Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Myth of the Elective C-Section

By Miriam Pérez, RH Reality Check. Posted July 15, 2008.


The media give the impression women opt for c-sections for the sake of convenience. In fact, the procedure is often pushed by doctors.
Advertisement

Cesarean sections have been hitting headlines a lot lately. We've been hearing about the rising c-section rate, now above 30% and rising, for months, and in early June we learned that women have been denied health insurance coverage because of previous cesareans. A few days later, the March of Dimes reported that 92% of preterm births were delivered by c-section.

When the media covers the rising rate of c-section, it's often ready to lay the blame at the feet of a woman we're come to know well over the last few years -- the busy career mom scheduling her delivery between important business deals, penciling in labor and delivery the way she pencils in a client meeting. As criticism of surgical birth mounts, the idea that mother-initiated c-sections are spurring an overall increase in the practice has only become more popular.

In mid-April (coincidentally also Cesarean Awareness Month), Time Magazine claimed that Choosy Mothers Choose Cesareans. Euna Chung, a child psychiatrist in Los Angeles, told Alice Park that she planned her c-section before she was even pregnant. Park wrote of Chung, "a combination of having watched traumatic vaginal deliveries in medical school and hearing about her mother's difficult emergency caesarean experience after trying to deliver vaginally helped make up her mind." Chung told Time, "I had a fear of going through labor and ending up with an emergency C-section anyway. I know that's rare, but I didn't want to deal with it." A recent Today show segment picked up on this supposed phenomenon, referring to the trend as "babies on demand." Dr. Judith Reichman, the expert obstetrician on the show reported National Institutes of Health Statistics that approximately 2% of all c-sections nationwide can be considered "cesarean deliveries on maternal request."

While the media likes to use these stories of maternal demand as attention-grabbing hooks for their reporting on the rise in c-section rates, other birth advocates and birthing rights organizations take issue with the "mother's choice" frame. Our Bodies Ourselves' recently released book "Pregnancy and Birth" explains that the studies which produce data like what Dr. Reichman referenced is flawed and not at all conclusive:

Although some studies describe an increase in caesareans without any medical indication, the authors of these studies are clear that these may not represent real 'maternal request.' The studies, based on birth certificates or hospital billing records, have no way of documenting whether the caesarean was initially sought by the mother, whether it was based on physician advice or pressure, or whether there was simply poor record keeping.

These advocates argue that while there invariably are some women who are choosing casareans without medical reasons, they do not represent a significant enough percentage to account for huge increase in c-sections in the last decade. In other words, some moms may be requesting surgical birth, but that has little to do with the overall increase in c-section rates. Childbirth Connection's most recent survey Listening to Mothers survey reports that just one woman in 1600 actually reported having a first c-section because she chose and planned it ahead of time without any medical reason -- a rate far lower than the 2% suggested by Dr. Reichman on the Today Show.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, pregnancy, doctors, cesarean

Miriam Pérez has worked with various Latino community reproductive health organizations in Pennsylvania, helping pregnant immigrant women access prenatal care and health insurance. She is a trained doula.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I read about this
Posted by: LindaB on Jul 15, 2008 6:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when I was pregnant, over 6 years ago. That's the biggest reason I chose a midwife over an obstetrician.

C-section is a wonderful thing, for those who need it. But a lot of them could be avoided, if doctors were more willing to use natural methods (but in our medical system, when are you going to hear a doctor tell you to do something naturally, rather than with drugs and/or surgery?) and if more women were better educated about pregnancy and childbirth. It's far too easy, when you're exhausted and in pain, to let someone pressure you into something that you don't want and you don't really have the time to think rationally about.

Again, I'm not condemning anyone who has had a C-section, or drugs, or whatever. I'm just saying that I think there would be less of both if women were really educated about what goes on in their bodies during pregnancy and childbirth. The uninformed are easily pressured.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: medical system Posted by: Sushi
I can readily believe this
Posted by: alphacatone on Jul 17, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My niece just had her first baby, and her OB insisted that she have a C-section. And for absolutely NO good reason. The baby was what _he_ considered large -- but only 9 pounds. My niece's mom had a far larger baby than that by vaginal birth (9 lbs 14 oz). He wasn't even willing to let her TRY vaginal birth, insisting that it was impossible. (How does he know, without trying it first?) And my niece is no tiny waif-like thing -- we come from good peasant stock, with broad hips and pelvic structure. 8^) It was simply his convenience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the problem is disrespect
Posted by: luzmejor on Jul 21, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Birth is a political issue in the US. Both parents and their physicians are facing censure by people who don't know anything but myths, and don't care either.

Women's and childrens health care if often predicated on the opinions of the ignorant public, which is inundated by religious and chauvinistic myths.

Of course many doctors make decisions based mainly on their own convenience, but everything in medicine now is essentially contaminated by the commercial aspects.

Women know the process takes time and are willing to take the risks or they wouldn't be planning their pregnancies like they do. That's the reason midwives are so popular.

Nobody else wants to take the time to allow the birth process to take place normally, though. When I was a child, women delivered each other's babies and abnormal births were very rare because the wars in Europe and Japan were on. That all ended when "the boys" came home from war, the US started promoting large families and the suburbs sprouted up. For a little while, pay rates were decent so youngsters could afford more children. That action provoked the baby boom, better contraceptives were invented to help with spacing children, and women's health improved.

Now we are fighting two wars and another is planned, so government and authoritarian churches are back at promoting a rise in birth rates and a further commercialization of sex. It's an old and tiresome story, folks. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]