"What does it matter, when the c/s rate (for a particular group) was 90% this month? All that matters is that moms and babies are healthy." ~~ overheard statement by an OB this past month.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER???
I had to bite my tongue, before I would start on a verbal rampage of what it really means to have such a high c/s rate. Yes, it was a fluke that the c/s rate for a particular group of OBs and Midwives was that high for the month. Honestly, this practice is not known for a high c/s rate. So, it was very unusual.
But, the absolute ignorance of that statement, by an OB........I was so aghast at the nonchalance of his statement.
So what.......as long long as all moms and babies are healthy?
SO WHAT?!?!?!!!!!
11 comments:
If you are purely looking at outcomes, then yeah... so what? As you well know there are circumstances that absolutely warrant a c-section. If, by chance, you had unusually high rate of placenta previa, or pre-e, or HELLP you'd expect higher rates and I'd agree with the OB that the figure isn't entirely relevant. What matters is that the moms and babies had good and viable outcomes.
Assuming a high c-section rate is bad or wrong sounds a more ignorant to me than the statement made by the doctor.
Maybe you can clarify what you mean. What is more important than healthy moms and babies, even if a c-section is required to get them there?
It was the complete and utter nonchalance of, "so what if the c/s rate is 90%". A general, overall statement of the whole attitude of some OB docs that is becoming more and more prevalent. They are very quick to do a c/s. I understand the rationale of some of the c/s that are done.....but some are totally uncalled for.
*scream*
"Yes," AYC wishes she could reply, "Let's just do a completely unnecessary procedure on you and remove your manhood for no reason, 'kay? I'm sure you'll do JUST fine!" LOL
And there's nothing saying your outcome will be good, either. I blogged about this - yes, the desired "outcome" of a healthy baby is usually reached, usually at the expense of the mother, her feelings, and sometimes *her* health. Sure, sometimes a c.s is the only safe way to go. But the journey to having that baby is often just as important as the end result. There's more to giving birth than just pushing out (or cutting out) a baby and boom, you're done. It's just not that easy.
I am sure infection percentages from c-section or (accidental but unavoidable) irreversible muscle or nerve tissue damage from the knife in c-section IS a real factor that is not perceived.
Uhmmm...excuse me? A 90% c-section rate needs to be examined. Why would that many women have the risk factors causing them to need c-sections? That is quite disturbing because 90% of women at high risk means something is wrong in a cluster. What are the reasons? This is a chance to study a group. So if they were all needed c-sections, something is very wrong with that population OR the doctors don't know how to deal with complications early enough to head off such needed c-sections earlier.
If they are not all needed, something is wrong with the group or with the process in the hospital. Is it over use of interventions? Are there too many over stimulated uteri? Is there some medication always prescribed that's causing a problem in labor or a vitamin prescribed during pregnancy etc.? Are they doctors asking patients be placed in awkward positions causing a later need for the c-sections? So worth examining, and it's not just nothing even if...and this is doubtful...even if every c-section resulted in a healthy mom and baby. What's the rate of infection for this group AFTER c-sections? What about NICU stay for babies? The cost alone billed for this extra intervention has to be considered.
So much to look at with a number like that!
Blessings!
Dawn
I would argue that a mama isn't "healthy" immediately following a C-section either. She is alive, and that is nothing to take lightly. But the rate of infection and the possible risk of future damage, in addition to the recovery time are all huge factors. In my opinion, any woman recovering from surgery (especially an un-needed one) isn't healthy. She is recovering from surgery, for goodness sake!
What's a c/s rate? Sorry, I have no nurse lingo... LoL.
I left an award for you on my blog, please stop by and get it :)
Babs - a c/s rate is a percentage of the number of c-section births. The national average is around 30% right now. (PS - thanks for the award!)
It is very interesting for me to read this blog. Thank you for it. I like such themes and anything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more on that blog soon.
Best regards
I can't believe the arrogance and ignorance of some OB's!
90% C/S rate is unnacceptable, even if it was exaggerated- it's obvious that it was way to high.
I would agree with the previous comment that a mom with a surgery to recover from can't or shouldn't be considered "healthy"....having a cesarean myself, it took months for me to be back to normal again. Alive doesn't always mean healthy.
I do appreciate your blog.Though, I usually am saddened by what I read, I appreciate your honesty on the way our current maternity system is.
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard, Ap Medical Writer – Tue Mar 9
WASHINGTON – Eleven days after her son Benjamin's birth by C-section, Linda Coale awoke in the middle of the night in pain, one leg badly swollen. Just as her doctor returned her phone call asking what to do, she dropped dead from a blood clot.
Pregnancy-related deaths like Coale's appear to have risen nationwide over the past decade, nearly tripling in the state with the most careful count — California. And while they're very rare — about 550 a year out of 4 million births nationally — they're nowhere near as rare as they should be.
Post a Comment