Hospital has banned fat women from giving birth . . .

^... Link..?

Well, what I think about this is unprintable.

Having given birth five times (and being well north of 250 lbs every time) I can understand why a hospital would want the safety of labor patients to be of utmost concern. But these places are using obese mothers as an excuse not to upgrade their facilities, their training programs, their equipment, their staffing......and that is GARBAGE. Phooey upon them.

This is from the UK, and I wonder if this has something to do with it. Midwifery practice is far more widespread than it is here, and midwives catch a high percentage of babies from low-risk pregnancies.

Higher-risk women are risked out to deliver with OBs. Unfortunately, women with higher BMIs also tend to be higher risk. That's not discrimination, that's just the facts. Personally I'd rather catch a baby for someone who's large and otherwise healthy than someone who's lean and say, has had a poor diet or smoked all their pregnancy. But that's just me.

i find it morally reprehensible but financially safe.
IF the hospital doesn't have the revenue/$$ to upgrade, then it 'seems' understandable...
esp in such a litigious society.

leslie

I think the hospital would be on higher ground if they actually did a risk assessment on each mom before turfing her out. If they looked at things like previous birth experiences, substance abuse issues, and relative fitness, for all the mothers, seems like some of the larger moms might be less risky than others (and some of the skinnier chicks might be more!). To shift them based ONLY on their weight feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

Other than that, though, I'm going to stick up for the hospital. To say that a lower-tech facility that relies heavily on midwives and less invasive birthing techniques has to gear up to be able to cover more complicated births seems unrealistic. They are what they are, and from what the article said, their patients are very pleased to have this lower tech option. To insist that they have to sacrifice that--no doubt at great cost and major disruption--and take an entirely different approach means that the entire character of the place will have to change. We don't tell birthing clinics here that they have to be prepared to handle high risk births--only that they have to hand off to a better equipped facility should the need arise.

By focusing only on weight and not making it just one part of a more detailed assessment, and by not considering that some larger women have done very well in delivering their children without complications, I think the hospital has made itself into a lightening rod for controversy. If they back off a little and opt to use a truly objective standard that doesn't focus solely on weight they might get a better reaction.

The bottom line is that both babies and moms can have a tougher time when the mom is very overweight. Sending all of these patients to another facility without even the pretense of discussion is wrong. But so is insisting that a lower-level facility completely revamp what is a successful program so that every eventuality can be covered.

Does anyone know what kind of distance the women would have to travel for higher-risk care?

Never mind my question about distance. I just saw that they were talking 20 miles. Now, I'm more convinced than ever that the hospital needs to revamp its assessment tools, but stick to its guns on referring higher-risk moms.

Twenty miles is not an outrageous distance to travel. It just isn't. Ask anyone who lives outside a major urban area in the US. People drive twenty miles to see a movie or shop at a particular store.

If the hospital had a way to assess that didn't eliminate every large woman and considered weight just one part of the assessment, their stance would appear--and be--more reasonable.

i'm being lazy now, but i think the article stated 20 miles.

leslie