The Bias: Women Suffer The Most

Marx · #1 25th-February-2006

Quote:

Should women have to pay for epidurals?

Is it right to charge for epidurals, unless there is a medical need for them?

Leading midwives have suggested that women in NHS hospitals should pay for the injections that ease the pain of giving birth, unless there is a medical need for them.

Too many women are having epidurals, which cost up to £500 in private hospitals, according to a Royal College of Midwives committee. There is also some concern that the treatment increases the need for medical intervention during childbirth.

Should women have to pay for the injections? Is it right for hospitals to charge for certain drugs or treatment? Send us your comments and experiences.

It's a Have Your Say page from the Blah Blah Corporation.

Some of the comments so far...

Quote:

If women can't take the pain then they shouldn't get pregnant in the first place, there are already too many people in the world

Oliver Stieber, Newbury

I am sceptical of the 'cost' given as £500. Surely the only additional cost is the cost of the drug used , perhaps around £50. Comparing the private charges for a service against the NHS costs is at best disengenuous of the College of Midwives. The decision should be purely made on medical grounds, not fashion or monetary. But then I'm just a mere male who gets the bill.

Barry P, Havant England

Perhaps if we referred to children as "future tax payers" in discussions of this nature it make the "..children are a lifestyle choice" brigade stop and think (although personally I doubt it). Ludicrous suggestion by the way!

Trevor Thorpe

What a barbarous idea! Whilst I admire women who "go natural,"
it surely isn't for everybody as pain thresholds and birth experiences differ. My motto: "From conception to parturation, it's the lady's choice."

Edward High, Manchester, NH, United States

I think that its an absolute disgrace that they are asking to be paid for a pain relieving injection. They are more needing to charge all these drunks that sit in an A&E dept on the weekend to cough up some money for the damage and the waste of public money to treat them.

Leigh, Perth

What is with our NHS these days, they seem to want to ban or restrict every drug which has any good effect, if the NHS want to cut back, stop giving these junkies their fix until they show some effort for themselves. I think any drug that helps people should be funded by the NHS and i'm happy to pay for that as a tax payer.

John Gearing, Liverpool

If an epidural can slow labour and increase the chances that forcepts are required then it's potentially damaging to an unborn child. If a mother chooses to have an epidural she should pay. Prolonging the labour would increase the overall cost and paying for the epidural would at least offset that. If, however, the mother or unborn child is in danger through the mother not having the epidural it should be provided free. An Obstetrician should decide medical need.

Peter W, Manchester, United Kingdom

If you don't want the pain then don't have a baby.

K England

As an Anaesthetist who has done more than his fair share of epidurals for labour and otherwise, why do the midwives feel they are qualified to comment on this? The responsibility for the epidural rests with the Anaesthetist, so surely if anyone is to decide who pay for this,we should.

Eric

instead of charging for something as essential as pain relief why dont they start charging for the too many elective caesareans, too many people opt for those because the option is there not because the neccessity for it.

Sylvia Hampel, cheltenham

IF the the NHS didn''t spend so much money on pay rises for consultants, public information programmes that tell us to put a coat on in winter and useless hughley expensive IT systems they might have some money to spend on medicine.

Alan Trent, London, United Kingdom

i think its ridiculus and extremely discriminating to ask for payment for an epidural. i had to have one after i gave birth naturally with only gas and air. because i tore so badly on the inside i had to have an epidural to get stitched up. if i would have to have paid i wouldnt have been able to have that surgery as a student money is tight. fees for epidurals if anything should be means tested and only required from high earners.

Sylvia Hampel, cheltenham

Giving birth to a child is one of the natural process for any woman.Unfortunately presentday generation is not fully up to the task of giving birth as nature intended and resort to drugs or other ways.That does not mean NHS has to charge for the drugs to ease the pain.
Whether it is expensive cancer drug or anything else will lead to discrimination on the grounds of ability to pay.

vijay k vijayaratnam, UK

this is ridiculous. isn't our country one of the world's wealthiest? and we can't afford to give pain relief? if we're that poor things must really be bad. so, to start saving costs let shut down all casinos, clubs, ban drinks, cigarettes - oh and let's not forget the appalling amount the royal family spend - maybe we can demote them. only once we have cut all "entertainments" which really are unneccessary, can we even start to consider medical cuts, the medical world is bad enough already.

jamie

Of course epidurals should be free. If we want a private medical system to cover childbirth one should be implemented so everyone has to have cover,If thats not whats happening the NHS should be covering the cost.
Its not one way or another and a midwife shouldnt be the one to decide if a woman is in sufficient medical need, she isnt the one in agony

Jennifer Griffiths, Cardiff, United Kingdom

That's just page 1... I can't be fussed to copy the entire 29 (as of today) pages worth of comments LOL.

Abby · #2 25th-February-2006

Personally, I believe that in the case of giving birth naturally, that is exactly what it should b...natural.
I wasn't in the position to give birth to any of my three children naturally, although, as far as I did get into labor with my first, I hadn't required OR requested any pain medications. I just don't believe that if it is possible to give birth naturally, one should be hindering the baby as well as the natural birth process, with unnecessary drugs and needles.
The female body was created to accomodate the birth process, unless other complications arise that require surgery, I don't believe any drugs whatsoever should be used.

Marx · #3 25th-February-2006

I entirely agree with you on this. The way i see it is that over a length of time, the human body adapts...or mutates, depending on your way of thinking. If we, as a culture and group within a window of time, continue to make the birth process easier and easier the female body will eventually (i'm talking multiple hundreds of generations) adapt to accomodate the new drugs and medical procedures. Meaning, that in time, women could find themselves literally incapable of birthing a child because their bodies have changed - knowing that science will do it for them.

This is undeniable as it's happened in the past with other areas of human life. For example, chinese women used to continually bind their feet. Now, generations upon generations later, chinese women have 'naturally' small feet.

There remains a possibility that women's bodies could change similarly... eliminating any chance of a 'natural' birth process (by today's standards).

Rebadow · #4 26th-February-2006

I decided to create a new topic and make it a sticky, because the problem it deals with is very irritating, yet still very pervasive - in the media, press releases and offcial reports of various organizations, etc. To make a long story short, it is mentality, hence the name "The Bias".

What I'd like to achieve with this thread is to expose this misguided mentality as much as possible; and the best way to do that seems to be to start with collection of quotes from articles, where blatant ignorance of men's suffering (or a much greater toll a given problem takes on men) is evident - and the suffering/toll of minority of victims (usually women) is heavily highlighted.

So, what I'm asking you to do, is merely that when the next time you'll read some article stating that "1000 people died, including 10 women", you quote it here. Don't forget to cite the source, and provide the link, if possible.

Below I copied a few posts we talked about already in other threads, but they also fit in this sticky thread perfectly.

Don't hesitate to contribute...

Rebadow · #5 26th-February-2006

Hillary Clinton at her speech to the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador on November 17, 1998]

Quote:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."

Rebadow · #6 26th-February-2006

Quote:

Human Rights Watch (A Face and a Name: Civilian Victims of Insurgent Groups in Iraq)]When I was in Najaf, I met many women who had lost their sons, husbands, brothers and I was very moved by their desire for peace, she said in the profile. Its the women who have suffered the most under this occupation. And thats why its women who want peace the most.

Reminds me of Hillary Clinton's logic: women are the primary victims of war because their husbands and sons are killed.

BTW, I understand that this woman suffered a lot, don't get me wrong. but like Herb here said one time: women are the only group which claims they are the biggest victims by actually surviving something...

Unlike their male counterparts...

Rebadow · #7 26th-February-2006

Quote:

Amnesty International (Protecting rights in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam during the military emergency)]6. Protection of women and children

Women and children are disproportionately the victims of conflict, internal or otherwise. In the context of armed independence struggles in NAD and elsewhere in Indonesia, torture, including rape and other forms of sexual abuse of women and girls, have been committed by members of the security forces as a form of intimidation and as punishment for their, or their relatives’, alleged involvement with or support of armed opposition groups. Thousands of women have been widowed or children orphaned because husbands and fathers have been unlawfully killed during the course of operations by the security forces in these regions. Women and children have also been among the many thousands of people that have been displaced by the actions of security forces.

How can "women and children be disproportionately the victims of conflict" if there are at least as many their own men who are unlawfully killed in the same conflict?

Rebadow · #8 26th-February-2006

Quote:

ICRC (People on War Project)]Men were created for war, but women weren't. You find that, in the end, women are the ones who suffer most. They are widowed, they loose their husbands and children, they are shot while pregnant, so they are much affected.

...don't even need to comment...

Rebadow · #9 26th-February-2006

...and of course, it just wouldn't be perfect without implying good ol' male-guilt:

Quote:

Catherine Bertini (the executive director of the World Food Programme)]“Men wage war. Women and children suffer the consequences,” she said.

Rebadow · #10 26th-February-2006

...about refugees in 1995 in Rwanda (where one of the biggest genocides in history occured in 1994);

Quote:

ICRC - Strengthening protection in war: a search for professional standards, chapter "Field Presence", page 57,]The situatioon began to grow tense on 18 APril 1995. Four camps (Kibeho, Ndago, Munimi and Kamana) were encircled by military forces intent on closing them down. This caused a wave of panic in which several people, including at least one woman and eight children, were trampled to death. Medecins sans frontieres (MSF) and UNHCR reported the death of some 20 people.

...some 20 people dead in a completely indiscriminate human stampedo - among those dead, 1 single woman. Let's highlight that, yes, who cares about at least 10 dead men. And this coming from the ICRC... Sad. :?

Rebadow · #11 26th-February-2006