I wrote this to a friend today: "I thought I'd heard it all, but no, there's more...". I'd just read a story in the Irish Herald highlighting new horrors that women have been subjected to during 'normal' vaginal deliveries in hospital.
I knew what an episiotomy was, of course. I also knew I wanted to avoid one. But a symphysiotomy? That was a new one on me, and here's what I learned today:
Note: More information in this SOS (survivors of symphysiotomy) press release
What is a symphysiotomy?
*A drastic operation to widen the pelvis in obstructed labour...
*It was performed on nearly 1,500 women around the time of birth, leaving many of them incontinent, in pain and suffering from depression for the rest of their lives
*The procedure, which dates back to the 18th century, was reintroduced into Ireland in the mid-1940s at a time when it was dying out in medicine in the developed world.
Scandal
*...young and vulnerable women were put through a barbaric surgical procedure around the time of childbirth for dubious reasons."
*So far, around 110 victims of symphysiotomy have come forward, and there may be many more suffering in silence."
*Symphysiotomy was reportedly used to ensure women could continue to have several children, whereas a cesarean section might have limited the number of children they could bear.
*It was feared by some... that facing the alternative of repeated caesareans, women would turn to birth control.
*Those carrying out the procedure appeared to ignore its serious after-effects.
Remind you of anything?
I don't mean to suggest that the use of forceps, ventouse, episiotomy and other vaginal delivery interventions are as dangerous as symphysiotomy, but I do believe that comparisons can be drawn in relation to the final point above (regarding serious after-effects).
Women are simply not being warned about the true risks involved in planned vaginal delivery. Yes, if their outcome is spontaneous without morbidity for mother or baby, then I agree that (with hindsight) it has fewer risks than surgery. However, given that a spontaneous vaginal delivery outcome is neither predictable nor guaranteed, I simply cannot understand the justification for refusing a woman's request to deliver by planned cesarean surgery instead.
Improvements must come
The reporter for the Herald writes this about Ireland: "Some day, someone will properly psychoanalyse us as a nation and society to find out exactly why we put up with so much for so long."
I would make the same observation about some aspects of maternity policy and the disastrous outcomes that too many parents suffer: "Some day, someone will properly psychoanalyse expectant parents to find out exactly why we put up with so much for so long."
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Unethical focus on reducing cesarean rates - another baby dies
This story, published in The Daily Mail on Monday this week, is a harrowing read and absolutely devastating (Why do doctors still use forceps when they killed our baby? by Jane Feinmann). It sickens me when I hear about women whose legitimate cesarean request is being ignored or refused at antenatal meetings, and the stress and trauma that they have to suffer during their pregnancy, but when I read stories like this - where there was a clear and present danger to the baby, the parents are begging for a cesarean, and medical professionals choose a riskier course of action that results in a precious baby's death - I may have tears in my eyes, but my stomach churns in anger and resolve that something must be done to stop this unethical practice.
Maggie Blott, spokeswoman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, is quoted as saying: "If we are going to have normal deliveries, we have to keep on training obstetricians to use forceps."
My view: "I planned a cesarean delivery precisely because I did not want a 'normal' or 'natural' vaginal birth. I didn't trust Mother Nature, I wanted to avoid the unpredictability of a trial of labor, and I took comfort in the growing body of research that demonstrates far safer outcomes for babies with planned cesarean delivery at 39 weeks. I wanted a safe birth - not a normal one - and hospital policy should support this choice."
I would encourage you to read this article in full, but here are some of the main details reported as the investigation continues:
The outcome
- Baby Alexandra, born weighing 9lb 4oz, died when she was just three days old
- Baby Alexandra, born weighing 9lb 4oz, died when she was just three days old
- She died as a result of severe injury to her spinal cord inflicted during a forceps delivery that went wrong - 10 hours after her parents had repeatedly begged the obstetric team to deliver the baby by cesarean
- Parents Beatrix and Craig Campbell lost the daughter they had conceived through IVF after 5 years of trying (which had involved both parents undergoing surgery)
The birth
- June 2009, at the Royal Infirmary Edinburgh’s Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health
- Beatrix, a slight 5ft 2in, was past her due date with a large baby lying sideways
- 30 hours after induction started, exhausted and barely dilated, Beatrix told the midwife she wanted a cesarean. The hospital later admitted that this would have saved Alexandra, but the request was refused.
- It took 4 doctors 75 minutes to stitch Beatrix and she had to return a month later for surgery on the wound
What the parents say
- ...they believe she was the victim of medical arrogance and a determination to reduce the rising cesarean rate
- ...they are hoping there will be an independent investigation into Alexandra’s death
- They have begun their own investigation into forceps, discovering that deaths or serious injury are far from rare. ‘We were horrified to discover this is a frequent occurrence that no one seems to be monitoring,’ says Beatrix. ‘Craig has found local newspaper reports of ten examples of babies dying or being damaged during forceps delivery, with the coroners’ reports in many cases saying that a Caesarean should have been performed earlier.’
Informing women...?
Feinmann writes: ‘NHS websites talk about “the slight risks associated with forceps delivery”, citing temporary problems such as bruising or scratches,’ says Beatrix, 32, a researcher. In fact, studies since the Eighties have reported high rates of damage to mothers and babies through forceps use. Recent research confirmed this poses a higher risk of birth injury than other interventions, including Caesareans.
Feinmann writes: ‘NHS websites talk about “the slight risks associated with forceps delivery”, citing temporary problems such as bruising or scratches,’ says Beatrix, 32, a researcher. In fact, studies since the Eighties have reported high rates of damage to mothers and babies through forceps use. Recent research confirmed this poses a higher risk of birth injury than other interventions, including Caesareans.
Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the use of forceps worldwide - the instrument is consigned to medical history in most U.S. maternity hospitals.
Using forceps safely requires a high level of skill and expertise, which ‘means that the outcome is always uncertain, even for experienced surgeons,’ says leading U.S. surgeon Atul Gawande, head of the World Health Organisation’s Safer Surgery initiative.
‘If you’re seeking the safest possible delivery of every baby, you have to take notice of the steady reports of terrible forceps injuries to babies and mothers, despite the training that clinicians have received,’ he says.
Experts are particularly concerned about a type known as Kielland’s forceps, which were used to deliver Alexandra... Unlike most forceps, which are used to speed up the delivery of a baby that has become distressed or obstructed in the final stages of delivery, Kielland’s forceps are used to rotate an infant stuck in a sideways position, usually higher in the birth passage.
The procedure is so tricky, says Professor Nick Fisk, former consultant obstetrician at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, London, ‘that even experienced senior consultants would not attempt a Kielland’s forceps delivery’.
Should forecps be used?
Feinmann writes: Phil Steer, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Imperial College, London, is among the many who have abandoned forceps - they are a rarity in Chelsea & Westminster, where he is a consultant obstetrician, with Kielland’s forceps all but unknown.
Yet at least 31,500 babies a year are delivered by forceps - that’s one in 20. Some hospitals continue to use Keilland’s forceps; at the Royal Infirmary, where Alexandra was born, there are 170 such deliveries a year.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Study suggests: Infection and early birth linked to asthma
As someone who chose to have a cesarean delivery on maternal request, and supports other women who do so, I have always been slightly skeptical of studies that suggest I might have put my children at greater risk for asthma than women who plan vaginal deliveries. This is because most of the studies that suggest an association between cesareans and asthma contain mixed cesarean delivery types (e.g. emergency cesareans and planned cesareans for medical reasons; and the latter often take place prior to the advised 39 weeks EGA for maternal request cesareans).
The study referred to in the Los Angeles Times article below also points to premature birth as a likely risk for asthma, as opposed to the cesarean delivery itself, and adds weight to some of the points I made in my December 2008 blog, "Asthma has NOT been specifically linked with non-medical cesareans".
Article by Thomas H. Maugh II, on February 2, 2010:
An infection of the uterine cavity during pregnancy combined with premature birth doubles the risk that an African American child will develop asthma, researchers have found. The combination also increases risk for some other ethnicities, though less severely.
About 8% of pregnancies are marked by such bacterial infections, called chorioamnionitis, but it is not yet clear what proportion of asthma is induced by them, said the lead author, Dr. Darios Getahun of Kaiser Permanente's Department of Research and Evaluation in Pasadena. Nor is it clear whether the duration of the infection influences the risk and why different ethnicities respond differently, he said.
But blacks have about a 25% higher incidence of asthma and the new findings could account for a significant portion of that increase. Asthma incidence is also higher in American Indian and Alaskan Native populations, but the researchers were not able to examine that association.
About 14% of American children suffer from asthma, an inflammation of the airways that is marked by wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightening and coughing. About half of such cases are believed to be of genetic origin, but the cause of the rest has been a mystery.
Many studies have looked at the risk of asthma related to caesarean sections, exposure to antibiotics and other factors related to delivery, Getahun said. "We were thinking that it was really exposure [in the uterus] that may predispose children to asthma later in life."
Getahun and his colleagues used the extensive electronic medical records of Kaiser's Southern California Medical Group, studying 397,852 births between 1991 and 2007.
They reported Monday in the journal Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine that chorioamnionitis had no apparent effect on the rate of asthma when the fetuses were carried full term.
But when the mother suffered from the infection and gave birth prematurely, the risk of asthma developing before the age of 8 was 98% higher in black children, 70% higher in Latino children and 66% higher in whites. No increased risk was observed for children of Asian or Pacific Islander descent.
Getahun speculated that the infections -- which can be caused by a broad variety of bacteria -- cause inflammation of the fetal lungs, either injuring the lungs or predisposing them to react more severely to future environmental insults.
Chorioamnionitis is marked by a fever above 100.4 degrees and may also be manifested as increased maternal or fetal heart rate, uterine tenderness, foul-smelling amniotic fluid and increased white blood-cell counts.
The study referred to in the Los Angeles Times article below also points to premature birth as a likely risk for asthma, as opposed to the cesarean delivery itself, and adds weight to some of the points I made in my December 2008 blog, "Asthma has NOT been specifically linked with non-medical cesareans".
Article by Thomas H. Maugh II, on February 2, 2010:
An infection of the uterine cavity during pregnancy combined with premature birth doubles the risk that an African American child will develop asthma, researchers have found. The combination also increases risk for some other ethnicities, though less severely.
About 8% of pregnancies are marked by such bacterial infections, called chorioamnionitis, but it is not yet clear what proportion of asthma is induced by them, said the lead author, Dr. Darios Getahun of Kaiser Permanente's Department of Research and Evaluation in Pasadena. Nor is it clear whether the duration of the infection influences the risk and why different ethnicities respond differently, he said.
But blacks have about a 25% higher incidence of asthma and the new findings could account for a significant portion of that increase. Asthma incidence is also higher in American Indian and Alaskan Native populations, but the researchers were not able to examine that association.
About 14% of American children suffer from asthma, an inflammation of the airways that is marked by wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightening and coughing. About half of such cases are believed to be of genetic origin, but the cause of the rest has been a mystery.
Many studies have looked at the risk of asthma related to caesarean sections, exposure to antibiotics and other factors related to delivery, Getahun said. "We were thinking that it was really exposure [in the uterus] that may predispose children to asthma later in life."
Getahun and his colleagues used the extensive electronic medical records of Kaiser's Southern California Medical Group, studying 397,852 births between 1991 and 2007.
They reported Monday in the journal Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine that chorioamnionitis had no apparent effect on the rate of asthma when the fetuses were carried full term.
But when the mother suffered from the infection and gave birth prematurely, the risk of asthma developing before the age of 8 was 98% higher in black children, 70% higher in Latino children and 66% higher in whites. No increased risk was observed for children of Asian or Pacific Islander descent.
Getahun speculated that the infections -- which can be caused by a broad variety of bacteria -- cause inflammation of the fetal lungs, either injuring the lungs or predisposing them to react more severely to future environmental insults.
Chorioamnionitis is marked by a fever above 100.4 degrees and may also be manifested as increased maternal or fetal heart rate, uterine tenderness, foul-smelling amniotic fluid and increased white blood-cell counts.
Study suggests: sutures safer than staples for cesarean
The article below appeared on the CBC News website on January 4th, and it is certainly a topic worth discussing with your OBGYN prior to your cesarean surgery.
Personally, I was given staples for both of my surgeries and was fortunate not to experience problems on either occasion; had I read about this study though, I'm sure I would have liked to discuss the risks and benefits of each beforehand.
CBC online article:
Women who had caesarean sections were less likely to suffer complications if their incisions were closed with sutures instead of staples, a U.S. study suggests.
When researchers randomly assigned more than 400 women who were having C-sections into either a staple or a suture group, they found staples were linked with a four-fold increase in risk of the wound separating compared with sutures.
Dr. Suzanne Basha, an obstetrician/gynecologist at the Lehigh Valley Health Network in Allentown, Pa., said she set out to test the difference after she noticed she was seeing more patients return with complications after staples but could not find any published research on the topic.
Wound data was available for 219 women who had sutures and 197 who received staples. They were interviewed by phone two to four weeks after delivery.
Use of staples resulted in:
•A higher rate of wound separation (16.8 per cent versus 4.6 per cent for sutures).
•Increased visits to doctors after the operation (36.0 per cent versus 10.6 per cent).
The average operating time was 49 minutes in the staple group compared with 57 minutes for those who had sutures.
The researchers concluded that sutures may be the preferred method for closing the skin for caesarean deliveries.
The findings were presented Thursday at the annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in Chicago.
Personally, I was given staples for both of my surgeries and was fortunate not to experience problems on either occasion; had I read about this study though, I'm sure I would have liked to discuss the risks and benefits of each beforehand.
CBC online article:
Women who had caesarean sections were less likely to suffer complications if their incisions were closed with sutures instead of staples, a U.S. study suggests.
When researchers randomly assigned more than 400 women who were having C-sections into either a staple or a suture group, they found staples were linked with a four-fold increase in risk of the wound separating compared with sutures.
Dr. Suzanne Basha, an obstetrician/gynecologist at the Lehigh Valley Health Network in Allentown, Pa., said she set out to test the difference after she noticed she was seeing more patients return with complications after staples but could not find any published research on the topic.
Wound data was available for 219 women who had sutures and 197 who received staples. They were interviewed by phone two to four weeks after delivery.
Use of staples resulted in:
•A higher rate of wound separation (16.8 per cent versus 4.6 per cent for sutures).
•Increased visits to doctors after the operation (36.0 per cent versus 10.6 per cent).
The average operating time was 49 minutes in the staple group compared with 57 minutes for those who had sutures.
The researchers concluded that sutures may be the preferred method for closing the skin for caesarean deliveries.
The findings were presented Thursday at the annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in Chicago.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Independent: 'A bad case of bias against Caesareans'
...says Nigel Hawkes, director of Straight Statistics, writing in The Independent today. More fallout from the WHO survey, 'Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08'; this time published by a national newspaper, so hopefully it might reach a wider readership.
Article highlightsOn cesarean maternal mortality and morbidity
"So how many women died? None. How many suffered complications? Eight: five needed treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), and three needed a blood transfusion. The risks for women who completed a normal birth were significantly higher. One in a thousand died, five times as many required a blood transfusion, and twice as many were admitted to an ICU.
Overall, if deaths and complications are added up to make a "Maternal mortality and morbidity index", risks to mothers in the Caesarean group were 60 per cent lower than in the normal birth group.
So how, from this, does the team conclude that risks to mothers who have Caesareans are actually 2.7 times greater? There's a hefty difference between 60 per cent smaller and 270 per cent greater, but statistical manipulation is a powerful tool."
On babies born by planned cesarean..."And what about the babies? Those born by elective Caesarean without medical indications were seven times less likely to suffer death or complications (raw data) or less than half as likely if you believe the corrected data. Understandably, the authors don't make much of this."
On the WHO's final conclusion and The Lancet's role as publisher"Did none of the 23 think this an odd conclusion to have reached? Did no one check the arithmetic in the tables, which are full of errors? The Lancet is a distinguished journal - were its referees asleep?"
Article highlightsOn cesarean maternal mortality and morbidity
"So how many women died? None. How many suffered complications? Eight: five needed treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), and three needed a blood transfusion. The risks for women who completed a normal birth were significantly higher. One in a thousand died, five times as many required a blood transfusion, and twice as many were admitted to an ICU.
Overall, if deaths and complications are added up to make a "Maternal mortality and morbidity index", risks to mothers in the Caesarean group were 60 per cent lower than in the normal birth group.
So how, from this, does the team conclude that risks to mothers who have Caesareans are actually 2.7 times greater? There's a hefty difference between 60 per cent smaller and 270 per cent greater, but statistical manipulation is a powerful tool."
On babies born by planned cesarean..."And what about the babies? Those born by elective Caesarean without medical indications were seven times less likely to suffer death or complications (raw data) or less than half as likely if you believe the corrected data. Understandably, the authors don't make much of this."
On the WHO's final conclusion and The Lancet's role as publisher"Did none of the 23 think this an odd conclusion to have reached? Did no one check the arithmetic in the tables, which are full of errors? The Lancet is a distinguished journal - were its referees asleep?"
Friday, January 29, 2010
Three cheers for Professor Steer (BJOG Editor-in-Chief)
In May 2009, the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology editor-in-chief, Professor Philip Steer, is quoted in a wonderful article on the BBC News website, supporting a woman's decision to give birth surgically in preference to opting for a trial of labor. In it, he describes cesarean delivery as "a rational choice."
He doesn't say that all women would or should make this decision; rather, he defends their logic for doing so. Of course it is unfortunate that his views have not been taken on board by many of the NHS Trusts in England and Wales - quite the opposite according to the women who email me describing the difficulties they are having in trying to arrange a cesarean birth - but nevertheless, it takes a brave professional to speak out on this issue in the current political climate, and I for one, would like to applaud his efforts.
Below are just a few extracts from the BBC article, but you can read it in full here.
"Until as recently as the 1930s, maternal mortality around the globe was horrendous. In the early 1930s, one in 250 women in UK who became pregnant would die as a result - the same as in India today... Advances in the technology of surgery, anaesthesia, blood transfusion and antibiotics have so dramatically improved outcomes in developed countries that mortality is now one in 10,000 or fewer...
"You would think that these technological advances would be greeted with universal acclaim, but many women see childbirth as an essential "rite of passage" and exhort others of their gender to eschew technological assistance (is this "the female macho"?)...
"In BJOG (an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology), the majority of valid science we publish goes unnoticed by the mass media. But publish something about home-birth, and we are guaranteed to get onto the national news. The discussions that ensue are repetitive, predictable and fail to distinguish emotional wish-lists from practical reality.
"Delivery by Caesarean section now accounts for almost a third of all births in many developed countries, and is remarkably safe - certainly as safe as many of the cosmetic operations that do not excite similar criticism. And yet many still argue against allowing women the autonomy to choose their mode of birth, either on spurious economic grounds or by suggesting that "birth is natural so we mustn't become dependent on technology". Without the technology of agriculture, transport, housing and energy generation, how many of the world's population would survive?"
He doesn't say that all women would or should make this decision; rather, he defends their logic for doing so. Of course it is unfortunate that his views have not been taken on board by many of the NHS Trusts in England and Wales - quite the opposite according to the women who email me describing the difficulties they are having in trying to arrange a cesarean birth - but nevertheless, it takes a brave professional to speak out on this issue in the current political climate, and I for one, would like to applaud his efforts.
Below are just a few extracts from the BBC article, but you can read it in full here.
"Until as recently as the 1930s, maternal mortality around the globe was horrendous. In the early 1930s, one in 250 women in UK who became pregnant would die as a result - the same as in India today... Advances in the technology of surgery, anaesthesia, blood transfusion and antibiotics have so dramatically improved outcomes in developed countries that mortality is now one in 10,000 or fewer...
"You would think that these technological advances would be greeted with universal acclaim, but many women see childbirth as an essential "rite of passage" and exhort others of their gender to eschew technological assistance (is this "the female macho"?)...
"In BJOG (an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology), the majority of valid science we publish goes unnoticed by the mass media. But publish something about home-birth, and we are guaranteed to get onto the national news. The discussions that ensue are repetitive, predictable and fail to distinguish emotional wish-lists from practical reality.
"Delivery by Caesarean section now accounts for almost a third of all births in many developed countries, and is remarkably safe - certainly as safe as many of the cosmetic operations that do not excite similar criticism. And yet many still argue against allowing women the autonomy to choose their mode of birth, either on spurious economic grounds or by suggesting that "birth is natural so we mustn't become dependent on technology". Without the technology of agriculture, transport, housing and energy generation, how many of the world's population would survive?"
Mother cut 'like meat' by midwife during home birth
I usually steer clear of stories related to home birth; as far as I'm concerned, it's simply another birth method that happens to be on the opposite end of the choice spectrum to my own (planned surgery), and as long as a woman is fully informed of the risks and has not been medically advised against it for the safety of her unborn child (e.g. the pregnancy is deemed high risk), then I respect her choice.
I just had to blog about the story that appeared on the BBC News website this week though, because the outcome for mother and child were so devastating. You can read it here.
High risk, high price - physically and financially
What stands out for me is the fact that the independent midwife attending the home birth had no insurance, and it reminded me of a programme I heard on Radio 4's Woman's Hour once (I think it was last year...), which discussed how independent midwives find it difficult to arrange insurance for home birth deliveries because insurance providers consider the event too high risk.
The irony for me is that women choosing cesarean delivery on maternal request are often accused of wasting tax-payers' money, and yet when the cost of litigation and subsequent surgery for babies and mothers following planned vaginal delivery morbidity (whether the birth is in hospital or at home), the truth about which delivery plan costs the NHS more money is different to what many people might think.
I just had to blog about the story that appeared on the BBC News website this week though, because the outcome for mother and child were so devastating. You can read it here.
High risk, high price - physically and financially
What stands out for me is the fact that the independent midwife attending the home birth had no insurance, and it reminded me of a programme I heard on Radio 4's Woman's Hour once (I think it was last year...), which discussed how independent midwives find it difficult to arrange insurance for home birth deliveries because insurance providers consider the event too high risk.
The irony for me is that women choosing cesarean delivery on maternal request are often accused of wasting tax-payers' money, and yet when the cost of litigation and subsequent surgery for babies and mothers following planned vaginal delivery morbidity (whether the birth is in hospital or at home), the truth about which delivery plan costs the NHS more money is different to what many people might think.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
British research: C-sections 'do not affect how long a mum breastfeeds'
The BBC reports today on new British research that suggests: "Having a Caesarean or instrumental birth does not appear to impact upon how long a mother breastfeeds".
In a study of 2,000 mothers who received breastfeeding support (conducted by the University of Manchester and East Lancashire Primary Care Trust), there was also "little association with how soon after birth the baby was put to the breast", but what "did have an impact was ethnicity, and the number of previous births,".
Maternal request breastfeeding study
This is good news for women planning a cesarean delivery birth, and indeed there are a number of studies that indicate positive breastfeeding experiences are more likely to follow positive birth experiences (regardless of whether the birth is vaginal or cesarean).
However, in the interests of balance, and since the above research focuses on breastfeeding longevity, I would remind readers of a Swedish study - specifically looking at women following cesarean delivery on maternal request - that found these women "were breastfeeding to a lesser extent three months after birth" when compared with a vaginal delivery group.
Voluntary end to breastfeeding?
I guess the other question to ask in these types of studies is whether the cessation of breastfeeding is voluntary or not. Anecdotally for example, I breastfed my first child for 3 months, but was not distressed by switching to 100% formula at that time, and in fact with my second child, I chose not to breastfeed; it had nothing to do with my delivery method.
Incidentally, the 2007 Swedish study I refer to, 'Cesarean section on maternal request: reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers', by Wiklund et al, also found that:
"After planned cesarean section women in this group reported a better birth experience compared to women planning a vaginal birth ."
In a study of 2,000 mothers who received breastfeeding support (conducted by the University of Manchester and East Lancashire Primary Care Trust), there was also "little association with how soon after birth the baby was put to the breast", but what "did have an impact was ethnicity, and the number of previous births,".
Maternal request breastfeeding study
This is good news for women planning a cesarean delivery birth, and indeed there are a number of studies that indicate positive breastfeeding experiences are more likely to follow positive birth experiences (regardless of whether the birth is vaginal or cesarean).
However, in the interests of balance, and since the above research focuses on breastfeeding longevity, I would remind readers of a Swedish study - specifically looking at women following cesarean delivery on maternal request - that found these women "were breastfeeding to a lesser extent three months after birth" when compared with a vaginal delivery group.
Voluntary end to breastfeeding?
I guess the other question to ask in these types of studies is whether the cessation of breastfeeding is voluntary or not. Anecdotally for example, I breastfed my first child for 3 months, but was not distressed by switching to 100% formula at that time, and in fact with my second child, I chose not to breastfeed; it had nothing to do with my delivery method.
Incidentally, the 2007 Swedish study I refer to, 'Cesarean section on maternal request: reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers', by Wiklund et al, also found that:
"After planned cesarean section women in this group reported a better birth experience compared to women planning a vaginal birth ."
63 surgical instruments sewn up inside New Jersey hospital patients
I came across this report by Mike Ferrara on InjuryBoard.com (21 Jan), and this is what caught my eye:
"When it comes to patient safety, it’s important to note New Jersey ’s record: doctors, nurses and other health care staff committed 9,381 preventable medical errors in 2007. Sixty-three times, a foreign object was left inside a patient’s body after surgery. (The expected number is zero.) Doctors and health care workers caused preventable injury to more than 900 women during a vaginal birth requiring forceps or other instruments."
I don't deny that medical errors occur during cesarean surgery too; of course they do - but how often do we really think about the huge number of women that suffer preventable morbidity during a vaginal delivery? How often is it reported in the media?
This is 900 women in New Jersey in 2007. How many women and how many preventable injuries have there been throughout the whole United States - not to mention the UK, Canada and Australia? These are injuries that many women who choose cesarean delivery are seeking to avoid (myself included).
"When it comes to patient safety, it’s important to note New Jersey ’s record: doctors, nurses and other health care staff committed 9,381 preventable medical errors in 2007. Sixty-three times, a foreign object was left inside a patient’s body after surgery. (The expected number is zero.) Doctors and health care workers caused preventable injury to more than 900 women during a vaginal birth requiring forceps or other instruments."
I don't deny that medical errors occur during cesarean surgery too; of course they do - but how often do we really think about the huge number of women that suffer preventable morbidity during a vaginal delivery? How often is it reported in the media?
This is 900 women in New Jersey in 2007. How many women and how many preventable injuries have there been throughout the whole United States - not to mention the UK, Canada and Australia? These are injuries that many women who choose cesarean delivery are seeking to avoid (myself included).
Inquest: death of baby occurred after difficult birth
These stories are always heart-wrenching, and one of the reasons I post them here on my blog (aside from highlighting that planned vaginal delivery is entirely unpredictable and often mismanaged) is to demonstrate that when a baby dies or is injured, it's not just a 'number' in a set of 'mortality data'.
It's the child of a real-life mother and father. The mother carried the baby inside her for nine long months, looking forward to the day she and her husband would meet their son or daughter, only to experience a personal loss and devastation only barely imaginable by anyone else.
In this case, Georgina O'Halloran writes in The Irish Times how:
"The poor condition at birth of a baby boy who died as a result of brain damage due to lack of oxygen “would be best explained” by “issues” which occurred during labour and delivery...
Baby Nathan Molyneaux of Columbas Place, Tullamore, Co Offaly, was born at Portlaoise General Hospital on July 27th, 2008 in poor condition. He never recovered and died seven days later of brain damage due to lack of oxygen to the brain, known as hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, at the Coombe hospital, Dublin on August 2nd, 2008. The death was not reported to the coroner’s office at the time and no postmortem was carried out...
Dublin City Coroner’s Court heard there were variable decelerations - temporary drops in the foetal heart rate - during the first stage of labour, with a prolonged second stage and a difficult delivery with a number of attempts... There was no evidence of any pre-existing abnormality of the brain or heart to explain the baby’s condition at birth..."
It's the child of a real-life mother and father. The mother carried the baby inside her for nine long months, looking forward to the day she and her husband would meet their son or daughter, only to experience a personal loss and devastation only barely imaginable by anyone else.
In this case, Georgina O'Halloran writes in The Irish Times how:
"The poor condition at birth of a baby boy who died as a result of brain damage due to lack of oxygen “would be best explained” by “issues” which occurred during labour and delivery...
Baby Nathan Molyneaux of Columbas Place, Tullamore, Co Offaly, was born at Portlaoise General Hospital on July 27th, 2008 in poor condition. He never recovered and died seven days later of brain damage due to lack of oxygen to the brain, known as hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, at the Coombe hospital, Dublin on August 2nd, 2008. The death was not reported to the coroner’s office at the time and no postmortem was carried out...
Dublin City Coroner’s Court heard there were variable decelerations - temporary drops in the foetal heart rate - during the first stage of labour, with a prolonged second stage and a difficult delivery with a number of attempts... There was no evidence of any pre-existing abnormality of the brain or heart to explain the baby’s condition at birth..."
Newborn's arm cut during C-section, dies
This is a terrible story from India; the article in Hindustan Times explains how:
"In an apparent case of negligence by doctors, a newborn died after his arm got cut during a C-section delivery at a government hospital in Udaipur. Ranjit Meghwal, a resident of Kelwara town in Rajsamand district, about 100 km from Udaipur, alleged that the doctors at Pannadhay Hospital accidentally cut the arm of the baby while conducting the caesarian on his wife Babli, 25, on Wednesday. The baby's condition became critical on Friday and he was put on artificial respiration. However, at 8 p.m., he was pronounced dead."
As readers of my website will know, I list 'human error' as one of the risks of cesarean delivery - even planned cesarean delivery. The competence of any medical team looking after you is vital, and while I am as horrified by the above story as anyone else, I'd like to think that the risk of something like this happening in the UK, Europe, North America or Australia (for example) is extremely low.
"In an apparent case of negligence by doctors, a newborn died after his arm got cut during a C-section delivery at a government hospital in Udaipur. Ranjit Meghwal, a resident of Kelwara town in Rajsamand district, about 100 km from Udaipur, alleged that the doctors at Pannadhay Hospital accidentally cut the arm of the baby while conducting the caesarian on his wife Babli, 25, on Wednesday. The baby's condition became critical on Friday and he was put on artificial respiration. However, at 8 p.m., he was pronounced dead."
As readers of my website will know, I list 'human error' as one of the risks of cesarean delivery - even planned cesarean delivery. The competence of any medical team looking after you is vital, and while I am as horrified by the above story as anyone else, I'd like to think that the risk of something like this happening in the UK, Europe, North America or Australia (for example) is extremely low.
Funny Figures from WHO on Caesareans
Yesterday, statistician Nigel Hawkes wrote the first journalistic article I've seen that exposes the truth about the recent WHO cesarean survey. I'm ecstatic! Writing for the website Straight Statistics, in 'Funny Figures from WHO on Caesareans', Hawkes firmly concludes:
"The findings should be ignored."
Basic premise for comparison was all wrong
Hawkes agrees with the point I made in my blog on 12 January, that (aside from the incorrect interpretation of data), using spontaneous vaginal delivery as the survey 'reference' is irrelevant. He writes:
"One final point: the comparison they make is an unfair one. The proper comparison to have made would be between women who attempt a natural birth, and women who have an elective Caesarean.
Many of those who set out to have a spontaneous birth fail, for one reason or another, and require intervention. By choosing only those who succeed and ignoring the others, the authors are failing to make their comparison on an “intention to treat” basis."
The Lancet's role in publishing the WHO's survey
Hawkes not only questions the WHO's erroneous interpretation of its own data, but also the role of the survey's reviewers. It is unclear whether he is referring to the researchers' review of their own data prior to submitting it to The Lancet, or The Lancet's review prior to accepting the text for publication, but the question he raises is valid either way:
"“The most important finding of the survey is the increased risk of maternal mortality and severe morbidity which was analysed as a composite outcome in women who undergo Caesarean section with no medical indication”, write the authors. “We conclude that Caesarean section should be done only when there is a medical indication to improve the outcome for the mother and the baby.”
Their data do not bear such a conclusion. The statistical analysis is almost certainly where the error arose. Did no referee raise the alarm?"
Undeniable BiasHawkes writes: "WHO believes too many Caesareans are done without proper cause. But in interpreting these data, the authors appear to have bent over backwards to prove the point – a classic illustration of White Hat bias."
Data actually shows that cesarean delivery is safer than vaginal delivery"The records showed just 1,515 of these deliveries were by Caesarean section chosen in advance without medical indications to justify them. The vast majority (1,356) were in China; the other countries had very low numbers.
Of these 1,515 women, none died. Five were admitted to an intensive care unit (0.3 per cent) while three (0.2 per cent, though the figure published in the paper is 0.3 per cent, presumably a mathematical error) needed a blood transfusion – a total of eight out of 1,515. None required a hysterectomy.
In mothers who had vaginal deliveries, these risks were all greater: for spontaneous vaginal delivery 0.1 per cent of mothers died, 0.6 per cent were admitted to an ICU (the paper says 0.5 per cent, another miscalculation) and 1.0 per cent required a blood transfusion. A small number, 0.04 per cent, (though I make it 0.05 per cent) required a hysterectomy."
FYI (because I didn't know about it until I read this article today):-Straight Statistics is a pressure group whose aim is to detect and expose the distortion and misuse of statistical information, and identify those responsible. It has been formed by a group of legislators, statisticians and journalists, chaired by the Labour peer Lord Lipsey.
I may be accused by some as being an advocate for cesarean delivery at the expense of vaginal delivery, but the truth is, I'm an advocate of informed birth decisions, and I believe that in order for women to have access to worthwhile information in making their birth decisions, I need to continue working hard to expose the outrageous bias that exists in much of the medical and media reporting of cesarean delivery. I'm glad to have discovered today that Straight Statistics exists, and that its statisticians have confirmed my concerns about the WHO's motives.
"The findings should be ignored."
Basic premise for comparison was all wrong
Hawkes agrees with the point I made in my blog on 12 January, that (aside from the incorrect interpretation of data), using spontaneous vaginal delivery as the survey 'reference' is irrelevant. He writes:
"One final point: the comparison they make is an unfair one. The proper comparison to have made would be between women who attempt a natural birth, and women who have an elective Caesarean.
Many of those who set out to have a spontaneous birth fail, for one reason or another, and require intervention. By choosing only those who succeed and ignoring the others, the authors are failing to make their comparison on an “intention to treat” basis."
The Lancet's role in publishing the WHO's survey
Hawkes not only questions the WHO's erroneous interpretation of its own data, but also the role of the survey's reviewers. It is unclear whether he is referring to the researchers' review of their own data prior to submitting it to The Lancet, or The Lancet's review prior to accepting the text for publication, but the question he raises is valid either way:
"“The most important finding of the survey is the increased risk of maternal mortality and severe morbidity which was analysed as a composite outcome in women who undergo Caesarean section with no medical indication”, write the authors. “We conclude that Caesarean section should be done only when there is a medical indication to improve the outcome for the mother and the baby.”
Their data do not bear such a conclusion. The statistical analysis is almost certainly where the error arose. Did no referee raise the alarm?"
Undeniable BiasHawkes writes: "WHO believes too many Caesareans are done without proper cause. But in interpreting these data, the authors appear to have bent over backwards to prove the point – a classic illustration of White Hat bias."
Data actually shows that cesarean delivery is safer than vaginal delivery"The records showed just 1,515 of these deliveries were by Caesarean section chosen in advance without medical indications to justify them. The vast majority (1,356) were in China; the other countries had very low numbers.
Of these 1,515 women, none died. Five were admitted to an intensive care unit (0.3 per cent) while three (0.2 per cent, though the figure published in the paper is 0.3 per cent, presumably a mathematical error) needed a blood transfusion – a total of eight out of 1,515. None required a hysterectomy.
In mothers who had vaginal deliveries, these risks were all greater: for spontaneous vaginal delivery 0.1 per cent of mothers died, 0.6 per cent were admitted to an ICU (the paper says 0.5 per cent, another miscalculation) and 1.0 per cent required a blood transfusion. A small number, 0.04 per cent, (though I make it 0.05 per cent) required a hysterectomy."
FYI (because I didn't know about it until I read this article today):-Straight Statistics is a pressure group whose aim is to detect and expose the distortion and misuse of statistical information, and identify those responsible. It has been formed by a group of legislators, statisticians and journalists, chaired by the Labour peer Lord Lipsey.
I may be accused by some as being an advocate for cesarean delivery at the expense of vaginal delivery, but the truth is, I'm an advocate of informed birth decisions, and I believe that in order for women to have access to worthwhile information in making their birth decisions, I need to continue working hard to expose the outrageous bias that exists in much of the medical and media reporting of cesarean delivery. I'm glad to have discovered today that Straight Statistics exists, and that its statisticians have confirmed my concerns about the WHO's motives.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
China's cesarean rate high but birth trauma and asphyxia reducing
The media news is chock-a-block with news that China has the highest rate of cesarean deliveries in the world (46%), of which one quarter (11.7% of all births) are on maternal request without medical indication.What you may not read about however, are two very interesting studies conducted in China, published in 2007, which report on an interesting development in health outcomes for newborn babies there:
In the first, titled: 'Unexpected reduction in the incidence of birth trauma and birth asphyxia related to instrumental deliveries during the study period: was this the Hawthorne effect?' (Leung et al), researchers noticed "a significant reduction in the incidence of birth trauma and birth asphyxia related to instrumental deliveries during the study period (0.6%) when compared with that (2.8%) in the pre-study period (1998 and 1999)".
The second, titled: 'Continued reduction in the incidence of birth trauma and birth asphyxia related to instrumental deliveries after the study period: was this the Hawthorne effect?' is even more interesting.
Cesarean rate, UP, instrumental VD, DOWN, Asphyxia and trauma DOWN too
The same researchers discovered that in addition to the above reduction from 2.8% to 0.6% "this phenomenon continued into the post-study period (2001-2003) when the incidence of 1.0% was similarly lower than that in the pre-study period".
"The instrumental delivery rate decreased further in the post-study period (13.5%) compared with those in the study (16.6%) and pre-study (19.5%) periods", and there was "a marked increase in the direct second-stage Caesarean section rate in the post-study period (7.1%) compared to those in the study (0.4%) and pre-study (0.7%) periods".
They conclude that "A change in obstetric practice was identified that may explain the continued reduction in the incidence of birth trauma and birth asphyxia related to instrumental deliveries in the post-study period."
Chinese women are informed about pelvic floor disorders
Add into the mix the fact that Chinese women learn about the potential risk of pelvic floor damage with vaginal delivery (during antenatal appointments), and is it any wonder that the country has higher than average rates of maternal request cesareans?
There are scores of studies that demonstrate the protective benefit of planned cesarean delivery (even WHO admits in its 2010 survey that for 3rd- and 4th-degree perineal tears, "as expected caesarean section had a protective effect compared with vaginal delivery (data not shown)".
That WHO chose not to reveal the data is questionable in itself...
Other influential studies
Here are just five medical studies that might influence women's birth choice in China:
*2008 Beijing (120 women) concluded that pelvic organ prolapse (POP) prevalence is significantly higher after vaginal delivery than cesarean
*2008 Hong Kong (259 at 6 months postpartum) found that 24% of women changed from preferring a planned VD to an preferring an elective cesarean after their first birth
*2007 Beijing (3,750 women) concluded that selective cesarean delivery is safer than induction and spontaneous onset of labor (lower neonatal asphyxia and birth trauma) but costs the most
*2004 Beijing (548 women) concluded that cesarean delivery decreases the risk of urinary incontinence and big babies increase the risk
*2002 Taiwan (275 women) concluded that following cesarean delivery, women had a significantly higher level of positive psychosocial outcomes than after vaginal delivery - possibly due to the normalizing effect of such a high cesarean birthrate and greater social support
WHO makes wholly unsubstantiated conclusion
Despite the facts above, in the WHO's latest survey of nine Asian countries, its researchers conlcude: "To improve maternal and perinatal outcomes, caesarean section should be done only when there is a medical indication."
Yet its own findings report:
*There were no maternal deaths in this group.
*There were no cases of neonatal mortality up to hospital discharge.
*There were no cases of hysterectomy.
*Only infants delivered by antepartum cesarean had a significantly lower risk of fetal death than those born vaginally.
It also admits:
*The calculated odds ratio might overestimate the risk of caesarean section."
*"some outcomes might therefore have been underestimated, especially for women delivering vaginally”
Chinese cesarean birth date concern
Most Chinese women only have one baby (reducing the risk of future surgeries), and if you think about the fact that studies have shown an increased risk of emergency cesarean with larger maternal weight, bigger babies and smaller stature, while other studies have shown an increased risk of infant asphyxia, trauma and injuries with a trial of labor, should people really be so shocked and surprised that the country's cesarean rate is so high?
And does anyone have the right to criticize those women who make the legitimate decision to request and plan a cesarean birth?
The real concern is the reported incidences of women choosing a "lucky" date for the birth of their child. If this birth date occurs after the recommended 39th gestational week is reached (i.e. women make a choice between 3 or 4 days falling within the recommended period for lung maturity), then it is not an issue, but to risk premature birth unnecessarily is surely indefensible.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Interviewed on Beijing's 'Today' radio show on elective cesarean
At 2am this morning I was involved in a one-hour discussion on elective cesareans with CRI Beyond Beijing's Flagship News Magazine. The 'Today' news programme was exploring the reasons for such high rates of elective cesareans in China, and also talking about the risks and benefits of planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery.
It was presented by Chris Gelken and Qinduo Xu, and I was interviewed alongside two other panelists, Dr Chen Zhe, Chief Resident Doctor and Obsterician from Renmin Hospital, and Prof Lynn Callister from the School of Nursing at Brigham Young University.
To listen to the programme, click here.
It was presented by Chris Gelken and Qinduo Xu, and I was interviewed alongside two other panelists, Dr Chen Zhe, Chief Resident Doctor and Obsterician from Renmin Hospital, and Prof Lynn Callister from the School of Nursing at Brigham Young University.
To listen to the programme, click here.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Study advises against non-medical cesareans but how accurate is the advice?
I am utterly perplexed by the conclusions drawn in this latest report from the World Health Organization, 'Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08, Lumbiganon et al', but not in the least bit surprised.[Note added 7 February 2010]
It's bad enough that the presentation of data is skewed in order to make planned vaginal delivery appear safer than it actually is, but the authors have decided to single out "the increased risk of maternal mortality and severe morbidity" in cesarean deliveries with no medical indication as the "most important finding of the survey".
Pregnant women and ALL JOURNALISTS - I urge you to please read the study in full and make up your own mind about which delivery type is the most risky.
If you don't have time, here are some extracts from the study that you won't see in today's media reports:
*The authors write: "Our study has some limitations. First, we had information about mortality and morbidities only until discharge from hospital; some outcomes might therefore have been underestimated, especially for women delivering vaginally who are usually discharged earlier than women having caesarean section."
This is important because damage to the pelvic floor (both in the short- and long-term) leads to physical and psychological trauma, financial costs and hospital readmissions that this study completely ignores. It also ignores the huge cost of litigation that can follow vaginal delivery complications.
*"The calculated odds ratio might overestimate the risk of caesarean section. Although we had adjusted for many potential confounding factors, there might be some other factors that we did not have information about and could not adjust for."
An admission of underestimating vaginal delivery risks and overestimating cesarean delivery risks - and yet this is ignored in the conclusion, perhaps because it does not suit the authors' own birth ideology.
*"Second, data were abstracted from the patients' records. We were not able to confirm the absence of some of the risk factors if they had not been recorded.
This is an issue that has been written about by doctors in the past (and indeed critics of studies such as this) because there may well have been medical indications for some of the 'without indications' cesarean group, and these were simply missing from the patients’ records. This would adversely affect the results for this group; again, potentially causing an over-estimation of its risks.
*"Third, our survey included only hospitals with caesarean facilities having 1000 or more deliveries every year. The results therefore cannot be generalised to smaller facilities."
In the UK especially, some of the highest numbers of cesarean delivery on maternal request occur in small, private hospitals. It is also worth noting here that the quality of hospital care in countries like the UK, USA, Canada and Australia (e.g. infection control through prophylactic antibiotics) may be of a higher standard than some of the regions's hositals included in this study.
*The conclusions drawn about poorer outcomes with cesarean delivery with no medical indication are "analysed as a composite outcome (the maternal mortality and morbidity index)".
This is crucial - because depending on what researchers include in such an "index", this will affect comparative results. Here is what the WHO's index includes:
"We assessed the association of each maternal outcome of death, admission to ICU, blood transfusion, hysterectomy, and mortality and morbidity index (which was defined as the presence of at least one of: maternal mortality, admission to ICU, blood transfusion, hysterectomy, or internal iliac artery ligation); and perinatal outcomes of perinatal mortality, fetal deaths, neonatal mortality up to hospital discharge, stay in neonatal ICU for 7 days or longer, and perinatal mortality and morbidity index (defined as the presence of perinatal death or stay in neonatal ICU for 7 days or longer)"
Notice what is missing: for example, pelvic floor damage; urinary and fecal incontinence; postpartum sexual health; long-term injuries to babies such as Erb's Palsy; psychological outcomes; degree of birth satisfaction. All of these potential birth outcomes are relevant in a truly 'informed' birth risk-benefit analysis, and for many women, they may have a lower tolerance for these risks than the risks associated with planned surgery.
*Referring to planned cesareans without indications, the WHO writes: “The findings for the individual outcomes that make up the composite outcome suggest that the increased risk is mainly attributable to increased admission to ICU and blood transfusion. Although we acknowledge that both ICU admission and blood transfusion depend on the availability of those services and the potentially differing thresholds for giving blood and for admission of women to ICU or referral to higher levels of care, this outcome is nevertheless important.”
This is important because effectively, it is the high occurrence of just two risks within the WHO’s “composite” and self-appointed “index” that leads to this type of cesarean delivery ending up with such a high overall negative score by the end of the study. This has occurred in previous studies too – namely, the 2006 Deneux-Tharaux et al study.
Now, PLEASE READ THE DIRECT EXTRACTS FROM THE STUDY BELOW AND ANSWER THIS QUESTION:
Which delivery type do YOU think has the most risks?
FYI, the study’s data is separated into six birth categories:
- Spontaneous vaginal delivery (reference category)
- Operative vaginal delivery
- Antepartum (before labor) cesarean delivery with indications
- Antepartum (before labor) cesarean delivery without indications
- Intrapartum (during labor) cesarean delivery with indications
- Intrapartum (during labor) cesarean delivery without indications
FOR BABIES:
“Risk of perinatal mortality was significantly increased compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery in infants born by operative vaginal delivery and intrapartum caesarean section with indications. Only infants delivered by antepartum caesarean section with indications had a significantly lower risk of fetal death than those born vaginally, whereas risk of fetal death did not differ significantly for other methods of delivery compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery. For neonatal mortality up to hospital discharge, infants born by operative vaginal delivery, antepartum caesarean section with indications, and intrapartum caesarean section with indications had significantly increased risk compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery. We recorded no cases of neonatal mortality up to hospital discharge for women delivering by caesarean section without indication, and the risk compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery could not be estimated.”
“Infants born by operative vaginal delivery and intrapartum and antepartum caesarean section with indications had significantly increased risk of stay for 7 days or longer in neonatal ICU compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery. Operative vaginal delivery and antepartum and intrapartum caesarean section with indications had significantly increased risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity index. For breech and other abnormal presentation, caesarean section with indication, either antepartum or intrapartum, significantly reduced risk of perinatal mortality but had significantly increased risk of stay in neonatal ICU for 7 days or longer.”
FOR MOTHERS:
“For maternal mortality, only operative vaginal delivery had significantly increased risk compared with spontaneous vaginal deliveries. The risk for antepartum caesarean section without indication could not be estimated because there were no maternal deaths in this group. Operative vaginal delivery and all types of caesarean section had significantly increased risk of admission to ICU compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery. Operative vaginal delivery, antepartum caesarean section with indications, and intrapartum caesarean section with and without indication had significantly increased risks of blood transfusion compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery. The risk of hysterectomy was increased in mothers who delivered by operative vaginal delivery, antepartum caesarean section with indications, and intrapartum caesarean section with indications. We recorded no cases of hysterectomy in women who delivered by antepartum caesarean section without indications and intrapartum caesarean section without indications, so the risk could not be estimated. Operative vaginal delivery and all types of caesarean section were associated with significantly increased risk of maternal mortality and morbidity index compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery. Intrapartum caesarean section (both with and without indications) had higher risk of maternal mortality and morbidity than did antepartum caesarean section. Deliveries by all types of caesarean section had significantly increased risks of maternal mortality and morbidities except for perineal tears of third and fourth degree, for which as expected caesarean section had a protective effect compared with vaginal delivery (data not shown).”
In summary:
There are NO RECORDED NEONATAL OR MATERNAL DEATHS following cesarean deliveries without medical indications – yet this is absent from the study’s conclusion. Why?
There are NO RECORDED CASES OF HYSTERECTOMY following cesarean deliveries without medical indications - yet again, this is absent from the conclusion. Why?
Cesarean delivery PROTECTS AGAINST SEVERE PERINEAL TRAUMA – yet not only is this fact absent from the conclusion, the researchers decided not to omit the data from its public report entirely. Why?
Important:
The WHO uses “spontaneous vaginal delivery” as its comparative “reference” in this study. This in itself is nonsensical. The data is going to be used to advise pregnant women about different risks during the PLANNING stage of their births - not once the birth is over. The problem is, a spontaneous delivery can never be absolutely predicted or guaranteed. Even the healthiest woman with the healthiest pregnancy can suffer a physically and psychologically traumatic labor involving instrumental assistance and ultimately surgical delivery. Therefore, the WHO should have compared birth PLANS – i.e. compared all planned vaginal deliveries (and their ultimate mortality/morbidity outcomes) with all planned cesareans (with and without indications). That said, even with the current vaginal delivery bias, I think it’s clear from the extracts above that maternal request cesareans fair better in the study than the conclusion would have us believe.
The WHO insists that “Assisted vaginal delivery represents a high-risk situation, and combination of such deliveries with spontaneous vaginal deliveries as the reference group might not be appropriate.” Firstly, we know that operative vaginal delivery does NOT always represent a high-risk situation. But even if I accept that argument, other comparative studies frequently mix the data of planned cesareans with and without medical indications, and then compare them in a negative light with vaginal delivery outcomes (and these studies are cited in WHO reports). Perhaps a fairer approach in the WHO's study (or as an additional footnote) would be to compare ALL vaginal delivery outcomes (incl. operative and emergency cesareans) with ALL planned cesarean outcomes (incl. with and without indications groups)?
MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS ON THE STUDY
**Advocates of vaginal delivery should focus their efforts on improving best practice care for women choosing vaginal delivery, and reducing the number of unwanted cesarean deliveries. They should not concern themselves with women who want a cesarean delivery. Numerous medical studies demonstrate high levels of post-birth satisfaction in women who choose a cesarean delivery and I think it’s unethical to try to stop these women enjoying a birth plan that is their legitimate choice.
Millions of women throughout the world plan to have a spontaneous delivery but you only have to look at any birth trauma website to see that many of these plans result in unhappy, traumatic stories of physical and psychological damage. From what I can see (both in studies and in emails I receive from women), those of us that choose cesareans are a generally happy bunch in terms of our birth outcome, and with the clocks turned back, would make the exact same birth decision all over again.
**The WHO is not entirely reliable in terms of making recommendations on cesarean delivery. Back in 1985 it suggested that national rates of cesarean delivery should maintain an upper limit of 15%, and then finally (after much insistence from critics, including the CCA), in its 2009 handbook it admits that "no empirical evidence for an optimum percentage" exists, an "optimum rate is unknown," and world regions may choose to "set their own standards." You can read more about this here.
**There have been a large number of media reports on this study, and what concerns me most is that if perhaps even journalists don’t have time to read a study in full (and in fairness, many don’t), then it’s unlikely that readers of their newspapers will read the study in full either. Therefore, we are in danger of effectively ‘misinforming’ whole nations of women about the true risks of different birth types. Here are a few examples:
Rebecca Smith writes for The Telegraph:
‘Perform caesarean deliveries only where medical problem: researchers’… Hospitals should only perform caesarean sections if there is medical problem and not just because women simply choose the procedure because they are 'too posh to push', experts said.
Bella Battle writes for The Sun:
‘Cesareans a ‘risk’ to mums’… MUMS dubbed 'too posh to push' were given a stark health warning on caesareans today.
Emily Cook writes for The Mirror:
‘Don't have a caesarean unless it's essential, warms news study’…Mums to be should only give birth by caesarean when strictly necessary, insists a new study.
Some of the reports do provide criticism of the WHO’s study, but this tends to come further down in the page. The Telegraph for example notes that “experts in Britain said the study was conducted in Asia and so was not as relevant to practice in Britain. They said the findings had been 'over sensationalised'.” For example, Dr Virginia Beckett, spokesman for the Royal College of Obsestricians and Gynecologists, said: "These findings are actually quite reassuring for women opting for caesarean sections. They found that three in 1,500 women who had a c-section without medical indication before labour needed a blood transfusion and I would expect elective caeseareans to be even safer in Britain… "There are some very big conclusions drawn from some very small numbers.”
**This study is relatively small; an analysis of just 107,950 deliveries throughout nine countries - Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam, and is receiving maximum media exposure in the UK, Australia and North America. Yet where are the vast swathes of media reports on studies like the ones I’ve cited in this blog in the past or in the various press releases I've written (highlighting very positive health outcomes with maternal request cesareans) - many of which are conducted in countries far closer to home than Asia?
I don’t necessarily blame the media here; after all, a powerful natural birth ideology PR machine ensures its message gets reported, but isn’t it time that more journalists looked afresh at the easy target of ‘too posh to push’ mothers and consider for just one second an alternative truth – that these women are in fact making educated and informed decisions about their babies and their bodies?
And while I’m on my soapbox, could the natural birth lobby get busy making suggestions about how we deal with the extremely challenging maternal landscape that obstetrics has to deal with in the developed world – namely, mothers giving birth at increasingly older ages and with heavier body weights, and babies being born larger and heavier too. It’s all too easy to seek a reduction in cesarean rates by trying to encroach on my right to plan the birth of my choice, but what are your plans to encourage a reduction in the number of unwanted cesareans? Do they include an uncomfortable discussion on issues such as earlier parenting or pre-pregnancy weight loss? Your responsibility lies more in counseling women about vaginal delivery risks – help them achieve the delivery of their choice and allow me, and other women like me, to enjoy our own personal choice.
IN SUMMARY
The WHO reports that the “most important finding of the survey is the increased risk of maternal mortality and severe morbidity [analysed as a composite outcome using the maternal mortality and morbidity index] in women who undergo caesarean section with no medical indication.”
And it concludes that to “improve maternal and perinatal outcomes, caesarean section should be done only when there is a medical indication.”
Well, I find myself heading to bed now and still wondering, how on earth can WHO researchers conclude from the data results above that a planned cesarean delivery with no medical indication is any more risky than a planned vaginal delivery? And moreover, how can it claim that of all the data it accumulated in nine countries, that this particular finding was "the most important"?
What about the risks associated with operative vaginal delivery? What about the protective benefit of a planned cesarean with regards third and fourth degree perineal tears? What about the low number of deaths and absence of hysterectomy? What about the positive outcomes with cesarean breech deliveries? Do these areas of risk not warrant our attention?
The WHO’s goal – and that of all true birth autonomy advocates – should be POSITIVE BIRTH OUTCOMES FOR ALL WOMEN in all walks of life. Millions of women and babies continue to die in childbirth despite the WHO’s best efforts, so I would suggest that it focus more on INCREASING cesarean rates for these women and decreasing rates of UNWANTED cesareans for others, and focus less on reducing access for women that WANT cesarean surgery and don't want a trial of labor.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Induced birth research is irrelevant to maternal request cesareans
An article on the Citizens Report website yesterday, 'New Study Warns of Risks from Unnecessary Cesarean Births, and while I don't have an issue with efforts to reduce cesarean rates for women who desperately want to have a vaginal delivery (unless the surgery is needed in order to save the baby's or mother's life), I am critical of reports that make a connection between the term 'unnecessary cesarean' and women who 'choose' cesarean delivery.
My comment on the article
As far as I can ascertain, this research relates to planned vaginal deliveries that were induced (it is stated that the researchers “excluded women who had scheduled or previous cesarean deliveries”). Therefore, it is irrelevant to make a connection between this research and the legitimate decision made by women to plan a cesarean delivery and avoid a trial of labor. The research does not even include the latter type of birth in its analysis.
The advice for women considering a maternal request cesarean delivery is to ensure that they do not have surgery prior to 39 weeks (in order to ensure that the baby’s lungs have developed properly). This research reinforces the established medical opinion that risks are lower for women delivering after 39 weeks gestation.
My comment on the article
As far as I can ascertain, this research relates to planned vaginal deliveries that were induced (it is stated that the researchers “excluded women who had scheduled or previous cesarean deliveries”). Therefore, it is irrelevant to make a connection between this research and the legitimate decision made by women to plan a cesarean delivery and avoid a trial of labor. The research does not even include the latter type of birth in its analysis.
The advice for women considering a maternal request cesarean delivery is to ensure that they do not have surgery prior to 39 weeks (in order to ensure that the baby’s lungs have developed properly). This research reinforces the established medical opinion that risks are lower for women delivering after 39 weeks gestation.
Hospital readmissions after cesarean delivery - are they really higher than after vaginal delivery?
I've just posted a comment at the bottom of yesterday's Modern Medicine article 'Readmissions After Cesarean Higher Than Vaginal Delivery' because I think that the conclusions drawn - both in the media report and in the medical study itself - are not particularly helpful for women who are deciding which birth 'PLAN' to choose.
The article reports on a new U.S. study by researchers Michael Belfort et al: 'Hospital readmission after delivery: evidence for an increased incidence of nonurogenital infection in the immediate postpartum period', and here are my concerns:
The conclusion reported here (that readmission rates are higher following cesarean delivery than vaginal delivery) is a typical example of the flaws apparent in comparative medical studies – particularly in the U.S. Why? Because the research combines all cesarean outcomes (emergency and elective) together - rather than attributing health outcomes of an emergency cesarean to the planned vaginal delivery it originated as.
Actually, vaginal delivery is a risk factor for readmission
In fact, if you read this study in full, Belfort et al explain: “Potential explanations as to the reason that a primary cesarean section delivery represents a greater risk for readmission than a repeat cesarean delivery may include such factors as increased risk of infection from prolonged labor (repeated vaginal examinations, chorioamnionitis), increased blood loss with emergency surgery, and higher use of general anesthesia.”
So in effect, issues related to the trial of labor and subsequent emergency surgery are risk factors for postpartum readmission to hospital – and the risk of readmission with planned cesareans (even repeat surgeries) is lower.
My concern is that studies like this are used to deter women who request a primary elective cesarean at 39 weeks, when evidently the research has very little to do with their chosen birth plan. Rather, if the data was separated (with readmissions following emergency cesarean attributed to planned vaginal deliveries), it is likely that the reality of these readmissions in relation to the delivery method planned is different to that concluded here.
Balance of risks
In addition to the above, I think it's worth remembering that an emergency cesarean is often carried out in a life or death situation (whether it's the mother's life, the baby's life, or both, that is at risk), and while subsequent hospital readmissions are unpleasant and undesirable, they are certainly preferable to the alternative - mortality or severe morbidity if an emergency cesarean is not carried out.
The article reports on a new U.S. study by researchers Michael Belfort et al: 'Hospital readmission after delivery: evidence for an increased incidence of nonurogenital infection in the immediate postpartum period', and here are my concerns:
The conclusion reported here (that readmission rates are higher following cesarean delivery than vaginal delivery) is a typical example of the flaws apparent in comparative medical studies – particularly in the U.S. Why? Because the research combines all cesarean outcomes (emergency and elective) together - rather than attributing health outcomes of an emergency cesarean to the planned vaginal delivery it originated as.
Actually, vaginal delivery is a risk factor for readmission
In fact, if you read this study in full, Belfort et al explain: “Potential explanations as to the reason that a primary cesarean section delivery represents a greater risk for readmission than a repeat cesarean delivery may include such factors as increased risk of infection from prolonged labor (repeated vaginal examinations, chorioamnionitis), increased blood loss with emergency surgery, and higher use of general anesthesia.”
So in effect, issues related to the trial of labor and subsequent emergency surgery are risk factors for postpartum readmission to hospital – and the risk of readmission with planned cesareans (even repeat surgeries) is lower.
My concern is that studies like this are used to deter women who request a primary elective cesarean at 39 weeks, when evidently the research has very little to do with their chosen birth plan. Rather, if the data was separated (with readmissions following emergency cesarean attributed to planned vaginal deliveries), it is likely that the reality of these readmissions in relation to the delivery method planned is different to that concluded here.
Balance of risks
In addition to the above, I think it's worth remembering that an emergency cesarean is often carried out in a life or death situation (whether it's the mother's life, the baby's life, or both, that is at risk), and while subsequent hospital readmissions are unpleasant and undesirable, they are certainly preferable to the alternative - mortality or severe morbidity if an emergency cesarean is not carried out.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Special 'cesarean wing' is opened in Utah hospital
The Standard-Examiner reports that Ogden Regional Medical Center has a new 'first of its kind' wing dedicated solely for women having caesarean-section deliveries.
I think that this is a very exciting development, and I imagine that the women having cesarean deliveries there will enjoy their postpartum surroundings. Obviously, the quality of surgical care in any hospital is of paramount importance, but these efforts to make women feel more comfortable after they've had their surgery should surely be commended.
Comfortable hospital surroundings
In the report, the hospital's marketing director Craig Bielik describes eight c-section/ postpartum suites, single-room maternity care, newborn and transitional nurseries, larger than normal hospital rooms and rooms fully equipped to handle emergencies. In addition, the new C-wing includes flat-screen televisions, Wi-Fi access, a sleeper chair and access to the new Ronald McDonald family room.
I'm sure that I will receive criticism for my interest in this area of hospital provision, but I know that from my own cesarean experiences, I really enjoyed recovering in my own private room. I also enjoyed the fact that I had access to the internet as I was able to send photos of our new children to friends and relatives via email. I could also make outgoing calls on Skype and Google any 'new mother' questions I had in the days following the birth.
I think that this is a very exciting development, and I imagine that the women having cesarean deliveries there will enjoy their postpartum surroundings. Obviously, the quality of surgical care in any hospital is of paramount importance, but these efforts to make women feel more comfortable after they've had their surgery should surely be commended.
Comfortable hospital surroundings
In the report, the hospital's marketing director Craig Bielik describes eight c-section/ postpartum suites, single-room maternity care, newborn and transitional nurseries, larger than normal hospital rooms and rooms fully equipped to handle emergencies. In addition, the new C-wing includes flat-screen televisions, Wi-Fi access, a sleeper chair and access to the new Ronald McDonald family room.
I'm sure that I will receive criticism for my interest in this area of hospital provision, but I know that from my own cesarean experiences, I really enjoyed recovering in my own private room. I also enjoyed the fact that I had access to the internet as I was able to send photos of our new children to friends and relatives via email. I could also make outgoing calls on Skype and Google any 'new mother' questions I had in the days following the birth.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Australia: 3.2% of all births are maternal request cesareans
In the first publication on the subject for 2010, researchers Robson et al in Australia have calculated that - even 'using the lowest estimate (8,553 women) in calculations, maternal request [cesareans] accounted for 17.3% of all elective cesareans and 3.2% of all births' in 2006.
'Estimating the Rate of Cesarean Section by Maternal Request: Anonymous Survey of Obstetricians in Australia' concludes that its 'findings support the hypothesis that maternal request cesareans make a significant contribution to the overall rate of cesarean deliveries in Australia.'
Rate expected to increase in future too
Of the 1,239 specialist obstetricians surveyed, it was estimated that between 8553 and 12,434 maternal request cesarean sections were performed in 2006, and the likelihood of specialists agreeing to perform maternal request cesarean deliveries was higher among those who were 10 or less years from qualification.
Of the 317 registered obstetric trainees (residents) surveyed, two-thirds expressed the intention of doing such cesareans in their future practice.
Research background
'The findings of a recent population-based study in Australia suggested that elective cesarean delivery of a singleton pregnancy at term without medical or obstetric indications (cesarean delivery by maternal request) may represent a significant proportion of cesarean births in that country... [read more here].
'Estimating the Rate of Cesarean Section by Maternal Request: Anonymous Survey of Obstetricians in Australia' concludes that its 'findings support the hypothesis that maternal request cesareans make a significant contribution to the overall rate of cesarean deliveries in Australia.'
Rate expected to increase in future too
Of the 1,239 specialist obstetricians surveyed, it was estimated that between 8553 and 12,434 maternal request cesarean sections were performed in 2006, and the likelihood of specialists agreeing to perform maternal request cesarean deliveries was higher among those who were 10 or less years from qualification.
Of the 317 registered obstetric trainees (residents) surveyed, two-thirds expressed the intention of doing such cesareans in their future practice.
Research background
'The findings of a recent population-based study in Australia suggested that elective cesarean delivery of a singleton pregnancy at term without medical or obstetric indications (cesarean delivery by maternal request) may represent a significant proportion of cesarean births in that country... [read more here].
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Planned Cesarean Delivery Offers Protection Against Pelvic Floor Disorders
Press Release by electivecesarean.com
Dec 28, 2009 – A new study published this month warns that pelvic floor disorders are set to increase substantially in America over the next 40 years due to changing demographics.(1) Pauline McDonagh Hull, editor of electivecesarean.com highlights medical studies that demonstrate an increased risk of these disorders following vaginal delivery (VD) and a protective benefit with planned cesarean delivery (CD), plus evidence that women are not being informed of these facts.
You can read the full press release here.
Dec 28, 2009 – A new study published this month warns that pelvic floor disorders are set to increase substantially in America over the next 40 years due to changing demographics.(1) Pauline McDonagh Hull, editor of electivecesarean.com highlights medical studies that demonstrate an increased risk of these disorders following vaginal delivery (VD) and a protective benefit with planned cesarean delivery (CD), plus evidence that women are not being informed of these facts.
You can read the full press release here.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Criticism of promoting cesarean delivery on request
A number of bloggers and birth educators have been discussing (and applauding) a recent commentary by Nicette Jukelevics, MA, ICCE, called 'Putting Mothers and Babies at Risk: Promoting the Elusive ‘Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request’'.
In it, Nicette Jukelevics asks questions including 'Maternal Choice or Physician Choice Cesareans?', and I completely understand that this is a genuine concern for women whose first choice is a vaginal delivery.
However, for me, the most important aspect of her commentary is its 'suggested Patient Information Form', which Jukelevics would like every pregnant women to read, answer the questions and then sign, in order to 'accurately demonstrate that she is choosing a cesarean section that is based on informed consent.'
Patient Information Form
(Surely this is needed for cesarean AND vaginal delivery?)
I actually like the idea of such a form, and while I would like to see some modifications in the set of questions proposed here for maternal request cesarean delivery, what I am even more interested in seeing is the proposed Patient Information Form for pregnant women to read prior to choosing a planned vaginal delivery (primary and VBAC) - in order to ensure that this too is based on informed consent.
I appreciate that my request for equality in aiding informed decisions of both cesarean and vaginal deliveries will strike many birth educators as unnecessary - they may believe that the decision to plan a vaginal delivery is the norm or given, and it is only cesarean delivery 'pushed on women by obstetricians' that requires informed consent.
I disagree.
I believe that the risks associated with planned vaginal delivery - whether spontaneous, instrumental or eventual emergency cesarean delivery in its outcome - are often underestimated or ignored by birth educators, and that women are not consistently informed of the potential negative health implications (physical and psychological) for their babies or themselves.
ALL BIRTH PLANS HAVE ASSOCIATED RISKS - AND WOMEN'S INFORMED CONSENT TO TAKE THESE RISKS IS NECESSARY WITH BOTH CESAREAN AND VAGINAL DELIVERY.
In it, Nicette Jukelevics asks questions including 'Maternal Choice or Physician Choice Cesareans?', and I completely understand that this is a genuine concern for women whose first choice is a vaginal delivery.
However, for me, the most important aspect of her commentary is its 'suggested Patient Information Form', which Jukelevics would like every pregnant women to read, answer the questions and then sign, in order to 'accurately demonstrate that she is choosing a cesarean section that is based on informed consent.'
Patient Information Form
(Surely this is needed for cesarean AND vaginal delivery?)
I actually like the idea of such a form, and while I would like to see some modifications in the set of questions proposed here for maternal request cesarean delivery, what I am even more interested in seeing is the proposed Patient Information Form for pregnant women to read prior to choosing a planned vaginal delivery (primary and VBAC) - in order to ensure that this too is based on informed consent.
I appreciate that my request for equality in aiding informed decisions of both cesarean and vaginal deliveries will strike many birth educators as unnecessary - they may believe that the decision to plan a vaginal delivery is the norm or given, and it is only cesarean delivery 'pushed on women by obstetricians' that requires informed consent.
I disagree.
I believe that the risks associated with planned vaginal delivery - whether spontaneous, instrumental or eventual emergency cesarean delivery in its outcome - are often underestimated or ignored by birth educators, and that women are not consistently informed of the potential negative health implications (physical and psychological) for their babies or themselves.
ALL BIRTH PLANS HAVE ASSOCIATED RISKS - AND WOMEN'S INFORMED CONSENT TO TAKE THESE RISKS IS NECESSARY WITH BOTH CESAREAN AND VAGINAL DELIVERY.
Monday, December 14, 2009
My interview with BBC Radio Wales aired this evening
Retired urologist Christine Evans interviewed me for this special programme in which she sets out to explore whether cesarean deliveries on maternal request are justified.
The programme is called 'The Irritated Consultant' and it's Episode 4, '...caesarian births under the spotlight.'
Christine concludes that a woman's autonomy in making an informed decision is legitimate, particularly when she is older (35 years or more) or has had medical help to conceive.
You can read details of previous radio and media interviews here.
The programme is called 'The Irritated Consultant' and it's Episode 4, '...caesarian births under the spotlight.'
Christine concludes that a woman's autonomy in making an informed decision is legitimate, particularly when she is older (35 years or more) or has had medical help to conceive.
You can read details of previous radio and media interviews here.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Barbaric - and untold - aspect of vaginal delivery
This is an horrific story from China about an 18-year-old mother who was given more than 100 stitches - some without anaesthetic - at the birth of her first baby.
According to a China Press report, 'the woman was stitched up by a lady doctor and a trainee doctor after giving birth. However, a medical officer later removed the stitches, saying the wrong threads had been used. He then re-stitched her without anaesthetic.'
Even worse, another senior doctor then 'announced that the thread used by the medical officer was also the wrong one, requiring the woman to go through another process of having the stitches opened and closed again with the right thread.'
It happens in the UK too!
I heard about this happening in the UK some years ago, and in fact continue to be surprised how little attention it is given in the media. According to the Birth Trauma Association, vaginal stitching without anesthetic occurs 'quite often'.
That's true: Many women in the NHS are stitched up following a vaginal tear or episiotomy WITHOUT ANESTHETIC.
Indeed the Birth Trauma Association describes this wholly unnecessary and barbaric birth experience as 'a frequent complaint' by women.
Pregnancy and birth phobia
Unsurprisingly, the young Chinese woman (who 'also claimed that during the process, one of the doctors had accidentally injured her thigh causing her to suffer a three-inch cut') now says that she has a 'phobia about getting pregnant again'.
Birth phobia is often be described as irrational, as though a woman's fear of some of the terrible things that can happen during a vaginal delivery are just 'all in her head.' Well they're not - they're real - and if she wants to avoid even the chance of such terrible things happening to her, then in my opinion, her decision to do so is entirely rational.
According to a China Press report, 'the woman was stitched up by a lady doctor and a trainee doctor after giving birth. However, a medical officer later removed the stitches, saying the wrong threads had been used. He then re-stitched her without anaesthetic.'
Even worse, another senior doctor then 'announced that the thread used by the medical officer was also the wrong one, requiring the woman to go through another process of having the stitches opened and closed again with the right thread.'
It happens in the UK too!
I heard about this happening in the UK some years ago, and in fact continue to be surprised how little attention it is given in the media. According to the Birth Trauma Association, vaginal stitching without anesthetic occurs 'quite often'.
That's true: Many women in the NHS are stitched up following a vaginal tear or episiotomy WITHOUT ANESTHETIC.
Indeed the Birth Trauma Association describes this wholly unnecessary and barbaric birth experience as 'a frequent complaint' by women.
Pregnancy and birth phobia
Unsurprisingly, the young Chinese woman (who 'also claimed that during the process, one of the doctors had accidentally injured her thigh causing her to suffer a three-inch cut') now says that she has a 'phobia about getting pregnant again'.
Birth phobia is often be described as irrational, as though a woman's fear of some of the terrible things that can happen during a vaginal delivery are just 'all in her head.' Well they're not - they're real - and if she wants to avoid even the chance of such terrible things happening to her, then in my opinion, her decision to do so is entirely rational.
Another two babies die because cesareans are not carried out
I read these two stories online today, in which precious babies' lives could have been saved with a cesarean delivery.
The first, by Colin Fernandez writing for the Daily Mail, is titled: ''Chaotic' care led to baby's death', and reports on an inquest into the death of Ebony McCall at Milton Keynes General Hospital's maternity unit.
Cesarean request denied and maternity unit understaffed
According to the report, doctors 'missed two chances to save Ebony's life', and indeed the mother and her family's own request for 'emergency surgical delivery' was 'ruled against'.
Furthermore, staff were 'overstretched as 12 mothers gave birth at the unit that night [and] only four midwives were on duty...'. Eventually, an emergency cesarean was carried out on the baby's mother, who is described as 'rolling in pain' and suffering from other health problems 'including a faulty heart valve, only one working kidney and curvature of the spine.'
The second, 'Jury finds doctors liable in death of newborn', appears in The Buffalo News, and Matt Gryta reports on a $2.2 million award for the family of baby Leah Kreinheder, 'who died of a seizure linked to her mishandled birth'.
Continue with labor and don't do a cesarean!
Despite concerns about 'problems with the baby’s heart rate', the decision was made 'to continue with the labor and not perform a caesarean section'
What happened next is a sadly familiar story - 'the baby became stuck during the delivery and for almost five minutes was deprived of oxygen; as a result, she suffered brain damage and head trauma, multiple bruises on her head and arms and was blue at birth... [She] suffered seizures and was transferred to Women & Children’s Hospital in Buffalo, where she remained for a month.'
I ask once again: How many more babies have to die before hospitals understand that efforts to reduce cesarean rates or avoid 'unnecessary cesareans' can have dangerous and devastating effects?
The first, by Colin Fernandez writing for the Daily Mail, is titled: ''Chaotic' care led to baby's death', and reports on an inquest into the death of Ebony McCall at Milton Keynes General Hospital's maternity unit.
Cesarean request denied and maternity unit understaffed
According to the report, doctors 'missed two chances to save Ebony's life', and indeed the mother and her family's own request for 'emergency surgical delivery' was 'ruled against'.
Furthermore, staff were 'overstretched as 12 mothers gave birth at the unit that night [and] only four midwives were on duty...'. Eventually, an emergency cesarean was carried out on the baby's mother, who is described as 'rolling in pain' and suffering from other health problems 'including a faulty heart valve, only one working kidney and curvature of the spine.'
The second, 'Jury finds doctors liable in death of newborn', appears in The Buffalo News, and Matt Gryta reports on a $2.2 million award for the family of baby Leah Kreinheder, 'who died of a seizure linked to her mishandled birth'.
Continue with labor and don't do a cesarean!
Despite concerns about 'problems with the baby’s heart rate', the decision was made 'to continue with the labor and not perform a caesarean section'
What happened next is a sadly familiar story - 'the baby became stuck during the delivery and for almost five minutes was deprived of oxygen; as a result, she suffered brain damage and head trauma, multiple bruises on her head and arms and was blue at birth... [She] suffered seizures and was transferred to Women & Children’s Hospital in Buffalo, where she remained for a month.'
I ask once again: How many more babies have to die before hospitals understand that efforts to reduce cesarean rates or avoid 'unnecessary cesareans' can have dangerous and devastating effects?
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
New sealant helps protect from cesarean infections
A new type of surgical sealant is being used to reduce the risk of infection during cesarean deliveries.
This article on the subject focuses on the practice being employed by Dr Jacques Moritz, director of gynecology at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan, following positive results in clinical trials:
Research
The 'sealant has been shown to seal and immobilize harmful pathogens including MRSA, S. epidermis and E. coli. The sealant is applied to the skin after surgery prep and before the incision is made. The sealant is non-irritating and does not need to be removed in order to close the incision. After surgery, the sealant wears off naturally within a few days. Doctors say the sealant should not be used in surgical procedures involving mucous membranes or the eyes, on patients with hypersensitivity or on skin with active signs of infections.'
Dr Moritz says that, while 'there is no such thing as true sterilization of the skin', this sealant 'gives new moms an added layer of protection.'
It's certainly something worth asking your doctor about ahead of your planned surgery...?
This article on the subject focuses on the practice being employed by Dr Jacques Moritz, director of gynecology at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan, following positive results in clinical trials:
Research
The 'sealant has been shown to seal and immobilize harmful pathogens including MRSA, S. epidermis and E. coli. The sealant is applied to the skin after surgery prep and before the incision is made. The sealant is non-irritating and does not need to be removed in order to close the incision. After surgery, the sealant wears off naturally within a few days. Doctors say the sealant should not be used in surgical procedures involving mucous membranes or the eyes, on patients with hypersensitivity or on skin with active signs of infections.'
Dr Moritz says that, while 'there is no such thing as true sterilization of the skin', this sealant 'gives new moms an added layer of protection.'
It's certainly something worth asking your doctor about ahead of your planned surgery...?
Two Australian babies might have lived if delivered by cesarean
Writing for Adelaide Now, Ken McGregor reports on an ongoing inquest into the deaths of two babies - both delivered by ventouse - in 2006 and 2007.He describes how 'the babies died of multi-organ failure following a "massive" subgaleal haemorrhage, which may have been caused by the Ventouse machine'. But even more shocking (at least to me) is the reason given by Melissa Sandercock (the senior obstetrician involved) for attempting an instrumental delivery:
She 'told the court that she considered delivering him by a cesarean, but because it was a public holiday and there were no anaesthetists nearby, she decided on using the Ventouse.'
Lessons learned?
Ms Sandercock, says she has 'since changed her delivery methods and now "prefers to use forceps" when a baby shows signs of distress.'
I am not a doctor, but as a concerned mother of two precious children and as someone who values the protection of my pelvic floor during childbirth, the experience described above is just another example of the type of unpredictable vaginal delivery that I chose to avoid when planning my cesarean delivery.
I felt that it was safer for my babies, and I personally didn't want to be delivered via ventouse, forceps or an emergency cesarean. And looking at the increasing rate of elective cesareans in Australia, I think it's fair to say that I am not alone in my thinking.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Albany independent midwives' contract terminated by King's College Hospital
The Guardian has reported that London's King's College Hospital has terminated its contract with the Albany group of independent midwives, 'alleging that a disproportionate number of the babies it delivered suffered damage during the birth.'
It says that 'King's decided to terminate the contract after commissioning a report from the Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE) [and it] is believed the investigation was triggered by the death of Natan Kmiecik, one week after he was delivered at Kings by one of the Albany midwives. His mother, who did not speak English, had a caesarean for the birth of her first baby but wanted a natural birth for her second. Her lawyers claimed proper procedures were not followed, because the baby's heartbeat was monitored only by a small hand-held device so she could have a water birth.'
Low levels of medical intervention
While a very positive aspect of the Albany group is its aim for all women to be delivered by a midwife they have built up a relationship with during their pregnancy, it is now in question whether some of its other policies (namely, enbcouraging - almost 50% rate - home births and reduced medical intervention) provide best practice care.
'King's says babies delivered by Albany midwives had higher rates of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy brain damage caused by lack of oxygen and lack of blood flow to the brain - than those delivered by midwives it employs directly over the last two and a half years.'
Unsurprising
This story reminds me of a UK medical study from 2004, which assessed 540,834 live births and stillbirths in 65 maternity units. It found that a ‘higher intervention score and higher number of consultant obstetricians per 1000 births were both independently and significantly associated with lower stillbirth rates' (Joyce et al, UK, 2004), so it is unsurprising to me that a practice of minimal intervention by the Albany group is reported to have led to negative health outcomes.
Clearly, those women who have enjoyed positive experiences at this midwifery practice are angry and sad to hear this news, and I do have some sympathy for them. But I think it is safe to assume that it was not their precious baby who fell between the cracks and suffered injury (or death) during a planned vaginal delivery.
Otherwise, they might well be interested in reading the Canadian study I blogged about yesterday, which found that 'life-threatening infant morbidity is lower with planned cesareans'.
It says that 'King's decided to terminate the contract after commissioning a report from the Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE) [and it] is believed the investigation was triggered by the death of Natan Kmiecik, one week after he was delivered at Kings by one of the Albany midwives. His mother, who did not speak English, had a caesarean for the birth of her first baby but wanted a natural birth for her second. Her lawyers claimed proper procedures were not followed, because the baby's heartbeat was monitored only by a small hand-held device so she could have a water birth.'
Low levels of medical intervention
While a very positive aspect of the Albany group is its aim for all women to be delivered by a midwife they have built up a relationship with during their pregnancy, it is now in question whether some of its other policies (namely, enbcouraging - almost 50% rate - home births and reduced medical intervention) provide best practice care.
'King's says babies delivered by Albany midwives had higher rates of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy brain damage caused by lack of oxygen and lack of blood flow to the brain - than those delivered by midwives it employs directly over the last two and a half years.'
Unsurprising
This story reminds me of a UK medical study from 2004, which assessed 540,834 live births and stillbirths in 65 maternity units. It found that a ‘higher intervention score and higher number of consultant obstetricians per 1000 births were both independently and significantly associated with lower stillbirth rates' (Joyce et al, UK, 2004), so it is unsurprising to me that a practice of minimal intervention by the Albany group is reported to have led to negative health outcomes.
Clearly, those women who have enjoyed positive experiences at this midwifery practice are angry and sad to hear this news, and I do have some sympathy for them. But I think it is safe to assume that it was not their precious baby who fell between the cracks and suffered injury (or death) during a planned vaginal delivery.
Otherwise, they might well be interested in reading the Canadian study I blogged about yesterday, which found that 'life-threatening infant morbidity is lower with planned cesareans'.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Life-threatening infant morbidity is lower with planned cesareans
This is a very important study of almost 40,000 term deliveries in Canada. So far, it has received no media attention here, but I think it deserves your attention - especially women who might be worried about a planned cesarean delivery for medical reasons but also women who chose to plan a cesarean and now face a constant stream of criticism by others.
What the researchers did
LS Dahlgren et al studied 1,046 pre-labor, planned cesarean deliveries for breech presentation and 38,021 planned vaginal deliveries with a cephalic-presenting singleton (i.e. a baby in the normal, head-down birth position).
What the researchers found
Life-threatening neonatal morbidity was decreased in the planned cesarean group: ‘elective pre-labour caesarean section... at full term decreased the risk of life-threatening neonatal morbidity compared with spontaneous labour with anticipated vaginal delivery.'
Why is this study so important?
Two reasons.
1) It found that 'life-threatening maternal morbidity was similar in each group'. In other words, that planned cesarean surgery - despite being complicated by a breech presentation - was no more dangerous for mothers than a planned vaginal delivery.
2) Because the vaginal delivery group consisted of straightforward pregnancies and was then compared with a cesarean delivery group of babies in the breech position, the fact that surgery STILL turned out to be the safest delivery method, raises the question how much wider the margin of benefit might have been if the cesarean group consisted of straightforward pregnancies too...
The researchers' conclusions
You can read more about this study, 'Caesarean section on maternal request: risks and benefits in healthy nulliparous women and their infants', here, but in brief, the researchers note that 'the increased neonatal risk was associated with operative vaginal delivery and intrapartum caesarean but not spontaneous vaginal delivery'.
So, if you have a spontaneous vaginal delivery, your baby will enjoy a safer arrival. Of course the problem always remains that spontaneous vaginal delivery can never be guaranteed. Therefore women need to be advised of ALL the potential health outcomes of a trial of labor (which in fairness, many will legitimately accept in preference to surgery), and not just the 'best case' scenario if everything goes according to plan.
Further research needed
Evidently, as the researchers conclude, the 63% of women who planned spontaneous labour and subsequently achieved a spontaneous vaginal delivery may/'would not have benefited from delivery by caesarean section' (I added the word 'may' since maternal morbidity factors such as pelvic floor damage must be considered too), and therefore it is suggested:
'Further research is needed to better identify women with an increased likelihood of an operative vaginal or intrapartum caesarean section, as this may assist maternity caregivers in decision-making about childbirth. Further research is also needed to determine if these findings can be confirmed in a prospective study.'
What the researchers did
LS Dahlgren et al studied 1,046 pre-labor, planned cesarean deliveries for breech presentation and 38,021 planned vaginal deliveries with a cephalic-presenting singleton (i.e. a baby in the normal, head-down birth position).
What the researchers found
Life-threatening neonatal morbidity was decreased in the planned cesarean group: ‘elective pre-labour caesarean section... at full term decreased the risk of life-threatening neonatal morbidity compared with spontaneous labour with anticipated vaginal delivery.'
Why is this study so important?
Two reasons.
1) It found that 'life-threatening maternal morbidity was similar in each group'. In other words, that planned cesarean surgery - despite being complicated by a breech presentation - was no more dangerous for mothers than a planned vaginal delivery.
2) Because the vaginal delivery group consisted of straightforward pregnancies and was then compared with a cesarean delivery group of babies in the breech position, the fact that surgery STILL turned out to be the safest delivery method, raises the question how much wider the margin of benefit might have been if the cesarean group consisted of straightforward pregnancies too...
The researchers' conclusions
You can read more about this study, 'Caesarean section on maternal request: risks and benefits in healthy nulliparous women and their infants', here, but in brief, the researchers note that 'the increased neonatal risk was associated with operative vaginal delivery and intrapartum caesarean but not spontaneous vaginal delivery'.
So, if you have a spontaneous vaginal delivery, your baby will enjoy a safer arrival. Of course the problem always remains that spontaneous vaginal delivery can never be guaranteed. Therefore women need to be advised of ALL the potential health outcomes of a trial of labor (which in fairness, many will legitimately accept in preference to surgery), and not just the 'best case' scenario if everything goes according to plan.
Further research needed
Evidently, as the researchers conclude, the 63% of women who planned spontaneous labour and subsequently achieved a spontaneous vaginal delivery may/'would not have benefited from delivery by caesarean section' (I added the word 'may' since maternal morbidity factors such as pelvic floor damage must be considered too), and therefore it is suggested:
'Further research is needed to better identify women with an increased likelihood of an operative vaginal or intrapartum caesarean section, as this may assist maternity caregivers in decision-making about childbirth. Further research is also needed to determine if these findings can be confirmed in a prospective study.'
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Nurse says: 'Outlaw elective cesareans'
Talk about wanting to have your cake an eat it.
Today I came across this comment on the allnurses.com website, posted by 'LadyJaye' on December 1st:
Re: Elective C-sections- moms idea or the providers?
'I hope my response does not offend anyone, and this opinion is specifically for elective C-sections- they should be outlawed. Doctors who push them for easy scheduling or insurance/ money purposes should have their licenses taken away, and women who do not want to give birth to a baby should not have a baby. It is in my opinion that our bodies were made to have children, and unless there is a medical emergency there is no reason to interfere...'
Offensive
First of all, the comment 'women shouldn't have a baby unless they're willing to have a vaginal delivery' is offensive.
Secondly, if women's bodies are so capable, and Mother Nature is so reliable - 'our bodies were made to have children' - why do so many medical emergencies occur?
Medical intervention verus Natural evolution
Contemporary women are simply not willing to risk death and/or injury to their babies or themselves, and unlike previous generations (we always hear the argument that 'women have been giving birth for thousands of years, so why change things now?'), we are in a vastly improved position.
We have access to a level of surgical care that is keeping pace with our maternal landscape (think: larger babies, heavier and older mothers) better than natural evolution has managed to do (think: increasingly big baby's head, same narrow pelvis to get through).
Personally, I had more faith in my doctor, and the scalpel in her hand, than the unpredictability of Mother Nature. My decision to choose surgery may mean I hold different views to other women, but it does not mean I'm unfit to be a mother.
For goodness sake...!
Today I came across this comment on the allnurses.com website, posted by 'LadyJaye' on December 1st:
Re: Elective C-sections- moms idea or the providers?
'I hope my response does not offend anyone, and this opinion is specifically for elective C-sections- they should be outlawed. Doctors who push them for easy scheduling or insurance/ money purposes should have their licenses taken away, and women who do not want to give birth to a baby should not have a baby. It is in my opinion that our bodies were made to have children, and unless there is a medical emergency there is no reason to interfere...'
Offensive
First of all, the comment 'women shouldn't have a baby unless they're willing to have a vaginal delivery' is offensive.
Secondly, if women's bodies are so capable, and Mother Nature is so reliable - 'our bodies were made to have children' - why do so many medical emergencies occur?
Medical intervention verus Natural evolution
Contemporary women are simply not willing to risk death and/or injury to their babies or themselves, and unlike previous generations (we always hear the argument that 'women have been giving birth for thousands of years, so why change things now?'), we are in a vastly improved position.
We have access to a level of surgical care that is keeping pace with our maternal landscape (think: larger babies, heavier and older mothers) better than natural evolution has managed to do (think: increasingly big baby's head, same narrow pelvis to get through).
Personally, I had more faith in my doctor, and the scalpel in her hand, than the unpredictability of Mother Nature. My decision to choose surgery may mean I hold different views to other women, but it does not mean I'm unfit to be a mother.
For goodness sake...!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Iranian women shun natural birth and choose cesareans
This article in The National (dated Nov 29, by Maryam Sinaiee) discusses the situation in Iran, where it is reported that in some private clinics, the cesarean rate is 'as high as 100%'.
The article begins with two interesting statements: 'Some obstetricians in Iran are advising women to give birth by caesarean section' and also: 'Many pregnant Iranian women are choosing caesarean section over natural childbirth, according to health officials.'
Doctors' observations
Says Dr Nahid Khodakarami, a member of the Iranian Medical Council: 'More than 75% of all C-section operations are elective and not required medically.'
Says Dr Mina Afkham, an obstetrician based in Tehran: 'They hear a lot about the pain of natural delivery from their mother and other women and can’t be persuaded to have natural birth, but fear of the pain of giving natural birth is not always their only reason to choose C-section... Giving natural birth has somehow become synonymous with lower social stature for some women. Some others even ask to have their babies on a certain date they choose themselves. I agree that some of my colleagues are reluctant to assist natural deliveries but pointing the finger at them only is far from being fair.'
Women's personal views
Sara Namazi, a 23-year-old pregnant woman in Tehran explains her reasons for choosing surgery: 'I have seen horrible scenes of natural childbirth in movies where women writhe in pain and moan and scream and sometimes even die. Only women who can’t afford the high cost of a C-section now have to go through that pain... Having a C-section will mean that if there are no complications I will walk into the hospital on my own feet to give birth which is much better than being carried there crying in pain.'
Samaneh Fadaie, a 39-year-old mother, describes her natural childbirth experience: 'All my friends thought I was mad and the obstetrician was visibly unhappy with my decision, but I wanted to experience what nature has ordained for women. I endured the pain for nearly two days before I could hold my child in my arms. Not even a single friend of mine has since chosen to do the same.'
I don't necessarily foresee rates of this level in the UK and North America, but I do understand why many doctors have said that national cesarean rates are more likely to increase rather than decrease as we move forward into the future.
Why?
Well, apart from increases in the emergency and planned cesarean rates for medical reasons (due in part to a continued increase in older, larger mothers and larger babies), I believe that word of mouth will become an increasingly powerful force.
Almost everyone's seen or heard a traumatic vaginal delivery 'horror story', and it is only a matter of time before women realise that they see and hear far fewer horror stories that relate to a woman who chose and planned a cesarean delivery.
The article begins with two interesting statements: 'Some obstetricians in Iran are advising women to give birth by caesarean section' and also: 'Many pregnant Iranian women are choosing caesarean section over natural childbirth, according to health officials.'
Doctors' observations
Says Dr Nahid Khodakarami, a member of the Iranian Medical Council: 'More than 75% of all C-section operations are elective and not required medically.'
Says Dr Mina Afkham, an obstetrician based in Tehran: 'They hear a lot about the pain of natural delivery from their mother and other women and can’t be persuaded to have natural birth, but fear of the pain of giving natural birth is not always their only reason to choose C-section... Giving natural birth has somehow become synonymous with lower social stature for some women. Some others even ask to have their babies on a certain date they choose themselves. I agree that some of my colleagues are reluctant to assist natural deliveries but pointing the finger at them only is far from being fair.'
Women's personal views
Sara Namazi, a 23-year-old pregnant woman in Tehran explains her reasons for choosing surgery: 'I have seen horrible scenes of natural childbirth in movies where women writhe in pain and moan and scream and sometimes even die. Only women who can’t afford the high cost of a C-section now have to go through that pain... Having a C-section will mean that if there are no complications I will walk into the hospital on my own feet to give birth which is much better than being carried there crying in pain.'
Samaneh Fadaie, a 39-year-old mother, describes her natural childbirth experience: 'All my friends thought I was mad and the obstetrician was visibly unhappy with my decision, but I wanted to experience what nature has ordained for women. I endured the pain for nearly two days before I could hold my child in my arms. Not even a single friend of mine has since chosen to do the same.'
I don't necessarily foresee rates of this level in the UK and North America, but I do understand why many doctors have said that national cesarean rates are more likely to increase rather than decrease as we move forward into the future.
Why?
Well, apart from increases in the emergency and planned cesarean rates for medical reasons (due in part to a continued increase in older, larger mothers and larger babies), I believe that word of mouth will become an increasingly powerful force.
Almost everyone's seen or heard a traumatic vaginal delivery 'horror story', and it is only a matter of time before women realise that they see and hear far fewer horror stories that relate to a woman who chose and planned a cesarean delivery.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
'New mums 'abandoned' during labour'
Sky News is just one media outlet to report on a survey of 3,500 mums by The Royal College of Midwives and parenting website Netmums.com.
The survey found that 35% of mums said they had been 'abandoned' during or after labour, and Sally Russell, co-founder of Netmums.com, says, 'It shows that our members want, need and deserve one-to-one care from midwives but they are not getting this and are left alone and feeling abandoned during labour, and especially in the vital post-natal period.'
Pros and cons of different birth types
I am not about to advocate that women choose surgery in order to avoid some of the harrowing labors and inadequate maternity care experienced by some of these mums (and many more have posted comments on various websites today), but I do believe that avoiding this type of unpredictability and trauma is viewed as a benefit by many women who do choose surgery.
Speaking personally, and obviously my experience was somewhat different since I had my children in America rather than here in England, but one of the things I valued most was the relationship I built up with my OBGYN throughout my pregnancy. I also met with her surgical partner, who would have delivered my babies in the event that I went into labor early and she was not available, so I always knew I wouldn't end up with a stranger who may or may not understand or support my chosen birth plan.
Continuity of care
I enjoyed a fantastic continuity of care; all antenatal appointments with the same doctor, delivered by the same doctor and then postnatal appointments with the same doctor. In fact, I still keep in touch with her now, as do many of her patients.
But unfortunately, today's story is not a new one, and complaints of midwife shortages and inadequate care have been reported for more than 20 years at least (read more here). So aside from the fact that I felt that a planned cesarean was the safest option for my babies and for me, I would have hated to rely on this kind of NHS service in the event that vaginal delivery was my preferred birth plan.
The survey found that 35% of mums said they had been 'abandoned' during or after labour, and Sally Russell, co-founder of Netmums.com, says, 'It shows that our members want, need and deserve one-to-one care from midwives but they are not getting this and are left alone and feeling abandoned during labour, and especially in the vital post-natal period.'
Pros and cons of different birth types
I am not about to advocate that women choose surgery in order to avoid some of the harrowing labors and inadequate maternity care experienced by some of these mums (and many more have posted comments on various websites today), but I do believe that avoiding this type of unpredictability and trauma is viewed as a benefit by many women who do choose surgery.
Speaking personally, and obviously my experience was somewhat different since I had my children in America rather than here in England, but one of the things I valued most was the relationship I built up with my OBGYN throughout my pregnancy. I also met with her surgical partner, who would have delivered my babies in the event that I went into labor early and she was not available, so I always knew I wouldn't end up with a stranger who may or may not understand or support my chosen birth plan.
Continuity of care
I enjoyed a fantastic continuity of care; all antenatal appointments with the same doctor, delivered by the same doctor and then postnatal appointments with the same doctor. In fact, I still keep in touch with her now, as do many of her patients.
But unfortunately, today's story is not a new one, and complaints of midwife shortages and inadequate care have been reported for more than 20 years at least (read more here). So aside from the fact that I felt that a planned cesarean was the safest option for my babies and for me, I would have hated to rely on this kind of NHS service in the event that vaginal delivery was my preferred birth plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)