LETTER
TO EDMONTON JOURNAL IN RESPONSE TO VBAC ARTICLE
Edmonton , May 3, 2004
Ms. Liane Faulder
Sunday Reader Columnist
Edmonton Journal
10006 -101 Street
Edmonton , AB
T5J 0S1
Dear Liane,
Re: Articles in Sunday Journal, May 2,
2004 – “On the cutting edge of birthing” and “Pendulum swings
again for women seeking vaginal birth after caesarean sections”
The Association wants to thank you for
such an extensive coverage of the phenomenon of caesareans
and vaginal birth after caesarean, VBAC. Your presence at
the public meeting in the Strathcona Hall was a surprise
and a delight because our goal was to achieve as much positive
publicity as possible for the Association. Your devotion
to getting your story, taking notes and interviewing our
guests during the almost 3-hour event was inspiring. The
most important aspect of your column was the picture you
included on the cover of the Sunday Reader with a baby being
born amid surgical equipment and latex gloves. If that isn't
enough to show people that caesareans are major abdominal
surgery, I don't know what is. Thank you for including it
and for making it so prominent in the paper.
Thank you for compiling and writing the
articles regarding the high rate of caesarean sections in
Canada, the elective c-section issue and the Caesarean Awareness
public meeting hosted by the Edmonton VBAC Support Association/ICAN
of Edmonton.
The Association understands that both sides
of an issue need to be addressed, which was done efficiently
and effectively, but we do however have some concerns about
several of comments made in the articles. Firstly, purporting
that c-sections reduce the risk of urinary incontinence is
a misconception. This is a monumental concern for women.
The studies we have find no long-term differences in symptoms.
Women having c-sections have stronger pelvic floor muscles
initially, but this difference disappears over time. It is
a myth that c-sections are effective in eliminating bladder
incontinence. Some causes of pelvic floor muscle weakness
include episiotomy, vaginal instrumental delivery (forceps
or vacuum), epidurals, and hysterectomy. Also, the bladder
is manipulated (peeled away) so that the surgeon has access
to the uterus during a c-section and the transverse abdominal
muscles that support the internal organs are also weakened
by the incision causing bladder incontinence in some women
that have undergone caesarean deliveries. We have literature
and studies available on the subject in support of these
statements.
Secondly, the members of the Association
are rather disappointed with the conclusion of the article
on women seeking VBACs which was ended on a negative note.
We feel that the comments made by Dr. Chris Hoskins painted
a negative picture stating that “VBACs are not a satisfying
experience” and that “women are not happy” and would have
been “just as happy” with a caesarean section. I personally
attempted VBAC in hospital twice and was unsuccessful because
of the guidelines followed for VBAC moms including the no
food or drink policy, intravenous feeding, continuous internal
and external electronic fetal monitoring and bed confinement.
These medical interventions make it nearly impossible to
have a positive vaginal birth experience. Is it any wonder
why Dr. Hoskins patients were unsatisfied with their hospital
VBACs? You were present in the room and you heard each speaker
testify that her VBAC was a wonderful, satisfying, empowering,
beautiful, healing, and positive experience. This should
have mentioned in the article as a rebuttal to his negative
comments. It sounds like all the hard work the women put
into achieving their goal of having a vaginal birth after
one or more caesareans was not worth the effort. The message
given to women reading the article that may be considering
a VBAC is one that actually dissuades them from avoiding
a repeat caesarean. Again, c-sections are being promoted
instead of vaginal births. It would have been interesting
to actually include some of the comments of the VBAC moms
who loved their experience regardless of the personal effort
and expense they had to incur.
Thirdly, Dr. Hoskins comments on “forgiveness”.
Those of us who have had caesarean sections, that we felt
were unnecessary, have also struggled and are struggling
with the issue of forgiveness. How do you forgive a doctor
who has taken away your right to birth your baby vaginally
not once but sometimes several times? How do these doctors
face themselves in a mirror each day knowing that they exposed
a woman and her baby to the multiple risks of major abdominal
surgery for, what we feel is, their own personal convenience
and security? Caesarean sections are very traumatic, as are
vaginal births with major medical interventions. Natural
vaginal birth without intervention is not.
In preparation for the big announcement
by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada,
SOGC, in June, we feel that you should follow through with
one or two more articles on the caesarean phenomenon. The
Edmonton Journal is the only periodical who has picked up
the story and run with it, so you have the advantage at this
point. We suggest the following story ideas:
- VBAC without fear: stories of VBAC moms
- The caesarean myth: why do rates around the world vary
wildly
Finally, the Edmonton VBAC Support Association
would like to be referenced in the articles as a dedicated
and reliable source of support and information to women seeking
a VBAC after one or more caesareans, to women whom have recently
experienced a c-section, and to first time moms who need
support avoiding caesareans for their first birth. Please
include that for further information and support people can
contact the Edmonton VBAC Support Association/ICAN (International
Caesarean Awareness Network) of Edmonton at edmontonVBAC @ yahoo.ca or
by visiting www.edmontonvbac.netfirms.com .
Yours truly,
Denise Iskiw
Executive Member , Edmonton VBAC Support Association/ ICAN of Edmonton
Return
to Press Releases
Previous Next
|
