Good article in Time magazine. This is an upsetting example of the way insurance policies and the fear of litigation are trumping the medical evidence and the best interests of mothers and babies.
Some quotes from the article-
"Much ado has been made recently of women who choose to have cesareans, but little attention has been paid to the vast number of moms who are forced to have them. More than 9 out of 10 births following a C-section are now surgical deliveries..."
"In a 2006 ACOG survey of 10,659 ob-gyns nationwide, 26% said they had given up on VBACs because insurance was unaffordable or unavailable; 33% said they had dropped VBACs out of fear of litigation."
"With each repeat cesarean, a mother's risk of heavy bleeding, infection and infertility, among other complications, goes up. Perhaps most alarming, repeat C-sections increase a woman's chances of developing life-threatening placental abnormalities that can cause hemorrhaging during childbirth."
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Friday, February 20, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Benefits of full term pregnancy...
"A study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in October calculated that for each week a baby stayed in the womb between 32 and 39 weeks, there is a 23% decrease in problems such as respiratory distress, jaundice, seizures, temperature instability and brain hemorrhages...
...What's more, experts warn that a fetus's estimated age may be off by as much as two weeks either way, meaning that a baby thought to be 36 weeks along might be only 34.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the March of Dimes are now urging obstetricians not to deliver babies before 39 weeks unless there is a medical reason to do so."
Rest of the Wall Street Journal article here.
I would just add that a baby thought to be 39 weeks could be 37, just as the 36/34 example in the article. That would mean that when it was supposedly safe to schedule an induction/c-section, for example, you would be risking an over 40% significant increase in respiratory distress, jaundice, seizures, etc.
There is a reason to wait for the beginning of labor on its own, whether at 40 weeks, 41, or 42! Finally, medical research is catching up with common sense... ;-)
...What's more, experts warn that a fetus's estimated age may be off by as much as two weeks either way, meaning that a baby thought to be 36 weeks along might be only 34.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the March of Dimes are now urging obstetricians not to deliver babies before 39 weeks unless there is a medical reason to do so."
Rest of the Wall Street Journal article here.
I would just add that a baby thought to be 39 weeks could be 37, just as the 36/34 example in the article. That would mean that when it was supposedly safe to schedule an induction/c-section, for example, you would be risking an over 40% significant increase in respiratory distress, jaundice, seizures, etc.
There is a reason to wait for the beginning of labor on its own, whether at 40 weeks, 41, or 42! Finally, medical research is catching up with common sense... ;-)
Friday, November 14, 2008
New studies on caffeine and alcohol intake during pregnancy...
'U.K. policymakers are shifting recommendations on consumption of low levels of alcohol and caffeine during pregnancy in reaction to two recent studies on the effects of the drugs, the Los Angeles Times reports. The studies -- which were the "largest and most rigorous" to date on low-level alcohol and caffeine consumption during pregnancy -- challenge the notion that alcohol should be avoided entirely during pregnancy and that light caffeine consumption has no effect on outcomes, according to the Times. The Times reports that the two studies suggest that "limited alcohol consumption is not so bad, while regular caffeine intake is worse than we thought."'
Whole article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)