tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4181472671648618071.post1635565430890307304..comments2023-10-18T15:20:33.029+01:00Comments on cesarean debate (now caesareanbirth.org): Instrumental deliveries ↑ but c-sections headlinecesarean debatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01711913972260724246noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4181472671648618071.post-88764933383976163522012-12-10T10:46:34.995+00:002012-12-10T10:46:34.995+00:00The headline "18 per cent over mothers over 3...The headline "18 per cent over mothers over 35 opted not to give birth naturally" is the worst bit of the article. <br /><br />I sincerely doubt that 18 per cent actively choose without having some medical reason to do so. <br /><br />Especially if you look at the figures from a FOI request dated 2010 which gives a breakdown of reasons for electives. <br /><br />http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/policy_relating_to_elective_caes#incoming-89430<br /><br />I really do which that newspapers which have the resources to do more FOI requests like this would do so, as they reveal the story much better than a bunch of midwives with a professional and ideological bias. <br /><br />Unless they start looking properly at the data available we are going to continue being stuck in the mentality that woman are "too posh to push" and the reasons for these ELCS are groundless. <br /><br />Not to mention since ELCS are statistically safer and preferable to an EMCS why is the focus on ELCS so much anyway? An ELCS is not a bad thing if it prevents worse outcomes. Yet it is constantly vilified. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com