Born in the USA (47 page)

31
. See
www.motherfriendly.org
.

TWO. TRIBAL OBSTETRICS

1
.  Chapter 4 includes a discussion of what underlies this mistake of using Cytotec for induction after previous C-section—the widespread use of the anti-precautionary principle in obstetric practice: an intervention is safe until proven unsafe. But the opposing precautionary principle—unsafe until proven safe—is widely accepted as the basis of medical practice and drug use.

2
.  For an excellent review of the childbed fever epidemic and the obstetric thinking behind the ninety-year delay in accepting the solution, see J. Murphy-Lawless,
Reading Birth and Death: A History of Obstetric Thinking
(Cork, Ireland: Cork University Press, 1998).

3
.  For an excellent discussion of tribal rituals and tribal thinking, see V. Turner,
The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure; The Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures
(London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1969).

4
.  The results of this experiment were published in J. Moseley et al., “A Controlled Trial of Arthroscopic Surgery for Osteoarthritis of the Knee,”
New England Journal of Medicine
347, no. 2 (2002): 81–88.

5
.  This survey is discussed in M. Wagner, “Critique of British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report of Oct 2001,”
MIDIRS Journal
12, no. 3 (2002): 366–70.

6
.  For detailed data on childbirth in the United States collected by the federal government, including cesarean section rates, go to
www.cdc.gov/nchs/birth
.

7
.  
Dateline NBC
, November 4, 2001.

8
.  Quotation is from M. McCarthy, “US Maternal Death Rates Are on the Rise,”
Lancet
348 (1996): 394. Data on the rates of maternal mortality in the United States, their causes, and by how much they are underreported can be found in: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Safe Motherhood: Preventing Pregnancy-Related Illness and Death,”
Obstetrics and Gynecology
88 (2001): 61–67; McCarthy, “US Maternal Death Rates Are on the Rise”; and G. L. Rubin et al., “Maternal Death after Cesarean Section in Georgia,”
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
139 (1981): 681–85. For further discussion of maternal mortality in the United States, see I. M. Gaskin,
Ina May's Guide to Natural Childbirth
(New York: Bantam Books, 2003), pp. 282–84.

9
.  A. Panting-Kemp et al., “Maternal Deaths in an Urban Perinatal Network: 1992–1998,”
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
183 (2000): 1207–12.

10
. 
Data on childbirth are reported annually by the Scottish National Board of Health and are reviewed by the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit of Great Britain, located at Oxford.

11
. The definitive study showing the safety of home birth attended by direct-entry, nonnurse midwives is K. Johnson and B. Daviss, “Outcomes of Planned Home Births with Certified Professional Midwives: Large Prospective Study in North America,”
British Medical Journal
330 (June 2005): 1416. A study showing the safety of home birth attended by nurse-midwives is P. Murphy et al., “Outcomes of Intended Home Births in Nurse-Midwifery Practice: A Prospective Descriptive Study,”
Obstetrics and Gynecology
92, no. 3 (1998): 461–70. For a thorough review of the scientific evidence on alternative birth centers (ABCs), see P. Stephenson et al.,
Alternative Birth Centers in Illinois: A Resource Guide for Policy Makers
(Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Research on Women and Gender, and the Health and Medicine Policy and Research Group, 1995). The seminal study on ABCs is J. Rooks et al., “The National Birth Center Study,”
New England Journal of Medicine
321 (1989): 1804–11.

12
. M F. Greene, “Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Revisited,”
New England Journal of Medicine
351, no. 25 (2004): 2647–49.

13
. M. Landon et al. (NIH), “Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor with Prior Cesarean Section,”
New England Journal of Medicine
351, no. 25 (2004): 2655–59. Based on this study, NIH recommends VBAC as the first choice: see “Labor and Birth after Previous Cesarean,” chapter 38, posted on
www.nichd.nih.gov
.

14
. Rita Rubin, “Battle Lines Drawn over C-Sections,”
USA Today
, August 24, 2005.

15
. M. McMahon, “Comparison of a Trial of Labor with an Elective Second Cesarean Section,”
New England Journal of Medicine
335, no. 10 (1996): 689–95. The study found that, although community and regional hospitals had more repeat cesarean sections and more failed VBACs, there was no difference in mortality rates for these two procedures by type of institution.

16
. S. Chauhan et al., “Cesarean Section for Suspected Fetal Distress: Does the Decision–Incision Time Make a Difference?”
Journal of Reproductive Medicine
42, no. 6 (1997): 347–52.

17
. J. Miller and J. Petrie, “Development of Practice Guidelines,”
Lancet
355, no. 9198 (2000): 82–83.

18
. A nationwide petition against the ACOG recommendation on the management of VBAC only in larger hospitals is from the consumer organization ICAN, the International Cesarean Awareness Network (
www.ican.com
). In addition, in December 2005, the National Organization of Women (NOW) passed a resolution that NOW “oppose institutional and health care policies that deny women access to VBAC.” See
www.now.org
.

19
. 
“Trial of Labor after Cesarean (TOLAC), Formerly Trial of Labor versus Elective Repeat Cesarean Section for the Woman with a Previous Cesarean Section: A Review of the Evidence and Recommendations by the American Academy of Family Physicians,” March 2005. See “Clinical Guidelines for Maternity Care,” posted on
www.aafp.org
.

20
. The study ACOG discussed in its press release of May 2002 is R. Hall et al., “Oral versus Vaginal Midoprostol (Cytotec) for Labor Induction,”
Obstetrics and Gynecology
99 (2002): 1044–48.

21
. FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health, “Ethical Aspects Regarding Cesarean Delivery for Non-medical Reasons,”
International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
64 (1999): 317–22.

22
. W. Harer, “Patient Choice Cesarean,”
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Clinical Review
5, no. 2 (2000): 16–20.

THREE. CHOOSE AND LOSE

1
.  V. Iovine,
The Girlfriends' Guide to Pregnancy
(New York: Pocket Books, 1995), pp. 217–18.

2
.  W. B. Harer, “Patient Choice Cesarean,”
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Clinical Review
5, no. 2 (2000): 12–16.

3
.  ACOG Committee Opinion number 207, “Liability Implications of Recording Procedures or Treatments,” published in September 1998.

4
.  For detailed data on childbirth in the United States collected by the federal government, including birth by the day of the week, see
www.cdc.gov/nchs/birth
. Cesarean for convenience is discussed in M. Hurst and P. Summary, “Childbirth and Social Class: The Case of Cesarean Section,”
Social Science and Medicine
18 (1984): 621–31. For a fuller discussion of the issue of C-section and doctors' convenience, see M. Wagner,
Pursuing the Birth Machine: The Search for Appropriate Birth Technology
(London: ACE Graphics, 1994), pp. 186–88. Also see M. Wagner, “Choosing Caesarean Section,”
Lancet
356 (2000): 1677–80.

5
.  For a more thorough discussion of the consequences of obstetricians having experienced only one type of birth, see M. Wagner, “Fish Can't See Water: The Need to Humanize Birth,”
International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
75, supplement (2001): s25–37.

6
.  World Health Organization, “Having a Baby in Europe,”
Public Health in Europe
26 (1985): 85.

7
.  M. Enkin et al.,
A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth
, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 271, reports the results of twelve randomized, controlled trials comparing electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) with intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart rate, involving more
than fifty-eight thousand women in ten centers. C-section rates were higher in the EFM group but there were no differences in outcome for the babies in the EFM and auscultation groups. For an excellent discussion of the limitations of EFM, see H. Goer, The
Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth
(New York: Penguin Putnam, 1999), pp. 85–98.

8
.  B. Backie and J. Nackling, “Term Prediction in Routine Ultrasound Practice,”
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
73 (1994): 113–18.

9
.  For information on the mechanical nipple stimulation device, see U.S. Food and Drug Administration Advisory Panel on Obstetrics and Gynecology, minutes, April 4, 1990.

10
. For a discussion of the powerful influence social and economic factors have on C-section rates, including a discussion of these studies, see Wagner,
Pursuing the Birth Machine
, pp. 186–88. Nonmedical factors influencing C-section rates were investigated by the World Health Organization; see P. Stephenson,
International Differences in the Use of Obstetrical Interventions
(Copenhagen: World Health Organization European Regional Office, 1992), pp. 6–10.

11
. Susan Brink, “Too Posh to Push? Cesarean Sections Have Spiked Dramatically. Progress or Convenience?”
U.S. News and World Report
, August 5, 2002, pp. 42–43.

12
. G. Feldman and J. Freiman, “Prophylactic Cesarean Section at Term?”
New England Journal of Medicine
312, no. 19 (1985): 1264–67.

13
. B. Sachs, M. Castro, and F. Frigoletto, “The Risk of Lowering the Cesarean-Delivery Rate,”
New England Journal of Medicine
140 (1999): 54–57.

14
. J. Brody, “Warning on Drop in Cesarean Births: 4 Top Specialists Challenge Government's Goal, Citing Dangers,”
New York Times
, January 7, 1999; K. Springer, “The Right to Choose. Cesarean Sections Are on the Rise Again. Public-Health Officials Want to Limit Them, but Many Patients and Doctors Are Resisting,”
Newsweek
, December 4, 2000, pp. 73–74.

15
. See, for example, M. Greene, “Vaginal Delivery after Cesarean Section—Is the Risk Acceptable?”
New England Journal of Medicine
345 (2001): 54–55.

16
. This survey was reported in M. Wagner, “Critique of British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report of Oct 2001,”
MIDIRS Journal
12, no. 3 (2002): 366–70.

17
. The scientific literature on the risks of urinary and fecal incontinence after vaginal birth are reviewed in Wagner, “Critique of British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report.” As one example, a report of a study in the April 15, 2001, issue of
Ob.Gyn. News
found that one year after giving birth, 3.7 percent of women with spontaneous vaginal birth had urinary incontinence whereas 9.8 percent of women whose babies were delivered with forceps had urinary incontinence. In addition, the risks to women from C-section versus the risks
from vaginal birth are reviewed in detail in three books: Enkin et al.,
Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth;
Goer,
Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth;
and Wagner,
Pursuing the Birth Machine
.

18
. Brink, “Too Posh to Push?”

19
. G. Buchsbaum et al., “Urinary Incontinence in Nulliparous Women and Their Parous Sisters,”
Obstetrics and Gynecology
106 (2005): 1259–65.

20
. By far the most reliable information on the risks of women dying from emergency C-section and elective C-section is in M. Hall and S. Bewley, “Maternal Mortality and Mode of Delivery,”
Lancet
354 (1999): 776. This paper used data from the British Department of Health's confidential enquiries on maternal mortality conducted during the 1990s. See U.K. Department of Health,
Why Mothers Die: Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths
(London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1999).

21
. For a discussion of the many risks of C-section to the woman and to the baby, documented with references to the scientific literature, see Wagner, “Choosing Cesarean Section.”

22
. Personal communication, Ina May Gaskin, as part of her research into cases of maternal mortality in the United States.

23
. For a review of risks to woman and baby as a result of C-section, including in subsequent pregnancies, see Wagner, “Choosing Cesarean Section.” That the risk of stillbirth in subsequent pregnancies is double with previous C-section is documented in G. C. S. Smith et al., “Cesarean Section and Risk of Unexplained Stillbirth in Subsequent Pregnancy,”
Lancet
362 (2003): 1779–84. The risk of a detached placenta is discussed in E. Hemminki et al., “Long-Term Effects of Cesarean Sections: Ectopic Pregnancies and Placental Problems,”
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
174, no. 5 (1996): 1569–75.

24
. A. Kolaas et al., “Is Planned Caesarean Section Better than Planned Vaginal Delivery for the Child?” submitted for publication, 2005. The authors are affiliated with the University of Oslo and the Norwegian Ministry of Health.