• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

I'm wondering if the hospital's/doctor's malpractice insurance will refuse coverage for a vaginal birth after previous C-Sections. But as with all of these types of stories there has got to be more to it.
 
Summerwind said:
Apparently you haven't read all the posts in the thread. There is one, you can go back and find it, that indicates that after decades of data, it has been determined to be no more or less dangerous.
Click to expand...

go read the site i linked. there are plenty of dangers and risks. which is why many hospitals and more so midwives won't do them.
 
Summerwind said:
It's the "reporting" threat aspect that would cause me to sue them. First of all, VBAC is dangerous to the mother, not the child, so calling Child Protective Services is totally stupid, but furthermore, calling the government to interfere in a medical decision that might only hurt the one making the decision.... well hell we should all be turned into whomever handles that since all surgeries have a risk of death or worse.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The reason why my doctor wouldn't even consider a VBAC after my first was because of problems both my son and I had. It was deemed risky to my next 2 sons during my pregnancy.
 
Summerwind said:
That may be but the CDC, in a previous posted quote from the CDC, has determined the risks to be no greater than choosing a c-section.
Click to expand...

why is it everytime you are presented with evidence that says otherwise you claim it is wrong.

it is not wrong it is correct there are greater dangers to a women that is having a vbac than one who has never had a c-section.
 
ludin said:
go read the site i linked. there are plenty of dangers and risks. which is why many hospitals and more so midwives won't do them.
Click to expand...

Not really to the child though. I don't buy that at all. Now should the hospital and patient be prepared to switch to a c-section and avoid the "emergency" aspect that raises the issue, sure, then the baby is in no more danger than a usual c-section.
 
Summerwind said:
Nevermind, I cannot find the post to which I was referring. Will be back if I can locate it.
Click to expand...
OK, I feel better, as I was just digging through looking for the link and could not find it either.
 
Winchester said:
I'm wondering if the hospital's/doctor's malpractice insurance will refuse coverage for a vaginal birth after previous C-Sections. But as with all of these types of stories there has got to be more to it.
Click to expand...

that could be it as well. they might not cover if something goes wrong, and you know for a fact that if something did go wrong waiver or not she would sue for millions.
thing is she lost her suit against the hospital which means that they could go after her for the their legal expenses if they wanted to.

she ended up having to have a c-section anyway.
 
Summerwind said:
Oh no doubt. I always (as an adult) have left the hospital before doctor's okay. They seem to really like to keep you there as long as possible. Hospital personnel are often abusive and think they own you while you're there. I do not accept that and even have forced them to let me smoke in my room (a private) room, and have guests after hours. They hated me, I'm sure.

Now that I'm un-plumbed, I've not seen a doc since the plumbing was removed, and don't intend to. From here on out I'll live and die by whatever happens to me without medical treatments. I mean if I break a leg, okay, I'll get it casted, but no more surgeries, none. I've had it with the whole business.
Click to expand...

Years ago people stayed in the hospital for 5 days after delivery. Now it's 1 day. I was sent home 3 days after my last c-section, and I wanted to stay, but was told that was standard. I also have seen my husband and kids pushed out sooner than I think they should have been. In this day and age it appears to be the opposite of what you say here.
 
Redress said:
OK, I feel better, as I was just digging through looking for the link and could not find it either.
Click to expand...
I swear I just read it. It gave the dates that the CDC recommended against VBAC and that ultimately in mid 2000 they rescinded it and had determined that it was about equal to going straight to a c-section. Now it's poof gone.
 
tres borrachos said:
Years ago people stayed in the hospital for 5 days after delivery. Now it's 1 day. I was sent home 3 days after my last c-section, and I wanted to stay, but was told that was standard. I also have seen my husband and kids pushed out sooner than I think they should have been. In this day and age it appears to be the opposite of what you say here.
Click to expand...

Three days and you wanted more. Geez. It's folks like you I think that caused the changes then, wasting insurers money. I delivered around midnight and we left the next day around noon. Both times family was with me through it all, never asked to or left the hospital, and only left the room the first birth as mentioned to go find and get the baby and bring her to me NOW!
 
Summerwind said:
Three days and you wanted more. Geez. It's folks like you I think that caused the changes then, wasting insurers money. I delivered around midnight and we left the next day around noon. Both times family was with me through it all, never left the hospital, and only left the room the first birth as mentioned to go find and get the baby and bring her to me NOW!
Click to expand...

I had a c-section. I guess you don't know that a c-section is surgery.

Not sure what "folks like me" means, or that I think you caused anything. I have my own insurance and didn't waste your money.
 
Summerwind said:
Not really to the child though. I don't buy that at all. Now should the hospital and patient be prepared to switch to a c-section and avoid the "emergency" aspect that raises the issue, sure, then the baby is in no more danger than a usual c-section.
Click to expand...

omg

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC)-Risks of VBAC and Cesarean Deliveries

Rupture of the scar on the uterus, which is rare but can be deadly to the mother and baby
there are other complications such as infection and other problems.

you can not buy it all you want to that doesn't meant they don't exist.
 
Summerwind said:
Have you ever been on the receiving end of a report to child protective services? I know a person who was, and you clearly don't have a clue as to how that goes. First things first, they come and take your children, then they decide if they should give them back.
Click to expand...

So what? Reporting someone to child protective services is not LEGAL action. It's a report.

Just FYI, because it has nothing to do with THIS incident, in order to sue someone in court and WIN for reporting someone to child protective services, one must have clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person doing the reporting knew what they were reporting was NOT true and that they did it maliciously. The courts believe, and most agree, that taking any other approach to reporters would have "a chilling effect" on those reporting. Better safe than sorry wins the day.
 
tres borrachos said:
I had a c-section. I guess you don't know that a c-section is surgery.

Not sure what "folks like me" means, or that I think you caused anything. I have my own insurance and didn't waste your money.
Click to expand...

Folks that want to stay in the hospital longer than needed just because they want to. I had a full hysterectomy at 9am one day and left at 9am the next. It's about the same if not more traumatic than a c-section. Nice try.
 
MaggieD said:
So what? Reporting someone to child protective services is not LEGAL action. It's a report.

Just FYI, because it has nothing to do with THIS incident, in order to sue someone in court and WIN for reporting someone to child protective services, one must have clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person doing the reporting knew what they were reporting was NOT true and that they did it maliciously. The courts believe, and most agree, that taking any other approach to reporters would have "a chilling effect" on those reporting. Better safe than sorry wins the day.
Click to expand...

Now I was a severely abused child, due to the times and having a doctor for a father, no one turned him or my mother in. In my teens, I befriended a girl who had been taken by child protective because of sexual abuse by the father. She was put in a filthy foster home where she was again sexually abused, and then to another and so on. She had been to five foster homes and sexually abused 4 of those.

So here's the thing, I KNEW it was my parents fault and not my fault that I was beaten and abused. Since she kept having the same thing happen at numerous places, she was convinced it was all her fault.

Unless and until the foster care system is truely a safer place (evidenced by way more than this little story I relate), I disagree with your assumption that it is safer than sorrier.
 
Summerwind said:
Folks that want to stay in the hospital longer than needed just because they want to. I had a full hysterectomy at 9am one day and left at 9am the next. It's about the same if not more traumatic than a c-section. Nice try.
Click to expand...

No clue what you're trying to accomplish. Most hysterectomy stays are only 1-2 days anyway. My cousin just had one at the Mayo Clinic and was out the next day.
 
tres borrachos said:
No clue what you're trying to accomplish. Most hysterectomy stays are only 1-2 days anyway. My cousin just had one at the Mayo Clinic and was out the next day.
Click to expand...
Not back when I had one. All the other ladies going in the same morning stayed 3-5 days. Hence my point that it was because of people choosing to remain invalids that caused insurance companies to limit the acceptable number of days in post-surgical hospital stay.
 
TeleKat said:
Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else - Reason.com
Click to expand...

I would presume, perhaps wrongly, that this decision by the medical team and the supporting court was made to protect the life of the child about to be born. Since most people who reasonably support "choice" do so when a fetus isn't yet viable, relying solely on the woman to choose whatever treatment she wants to her body, I would also assume that those people would also support, in such a situation, the medical team and the supporting court who are suggesting the best path for the child's safety at presumably no or less risk to the mother.
 
Summerwind said:
Not back when I had one. All the other ladies going in the same morning stayed 3-5 days. Hence my point that it was because of people choosing to remain invalids that caused insurance companies to limit the acceptable number of days in post-surgical hospital stay.
Click to expand...

So then what are you trying to accomplish? You said they want to keep people too long, and then you say that years ago they kept people longer, so they don't keep people too long now since the time is shorter.

I never met anyone who actually wanted to be in a hospital. I also never knew any new mothers who wanted to be "invalids". I stayed for 3 days because my doctors knew more about medicine than I did, not because I enjoyed being in a hospital room.
 
I see that some people here are trying to re-frame this as an abortion related issue. That does not seem to be the case

At issue here is whether or not a provider can be compelled to provide care (they can) and under what circumstances.

This is not a case of someone trying to force a provider to perform a service they are not prepared to perform, such as one they lack experience, training or equipment that is needed. This hospital has and does provide medical services for women who deliver babies "naturally". However, the details show that the woman had contraindications for a VBAC. So the issue here is "at what point are doctors allowed to refuse to perform a service and on what grounds are they allowed to do so?"
 
Redress said:
No one said she should not be able to choose how she wanted it done. Some have stated it is also up to the hospital what procedures they perform, and can choose to refuse to perform what would be considered a risky procedure that is adviced against by the professional groups for that area of medicine. It is best to read the thread before saying something painfully silly and inaccurate...
Click to expand...

Some advocate for forcing the woman to have the surgery.
 
tres borrachos said:
Hmmm...interesting. I had 3 C-sections (no vaginal deliveries), and after #1 a VBAC wasn't even a suggestion.

I think they should let her try the VBAC if she's hell bent on it. They should make her sign a waiver that says she won't sue in the event her uterus bursts or the baby comes out with problems, etc.

If I wanted to be a doctor, I would never consider being an OB/GYN. Too much risk, which is which is why last I heard they carried the 2nd highest malpractice insurance costs.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem and the reason most women who have one CS have the rest as a CS as well. There are problems with uterine rupture and atony, adhesions from prior procedures etc-and Obstetricians can and are STILL sued even after everything is explained and waivers are signed. This would be besides the fact that the child may have permanent brain damage etc.

This woman probably read some crap online or saw Dr. Oz (I hate that guy-so many get bad ideas from him).

I dont think there is a legal basis to force as CS and that should not occur, but this is an unwise choice on the mothers part when the health and safety of the child should be her concern.
 
Summerwind said:
Folks that want to stay in the hospital longer than needed just because they want to. I had a full hysterectomy at 9am one day and left at 9am the next. It's about the same if not more traumatic than a c-section. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Just a FYI - "I did it fine, and it turned out OK for me, so all others must be able to do the same thing with no problem" isn't actually a medically defensible position. It's why studies of anything have a sample size greater than one when at all possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom