Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A third of US citizens do not have proper health insurance. The rich/poor divide over there is shockingly bad.


Completely agree with above post in that every mother (and father) should have their baby in the way they want to but for some that may be a c-section and for others a home birth. So we should leave other parents alone to make their own choice.

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, DG, readers of this thread can draw their

> own conclusions.

>

> All I can report is personal experience and what I

> have observed with friends. For us, and perhaps

> many others who I have never met, the downside

> risks of major problems for the baby, in

> pregnancies that looked textbook all along

> (critical point!), are more concerning than any

> marginal benefits that may or may not exist from a

> pv delivery.



The benefits of vaginal birth to the baby are neither non-existent nor marginal, as your opinion suggests. This is not my opinion which I'm trying to pass as fact. This is actual research which is out there in peer-reviewed journals.


Although an elective C-section birth may not be detrimental to the baby in an immediate sense, neither is it beneficial in the immediate or the long-run.


(Medically necessary C-secs are another story altogether of course, and a true medical wonder for the babies' lives they save.)

Yak Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Back to the OP, what interests me most is the

> different stats for home births for first and

> second time mothers. Why is there such a

> difference? Is it because the mother is more aware

> of what is going on a second time round, and

> therefore more able to escalate concerns? That's

> one area I'd really like to see more research in.


It seems to me that the categorisation of 'low risk' mothers is much narrower once you get to second & third time mums. There are many potential things that can go wrong once you get to the childbirth that can't be predicted from an otherwise normal, healthy pregnancy - but once these things have happened with the first child, it may then indicate it's inappropriate for you to have a home birth the second time around.


The second thing of course, is that labour is quicker and more straightforward with subsequent children anyway.


For me, one of the most striking things from the report was the stat that as many as 1 in 200 births to LOW RISK first time mothers have a poor outcome, even in a hospital environment. In what other context would the probability of these sorts of outcomes ever be considered a low risk??

For categorisation of risk in multiparous women, I think attrition must also play a role. If a mother had a very poor outcome from her first labour and delivery, then it's possible that she will choose not to have more childen, or that if she does, she will choose a planned C-section (which was not included in this study for obvious reasons).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...