Response to Natural childbirth ideology is endangering women and babies/Every CS must count (Letter)
Author(s)
Ellwood, David
Oats, Jeremy
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2017
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
We thank the author for highlighting the important issue of maternal mortality related to mode of birth and in particular the increased risk of mortality associated with caesarean section (CS). We agree that the balance of evidence is that there is a measurably higher risk of mortality associated with CS, but we chose not to focus on this for several reasons. First, it is an extremely rare adverse outcome. Second, it is the individual's own risk that is most important in counselling and gaining informed consent. The population‐based data are informative but not especially useful for a woman who is very low‐risk for surgical ...
View more >We thank the author for highlighting the important issue of maternal mortality related to mode of birth and in particular the increased risk of mortality associated with caesarean section (CS). We agree that the balance of evidence is that there is a measurably higher risk of mortality associated with CS, but we chose not to focus on this for several reasons. First, it is an extremely rare adverse outcome. Second, it is the individual's own risk that is most important in counselling and gaining informed consent. The population‐based data are informative but not especially useful for a woman who is very low‐risk for surgical or anaesthetic complications, but has a strong obstetric indication for CS. However, we entirely agree that when significant numbers of women are choosing CS for no obstetric indication these increased risks of mortality must be discussed and included in the consent process.
View less >
View more >We thank the author for highlighting the important issue of maternal mortality related to mode of birth and in particular the increased risk of mortality associated with caesarean section (CS). We agree that the balance of evidence is that there is a measurably higher risk of mortality associated with CS, but we chose not to focus on this for several reasons. First, it is an extremely rare adverse outcome. Second, it is the individual's own risk that is most important in counselling and gaining informed consent. The population‐based data are informative but not especially useful for a woman who is very low‐risk for surgical or anaesthetic complications, but has a strong obstetric indication for CS. However, we entirely agree that when significant numbers of women are choosing CS for no obstetric indication these increased risks of mortality must be discussed and included in the consent process.
View less >
Journal Title
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume
57
Issue
3
Funder(s)
NHMRC
Grant identifier(s)
APP1081026
APP1067363
APP1029613
APP1116640
Subject
Paediatrics and Reproductive Medicine
Public Health and Health Services
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Obstetrics & Gynecology