Today's "news" is that more women are having C-sections...Oh, sorry, unnecessary C-sections, according to a British study due out November 20th. The "sharp" rise in C-sections is being called "dramatic"...hmmm...the sharp rise is a rise from 3.3 out of one hundred to 5.5 out of one hundred, and the dramatic increase is one that is documented over a 10 year period. Neither sharp nor dramatic, I'd say.
Weren't they calling this a problem in the 1980's, and the 1990's also? I guess there's a good publication in this topic like every ten years or so.
Someone should tell the British researchers that they can stop wasting their time looking for reasons ("It's not clear why this is taking place" they said). I'll tell them why.
I'll Be There Right After My Nail Appointment...
If they sort this out geographically they'll see that the rise in C-sections is surely centered around urban areas and it is likely due to two factors. First, many women today order their C-sections (i.e. they demand that the obstetrician peform a C-section rather than oversee a vaginal delivery) to be done at a time that is convenient for them. They schedule the procedure, just like they schedule their vacations. This is especially common with career women who need to plan the time off from work accurately. Besides, with a C-section women go into the hospital, get an epidural, then have the baby. No labor and delivery torture. 5 A.M. you're in the hospital, 7 A.M. you have your baby. I would find that attractive myself.
Second, surely the threshold for doing a Cesarean gets lower all the time because of our friends the Torters. The British researchers looked at birth certificates of sectioned infants for labor and delivery complications that might indicate why a Cesarean was done, and did not find indications for many of theprocedures. The birth certificates? I'm not sure what the heck they were looking at but I know that there are many situations that are not going to be listed there -- subtle changes in late stage stress tests, ultrasounds, fetal heart rate, maternal conditions, etc, that present the obstetrician with the choice: play the odds, wait it out, and see what happens (with nightmarish visions of John Edwards channeling the baby to a jury) or do a C-section...hmmm...I think that RangelMD did a good job of correlating C-section rates in Texas with TC (Torter Concentration). Overlawyered.com has also covered the issue of repeat C-sections and their relationship to Tortology.
So, what's the value of this study? I give. Nothing we don't know; but check back in ten years, and someone will surely do it again.