March 26, 2022

"[A] toxic obsession with 'normal birth'— fuelled by targets and pressure from the NHS to reduce caesarean rates — became so pervasive that life-or-death decisions..."

"... became dangerously distorted for nearly two decades. Mothers were routinely overmedicated with drugs to bring on contractions to lead to vaginal birth. Many endured traumatic labour, with doctors using forceps and excessive force to deliver infants. Many newborn babies were left with fractured skulls and broken bones. Others were starved of oxygen and left with life-changing disabilities. Hundreds were stillborn, died shortly after birth or left permanently brain-damaged.... In 1985 the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated that countries should aim for a caesarean section rate no higher than 10 to 15 per cent. By the time the WHO had backtracked on its statement, the damage had been done. Professional medical bodies in the UK had started to see it as part of their mission to reduce the rate of caesarean sections.... Not all doctors were comfortable with the new ideology. David Harding, a consultant neonatologist who retired after 25 years in the NHS in 2019, said he felt women were increasingly being 'brainwashed' into believing that they should be having a natural birth at all costs."

From "Three hundred babies lost to a fixation on natural births/An NHS campaign in Shrewsbury to avoid caesareans distorted vital medical decisions, ruined families’ lives and created the worst maternity scandal in its history" (London Times).

18 comments:

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

This smells bogus to me. Doctors like caesareans for the control--everything high-tech--and probably the higher fee. They can time a birth, fit it in with tee times etc.

rhhardin said...

Natural birth is a Tom Swifty (natus, born)

Narayanan said...

Initially I thought /Mum-to-be chose it/

Horryfying that it was institutional-functionary-action
==========
of course with single-payer there is vertical integration of birthing/aborting

gilbar said...

So, Hundreds of babies are dying.. Which would YOU rather have?
A natural stillbirth, or a healthy child delivered through surgery?
The choice is Simple! (if you're a MORON)

Anyway, 300 stillbirths is a drop in the bucket compared to the MILLIONS of abortions done every year!

Ann Althouse said...

“ This smells bogus to me. Doctors like caesareans for the control--everything high-tech--and probably the higher fee. They can time a birth, fit it in with tee times etc.”

It’s about the U.K.

n.n said...

Anyway, 300 stillbirths is a drop in the bucket compared to the MILLIONS of abortions done every year!

By Choice and Inculcation for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.

The first rule of Progressive Club is you do not talk about the wicked solution.

Michael K said...

This smells bogus to me. Doctors like caesareans for the control--everything high-tech--and probably the higher fee. They can time a birth, fit it in with tee times etc.

No, fetal monitors led to the increase in C-sections. Signs of fetal distress and, of course, lawyers. A few years ago the highest c-section rate was in Brazil.

LakeLevel said...

NHS. This is the kind of thing you get with socialist medicine. Do you want your medical decisions made by the editorial board of the New York Times?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Let the government run health care!

Richard Aubrey said...

Lake Level.
The editorial board of the NYT runs a number of things.

Gemna said...

"(WHO) stated that countries should aim for a caesarean section rate no higher than 10 to 15 percent"

I don't have enough to contribute on the issue itself, but setting a percentage goal on something like this seems problematic to me. I don't want my doctor getting lectured about reducing his percentage of c-sections or whatever else before helping me. Reduce c-sections by fine-tuning when they're truly needed and when they're not,focus on better evaluation of individual needs, not numerical goals.

holdfast said...

Political medicine is best medicine.

tim maguire said...

countries should aim for a caesarean section rate no higher than 10 to 15 per cen

How about aiming for a caesarean rate in line with caesarean need? How could a percentage possibly be medically sound? Who are these people!?

Lloyd W. Robertson said...This smells bogus to me. Doctors like caesareans for the control--everything high-tech--and probably the higher fee. They can time a birth, fit it in with tee times etc.

That’s the US experience, but this story is from the UK, where the government makes your medical decisions for you.

Jamie said...

I remember reading a study in the last few years - unfortunately that's almost the extent of what I remember - the results of which indicated that vaginal birth was what basically colonized a newborn's microbiome. Babies born via c-section took much longer to develop healthy gut bacteria because they didn't get exposed to the mother's microbiome contents on their way out, so to speak. (I think that's more or less the gist.)

It seems to me there was something else about the physical process of vaginal birth, the squeezing, that was beneficial to the newborn as well, maybe expelling amniotic fluid? but I'm not recalling it.

As a c-section is non-laparoscopic abdominal surgery by definition and therefore major and intrinsically risky, especially with regard to post-op infection, it ought to be avoided unless necessary, the more so if there are significant benefits to the newborn of going through vaginal birth - but it's also a life-saving miracle that ought to be performed when it IS necessary. In short: yeah, assessment of actual need ought to be the decider, rather than quotas, but can any party be counted on to make that assessment?

ccscientist said...

"fits in with tea times"--there, fixed if for the UK case
One of the causes of more caesareans is lowering female physical fitness and increased weight. Women also choose it to avoid the pain of labor, as if being cut open was painless. But a big cause, as noted, is lawsuits.

J L Oliver said...

Primitive reflex transformation for tactile and gravity regulation happen during vaginal birth. These can be, but seldom are, addressed after c-section births. Having said that c-section is better than a dead baby. Not long ago the US had over 40 percent c-section rate.

MadTownGuy said...

"(WHO) stated that countries should aim for a caesarean section rate no higher than 10 to 15 percent"

Death panels. NHS decides whether you need a caesarean section or not.

Sarah Palin wasn't wrong.

heyboom said...

@Jamie

Very impressive memory. Everything in your comment is absolutely correct. Concurred by my L&D RN wife.