Commenting on the release today of the NHS Information Centre maternity statistics, Frances Day-Stirk a Director of the Royal College of Midwives, said:

More...

HAVE YOUR SAY!
Please reply to this thread to discuss this news item.

This is a huge concern to many in the natural birth community here in America. I need to see if I can find stats on our c/s rates, but it's in the 30% range, I'm sure. This is so far from the goal of the WHO that it's shameful, yet doctors keep pushing c/s out of fear and misinformation. One thing that I as a doula try to do is educate women on the interventions used and how one intervention can domino into many others. Also, proper prenatal nutrition to keep mama and baby healthy.

For some reason, a lot of people freak out if the sono they get says baby is 8 lbs or more. One, sonograms are notoriously inaccurate with predicting actual weight that late in the stage, and two, an 8 lb baby is not too big! I delivered a 10 lber with no problem at all, but it's hard to convince women otherwise. So, they opt for a c/section out of fear instead of learning the truth.

oooh 30% now thats high ours is running at close to 24% though some days you'd swear it was higher, mega problem with fear of litigation, also now the women are back again who've had previous sections so that trend is pushing our rates higher, however we are seeing a few VBAC's aswell x

Okay, found the actually #. In 2005, preliminary data shows the c/s rates have risen to 30.2%, which is another record high for the Nation. I would expect the rate to have increased in 2006 and 2007. VBACs are very rare when getting care from a physician, and even if a dr will agree to "let you try," they still usually end up as repeat c/s since the doctors and nurses are usually very nervous. Even though there is research saying that although the chance for ruptured uterus is increased slightly, it's still such a low risk that it outweighs the risk of a repeat c/s. Why do ignore things like that?

I also think it not only has to do with fear of malpractice suits, but also convenience. My cousin had a baby two months after my youngest was born. Healthy pregnancy. The dr kept trying to get her to agree to let him try a new method of c/s that he had researched. He told her that she had a palatypoid (sp? sorry, I'm tired this AM) pelvis, which he apparently diagnosed via sonogram (!). She refused the entire time, but they found some odd reason to induce her, and allowed her to labor for about 2 hours then called her failure to progress and wheeled her to the OR. Amazing! Doctors push induction here like it's the best thing in the world (isn't it great?! you can pick your child's birthday and will be able to know when to take off work!!). Usually early or midweek, so the dr's know they'll be able to take off the weekend. And, if mama isn't quite ready, well, then a quick c/s is done and dr is home for dinner.

I am not against c/s. Or, really against ANY intervention. I think that these could be powerful tools to save a woman and her baby's life. But I feel that they are rarely used for that reason. I think they can be very dangerous and should be used with caution and respect for what you're about to do to a woman.

I was doing a bit more reading and found this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17796664/page/3/

And while I don't agree with some things she said, this bit really surprised me: Interesting....

I know its awful isnt it?