Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14639
    13 Jan '16 10:41
    Was reading a news article where some doctors stated that a woman should be forced to undergo a c-section against her will if a normal birth would endanger the life of the foetus.

    Opinions?
  2. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    13 Jan '16 12:42
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    Was reading a news article where some doctors stated that a woman should be forced to undergo a c-section against her will if a normal birth would endanger the life of the foetus.

    Opinions?
    Doctor and patient issues over consent require patience and good communication. Sounds like in this case a doctor is seeking to over-ride the woman's right to give or withold informed consent and using a legal procedure as an alternative to respectful negotiation with the patient. We hear the black and white account without knowing the detailed context, which for every patient - doctor transaction is unique. For example, we do not hear the description of risk arising from a C-section (not in general but in this case) - the brief description given could be taken to imply there is no risk and that is unlikely, but also that fails to express the manner in which this may have been communicated to the patient (who is already under stress).

    One reading of this post, and it cannot be the only one but it is possible, is that an arrogant doctor has tried to bully a patient into giving consent to an operation, possibly after communicating the risks in a typically brutish and dismissive manner, and does not tolerate the patient's wish to have nothing to do with him, which in the context might in fact be reasonable.

    In short, it is tiresome how this forum continually seeks to tell women what to do with their bodies, infantilises them by ignoring their capacity for making informed, balanced and principled choices, and wishes to use the power of the legal system, coupled with the socially assigned social status and assumed expertise of the professional doctor, to impose abstract principles that are largely meaningless in the specific context of that woman, her life, her choices. .
  3. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14639
    13 Jan '16 13:19
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Doctor and patient issues over consent require patience and good communication. Sounds like in this case a doctor is seeking to over-ride the woman's right to give or withold informed consent and using a legal procedure as an alternative to respectful negotiation with the patient. We hear the black and white account without knowing the detailed context, whi ...[text shortened]... les that are largely meaningless in the specific context of that woman, her life, her choices. .
    I should've made it more clear that this does not concern one specific case. These doctors feel that women in general should be forced to undergo a c-section when the life of the unborn is at stake.
  4. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23128
    13 Jan '16 14:09
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    I should've made it more clear that this does not concern one specific case. These doctors feel that women in general should be forced to undergo a c-section when the life of the unborn is at stake.
    In the U.S.:
    Number of vaginal deliveries: 2,642,892
    Number of Cesarean deliveries: 1,284,339
    Percent of all deliveries by Cesarean: 32.7%

    This is outrageous. Doctors are urging women to have C-sections to simply get more $$$. Women are increasingly seeking licensed mid-wives due to the outrageous number of C-sections. Obviously few, if any women favor surgery over a vaginal birth. This is just another case of women being taken advantage of in the U.S.
  5. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14639
    13 Jan '16 14:50
    Originally posted by Phranny
    In the U.S.:
    Number of vaginal deliveries: 2,642,892
    Number of Cesarean deliveries: 1,284,339
    Percent of all deliveries by Cesarean: 32.7%

    This is outrageous. Doctors are urging women to have C-sections to simply get more $$$. Women are increasingly seeking licensed mid-wives due to the outrageous number of C-sections. Obviously few, if any women fa ...[text shortened]... y over a vaginal birth. This is just another case of women being taken advantage of in the U.S.
    This isn't about money.

    I will summarize the news article later this evening, to give a bit of background.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52855
    13 Jan '16 15:321 edit
    Originally posted by Phranny
    In the U.S.:
    Number of vaginal deliveries: 2,642,892
    Number of Cesarean deliveries: 1,284,339
    Percent of all deliveries by Cesarean: 32.7%

    This is outrageous. Doctors are urging women to have C-sections to simply get more $$$. Women are increasingly seeking licensed mid-wives due to the outrageous number of C-sections. Obviously few, if any women fa ...[text shortened]... y over a vaginal birth. This is just another case of women being taken advantage of in the U.S.
    It is a huge issue in Brazil, where my daughter lives. Women are FORCED to do C sections there. Disgusting if you ask me.
    What about the part where perhaps a fetus NEEDS to be squeezed through the birth canal to squeeze out stuff, whatever?
  7. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    527956
    13 Jan '16 16:22
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    This isn't about money.

    I will summarize the news article later this evening, to give a bit of background.
    That would have been a good Point to start the thread.
  8. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    23128
    13 Jan '16 17:55
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    This isn't about money.

    I will summarize the news article later this evening, to give a bit of background.
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/c-section-report/

    http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21657819-death-childbirth-unusually-common-america-exceptionally-deadly

    "Over the past quarter of a century, however, America’s maternal-mortality rate has been creeping back up (see chart).By 2013 the rate had ticked up to 18.5 women for every 100,000 births (these numbers include women who die within 42 days of childbirth). This makes America an international outlier. nearly a third of all American births now involve a Caesarean section, up from nearly 21% in 1996. Any surgery increases the risks of complications and multiple C-sections make these problems worse. (Women who undergo C-sections are often encouraged by doctors to use the procedure for subsequent births.) “Most of us think the C-section rates can be reduced,” says Michael Lu, who oversees maternal and child health at the federal Health Resources and Services Administration....more American women are in poorer health when they become pregnant, and are failing to get proper care."

    So, the issue has more to do with the lack of decent health care in the U.S., especially for pregnant women. And now we are closing down Planned Parenthood, one of the only sources of good health care for women. Yup, the U.S. is sure an exceptional country.
  9. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    13 Jan '16 18:19
    Originally posted by Phranny
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/c-section-report/

    http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21657819-death-childbirth-unusually-common-america-exceptionally-deadly

    "Over the past quarter of a century, however, America’s maternal-mortality rate has been creeping back up (see chart).By 2013 the rate had ticked up to 18.5 women for every 100,000 bi ...[text shortened]... f the only sources of good health care for women. Yup, the U.S. is sure an exceptional country.
    Everything is about money, especially when someone claims it isn't.

    I would posit that a larger factor is the attitude among physicians, that they are Gods, and the rest of us owe our lives to them and their great knowledge. It is a shut up and do as I say attitude.

    The human race got along fine for millenniums without C sections, and allowing that at times they may save lives, it doesn't mean that they should be practiced indiscriminately, or that people who object should be forced to accept that treatment, or any other for that matter.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13032
    14 Jan '16 02:11
    Originally posted by Phranny
    In the U.S.:
    Number of vaginal deliveries: 2,642,892
    Number of Cesarean deliveries: 1,284,339
    Percent of all deliveries by Cesarean: 32.7%

    This is outrageous. Doctors are urging women to have C-sections to simply get more $$$. Women are increasingly seeking licensed mid-wives due to the outrageous number of C-sections. Obviously few, if any women fa ...[text shortened]... y over a vaginal birth. This is just another case of women being taken advantage of in the U.S.
    I agree.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13032
    14 Jan '16 02:14
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    This isn't about money.

    I will summarize the news article later this evening, to give a bit of background.
    If it has nothing to do with money, then perhaps they should make that method of delivery cheaper to prove it. 😏
  12. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    14 Jan '16 11:54
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    Was reading a news article where some doctors stated that a woman should be forced to undergo a c-section against her will if a normal birth would endanger the life of the foetus.

    Opinions?
    Past the point of legal abortion both the baby and mother have equal rights.
    (One could argue that the baby has more rights as it has more future)
    Therefore any decision must take into account risks for mother and child.
    The path of less total risk must be taken.
  13. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14639
    14 Jan '16 12:521 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Past the point of legal abortion both the baby and mother have equal rights.
    (One could argue that the baby has more rights as it has more future)
    Therefore any decision must take into account risks for mother and child.
    The path of less total risk must be taken.
    This was basically the point of the news article. I was surprised by some of the responses here. Short summary of the article:

    - A group of gynaecologist and jduges have proposed that: If the life of the unborn baby is at stake and a c-section would improve the child's chances but the woman does not want to have a c-section, a doctor should consult legal advice and a judge should then be able to overwrite the mother's wish.

    - The article states that it is not exactly known how often a situation as described above (where a c-section would greatly improve the child's survival chances) occurs in The Netherlands, but in one of the bigger hospitals (in Rotterdam) it occurs twice to three times a year, according to the aforementioned group of doctors and jduges.

    - Currently, doctors are helpless if the woman refuses a c-section.

    - Furthermore, if a judge cannot get to the hospital in time to make the decision, the surgeon should be able to decide that a c-section is needed and this decision should be approved by the judge retroactively.
  14. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56309
    14 Jan '16 15:30
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    Was reading a news article where some doctors stated that a woman should be forced to undergo a c-section against her will if a normal birth would endanger the life of the foetus.

    Opinions?
    Totally disagree. Woman's body. Her choice.

    Unless she's a republican... hell, saw off her head for all I bloody well care.
  15. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    14 Jan '16 16:321 edit
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    This was basically the point of the news article. I was surprised by some of the responses here. Short summary of the article:

    - A group of gynaecologist and jduges have proposed that: If the life of the unborn baby is at stake and a c-section would improve the child's chances but the woman does not want to have a c-section, a doctor should consult ...[text shortened]... cide that a c-section is needed and this decision should be approved by the judge retroactively.
    So, if a woman refuses to allow this, and locks herself up in her home with sufficient supplies to see the pregnancy through to term, the suggestion is a doctor should be allowed to:

    1 Petition the court for the woman to be forced to comply
    2 Presumably the police would then break into the house
    3 Then, if she still refuses to come willingly, to forcibly remove her from her home
    4 Once she reaches the hospital, for her to be presumably kept under lock and key/guard at all times
    5 When she still refuses to submit, to then forcibly sedate her to permit the c-section to take place
    6 Once this has all happened, to hand her the baby and discharge her?

    Sorry, my mistake, it appears that stage 1 should not always be necessary.
Back to Top