Monday news roundup:
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada says a C-section should not be offered to a pregnant woman unless there is a valid medical reason to perform one. But, a University of British Columbia study found that 2 per cent of obstetricians were in favour of a woman's right to choose a C-section for herself, even in the absence of a medical indication.
Speaking of caesars, Charlotte Church says giving birth naturally was pretty rough: "It's absolutely, disgustingly horrendous.It's shocking I tell you that. I had both babies at home, two home births, just with gas and air. It was horrendous. I mean it was amazing and awesome and crazily whatever, a completely different experience but you know, I might do it again because I'm a little bit of a sadist that way."
Over in supermodel preggo land, the maternity style wars were on as Heidi Klum and Gisele Bundchen tooled around town with their bumps in all their glory
In case you missed it, Shiloh Pitt, 3, lost her front tooth. This has prompted such heated internet discussion, forcing Brangelina to issue a press release answering questions about the obvious gap in Shiloh's smile. Most people think Shiloh is too young to start losing teeth, so most of the web is settled on the idea that Zahara either clocked her in the face or she has been eating skittles for breakfast.
Speaking of half-pint celebs, Suri Cruise is not only a style maven for other three year olds, her mother, Katie Holmes points to Suri as her inspiration for her new fashion line she is launching with her stylist Jeanne Yang: "It has been my dream forever to be in fashion and I'm truly inspired by my daughter Suri. She just loves dressing up so I decided to launch this exciting venture with Jeanne." Um, let's just hope that her new line doesn't include sparkly shell shaped handbags or kitten heels.
Oh, and Nicole Richie has snapped back into her size zeros in just under 2 weeks. Ho Hum.
Showing posts with label elective caesar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elective caesar. Show all posts
28 September 2009
11 August 2008
Oh no you didnt!
Hell has frozen over.
*deep breath*
I just found an article about post-baby weight loss in the New York Daily News (I guess that says it all) in which the author quotes some $%&*head surgeon that says caesareans are great for this reason:
"You burn a lot of calories healing after a C-section. It's a serious surgical procedure - you're cutting through the abdominal wall and the uterus," he explains. "Your body is trying to repair itself and that stimulates your metabolism. Plus you're usually on a liquid diet for the first few days afterward. You can lose about 10 pounds. So if you keep that off, watch your diet and get back to exercising, you can look really good."
Right. let's just go back to the 'cutting through the abdominal wall' bit. How about 'Ouch'? Um, I think weight loss is perhaps the last thing on your mind when you are trying to prevent your intestines from bursting out of your surgical scar.
There you have it, ladies. Elect to have a caesar and forget about going to the gym. Your immune system will take care of the weight loss for you.
30 April 2007
caesareans and obesity
It is very interesting that elective caesareans have become the hot topic of the week (particularly in The Age) ever since Catherine Deveny wrote 'The great birthing con is taking choice away from women' last Thursday.
You can read it here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-great-birthing-con-is-taking-choice-away/2007/04/25/1177459782569.html
Being the person that I am, I wrote a letter in response. Here is a small sample:
Honestly, the situations in which birthing women make these ‘choices’ require careful analysis and of course, critique. There is no question that some women perhaps make birth ‘choices’ based on inadequate or biased sources of information or as a result of sacrifices made on behalf of their partner or even for the health of the unborn baby. Yet, obscuring the often positive benefits of obstetric technology only complicates women’s efforts to use that same technology for their own benefits. The argument that technology like caesarean sections, which are no doubt more ‘risky’ than vaginal birth, cannot be used for feminist or woman-centred approaches to childbirth is wrong. The fact that many women appreciate the use of pain relief in childbirth despite awareness of the risks of epidural injections into the spine, for example, suggests that women are sometimes able to influence medical practice and use intervention for their own ends. The insistence that women can/should/ought to find childbirth to be empowering or easy or ‘natural’ neglects the diversity of Australian experiences of birth. In addition the notion that the ‘alternative’ or midwife-driven birth culture has successfully challenged medical hegemony is also misleading. Although the values and aims of woman centred one-on-one midwifery care may resonate with many birthing women and have more appeal than hospital birth, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of births are still highly medicalised. Medicalisation is stronger than ever in Australia and the midwifery movement is essential in assessing and critiquing current obstetric practices.
Then, today I was thinking about an issue that has been completely lost from any of the recent dialogue surrounding elective caesarean being that overweight or obese women are much more likely to have a caesar than any other women. In 1995 the rate was 16.6 per cent and last year it was up to 23.2 per cent which quite closely follows the increase in the rising number of women considered to be 'obese', about 25%. It is not women who are 'too posh to push' that are necessarily pushing up the caesarean rate in the 'Western' world. As a result of the medical assumption that extra fat restricts the baby's safe passage in a vaginal delivery, overweight women are becoming increasingly subject to 'emergency' caesars and other unwanted medical intervention.
In light of this, I found a great article on Without Measure, the blog of the International Size Acceptance Association with some helpful information on avoiding a caesar as a 'woman of size'.
http://womeasure.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/avoiding-surgery-lowering-the-cesarean-rate-in-big-moms/
You can read it here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-great-birthing-con-is-taking-choice-away/2007/04/25/1177459782569.html
Being the person that I am, I wrote a letter in response. Here is a small sample:
Honestly, the situations in which birthing women make these ‘choices’ require careful analysis and of course, critique. There is no question that some women perhaps make birth ‘choices’ based on inadequate or biased sources of information or as a result of sacrifices made on behalf of their partner or even for the health of the unborn baby. Yet, obscuring the often positive benefits of obstetric technology only complicates women’s efforts to use that same technology for their own benefits. The argument that technology like caesarean sections, which are no doubt more ‘risky’ than vaginal birth, cannot be used for feminist or woman-centred approaches to childbirth is wrong. The fact that many women appreciate the use of pain relief in childbirth despite awareness of the risks of epidural injections into the spine, for example, suggests that women are sometimes able to influence medical practice and use intervention for their own ends. The insistence that women can/should/ought to find childbirth to be empowering or easy or ‘natural’ neglects the diversity of Australian experiences of birth. In addition the notion that the ‘alternative’ or midwife-driven birth culture has successfully challenged medical hegemony is also misleading. Although the values and aims of woman centred one-on-one midwifery care may resonate with many birthing women and have more appeal than hospital birth, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of births are still highly medicalised. Medicalisation is stronger than ever in Australia and the midwifery movement is essential in assessing and critiquing current obstetric practices.
Then, today I was thinking about an issue that has been completely lost from any of the recent dialogue surrounding elective caesarean being that overweight or obese women are much more likely to have a caesar than any other women. In 1995 the rate was 16.6 per cent and last year it was up to 23.2 per cent which quite closely follows the increase in the rising number of women considered to be 'obese', about 25%. It is not women who are 'too posh to push' that are necessarily pushing up the caesarean rate in the 'Western' world. As a result of the medical assumption that extra fat restricts the baby's safe passage in a vaginal delivery, overweight women are becoming increasingly subject to 'emergency' caesars and other unwanted medical intervention.
In light of this, I found a great article on Without Measure, the blog of the International Size Acceptance Association with some helpful information on avoiding a caesar as a 'woman of size'.
http://womeasure.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/avoiding-surgery-lowering-the-cesarean-rate-in-big-moms/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
