Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 03:14
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 17,668
 
Plan: LC Maintenance
Stats: 215/147/150 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 105%
Location: UK
Default Fat mothers to be banned from hospital

Quote:
From The Telegraph
London, UK
12 November, 2009

Fat mothers to be banned from hospital

A hospital has banned fat women from giving birth at its maternity ward.


Mothers-to-be who have a body mass index (BMI) of over 34, the equivalent of an average woman of 5ft 6ins weighing 15 stone (210lb), will be turned away from Weston General Hospital, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset.

Instead patients will have to travel 20 miles to the nearest full-facilitated maternity unit at St Michael’s Hospital, Bristol.

A spokesman for Weston General Hospital said it was not equipped to handle complicated births.

“Our foremost concern is for the safety of mothers who deliver here and their babies.

“Mothers with a high BMI are at increased risk in labour of bleeding, needing an instrumental delivery or complications, such as the baby’s shoulder becoming trapped behind the pubic bone.”

He added: “Our midwife-led centre is extremely popular because many women don’t want to give birth in a hi-tech unit. There are no plans to change it.”

The move by the hospital has provoked claims that larger women are being unfairly treated.

Carole Welch, who runs a local Slimming World class, with 50 members, said it was wrong that bigger women could not safely give birth near their homes and had to travel to Bristol.

She said: “Women who live in the town, no matter what their size, should be able to give birth without travelling miles and miles.

“Let’s face it, at the moment obesity is a growing problem and more women are coming under this `over 34 BMI’ bracket."

She added: “Surely the hospital should upgrade their facilities to take in every pregnant woman? If I was over 34 BMI I would not be happy about it, it just doesn’t seem fair.”

NHS North Somerset primary care trust’s annual report found the number of overweight and obese people has spiralled over the last few years.

It is estimated that 29,600 adults, 18 per cent of the population, were obese and warned a further 6,000 would be dangerously overweight by 2013.

In the report, the director of health, Max Kammerling, (CRRCT), said: “We know that obesity affects people in more deprived areas to a greater extent and we think that levels of obesity are above national average in Weston south.”

Two years ago staff at Ealing Hospital, west London, were warned not to send obese patients to its first floor waiting room amid fears the building iould not take their weight.

Patients who weighed 30 stone (420lb) or more were instead fast-tracked to ground floor wards because management was worried that they were too heavy for the admissions ward upstairs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...m-hospital.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 03:37
Altari Altari is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 234
 
Plan: Modified low-carb
Stats: 255/197.6/160 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 60%
Default

Quote:
“Mothers with a high BMI are at increased risk in labour of bleeding, needing an instrumental delivery or complications, such as the baby’s shoulder becoming trapped behind the pubic bone.”

They're just making $h1t up now.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 05:01
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,792
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Shoulder Dystocia
While perhaps there is an element of scaremongering but there is an element of truth to the claim.
http://www.shoulderdystociainfo.com/anticipated.htm
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 05:02
tiredangel tiredangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,110
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 235/171.5/160 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

Is that prepregnancy weight?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 05:28
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,792
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredangel
Is that prepregnancy weight?
The spokesperson said " women were fully aware of the situation from the start of their pregnancy." So that implies that it's 34 BMI at initial visit that is used.
But
"The policy also includes women who have gained 44lb (20kg) in 36 weeks of pregnancy."

Dr Foster on Weston General Hospital, Weston-super-Mare
An 18 bed obstetric unit provides low risk obstetric care within a midwifery led maternity service. Three consultants oversee the service and this unit works in partnership with St Michael's Hospital, Bristol, for higher risk cases.

It's surely better for mothers to know there is no back up at this hospital than being transferred to Bristol while in Labour after things have started to go wrong?

Last edited by Hutchinson : Fri, Nov-13-09 at 05:40.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 05:38
tiredangel tiredangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,110
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 235/171.5/160 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

Hmmmm. Obese people do tend to have more complications during surgery. And women who gain a lot of weight during pregnancy do tend to have bigger babies and higher incidents of gestational diabetes. If a hospital isn't equipped to handle these, maybe it would be better to deliver in a high risk setting, though it's hard to believe any hospital wouldn't be able to handle a moderate risk birth.

The most disturbing thing I see about this is taking resources away from women who are genuinely high risk. I did have a genuinely high risk pregnancy, and the waiting times to see my doctor were outrageous -- those doctors were SO busy. Forcing women to see perinatologists who don't have a genuine need strains that already very strained system even further.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 08:59
jschwab's Avatar
jschwab jschwab is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,289
 
Plan: Atkins 72/Paleo/No Grains
Stats: 285/211/125 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:39.4%/33.2%/20%
Progress: 46%
Location: Philadelphia
Default

I am SO glad I don't live in England. What a crazy place! I would have to go to the hospital in this scenario and that's bullhockey. Shoulder dystocia is a phantom- it's the only thing doctors can think of to punish obese women into c-sections. I had three babies at home in my living room with midwives who had really looked at what the research says (an obese woman with no other risk factors is just as likely to have a safe delivery as a slimmer woman).
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 09:17
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,792
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Optimizing the outcome of pregnancy in obese women: From pregestational to long-term management
Free full text online

There is a section on Complications and morbidity during delivery

Trouble is there may also be an increased fear of potential risk and that leads to earlier and more drastic interventions that may be necessary.

Last edited by Hutchinson : Fri, Nov-13-09 at 09:23.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 09:26
costello22's Avatar
costello22 costello22 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 931
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 250.4/205.4/150.4 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutchinson
An 18 bed obstetric unit provides low risk obstetric care within a midwifery led maternity service. Three consultants oversee the service and this unit works in partnership with St Michael's Hospital, Bristol, for higher risk cases.


I had my son in a birthing center (I was normal weight back then). Women were turned away for a number of reasons including any high risk pregnancies/deliveries, multiple births, breech birth, etc.

There were also two huge hospitals in the vicinity - one directly across the street - in the event something should go wrong during a delivery. Easier to transport the mom across the street than 20 miles!
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 09:30
costello22's Avatar
costello22 costello22 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 931
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 250.4/205.4/150.4 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jschwab
an obese woman with no other risk factors is just as likely to have a safe delivery as a slimmer woman


So I guess this is a variant on the question I asked the other day about the public health notices that the obese are more at risk from H1N1? It isn't the obesity, per se, but the possibly accompanying conditions, such as diabetes?
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 10:56
jschwab's Avatar
jschwab jschwab is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,289
 
Plan: Atkins 72/Paleo/No Grains
Stats: 285/211/125 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:39.4%/33.2%/20%
Progress: 46%
Location: Philadelphia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by costello22
So I guess this is a variant on the question I asked the other day about the public health notices that the obese are more at risk from H1N1? It isn't the obesity, per se, but the possibly accompanying conditions, such as diabetes?



Yes, in my opinion. The research just does not bear it out.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 13:13
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is online now
Posts: 1,974
 
Plan: no grain/no sugar/OD
Stats: 372/270/172 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NJ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutchinson
"The policy also includes women who have gained 44lb (20kg) in 36 weeks of pregnancy."

I guess I would have been excluded too! My BMI was far from the limit when I got pregnant, but I did gain over 50 pounds when I was pregnant with my son.

Fortunately no such restrictions, and I was able to have my son at the hospital 5 minutes from my house, where he popped out just a little over an hour after I arrived there. Travelling 20 miles is not necessarily all that far if the roads are good. But if you get stuck in traffic watch out! I could have had my son in the car.

My sister had to have her two youngest in a hospital well over an hour from her home across windy, twisty mountain roads because the only obstetrician who lived, practiced and delivered at the hospital closer was forced out of business because she was only delivering 500 babies a year, and did not make enough money from that to pay her malpractice insurance!

Hey, but chubby me had an quick and easy delivery and a healthy baby, but my two skinny sister both had extreme and serious complications with their first deliveries!
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 13:26
Michelle H Michelle H is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 169
 
Plan: modified Atkins
Stats: 230/150/165 Female 69 inches
BF:22% (calipers)
Progress: 123%
Location: New Zealand
Default

Let's make that an n=3 with Debbie and Janine. I gained at least 20 kg and had fast home birth, no problems at all.

Edited to add - My midwives didn't weigh me at all.

Last edited by Michelle H : Fri, Nov-13-09 at 13:31.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 13:49
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Posts: 8,455
 
Plan: PāNu (-#s 9,10,12)
Stats: 482/368/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 86%
Location: NE OK USA
Default

The reality here is that as long as doctors and insurance are both liable for the "anything goes wrong" scenario, it is in their best interests to ensure that anything the insurance companies consider higher risk, or that could later in court be construed as high risk, be dealt with where necessary. Remember that getting someone very heavy into a wheelchair is hard, they might not fit, getting them onto a gurney for an ambulance is hard, they might not fit or might be too heavy, making transport in case of emergency a much worse situation. This isn't really about the detail of health except partly; I suspect it is more about liability.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Fri, Nov-13-09, 14:01
Altari Altari is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 234
 
Plan: Modified low-carb
Stats: 255/197.6/160 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 60%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightnow
The reality here is that as long as doctors and insurance are both liable for the "anything goes wrong" scenario, it is in their best interests to ensure that anything the insurance companies consider higher risk, or that could later in court be construed as high risk, be dealt with where necessary. Remember that getting someone very heavy into a wheelchair is hard, they might not fit, getting them onto a gurney for an ambulance is hard, they might not fit or might be too heavy, making transport in case of emergency a much worse situation. This isn't really about the detail of health except partly; I suspect it is more about liability.

A BMI of 34 is heavy, but not so heavy that the person can't get in a wheelchair or a gurney. I would also contest that the "high-risk" aspect is more from the forced intervention based exclusively on weight.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:36.


Copyright © 2000-2010 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.