Doctors told to try and talk women giving birth out of having epidurals to save NHS money

UK Daily Mail ^ | August 31, 2012 | Sophie Borland

[C19fan]

Family doctors are being told to try to talk women out of having Caesareans and very strong painkillers during birth to save the NHS money. New guidelines drawn up for GPs urge them to encourage women to have natural labours with as little medical help as possible. But for many women the prospect of giving birth without the painkillers is unthinkable. And critics have said the move has been made without any thought for the women themselves. The guidelines also remind doctors to tell women to consider having their babies outside hospital in midwife-run units or in their own homes.

[Clara Lou]

“I try to talk women out of epidurals because every woman I know who ever had one during delivery was complaining about back pain ten, twenty and thirty years later.”
This surprises me. As the mother of 4, I can tell you that my back is fine.

How, by the way, could an epidural possibly cause back pain?

[the scotsman]

That may have been one hospital.

I worked for the NHS 14 yrs ago, and what you described was not general policy or what happened, then or now.

The NHS has problems, but it is far from the hellhole Americans think it is. People, and most Americans, go on what they read or hear from conservative media in the US.

Very few like you have any experience of it.

[the scotsman]

The NHS has its problems, but it is not rickety or third rate or third world or a hellhole. The NHS by and large is a damn good system that works most of the time. If you were in England, you would be I am sure pleasantly surprised at the standard of care. I wish Americans would at least actually experience it and not go on second or third hand opinions.

[AnAmericanMother]

If human flesh were woven like cloth, you would have a point.

I'll go with my doc's opinion - a smoothly contoured episiotomy is better than a ragged tear, and if the tear decides to go midline on its own and extends all the way through the perineum, you are in so much trouble. And certainly a snip is indicated in a very rapid labor, as I had.

My doc was a feisty old character (may he rest in peace), a red-headed Irishman with a temper to match. But he knew his business, and he was chief of OB/GYN surgery at the best hospital in Atlanta.

[AnAmericanMother]

Financial Times gets it wrong on US infant mortality rates

Infant Mortality: A Deceptive Statistic

A separate WHO Bulletin in 2008 noted that registration of stillbirths, live births, and neonatal deaths is done differently in countries where abortion is legal compared with countries where abortion is uncommon or illegal, and these discrepancies generate substantial differences in infant-mortality rates. Jan Richardus showed that the perinatal mortality rate “can vary by 50% depending on which definition is used,” and Wilco Graafmans reported that terminology differences alone among Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the U.K. — highly developed countries with substantially different infant-mortality rates — caused rates to vary by 14 to 40 percent, and generated a false reduction in reported infant-mortality rates of up to 17 percent.

[the scotsman]

Fox and the NR are wrong.

I have worked for the NHS and know the way we compile our statistics. I confirmed this in a personal email to a major UK natal charity, as a few months ago, as there was a similar thread on RightNation, of which I am also a member. And I wanted to confirm that I was correct. I reposted the email verbatim there, I will try and find it if I can. RN has a habit though of wiping old threads, but I will try and find it.

The NR is particularly bad when writing about the UK. It gets simple facts wrong a lot.

[the scotsman]

I contacted Bliss, the premier British charity that helps care for premature and sick babies and their families

‘Dear Sir/Madam,

I have a query about infant mortality that I hope you can help me with.

I am curious as to the definition/methodology of British infant mortality. For example, the United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. But I have been unable to find any information on whether Britain’s definition is the same, similar or different.

I would be grateful if you could answer said question or point me to information that would answer my question.’

‘Dear *****

In regards to the definition of live births the British definition is the same as the Americans’ in that it counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity and size.

I hope this answer is helpful to your enquiry.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.’

Kind regards
Lucy

(Lucy Schonegevel
Campaigns and Policy Officer BLISS)

[zot]

Of course this is just anti-Obamacare racist propaganda.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!