers. Looking at why this is the case is not off limits afaik.

Offline

#18 2017-03-19 03:52:09

Stoic Phoenix
Silver Stacker
From: little things big things grow.
Registered: 2014-11-12
Posts: 2,905
Trades :   180 
Website

Re: C -Sections

millededge wrote:

For the C-section rate, significant variables are the private sector, wealth, older mothers. Looking at why this is the case is not off limits afaik.

+1
The breakdown of why and the influencing factors would be an interesting research paper.
There are a number of sound reasons for C-Sections, there are also many unsound ones.


www.searchnstay.com    ....for all your accommodation needs worldwide

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: millededge

#19 2017-03-19 03:58:48

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,411
Trades :   16 

Re: C -Sections

Other (biological) factors for c-section are already delineated and apolitical so probably garner little interest.

A key issue is why are women reproducing later?

C-section is more common amongst older mothers and if the first was a caesar, the next is also quite likely.

A biological argument against the rise in c-section is the increased incidence of placental issues such as placenta accreta, where the placenta adheres to and invades the wall of the uterus from within. Being a very vascular organ, a problem with the placenta might lead to major blood loss or exsanguination, ie catastrophic. Advocates one way or the other don't generally pick up the pieces, that is at the individual level.

Let's say an older mother, in her late 30s, first timer "primiparous" goes for a c-section. She has the means after working to make sure she has a home and the money to give the child as good as a life she has. She intends, due to age, to only have two children, The second is also delivered by c-section.

Does this person carry a substantially greater risk of placenta accreta? I don't know.

For those in the "too many" camp, if there is a reason for "too many" it is surely the complications of surgery, which are real.

Last edited by millededge (2017-03-19 04:06:03)

Offline

#20 2017-03-19 04:13:11

Stoic Phoenix
Silver Stacker
From: little things big things grow.
Registered: 2014-11-12
Posts: 2,905
Trades :   180 
Website

Re: C -Sections

You claim to have been an undergrad in obstetrics (which a bachelor of arts student could class themselves as) but you are saying you know better than the midwife quoted in the story who states there are too many?

Last edited by Stoic Phoenix (2017-03-19 04:27:32)


www.searchnstay.com    ....for all your accommodation needs worldwide

Offline

#21 2017-03-19 05:16:34

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,411
Trades :   16 

Re: C -Sections

I don't claim to be an undergraduate in obstetrics. There is no such thing in Australia to my knowledge. Things may have changed, granted.

I did present the case for acupuncture in labour.

That was a very long time ago for me, but in terms of the history acupuncture, a heartbeat

I guess I was swayed emotionally looking back, for if it was that great, the uptake would be greater than one might expect on the basis of the literature I presented. We are going back decades now.

It is all very well to claim there are too many c-sections but the issue is which ones are unnecessary and for those unnecessary c-sections, what is the rate of complications?

Are women coerced? I understand that any operation involves signing a consent form. There is only one person that does that, the woman, other than the witness.

To say that a person is coerced into a c-section is a stretch, unless literally due to the fact the person is incapable of giving consent, eg if labour occurred when the person was in a coma or was neurologically or mentally impaired.

It might be fairer to say that person felt pressured to make a decision when they would have liked more time to resolve what they thought best for them. Maybe campaigning for public health advocates to prioritise this would be the way forward then?

At the same time, tt isn't as though there isn't plenty of time to think about the issue as an expectant mother - 40 weeks or so. 

This is one of the pointier decisions to make as much is at stake. Bad things happen and the concern for all is to minimise this.

Devil's advocate here: A midwife may claim there are too many c-sections, and may be vindicated in some cases by the outcome. The question for the midwife is, are some vaginal deliveries also a fool's errand? Does the midwife sit well with the outome?

Although this is pretty much rhetoric, the outcome is pivotal and measurable. Birth by appointment is a reality for some nowadays, I expect. Apart from the convenience, one issue is cultural. Some cultures value certain numbers and thus the temptation to deliver on that date. I'm parroting something I read elsewhere here btw...could be crap.

Our c-section rate isn't the highest in the world. The USA has a particularly high rate (from recollection) and a different health care model. It seems reasonable to say fee for service increases the c-section rate.

The Brits have a lower c-section rate with their NHS.

We have a hybrid model.

One of the key issues for c-section in obstetrics here and elsewhere is the consequences for adverse outcomes. They are severe and lifelong. If memory serves, it was this field that led to wholesale government insurance at a Federal level for medicos in the early 2000s, as obstetricians threatened a mass walkout due to obscene insurance premiums.

Last edited by millededge (2017-03-19 05:20:51)

Offline

#22 2017-03-19 05:28:24

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,411
Trades :   16 

Re: C -Sections

In a way I wonder if it is analogous to the broken window fallacy stackers know well.

Money sunk into repair of the window is extolled, but silence accompanies the things that never happened as a result of resources diverted to the glazier.

Do we know how many tragedies were averted by c-section *even in those with no medical indication*?

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Are the bad outcomes which never happened measurable?

Last edited by millededge (2017-03-19 05:43:13)

Offline

#23 2017-03-19 15:00:32

Gullintanni
Member
From: New Zealand
Registered: 2016-06-15
Posts: 359
Trades :   

Re: C -Sections

Stoic Phoenix wrote:

You claim to have been an undergrad in obstetrics (which a bachelor of arts student could class themselves as) but you are saying you know better than the midwife quoted in the story who states there are too many?

Midwives do not know S##T when it is not a straight forward delivery and  and the only PREVENTABLE deaths during birth in NZ happen at midwife only deliveries.
If you leave it to the midwives and there is trouble someone will die and then they will avoid any accountability and continue to practice.
I can tell you now that after our son was born we both had major issues with the way the midwife handled the labour so 30 minutes before he arrived i went over her head and grabbed an OBGYN we knew and got him to take over .
As it turned out the stupid bIT#h midwife we had was on bloody bail awaiting sentence at the time and as her name was suppressed until sentencing we had NO IDEA.
Just complete BS and then we read that she has been sentenced to home detention.
I was super duper grumpy and went out of my way to make a public spectacle of her locally so she has left our town but i bet she is still practicing somewhere else here in NZ.
100% true.

Offline

#24 2017-03-19 16:30:09

Naphthalene Man
Silver Stacker
From: Hunter Valley, NSW
Registered: 2010-02-25
Posts: 5,370
Trades :   101 

Re: C -Sections

I'm very glad for c sections. After going into initial labour on Friday, by Sun eve my wife still hasn't dialated enough. The call was made and she was booked in for the c section on the Monday at 11am.

My opinion is that natural birth should be the first option for the benefit of the child. The pressure should be on the doctors to say no to the mothers unless for emergency reasons.

Another issue is breast feeding. Should be encouraged more for a minimum of 6 months... Another issue though.


''Up ahead they's a thousand' lives we might live, but when it comes, it'll only be one''
- Ma in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: bordsilver, Stoic Phoenix

#25 2017-03-20 23:31:29

Skyrocket
Silver Stacker
From: Melbourne
Registered: 2014-07-20
Posts: 4,842
Trades :   36 

Re: C -Sections

Unless doctor orders it C sections are unnecessary just like circumcisions on males. All them poor males that had circumcisions lost around 75% less feeling in head of penis according to some figures. Glad my folks left me alone!

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB