Skip to main content

View Diary: More horrible anti-women cruelty in Ireland (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  For a different perspective on symphysiotomy, (6+ / 0-)

    this clinical review discusses when and how it is a valuable alternative to caesarean section. According to the article, the Irish situation is set in this historical context:

    History: First described in France in 1777. Performed extensively in twentieth century, especially in Catholic countries such as Ireland and Argentina where every contraceptive method, even for medical reasons, other than total abstinence was forbidden by the Catholic Church until 1951. This made multiple pregnancies inevitable and dangerous for women with a small pelvis and a healthy husband [7]. Symphysiotomies were the only alternative to caesarean sections for such women, given that contraception and of course divorce were not options.
    The connection to an absolute ban on contraception is clear. A symphysiotomy leaves the pelvic diameter slightly larger and makes subsequent deliveries easier for that reason. The bad side effects these women have endured from their procedures sound like malpractice while using a legitimate procedure, given the clinical studies cited. There is no excuse for it to have been done without adequate anaesthetic.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:21:40 AM PST

    •  The excuse given is probably that there is (4+ / 0-)

      a risk of hurting the baby.  Of course, the real reason is that they believe women are supposed to suffer during pregnancy because of Original Sin and therefore any kind of pain relief during pregnancy is evil.  Hell, if they knew about Naloxone which blocks all opiates/opiods including natural endorphins they would have forced women to take it during delivery

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 03:58:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you read the article? Done correctly it is a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avilyn

        much less invasive procedure than caesarean (which did not become safe until the mid-twentieth century) and  had the secondary benefit of making subsequent deliveries easier. It seems pretty clear to me that the women in the original article are the victims of malpractice, not of symphysiotomy per se.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:09:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, I think I misread your comment. You (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avilyn

        probably were referring to why it might have been done without anaesthesia. Sorry for misreading it originally.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:20:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Last clarification: symphysiotomy needs only local (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avilyn

        anaesthetic (unlike a caesarean) and therefore should not affect the baby, so no excuse for not using it.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:27:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wouldn't be so sure considering local (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Avilyn

          anesthetic (i.e. lidocaine) can't really numb bone.  You could use regional (a spinal/epidural block) like they do for delivery itself.  But like I said, they are such sadists they would have probably insisted that the mothers use Naloxone (which blocks endorphins and therefore makes lamaze and other "natural birthing" techniques useless) just to maximize the pain involved had that drug been available at the time.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:02:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A properly done symphysiotomy does not cut (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Throw The Bums Out, Avilyn

            bone; it severs the ligaments connecting the two halves of the pelvis. It should only require a scalpel - part of why I said that there was malpractice. A saw or broken bones are totally unnecessary if done correctly.



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:13:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps it was faster or cheaper that way, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bluedust, Avilyn

              you know like the icepick lobotomies (which should also be considered malpractice)?

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:18:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you read the description of the procedure in (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Throw The Bums Out, Avilyn

                the article, there is really no way to make it simpler or faster. Someone might be incompetent and not know how to do it right, but the correct procedure makes an incision of a couple of inches and takes maybe a minute.



                Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 06:28:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ah, but doing it that way might not produce (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Avilyn

                  as large of an opening as sawing into bone.  Not to mention that doing it that way doesn't encourage women to stay in the kitchen because they are in too much pain to go out very much.  Like I said, they are evil, nasty sadists.

                  You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                  by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 07:09:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, it appears the procedure with the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama

                  hammer is faster.  While it might take a minute to make the incision and perform the procedure it would probably take a good 5-10 minutes just to prepare the skin (assuming Betadine or Chlorprep).  Then you have the time it takes for the Novocaine to take effect (no Lidocane at the time). With that method they just take a mallet and slam it into the pelvis and crack it which takes seconds rather than the 15-20 minutes to do it the right way.

                  You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                  by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:22:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I can even imagine medical situations in which (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Throw The Bums Out

                    doing it that way and saving ten minutes could mean the difference between life and death of the mother. There is a right way to do tracheotomies, and then there is the pencil jab tracheotomy. Somtimes the pencil is the only option.

                    I have been trying to follow up on this story. So far all the references I can find to doing a symphysiotomy with a hammer go back to this one incident. I can't find evidence that it was the usual way that it was done.

                    One aspect of the procedure that is implicit in my original link is that proper rehabilitation after childbirth would be very important. There can be long term sequelae to a caesarean section (adhesions and so on) but rehabilitation for weight bearing parts of the skeleton would be important. If a few percent of the women who received the procedure didn't get that rehab it could have long term consequences.



                    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                    by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 04:39:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site