Time Magazine has finally posted an intelligent and balanced article about birth! More specifically, about VBAC. You can find it here: The Trouble With Repeat Cesareans. Among other things, they do a nice job synthesizing the statistics about risk, as well as pointing out the irony of a laboring VBAC's having to drive 100 miles to another hospital rather than labor at a local hospital with on-call (rather than round-the-clock) anesthesia. Heaven forbid she labor at home instead--far from the risks of Pitocin induction or augmentation ordered by an impatient doctor, and with the continuous 1:1 presence of a trained, supportive midwife at her side--but it doesn't go quite that far.
In case you missed it, the New York Times ran an article last month about the dangers of scheduled Cesareans at 37 or 38 (versus the recommended 39) weeks of gestation. Among other things, more than a third of scheduled Cesareans are scheduled before the recommended 39 weeks, and a 37-weeker is twice as likely as a 39-weeker to experience problems such as respiratory distress. Not something that is being disclosed to women by doctors who are anxious to schedule Cesareans before the chance that a woman will go into labor first and--gasp!--call them in in the middle of the night.
Update: Midwifery Today has an article from 2006 (somewhat confusingly) titled "50 Ways to Protest a VBAC Denial." There are actually only 11, but they're very good ones.
Update: Midwifery Today has an article from 2006 (somewhat confusingly) titled "50 Ways to Protest a VBAC Denial." There are actually only 11, but they're very good ones.
1 comment:
I read that New York Times article, and despite my usual cynicism, I was shocked that a doctor would deliberately schedule a C-section before full gestation. Just one more thing I can add to my sicko list. If only all pregnant women had your level of awareness.
Post a Comment