Dappy
18-05-11, 04:13 PM
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Case-study-Im-still-not.6770060.jp
Sarah Nathan, 29, from Edinburgh, was disappointed at having to have a Caesarean during the birth of her son William, who is now nine months old.
After being in labour for 23 hours, one of the midwives told her the procedure was essential. She was concerned that Mrs Nathan's labour had not advanced to the next stage.
However, the new mum believes that if she had been allowed more time at the busy maternity unit in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, her son could have been born naturally.
Mrs Nathan said: "I'm not 100 per cent convinced it was necessary, and no-one has told me why I had to have it - other than this one midwife."
She added that she found the after-effects of the operation tough to cope with. She said: "I found the recovery from the Caesarean very difficult and movement was painful.
"If the baby had been in distress or there was a risk to him or to me I would have gone with the C-section.
"The surgeon did say afterwards that there was no reason I would need to have another one next time - and I would really hope to avoid a section again."
What is your units policy on how long women are 'allowed' to be left to try and establish and birth naturally?
If your a IM, do you have a set policy as such? If no what is your comfort zone regarding time for women to labour naturally?
If no distress is detected, should women just be left to labour naturally? When should we intervene or shouldn't we? Where should the line be drawn?
Thoughts?
Sarah Nathan, 29, from Edinburgh, was disappointed at having to have a Caesarean during the birth of her son William, who is now nine months old.
After being in labour for 23 hours, one of the midwives told her the procedure was essential. She was concerned that Mrs Nathan's labour had not advanced to the next stage.
However, the new mum believes that if she had been allowed more time at the busy maternity unit in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, her son could have been born naturally.
Mrs Nathan said: "I'm not 100 per cent convinced it was necessary, and no-one has told me why I had to have it - other than this one midwife."
She added that she found the after-effects of the operation tough to cope with. She said: "I found the recovery from the Caesarean very difficult and movement was painful.
"If the baby had been in distress or there was a risk to him or to me I would have gone with the C-section.
"The surgeon did say afterwards that there was no reason I would need to have another one next time - and I would really hope to avoid a section again."
What is your units policy on how long women are 'allowed' to be left to try and establish and birth naturally?
If your a IM, do you have a set policy as such? If no what is your comfort zone regarding time for women to labour naturally?
If no distress is detected, should women just be left to labour naturally? When should we intervene or shouldn't we? Where should the line be drawn?
Thoughts?