Modern childbirth is a far cry from when our grandmothers delivered at home, and few women would want to return to those days. But as the number of cesarean sections has risen sharply, with no clear evidence that they improve the health of mothers or babies, experts say that childbirth has become overly medicalized and overly expensive. Now some hospitals are making an effort to reduce those trends.
Massachusetts General Hospital has phased in several new initiatives during the past few months designed to encourage pregnant women to go into labor naturally with fewer medical interventions and, hopefully, lower costs and fewer C-sections. The labor and delivery unit’s obstetricians, nurses, and midwives — all on staff at the hospital — have agreed to end elective inductions, which are usually scheduled ahead of time for the convenience of doctor or patient and without a medical reason. Medical reasons to induce childbirth include high blood pressure or diabetes in the mother or a growth problem in the baby.
Comments
Until we are willing to return to the real wait and see policy we will not significantly reduce the C-Section rate. Babies want to be born when they are ready and not sooner. Artificially setting a limit of 24 hours after the waters breaking before inducing labor is one example of how the rate gets driven up. Also induced labors have close to a 50% C-Section outcome commonly due to a "failure to progress", i.e. the baby isn't ready to be born.
Here is an idea: Make the payment for either a C-Section and a vaginal birth outcome the same and I am guessing that there will be a dramatic reduction in the C-Section rate. What we really need a patience and a willingness to really reduce costs.
Sounds exactly like what they were saying twenty years ago.
And twenty years ago, they claimed that there was a high risk of intrauterine infection after your waters broke. That was the justification for checking you into the hospital and inducing labor. The article says nothing about infection. Is there suddenly no more risk? Or were they wrong about it all along?
So you completely skip the larger message. Women pass all sorts of nutrients and hormones to their child as part of labor. It is an important last push. The rise in C-sections corresponds to the rise in homosexual male babies. It is believed at least part of this is the missing nutrients and hormones normally passed to the baby by the mother during labor that is mostly removed with C-sections. In short, if you choose c-sections for convenience, you are increasing the odds you will have a homosexual child if the baby was male. Why they would hide this basic info is crazy.
Source for your "basic info"? Or are you just another internet troll. I think "crazy" is the operative word in your post.
Prospective moms may want to contact the International Cesarean Awareness Network at www.ican-online.org. There are chapters nationwide where they can hear stories from other moms and educate themselves about how to reduce the incidents of unnecessary medical interventions during the birth process.