-
Almost 40% of pregnancies in America are ending with the child(ren) being surgically removed!
- Jul 14, 2008 at 9:43 PM
- By
- Comments (23) Total Views (576) Everyone can see this journal post.
Recent studies reaffirm earlier World Health Organization recommendations about optimal cesarean section rates. The best outcomes for mothers and babies appear to occur with cesarean section rates of 5% to 10%. Rates above 15% seem to do more harm than good (Althabe and Belizan 2006).
The national U.S. cesarean section rate was 4.5% and near this optimal range in 1965 when it was first measured (Taffel et al. 1987). In more recent years, large groups of healthy, low-risk American women who have received care that enhanced their bodies' innate capacity for giving birth have achieved 4% cesarean section rates and good overall birth outcomes (Johnson and Daviss 2005, Rooks et al. 1989). However, the national cesarean section rate is much higher and has been increasing steadily over the past decade. When a national rate is available for 2007, we will find that over one in three mothers are now giving birth by c-section, a record level for the United States.
Most mothers are healthy and have good reason to anticipate uncomplicated childbirth. Cesarean section is major surgery and increases the likelihood of many short- and longer-term adverse effects for mothers and babies (some of these harms are listed below). There are clear, authoritative recommendations for more judicious use of this procedure (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000). So why does a pregnant woman's chance of having a cesarean section keep going up?
Two Myths about the Rising Cesarean Section Rate
To explain this steady rise, health professionals and journalists often point the spotlight on mothers themselves. Many assume that leading factors in the trend are: 1) more and more women are asking for c-sections that have no medical rationale, and 2) the number of women who genuinely need a cesarean is increasing. Neither appears to account for a large portion of the increase.
Despite a lot of talk about "maternal request" cesareans, few women appear to be taking this step. Childbirth Connection's national Listening to Mothers survey of women who gave birth in hospitals in 2005 was the first study to poll women about these decisions in the United States. When we asked mothers who had had a cesarean why they had it and who had initiated it, just one woman among nearly 1600 survey participants reported that she had had a planned first c-section with no medical reason at her own request (Declercq et al. 2006a). Those who have looked at this question in other countries have found similar results (McCourt et al. 2007).
Many have also pointed to changes in the population of childbearing women, such as more older women who have developed medical conditions and more women with extra challenges of multiple births. While there are some overall changes in this population, researchers have found that cesarean section rates are going up for all groups of birthing women, regardless of age, the number of babies they are having, the extent of health problems, their race/ethnicity, or other breakdowns (Declercq et al. 2006b). In other words, there is a change in practice standards that reflects an increasing willingness on the part of professionals to follow the cesarean path under all conditions. In fact, one quarter of the Listening to Mothers survey participants who had cesareans reported that they had experienced pressure from a health professional to have a cesarean (Declercq et al. 2006a).
Reasons for the Rising Cesarean Section Rate
The following interconnected factors appear to be pushing the cesarean rate upward.
Low priority of enhancing women's own abilities to give birth
Care that supports physiologic labor, such as providing continuous support during labor through a doula or other companion and using hands-to-belly movements to turn a breech (buttocks- or feet-first) baby to a head-first position, reduces the likelihood of a cesarean section. The decision to switch to cesarean is often made when caregivers could use watchful waiting, positioning and movement, comfort measures, oral nourishment and other approaches to facilitating labor progress. The cesarean section rate could be greatly lowered through such care.
Side effects of common labor interventions
Current research suggests that some labor interventions make a c-section more likely. For example, labor induction, especially, among first-time mothers when the cervix is not soft and ready to open appears to increase the likelihood of cesarean birth. Continuous electronic fetal monitoring has been greatly associated with a the growing number of a cesareans. Having an epidural early in labor or without a high-dose boost of synthetic oxytocin ("Pitocin") seems to increase the likelihood of a c-section. Such labor interventions frequently lead to “fatal distress/demise”, “maternal distress/demise”, and “failure to progress”.
Refusal to offer the informed choice of vaginal birth
Many health professionals and/or hospitals are unwilling to offer the informed choice of vaginal birth to women in certain circumstances. The Listening to Mothers survey found that many women with a previous cesarean would have liked the option of a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) but did not have it because health professionals and/or hospitals were unwilling to inform mothers of their federal rights to do so(Declercq et al. 2006a). Nine out of ten women with a previous cesarean section are having repeat cesareans in the current environment. Similarly, few women with a fetus in a breech position have the option to plan a vaginal birth.
By LAW, you have the right to refuse any medical procedure, test, or drug!
UPHELD BY:
Common Law
Case Law
Constitutional Law - The right to privacy and self-determination protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Federal Law - The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and The Patient Self-Determination Act.
International Tort Law - Sometimes sited by US Law.
State Law
State Mandated Medical Ethics
The Ethical Guidelines of the American Medical Association (AMA)
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (AGOG)
Casual attitudes about surgery and cesarean sections in particular
Our society is more tolerant than ever of surgical procedures, even when not medically needed. This is reflected in the comfort level that many health professionals, insurance plans, hospital administrators and women themselves have with cesarean trends.
Limited awareness of harms that are more likely with cesarean section
Cesarean section is a major surgical procedure that increases the likelihood of many types of harm for mothers and babies in comparison with vaginal birth. Short-term harms for mothers include increased risk of infection, surgical injury, blood clots, emergency hysterectomy, intense and longer-lasting pain, going back into the hospital and poor overall functioning. Babies born by cesarean section are more likely to have surgical cuts, breathing problems, difficulty getting breastfeeding going, and asthma in childhood and beyond. Perhaps due to the common surgical side effect of "adhesion" formation, cesarean mothers are more likely to have ongoing pelvic pain, to experience bowel blockage, more frequent injury during future surgery, and to have future infertility. Of special concern after cesarean are various serious conditions for mothers and babies that are more likely in future pregnancies, including ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, placenta accreta, placental abruption, and uterine rupture (Childbirth Connection 2006).
Providers' fears of malpractice claims and lawsuits
Given the way that our legal, liability insurance, and health insurance systems work, caregivers may feel that performing a cesarean reduces their risk of being sued or losing a lawsuit, even when vaginal birth is optimal care.
Incentives to practice in a manner that is efficient for providers
Many health professionals are feeling squeezed by tightened payments for services and increasing practice expenses. The flat "global fee" method of paying for childbirth does not provide any extra pay for providers who patiently support a longer vaginal birth. Some payment schedules pay more for cesarean than vaginal birth. A planned cesarean section is an especially efficient way for professionals to organize hospital work, office work and personal life. Average hospital charges are much greater for cesarean than vaginal birth, and may offer hospitals greater scope for profit.
All of these factors contribute to a current national cesarean section rate of almost 40%, despite evidence that a rate of 5% to 10% would be optimal.
SAY NO TO unnecessary medical interventions!!!!!
{pitocin} {cryotec} {epidural} {spinal} {continual fetal monitoring} {iv}
{restrictions on food/water} {restrictions on movement}
refrences
Althabe F, Belizan JF. Caesarean section: The paradox. The Lancet 2006;368:1472-3.
Childbirth Connection. What Every Pregnant Woman Should Know About Cesarean Section, 2nd ed. New York: Childbirth Connection, December 2006. Available at http://www.childbirthconnection.org/cesareanbooklet/
Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, Applebaum S. Listening to Mothers II: The Second National U.S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection, October 2006a. Available at http://www.childbirthconnection.org/listeningtomothers/
Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002. Am J Public Health 2006b;96:867-72.
Johnson KC, Daviss B-A. Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: Large prospective study in North America. BMJ 2005;220:1416. Available at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7505/1416
McCourt C, Weaver J, Statham H, Beake S, Gamble J, Creedy DK. Elective cesarean section and decision making: A critical review of the literature. Birth 2007;34:65-79. Available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/bir/34/1
Rooks JP, Weatherby NL, Ernst EK, Stapleton S, Rosen D, Rosenfield A. Outcomes of care in birth centers: The National Birth Center Study. New Engl J Med 1989;321:1804-11.
Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Liss T. Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980-85 rise. Am J Public Health 1987;77:955-9.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Maternal, infant and child health. In: Healthy People 2010, 2nd ed. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2000, pp. 16-30-31. [Objective 16-9] Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/tableofcontents.htm#Volume2
A version of this article appears in the second edition of The New York Guide to a Healthy Birth (New York: Choices in Childbirth, 2007).
Comments:
I am so sorry you had to go through that. Hopefully, this post can help to inform other's of there rights so they do not have to go through what we did. I wish I could have gotten this post to you sooner, so that you would have known that your doctor was breaking the law by refusing you a vbac. As this post mentions:
By LAW, you have the right to refuse any medical procedure, test, or drug!
UPHELD BY:
Common Law
Case Law
Constitutional Law - The right to privacy and self-determination protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Federal Law - The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and The Patient Self-Determination Act.
International Tort Law - Sometimes sited by US Law.
State Law
State Mandated Medical Ethics
The Ethical Guidelines of the American Medical Association (AMA)
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (AGOG)
This means that if a hospital or medical attendant goes against your informed refusal, they are be in violation of your rights under EMTALA. A formal complaint can be filed and the hospital and/or care giver will be charged with criminal assault and battery. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY "NO"!!!
Oh Ya,I have a petition going right now trying to stop Fluoride in our water,Would you please sign it an help us end this madness.www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stopfluoride2gether It would be greatly appreciated....Blessings to ya!!!!!!
I completely agree, and this is a very good post. I DID have a c-section though. It was not my choice. My ob wanted me to have a vaginal delivery, and even did one last minute ultrasound to see if it was possible. I have severe pre-eclampsia..bp's were running 240/150, sometimes higher. I was on bedrest from 20 weeks. I also had COMPLETE placenta previa, which is why she did the last minute ultrasound, hoping it moved up! My daughter stopped growing ( IUGR). I was very ill, and we made it to 36 weeks. I believe that I NEEDED to give birth this way for my daughters sake,as well as mine. She was a preemi and had to spend some time in the NICU.
BUT>>>>> If I get pregnant again, and the pregnancy is healthy, I would LOVE to have a homebirth!! I can't image having to labor in a hospital room, too many strangers lol. That's the way I wanted to have Kailey, although I wont' go completely unassisted because of my last pregnancy, I'm too scared. I need at least one ultrasound around 36 weeks to make sure the baby will be able to come out of the birth canal!! Birth is normal, pregnancy problems aren't as common as the crazy numbers you posted, which makes me think there are alot of unnecessary cutting going on.
Thank you for posting this!
Already a member? Click here to log in
Meet Dodie702
This Nevada mom of two - who are just 18 months apart! - is married to her high school sweetheart and loves to craft in her free time.
- bearyleaf
Message Friend Invite