NIH conference proceeding

| | Comments (3)

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Program: >Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request
I think I'm going to puke.

The pre-existing bias from the panel was incredible. The voices of the public who tried to contribute any alternative point of view were being ignored. About the only thing that was semi-reasonable was that they acknowledged that the risks of repeat cesarean increase with each one - but my cynical side sees this as being a method of bringing those of us who want large families into line with the ZPG crowd.

An acquaintance of mine who attended sent out the following email.

The passionate voices of professionals and consumers were effective at representing the alternative viewpoint from the audience, but we were unable to sway the panel away from its obvious biases, nor really even enlighten them that they were biased in the first place.

The final conclusions were actually reasonable, if you sift through the rhetoric and questionable "science" (ie., biased studies). Granted, the scientific literature is full of bad studies that say crazy things like breastfeeding rates at 3 months postpartum are the same for c/s (cesarean section) and svd (spontaneous vaginal delivery)women. Much of the Listening to Women data was conveniently dismissed as unscientific. In cases where svd safety clearly outweighs surgical birth (such as in the category of surgical complications), the evidence was framed in such a way that it recommended scheduled section over emergency section, even to the extreme implication that attempting vaginal birth is so strongly associated with emergency sections that it is reasonable to compare the safety data of attempted vaginal birth to scheduled sections.

Actually, in most cases they classified the available data in studies as "weak evidence" - however, not surprisingly, the "scientific" data presented on each of the following parameters FAVORED SCHEDULED SECTIONS: mortality, infection, hemorrhage/transfusion, anesthetic complications, infection, hysterectomy, thromboembolism, breastfeeding rates, postpartum pain, psychological outcomes/PPD. Sometimes the comparison was against attempted vaginal birth, other times it was between scheduled and unscheduled sections (such as surgical complications).

In cases where the evidence would unquestioningly favor svd, they used comparisons between scheduled and unscheduled sections, equating attempted vaginal birth with emergency sections, so that it ALWAYS favored scheduling sections. It was then implied by extrapolation that scheduled sections on request are safer than any other form of birth. By the way, the only outcome that favored svd over sections (with moderate evidence, too) is maternal length of stay. I couldn't believe what I was hearing!

Unfortunately, I don't think they every really got it that their premise and assumptions are wrong. It was exasperating to find that the entire community of NIH scientists are woefully unaware of world (and US) literature on best practices (ie, low intervention = midwifery practices).


I heard the word "cesarean" (or what sounded like the beginning of it) spoken on the radio a couple of times yesterday -- once from a deejay/drive time show host kinda guy -- and just switched on past. Didn't want to know why that was coming up. I still really don't want to hear the likely predictable opinions etc., I'm just glad it wasn't about VBAC because I didn't expect that to be good news if it was. I'm in between babies and not needing to think about VBAC issues at the moment so if they did mention that I don't want to know right now either!

Two of my six children have been born with midwives and I can say without a doubt it is the absolute BEST care a woman could hope for. This whole c-section conference and they way it is going to be reported makes me so mad I could spit!!!!

You've said before that women are marketed to -- hormones for menopause, "safety" in the form of EFM, and now THIS! While our outcomes go down the tubes.

I've heard that "if women can choose elective plastic surgery why not elective c-section." Consumers because of insurance companies, are largely ignorant of the costs of their care... so fine, have an elective c-section. But don't ask me to pay for it in the form of increased premiums because of your unnecessary surgery, respiratory distress in your baby, and adhesions later on.

February 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28    
The WeatherPixie

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by alicia published on March 30, 2006 2:38 PM.

seen on several fine blogs was the previous entry in this blog.

More on the cesarean conference is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.