Choose your font:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 English 
 Français 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

http://afar.info/id=1063
Created on : 2/12/2004
Modified on : 2/12/2007

Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!

easy

Author(s) :

Lees CC.

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Letter. Making sense of rising caesarean section rates. Editorial made no sense of rising rates.
The British Medical Journal 2004;329:1240.

Year of publication :

2004

Résumé (français) :

Reponse a l'editorial fiche 904.

Abstract (English):

EDITOR—In his editorial on making sense of rising caesarean section rates, Anderson does not mention why or whether rising rates are bad for women, or even disadvantageous if seen in a public health context.1 One way to do this might be to compare perinatal and maternal outcomes or even a cost benefit analysis in women at term intending to try for a normal delivery versus those intending to have an elective caesarean section, matched principally for age and parity. A sizeable proportion of those trying for a normal delivery, and a smaller proportion of those having an elective section, would end up having an emergency caesarean section, where the risks of the operation to mother and baby particularly lie.

But to argue, as Anderson does, for large, well designed randomised trials for specific indications—for example, in relation to fetal distress or dystocia—is a bizarre non-starter. How could a woman in labour with fetal distress as evidenced by a profound bradycardia on cardiotocograph and acidotic results from fetal blood sampling be randomised ethically to a "non-delivery" arm? Similarly, could withholding a caesarean section from a woman with a transverse arrest in a prolonged dystocic labour be justified ethically?

Some procedures in current practice cannot practically and should not ethically be answered by randomised controlled trials. Before making a case against a woman's right to choose her preferred mode of delivery, some hard facts about the risks of elective caesarean section compared with those of an intended vaginal delivery would be welcome.

Sumário (português):

URL :

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7476/1240?etoc

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

c-section/caesarean ; deontology ; fetal distress ; dystocy ; evidence-based medicine/midwifery ; maternal age ; ethics

Author of this record :

Cécile_Loup — 2/12/2004


DateDiscussion (only in English)Author
 
➡ Only identified users


 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)

New expert query ---  New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database

bar

This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, http://afar.info)
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, http://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) becoming a member of AFAR
(2) financially supporting AFAR
(3) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in scientific documentation.
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase)gmail.com for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!