Tag Archives: informed decision making

New Research on Home Birth with an Obstetrician

male-doctor-thumbs-up-squareOver the last five years Dr. Stuart Fischbein, a Southern California obstetrician, has attended 135 home births. These deliveries included VBACs, vaginal breech and vaginal twin deliveries.

A summary of these births has been recently published.

Here are some highlights along with a few additional resources I compiled where you can learn more.

On patient selection:

“This model was not limited by strict protocols and allowed for guidelines to be merely guidelines. Women over 35, VBAC, breech and twin pregnancies were not excluded from this series simply because those labels existed. Each client was evaluated on her own merits and the comfort of the practitioner.”

On informed choice and the limitations of hospital birth:

“Home birth is not for everyone but informed choice is. The patronizing statement, “home delivery is for pizza”, is unprofessional and has no place in the legitimate discussion. Some suggest making hospital birth more homelike. While this may be a beginning and deserves investigation, it fails to recognize the difficult balance between honoring normal undisturbed mammalian birth and the reality of the hospital model’s legal and economic concerns and policies.”

On collaborative care:

“Pregnant women deserve to know that midwifery style care, both in and out of hospital, is a reasonable choice. A collaborative model between obstetrician and midwife can provide better results than what is occurring today.”

On lost skills:

“It would be wise to put the constructive energy of our profession towards the training of future practitioners in the skills that make obstetricians truly specialists such as breech, twin and operative vaginal deliveries.”

On the growth of home birth:

“Home birth will continue to grow as educated women realize that the current hospital model has many flaws.”

On our ethical obligation to provide a smooth home to hospital transfer:

“Cooperation, respect and smooth transition from home to hospital honors the pregnant woman and is our ethical obligation.”

_____________

California Healthcare Foundation. (2014, Nov). A Tale of Two Births: High- and Low-Performing Hospitals on Maternity Measures in California. Retrieved from California Healthcare Foundation: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2014/11/tale-two-births

Fischbein SJ (2015) “Home Birth” with an Obstetrician: A Series of 135 Out of Hospital Births. Obstet Gynecol Int J 2(4): 00046. DOI: 10.15406/ogij.2015.02.00046. Retrieved from Obstetrics & Gynecology International Journal: http://medcraveonline.com/OGIJ/OGIJ-02-00046.pdf

Johnson, N. (2010, Sept 11). For-profit hospitals performing more C-sections. Retrieved from California Watch: http://californiawatch.org/health-and-welfare/profit-hospitals-performing-more-c-sections-4069

Kennedy, M. (Director). (2015). Heads Up! The Disappearing Art of Vaginal Breech Delivery [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from http://www.informedpregnancy.com/#!heads-up/cef1

Klagholz, J., & Strunk, A. (2012). Overview of the 2012 ACOG Survey on Professional Liability. Retrieved from The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: http://www.acog.org/-/media/Departments/Professional-Liability/2012PLSurveyNational.pdf

What I told the California Medical Board about home VBAC

california state seal

A little backstory

Back in October, I attended my first Interested Parties Meeting held by the Medical Board of California regarding new midwifery regulations as required by AB1308. (Read more about AB1308 here and here.)

Up for discussion was which conditions or histories among women seeking a home birth with a Licensed Midwife (LM) should be required to obtain physician approval.

A prior cesarean was on the list of over 60 conditions or histories and home VBAC was the one subject that generated the most comment and discussion that day.

What does AB1308 mean in terms of home VBAC in California?

There has been a lot of confusion regarding what AB1308 means in terms of home VBAC in California. In an effort to clear things up, Constance Rock-Stillman, LM, CPM, President, California Association of Midwives said this on January 23, 2014:

AB 1308 went into effect on 1/1/14, but there is nothing in the new legislation that says LMs cannot do VBACs.

LMs can do VBACs.

We just need to define in our regulations what preexisting conditions will require physician consultation. [Which is what the October 15 and December 15th Interested Party meetings were about.]

Until the new regulations are written LMs should continue to follow their current regulations which only require LMs to provide certain disclosures and informed consent to clients.

Please let the community know that if they want to have a say in whether or not VBACs with California LMs require a physician consultation, they should come to the Interested Parties meeting that the medical board will be holding and tell the board how they feel about it.

The medical board is a consumer protection agency, so they need to hear what consumers want to be protected from.

We will let you know as soon as the meeting is scheduled.

[Ms. Rock-Stillman responds when questioned by those who have not been involved it the creation of this legislation yet insist this legislation removes the option of home VBAC entirely:]

I’m in my third year as president of the California Association of Midwives, and I’m a practicing Licensed Midwife.

I have been at every Midwifery Advisory Counsel meeting and at the Capitol 30 times last year.

I’ve spoken in legislative committee hearings.

I’ve sat in weekly meetings with CAM’s legal counsel who worked side-by-side with us on the legislation.

I’ve been in Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla’s boardroom with ACOG and at every one of the public events where Susan Bonilla promised that the LMs would still be able to do VBACs.

So I think I qualify as a knowledgeable stakeholder in this issue.

Yes, we intentionally left VBAC out of the list of prohibited conditions, so at this point there is no question as to whether or not we can do VBACs. The only part that’s in question is whether or not all VBACs will require physician consultation.

Regulations that clarify under what circumstances physician consultation will be required will be written by the California Medical Board.  This is a process that takes time. Maybe even a year or more.

The regulations that will be adopted will be based on evidence and input from all the stakeholders.

This is why I think it’s so important that midwives and consumers be at the meetings to insure their voices get heard.

At the last Interested Parties meeting that the medical board held, I asked what we were suppose to do until the new regulations are written and we were told that we should follow our current regulations and our community standards until new regulations are adopted.

Why I attended

My intention in attending the October 15, 2014 meeting was to amplify the voice of the consumer.  I think sometimes it’s difficult for OBs who attend VBACs, or for those who live in communities where they have access to hospitals that attend VBAC, to understand that not everyone lives in that world.

Some live in a world where if they want a VBAC in a hospital with a supportive midwife or doctor who takes their insurance, that means driving over 50 miles each way for prenatal care and delivery while they literally drive by other facilities that offer labor and delivery, but ban VBAC.

Or it means acquiescing to a unnecessary repeat cesarean whose risks compound with every surgery. Or it means planning an unassisted birth which comes with its own set of risks. This is a tremendous burden.

As VBAC and repeat cesarean both carry risks and benefits, and women are the ones who bear and endure those risks, they should be the ones who choose which mode of delivery is acceptable to them.

I celebrate when women have access to supportive hospital-based practitioners.  But the reality is, many women do not enjoy that privilege and yet they still wish to avoid the serious complications that come with each cesarean surgery.

Who else was at the meeting?

Other people in the room included the Senior Staff Counsel of the Medical Board, an OB-GYN representing ACOG, an ACOG lobbyist, Constance Rock-Stillman along with many other CAM representatives and midwives, California Families for Access to Midwives, a few other consumers, and me.

Senior Staff Counsel was tasked with writing these regulations and as the meeting progressed, items were reworded or removed from the list.

My statement

Only having five minutes to speak means that as soon as you take your seat, adjust the microphone, and look into the eyes of Medical Board, you have to establish yourself as a credible source.

And then you start to speak. You have to be clear and concise with an unwavering voice. The Medical Board is your captive audience and you need to use every second weaving the facts with the personal experiences of mothers, midwives, and doctors so you can convey the whole story.

Often Medical Boards are not well versed on Licensed Midwives, home birth, and the politics of VBAC, so there is a lot of education that has to quickly happen in a few short minutes. You must maximize your time and, while talking at a normal pace, swiftly move from fact to fact continually highlighting yet another piece of evidence that supports your case.

Those that sit on Medical Boards often have access to whatever medical care they need. So sharing the challenges real families throughout the state face when trying to obtain a VBAC is crucial.

With all those factors in mind, I focused on the importance of VBAC access, the politics of hospital VBAC, and the public health implications if families can’t access VBAC.

Throughout my entire presentation, I emphasized how increasing VBAC access was aligned with the mission of the Medical Board: to protect consumers.

It was quite challenging to adequately convey these key points in such a brief format. But as I looked into the eyes of each board member during my presentation, I felt heard. I knew they were receiving the message I intended and that all the hard work that went into preparing for that day made a difference.

Legislative consulting is yet another way that I serve the mission of VBAC Facts. To schedule a legislative consulting call, please click here.

Home VBAC threatened for California families

There has been a lot of confusion regarding AB1308, the legislation that went through at the beginning of this year in the state of California. It said that LMs were no longer allowed to attend home births some situations (such as breech, beyond 42 weeks gestation, etc) and other situations required a physician to sign off on the home birth.

It’s these regulations that are currently being written by the Medical Board with input from ACOG, CAM, CFAM, and VBAC Facts. It is under discussion whether a prior cesarean should be included on this list of conditions that would necessitate a physician’s approval in order for the woman to plan a home VBAC.

On October 15, 2014, I flew to Sacramento and attended a Interested Parties Meeting at the California Medical Board.  I spoke on behalf of California women who want home VBAC to remain an option in our state. You can read a summary of that meeting here and listen to a partial recording of the meeting here.

There is going to be another meeting on December 15th from 1-4pm in Sacramento (agenda) and I will be there once again representing consumers.  I will be preparing a short testimony.  If you are a California resident and would like to attend the meeting, please do.  If you can’t, but want your voice to be heard, please email me the following information:

1. Why home VBAC is important to you

2. Your name

3. Your county

More information from the California Association of Midwives and California Families for Access to Midwives

 

Induction is wrong, wrong, wrong… wait, what?

I hear all the time how induction in VBAC is contraindicated. This is false. This is the kind of misinformation that materializes when we demonize all induction rather than specifying that elective inductions are not worth the increased risks.

It’s important to use clear, specific language when we talk about birth because there is a lot of confusion among moms, advocates, doulas, and health care providers about VBAC and induction. When I point out the lack of clarity many people have on the topic to “anti-induction advocates” (for the lack of a better term), they respond with the fact that their focus is warning moms about elective inductions, which is absolutely needed. And they genuinely believe that people are aware of the distinction between elective and medically-indicated inductions. However, that has not been my experience, in fact it’s been quite the opposite.  There are many people who don’t understand the why, when, and how of inducing VBACs and that is impacting the abilities of women to make informed decisions and exercise their right of patient autonomy.

First, you can induce VBACs

To be clear, medically indicated induction in a VBAC is not contraindicated! Yet, many, many, many people persist that it is citing ACOG (1) and the Pitocin insert (2). ACOG clearly says in their latest VBAC guidelines (3) that “induction remains an option” in a mom planning a VBAC via Pitocin or Foley catheter. The Pitocin drug insert (2) does state, “Except in unusual circumstances, oxytocin [Pitocin] should not be administered in the following conditions” and then lists “previous major surgery on the cervix or uterus including cesarean section.” However, despite conventional wisdom, a prior cesarean is not listed under the contraindications section.  Further, the drug insert recognizes the value of individualized care:

The decision [to use Pitocin in a woman with a prior cesarean] can be made only by carefully weighing the potential benefits which oxytocin can provide in a given case against rare but definite potential for the drug to produce hypertonicity or tetanic spasm.

This is in line with ACOG’s latest VBAC recommendations (3) where they say, “Respect for patient autonomy supports the concept that patients should be allowed to accept increased levels of risk…” So this is information a woman can use to make an informed decision if she is faced with a medical condition that requires sooner rather than later delivery of her baby, but not necessarily in the next 15 minutes.  To induce, have a cesarean, or wait for spontaneous labor when facing a true medical issue is a decision for the mom to make in conjunction with her supportive heath care provider based on the evidence of her risks, benefits, and options.

My point is, if you just read bits and pieces of the insert, or a few key quotes from an anti-induction article, you are going to miss the full story; much like how reading the full text of a study gives you context and details that you lack by just reading the abstract.  Read my article (4) for more information on inducing VBACs.

Yet, misinformation persists

Ok, so now you know that induction remains an option per the Pitocin insert, ACOG, and respect for patient autonomy.  Now check out these quotes, from the last couple days, from six different people. If I were to keep a list of comments like these, just referring to induction and VBAC for a month, I would literally have dozens if not hundreds.  Misinformation is rampant:

“pitocin is CONTRAINDICATED for vbac bc the risk of uterine rupture”

“I thought it was unsafe to use pitocin with a vbac.”

“vbac should never be induced!”

“It is unsafe for prev surgical births. It says so in the PDR, or at least it did.”

“Not supposed to induce with a VBAC.”

“Never never never have an induction, especially with any kind of vbac!! Oh my goodness. it drastically raises your chances of uterine rupture!! Holy toledo. If you don’t know the risks involved with inductions, especially in vbacs, don’t offer the advice! Smh. Pitocin is completely contraindicated for vbacs, I’m pretty sure it even says that on the insert.”

“Are you actually trying to argue that induction of labour on a VBAC is OK???WOW…that is not evidence based AT ALL. Every study that has been done comparing the two shows a clear rise in risk associated with induction of labour and rupture. I am ALL for choice no matter the case, but I think every women has a right to INFORMED choice and you clearly are not. UNLIKE.”

Note the tone of these comments.  There is no room for negotiation.  Do you get the sense that they are just referring to elective inductions or all inductions? The message I get from these comments is loud and clear: these individuals believe that VBACs should not be induced. Period.

“Well, I would choose an induction…”

What is especially ironic is that some women who speak this way in public, privately share with me, that they themselves would opt for an induction over a repeat cesarean. Though do you see room for that option in any of the comments above?  They preserve that choice for themselves and yet pound the party line that all induction is always wrong and publicly deny that option to other women… for what purpose?  To maintain ad nauseam that induction is an evil, evil thing? Yes, apparently that is the case.

The last person’s comment was in response to me sharing my article (4) and saying that induction with medical indication does and should remain an option for moms planing VBACs.  Her reply equates my actions of sharing this reality with advocating against informed choice. How is keeping women in the dark about their options supporting the notion of informed consent? That faulty logic deserves a capitalized “WOW” with excessive exclamation points.

This is not the first person to say something like this to me. People so staunchly (and incorrectly) maintain that VBACs should never be induced because they have been indoctrinated to believe that induction is always wrong, it always introduces more risks.

More risk than what?

But the key question is: More risk than what? That is always what women should ask.

More risk than having a fetal demise before labor, partial placental abruption, or serious uterine infection and remaining pregnant? OK, so let’s say that is the truth.

Then any time any scarred woman has any of those medical conditions as well as those listed in my article (4), and they agree that remaining pregnant has higher risks that delivering the baby, they should have a cesarean, right? Even if vaginal birth remains an option, albeit via an induced labor?  Even if baby needs to be born sooner rather than later, but not necessarily in the next 15 minutes?  Those moms shouldn’t have a choice, they shouldn’t have a say, they should just go straight to cesarean?  How is that preserving choice for women?

Don’t misrepresent the facts

That is what these (extreme) “induction is wrong” proponents don’t understand. Induction has its place, as does every other medical intervention, and if you want to go straight to cesarean, rather than having a medically-indicated induction, fine.

But don’t misrepresent the truth to other women.

Don’t misrepresent what ACOG (1) or the Pitocin insert (2) says.

Don’t misrepresent the risks of Pitocin by listing a mish-mash of complications with no rates.  (How are women to understand the risks if you don’t tell them how frequently those emergencies occur?)

Don’t say things that can be disproved with a single mouse click like inducing VBACs is against evidence based medicine.

Don’t undermine a woman’s legal right to autonomy (5) by perpetuating the myth, that all induction, including when medically indicated, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Don’t dictate specific actions while withholding facts that would enable women to make their own decisions, even if they are different that what you would prefer.

Medically indicated induction = choice

People don’t appreciate that standing for medically indicated induction is standing for women to have a choice: induction vs. repeat cesarean. Without induction, there is no choice when a valid medical reason presents. By eliminating the option of induction, women are mandated to the increasing risks (6) of repeat cesarean. And yet people who persist in their agenda say things like this to me (naturally, the following was asserted after I shared my article (4) and they didn’t read it),

Does inducing a VBAC increase the chance of rupture??? YES. Does a women, and should a women have the right to choose that irregardless of that FACT??? YES. Is the most important thing informed consent?? I believe it is.

Clear language provides clarity

So if people think that, then they should use clear, unambiguous language like, “Induction remains an option when a medical indication presents” or “Elective induction isn’t worth the increased risks” rather than flat out declaring “pitocin is contraindicated” (false) and claiming that induction in a VBAC is not evidenced based (false) as this very commenter did earlier in the thread. If someone maintains that it should be a woman’s choice, then they should share substantiated facts, context, statistics, and references, not erroneous blanket statements.

Women can make informed decisions only when they are informed

To provide information supports choice and informed consent. To dictate a specific action while misrepresenting the evidence eliminates choice and prohibits informed consent . I do not dictate to other women what they should do (7).

If you read my article (4), you will see that I list the reasons for medically indicated induction as well as provide an extensive review of studies illustrating the increased risk of uterine rupture. I do this rather than simply saying, “the risk of rupture is higher and thus you shouldn’t do it” because providing facts with context puts the choice in the hands of the mom, rather than me (or anyone else) dictating to her what she should do.

Some women will accept that higher rate of rupture in order to have a vaginal birth. Others will choose to accept the risks of a repeat cesarean section. Those are choices for women to make for themselves based on facts, not on misrepresentations of what other women (incorrectly) think is contraindicated.

“Induction is wrong” & patient autonomy

People who advocate that “induction is always wrong” don’t understand the implications of their assertions. By arguing against inductions, which in the minds of many include medically indicated inductions since no distinction is made, they are effectively advocating for more cesareans and against informed consent and patient autonomy. The mission of VBAC Facts is to make hard-to-find, interesting, and pertinent information relative to post-cesarean birth options easily accessible to the people who seek it. I advocate for informed consent and patient autonomy and that is why I share evidence (4) rather than dictating what others should do. I only hope that this reasoning and evidence based position spreads because there are far to many people out there who persist in the inaccurate philosophy that inductions in a VBAC are always wrong even in the face of a valid medical reason. This does not support choice, women, or birth.

I profusely apologize for the excessive underlining in this article, but I think you will agree, that it was absolutely necessary.

Sources

1. Kamel, J. (2010, Jul 21). ACOG issues less restrictive VBAC guidelines. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2010/07/21/acog-issues-less-restrictive-vbac-guidelines/

2. JHP Pharmaceuticals LLC. (2012, Sept). Pitocin official FDA information, side effects and uses. Retrieved from Drugs.com: http://www.drugs.com/pro/pitocin.html

3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2010). Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology , 116 (2), 450-463. Retrieved from Our Bodies Our Blog: http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ACOG_guidelines_vbac_2010.pdf

4. Kamel, J. (2012, May 27). Myth: VBACs should never be induced. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/05/27/myth-vbacs-should-never-be-induced/

5. Kamel, J. (n.d.). Legal stuff. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/category/vbac/legal-stuff

6. Kamel, J. (2012, Dec 9). Why cesareans are a big deal to you, your wife, and your daughter. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/12/09/why-cesareans-are-a-big-deal-to-you-your-wife-and-your-daughter/

7. Kamel, J. (2012, Dec 7). Some people think I’m anti-this/ pro-that: My advocacy style. Retrieved from VBAC Facts: http://vbacfacts.com/2012/12/07/some-people-think-im-anti-thispro-that-my-advocacy-style/

 

Confusing fact: Only 6% of uterine ruptures are catastrophic

It is important to note that the information shared in Guise (2010), the 400 page Evidence Report on which the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference was based, collected the best data we have available on trial of labor after cesarean.  That said, they reported, “Overall, the strength of evidence on perinatal mortality was low to moderate” due to the wide range of perinatal mortality rates reported by the studies included in the report.  Bottom line: We still don’t have an accurate idea of how deadly uterine rupture is to babies.  This is a topic on which Guise recommended future researchers focus.  I highly recommend that anyone interested in TOLAC (trial of labor after cesarean), especially those who blog or share information on social networking sites, review this very important document as it is a fascinating analysis of the best research we have to date on TOLAC.


How many times have you heard, “Only 6% of uterine ruptures are catastrophic” or “Uterine rupture not only happens less that one percent of the time, but the vast majority of ruptures are non-catastrophic?” But what does that mean? Does that mean only 6% of uterine ruptures are “complete” ruptures? Result in maternal death? Infant death? Serious injury to mom or baby? This article will explain to you the difference between uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence as well as explain the source and meaning of the 6% statistic.

Distinguishing between uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence

First, it’s important to understand what a uterine rupture is and how that differs from a uterine dehiscence. Uterine rupture, also called true, complete, or even (to further add to the confusion) catastrophic rupture, is a opening through all the layers of the uterus. Per a Medscape article on Uterine Rupture in Pregnancy:

Uterine rupture is defined as a full-thickness separation of the uterine wall and the overlying serosa. Uterine rupture is associated with (1) clinically significant uterine bleeding; (2) fetal distress; (3) expulsion or protrusion of the fetus, placenta, or both into the abdominal cavity; and (4) the need for prompt cesarean delivery and uterine repair or hysterectomy.

Whereas a uterine dehiscence, also called a incomplete rupture or a uterine window, is not a full-thickness separation. It’s often asymptomatic, does not pose any risk to mom or baby, and does not require repair. Again, I refer to Medscape:

Uterine scar dehiscence is a more common event that seldom results in major maternal or fetal complications. By definition, uterine scar dehiscence constitutes separation of a preexisting scar that does not disrupt the overlying visceral peritoneum (uterine serosa) and that does not significantly bleed from its edges. In addition, the fetus, placenta, and umbilical cord must be contained within the uterine cavity, without a need for cesarean delivery due to fetal distress.

When reading medical studies, look for how they define uterine rupture in the “Methods” section. While some medical studies combine the statistics for rupture and dehiscence, ultimately reporting an inflated rate of rupture, other studies distinguish between the two events.

So, what does the 6% statistic mean and where did it come from?

The statistic “Only 6% of uterine ruptures are catastrophic” is from the Evidence Report (Guise 2010) which was the basis of the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference and it refers to the rate of infant death due to uterine rupture. Here is the exact quote:

The overall risk of perinatal death due to uterine rupture was 6.2 percent. The two studies of women delivering at term that reported perinatal death rates report that 0 to 2.8 percent of all uterine ruptures resulted in a perinatal death (Guise 2010).

In other words, of the women who had uterine ruptures, 6.2% (1 in 16) resulted in infant deaths. When we limited the data to women delivering at term, as opposed to babies of all gestational ages, the risk was as high as 2.8 (1 in 36)%.

When we look at the overall risk of an infant death during a trial of labor after cesarean, the NIH reported the rate of 0.13%, which works out to be one infant death per 769 trials of labor.

The source of the confusion

The problem with this statistic is that some people have misinterpreted it to mean that only 6% of ruptures are true, complete uterine ruptures. In other words, if we take the 0.4% (1 in 240) uterine rupture rate (Landon, 2004), they believe that only 6% of those ruptures or 0.024% (1 in 4166) are true, complete ruptures. This is false. The 0.4% uterine rupture statistic measured true, complete, uterine ruptures in spontaneous labors after one prior low, transverse (“bikini cut”) cesarean.

So how many dehiscences did Landon (2004) detect? Landon reported a 0.7% uterine rupture rate and a 0.7% dehiscence rate. (Note that these statistics include a variety of scar types as well spontaneous, augmented, and induced labors.) So Landon found that dehiscence occurs at the same rate as uterine rupture.

I think the best way to avoid confusion is to use very clear language: 6.2% (1 in 16) of uterine ruptures result in an infant death. Put another way, for every 16 uterine ruptures, there will be one baby that dies.

Elapsed time and infant death

What determines if a baby dies or has brain damage? Some research on infant cord blood gases has suggested that if the baby isn’t delivered (almost always by CS) within 16 – 17 minutes of a uterine rupture, there can be serious brain damage or death to baby. You can watch a presentation from the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference entitled “The Immediately Available Physician Standard” by Howard Minkoff, M.D. for more information or read his presentation abstract.

Now you know the difference between uterine rupture, uterine dehiscence and the meaning of the 6% statistic. It’s helpful to understand the terminology used in relation to uterine rupture otherwise it can be very confusing as you wade your way through the statistics! It’s also very important for people to use specific words whose definitions are clear instead of words such as “catastrophic” that could mean multiple things.

Afterward – The big picture

The following are excerpts from the Evidence Report (Guise 2010) , the 400 page evidence report assembled for the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference. The limitation of Guise (2010) is that these stats are for all VBACs – all scar types, multiple prior cesareans, induced/augmented labors, etc. It would have been helpful if they had broke out the data in these ways.

While rare for both TOL [trial of labor] and ERCD [elective repeat cesarean delivery], maternal mortality was significantly increased for ERCD at 13.4 per 100,000 versus 3.8 per 100,000 for TOL. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between TOL and ERCD. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean is 3 per 1,000 and the risk was significantly increased with TOL (4.7 1,000 versus 0.3 1,000 ERCD). Six percent of uterine ruptures were associated with perinatal death.” Perinatal death due to UR from term studies was 2.8%. “Perinatal mortality was significantly increased for TOL at 1.3 per 1,000 versus 0.5 per 1,000 for ERCD… VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean. Moreover, there is emerging evidence of serious harms relating to multiple cesareans… The occurrence of maternal and infant mortality for women with prior cesarean is not significantly elevated when compared with national rates overall of mortality in childbirth. The majority of women who have TOL will have a VBAC, and they and their infants will be healthy. However, there is a minority of women who will suffer serious adverse consequences of both TOL and ERCD. While TOL rates have decreased over the last decade, VBAC rates and adverse outcomes have not changed suggesting that the reduction is not reflecting improved patient selection.

A systematic review strives to be patient-centered and to provide both patients and clinicians with meaningful numbers or estimates so they can make informed decisions. Often, however, the data do not allow a direct estimate to calculate the numbers that people desire such as the number of cesareans needed to avoid one uterine rupture related death. The assumptions that are required to make such estimates from the available data introduce additional uncertainty that cannot be quantified. If we make a simplistic assumption that 6 percent of all uterine ruptures result in perinatal death (as found from the summary estimate), the range of estimated numbers of cesareans needed to be performed to prevent one uterine rupture related perinatal death would be 2,400 from the largest study,204 and 3,900-6,100 from the other three studies of uterine rupture for TOL and ERCD.10, 97, 205 Taken in aggregate, the evidence suggests that the approximate risks and benefits that would be expected for a hypothetical group of 100,000 women at term gestational age (GA) who plan VBAC rather than ERCD include: 10 fewer maternal deaths, 650 additional uterine ruptures, and 50 additional neonatal deaths. Additionally, it is important to consider the morbidity in future pregnancies that would be averted from multiple cesareans particularly in association with placental abnormalities.

What can you do when your hospital bans VBAC?

Amber recently left this comment on the Quick Facts page:

i am pregnant for the second time my first child was delivered by c-section my goal is to have my second child natural but the obgyns in my area will not allow someone who has had a c-section to have a natural birth they said it is hospital policy what would you recommend?

Amber,

First educate yourself and then you can take action. You have many options.

I suggest you review the following documents and provide a copy to your health care provider: the most recent ACOG VBAC guidelines, the National Institute of Heath’s 2010 VBAC Statement, and the article VBAC ban rationale is irrational.

Next, read through the steps of planning a VBAC and familiarize yourself with the misinformation that some OBs have used to persuade women to schedule repeat cesareans, so if you hear these same lies, you can identify them: Another VBAC Consult Misinforms, Scare tactics vs. informed consent, VBACing against the odds, and A father says, Why invite the risk of VBAC?.

Additionally, it’s important to know that there are many birth myths rampant on the internet that misrepresent the primary risk of VBAC by minimizing the risk of uterine rupture such as “the risk of uterine rupture in a VBAC mom is similar to (or double) that of an unscarred mom’s risk,” or “the risk of uterine rupture in an induced, unscarred mom is the same as a VBAC mom,” or “a VBAC mom is more likely to be bitten by a shark or struck by lightning than have an uterine rupture.” Again, all these statements are false. And if you see a blog report really low uterine rupture or mortality rates, it’s likely the result of incorrect math.

On to your question. . . Unfortunately, I don’t have any personal experience of pursuing a VBAC in a VBAC ban hospital because I planned a home VBAC in order to avoid all that (almost certain) drama in the hospital. So, I went to my Facebook peeps and got their suggestions and they did not disappoint!

Here are their ideas in their own words…

1. Let hospital administrators and the board of directors know.

Mamas that are passing on a hospital because of their VBAC policy, need to then write the hospital administrators and the boards of directors to tell them that they birthed at XXX Hospital instead of theirs because of their VBAC policy. Hospitals need to hear that they are losing births (aka $$$) because of their policies.

2. Find an ICAN chapter near you.

She needs to get in touch with her closest local ICAN chapter TODAY. They will know details on the exact situation in her area. She should not put stock in what one person tells her- there is a lot of misinformation and myth out there. She can find both a local chapter and information about fighting a VBAC ban at www.ican-online.org

3. Sign a waiver and exercise your legal right to refuse surgery.

I had a VBAC at a hospital where no doctor staff supported it but low and behold all the nurses were amazing! I went in at 5 cm and 3 hours later baby was in my arms. Strong support is a must – I had a midwife, my husband, mom and sister. Stay focused. Don’t sign anything- except the refusal of c/section form- get in there and push your baby out!

and . . .

I would encourage her to ask to see this policy & ask if she would be allowed to sign a waiver. Ask friends if anyone they know has VBAC’d there or at another area facility. I had an experience in my last VBAC where I was told of a “policy” that didn’t really exist except in that person’s mind.

and . . .

Under the right to informed decision making she has the right to say “no thank you”. Absent a court order for a cesarean they cant force her. I’m not a huge fan of the “show up pushing” crowd, but it may appeal to her. Or she could labor in a nearby hotel with a midwife or montrice to monitor the baby and then go in to the hospital at the last minute. Again, not a fan but we’re looking at options here.

and . . .

Regarding stories of VBAC-ban hospitals. I don’t have experience myself, as my VBAC was done with a CNM at a supportive facility – but I’ve attended a VBAC at a local hospital with a VBAC ban. Mama had a RCS [repeat cesarean section] scheduled (though she didn’t intend on going in) but went into spontaneous labor 6 days prior. She labored at home several hours until contractions were about 3 minutes apart. When we arrived and they realized she had a previous c/s, they began calling in a team to prep the OR.

The mama was beyond calm – and in the middle of labor – requested to speak with the staff. The nurses (there were maybe 4 in there?), the attending OB, and the anesthesiologist (who had already been paged for the spinal for surgery) were in her room (ready to wheel her to the OR). Between contractions, she quickly and quietly explained that she was aware it wasn’t typical policy to attend a VBAC, but she was there and it was their legal duty to treat her and she was exercising her legal right to refuse unnecessary surgery.

The nurses looked shocked, the anesthesiologist said something about he was clearly not needed, and the OB (who I swear was VBAC accepting but just was staffed at a VBAC-ban hospital) told her that she was correct, they had to treat her and couldn’t force her to do anything unless her baby was in danger but she’d need to sign quite a bit of paperwork documenting the situation. He had the most odd grin/smirk on his face while he said that as if to somehow thank her for having the nerve to stand up for herself. He left the room and we didn’t see him again until she was crowning.

I in no way, shape, or form feel that that scenario is typical of a VBAC-ban situation, but it was certainly enjoyable and entertaining to have experienced that with my client.

and . . .

I just refused the c-section at a VBAC ban hospital. With my first, I pushed for 4 hours, and he didn’t get past the 0 station (he was presenting transverse) — We lived too far away from the hospital for a homebirth at our own home, but I hired the homebirth midwife for concurrent care. She was going to monitor us at a hotel near the hospital for labor, but thankfully everything went so fast we just met her at the hospital. She served as doula there. I found out from an OB nurse that one of the OBs did support a woman’s right to refuse (though not enthusiastically). I knew I needed care I could trust, so that the only c-section I got was medically necessary. You can read where my midwife tells our story here.

You have every right to refuse an unnecessary c-section, I’d just HIGHLY recommend laboring out of the hospital, and having a doula or knowledgeable advocate with you!

and . . .

This is my advice for VBACing at a banned hospital –

– Sign your informed refusal ahead of time, and be aware that when presented with the risks of VBAC, it will majorly underplay RCS risks; it might be a good idea not to bring your husband to this appointment if he’s feeling nervous about VBAC. [Or have your husband read this article beforehand.]

– Don’t let them give you a late term ultrasound for anything other than a medical problem (in other words — refuse the late ultrasound for size)

– Plan to labor out of the hospital; use a monitrice if you are nervous about that, or a good doula

– Have a smart advocate with you at the hospital so you don’t have to fight any battles yourself and can just focus on laboring

– Get good prenatal care — I did acupuncture and chiropractic, and both of those people had offered to help me in labor if I needed; having that support and belief was very empowering, because my OB absolutely didn’t think we “could” VBAC

– Own your decision; don’t be wishy-washy… be stubborn… this is YOUR BODY. I had a personal mantra that I repeated to myself over and over, “I will only have a medically necessary c-section.”

– Learn ways to get through labor naturally; I really liked the strategies in “Birthing from Within” — even more than hypno or Bradley techniques

– Show up in advanced labor (I was complete when we got to the hospital)

– Know your personal hang-ups — I pushed for 4 hours with my son and am SO GLAD that I labored down in a small bathroom until my urge to push was really strong and spontaneous; I am so glad I wasn’t on the bed pushing for a long time, because this would have brought back too many bad memories and made me feel panicky, tired, and out of control. When I got on the bed to push, I was practically crowning. THAT was very empowering for a “failure to descend” mama

To bottom line – do what you have to to get the care you need, even with limited options; own your body and decision, and give yourself every advantage and tool that you can to help ensure success.

and a VBAC supportive OB who worked in a VBAC ban hospital says:

I’m supposed to tell patients that they have to go elsewhere if they want a VBAC, that they can’t stay in their own community, that they have to drive 50 miles. … I’m not supposed to tell them that they have the option of showing up in labor and refusing surgery. The hospital actually put in writing that I should avoid telling them that. They’re telling me to skew my counseling, and they have no shame in doing so.

4. Ask a different person at the hospital.

Remember that not everyone is knowledgeable about VBAC or a specific hospital’s VBAC policy, even if they work at that hospital.

I have heard an OB tell a mother that her only option was repeat cesarean because the hospital didn’t allow VBAC. The director of Maternal Child Health said it absolutely wasn’t true and gave her the names of VBAC friendly providers.

5. Find another hospital via the VBAC Policies by US Hospitals database compiled by ICAN.

Remember you are buying a service. Why pay for something you don’t want. Shop elsewhere.

6. Find another provider and ask these questions.

7. Birth in another city, county, or state.

Know what you’re comfortable with, hire a doula as well as a midwife or doctor especially if you have a hospital birth, and do your research so you know your rights and options. I’m currently about to “relocate” to Seattle at 37 weeks, from Juneau, AK where there is a hospital VBAC ban at our one hospital in town so I can try to have a VBAC in a more supportive environment. I didn’t think I wanted to fight the VBAC ban while in labor, I’d rather do my political activism in a clearer state of mind! It has been a stressful journey but I know I’m doing what’s right for me so I’m feeling really good about things now. I know this isn’t an option for many and a few women since the beginning of 2011 have refused repeat c/s at our hospital. Good luck!

and . . .

Go somewhere else. . . I traveled 40 mins for my vbac in 2010 because the 6 hospitals around here wouldn’t let them either.

and . . .

I even know a family who crossed state lines to have her baby the way she desired because her states laws wouldn’t allow her.

Joy Szabo said

I found a sane doctor 5 hours away. I got slightly famous for it, too.

and I’ve heard of women traveling to Mexico to VBAC at Plenitude with Dr. José Luis.

8. Consider a homebirth.

Fighting the hospital system while trying to push out a baby is not a simple task. Yes, a support team can be a big help. Personally, I felt more comfortable staying home than going to the hospital with my boxing gloves. It’s a personal choice and she’ll have to see what she’s most comfortable with. At the end of the day, I played out both options in my mind and went with the one that I felt most at peace with.

and. . .

Hello, my personal story in a nutshell… iatrogenically necessitated c/s with my first. For #2, it was a last minute change of plans… I’m a physician and I discovered through the grapevine that OB was planning to resection me without medical indication so #2 turned into planned HBAC. Homebirth VBAC successful with my second. The second was so beautiful, so peaceful, so uncomplicated!

9. Connect with resources for more ideas.

Stratton, B. (2006). 50 Ways to Protest a VBAC Denial. Retrieved from Midwifery Today: http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/50ways_vbac.asp

A good closing thought:

The term “will not allow” always bothers me. Perhaps they “won’t attend a VBAC” but they definitely can not stop you. Stand up for your rights. Show them the ACOG recommendation which is to allow a trial of labor! Seek out support. Call every OB you can think of. Look into a midwife. Hire a doula. You can do this.

Do you have more ideas?

Did you deliver at a VBAC ban hospital?

What was your strategy?

Are you a health care provider at a VBAC ban hospital and have some insight?

A father says, Why invite the risk of VBAC?

I recently had an exchange with a father that I wanted to share because I think he has the same concerns as many other parents.

He first left a comment in response to the article I’m pregnant and want a VBAC, what do I do?

Make sure they have a surgical team ready to go 24-7 If you are attempting VBAC’S.

They have about 15 min’s to get the child out, without serious damage after complete uterine rupture. It won’t be a Bikini cut either.

I replied:

Anthony,

VBACs can absolutely be offered safely without 24/7 anesthesia present.  I had the opportunity to attend the March 2010 National Institutes of Health VBAC Conference where the ability of rural hospitals to safely attend VBACs was extensively discussed. One doctor spoke during the public comment period and stated that her rural hospital had a VBAC rate of over 30%! It turns out, if a hospital is supportive of VBAC and motivated, they can absolutely offer VBAC safely. (I also welcome you to read the commentary of two obstetricians and one certified nurse midwife who argued against the VBAC ban instated at their local rural hospital.) Read more about the policies that this hospital implemented: VBAC Ban Rationale is Irrational.

One large VBAC study found that while the risk of infant death or oxygen deprivation in VBACs was 0.05%, the maternal mortality in repeat cesareans was 0.04% (Landon, 2004). Whose lives do we save? And in fact Henci Goer’s analysis shares with us that the 0.05% rate is inaccurately elevated. In the Landon (2004) study, women whose babies had died before labor were encouraged to VBAC. Those infant deaths were included in the 0.05% figure even though their deaths could not be attributed to a labor after cesarean.

There was an entire lecture at the 2010 National Institutes of Health VBAC Conference about uterine rupture, oxygen deprivation and blood gases. You can find a summary in the Program and Abstracts.

Warmly,

Jen

Then he left a comment in response to the article A letter from a hospital explaining why they banned VBAC:

Well written letter by the physician. VBAC’s are very risky. I’ve lived through the personal horror of a catastrophe. And trust me it was catastrophic. I nearly lost my wife and full term son. My son now lives his life as a quadriplegic with Cerebral Palsy. You can’t convince me it’s worth the risk. Not for the child, not for the mother, not for the family, and not for the doctor and hospital.

Greedy insurance companies thought they could turn profits by forcing VBAC’s on mothers. The doctor’s letter is true to form and his statistics are on the money. If you care about people, mothers, babies, and family, “Don’t push for VBAC’S” do the opposite.

To which I replied:

Anthony,

I am so sorry about your son.  To describe what happened to your son as tragic is a drastic understatement.

I agree that the policies in place during the 90s when insurance companies were pushing VBAC were entirely unsafe. VBAC became required in some places and some women were not given a choice about whether or not to VBAC. This resulted in women with contra-indications to VBAC experiencing bad outcomes. Women in crowded hospitals did not receive good care and had bad outcomes. Women desiring trials of labor after cesareans were induced and had bad outcomes. And all of this resulted in VBAC getting a bad name. “Instead of blaming the overuse of induction, mandatory VBACs regardless of suitability, and mismanagement of labor, doctors began saying that it was actually VBAC that was unsafe.” You can read more on the history of VBAC here.

Fortunately, we know more now about the risks and benefits of VBAC and repeat cesareans than we did in the 90s. Like how rupture rates vary depending on the scar type (Landon, 2004), how the risks of cesareans increase with each surgery (Silver, 2006) and the risk of uterine rupture and other complications decrease after the first VBAC (Mercer, 2008). We know now that inducing increases the risk of uterine rupture (Landon, 2004), but that it is a reasonable option when there is a medical indication.  As the Guise 2010 Evidence Reports asserts,

“While rare for both TOL [trial of labor after cesarean] and ERCD [elective repeat cesarean delivery], maternal mortality was significantly increased for ERCD at 13.4 per 100,000 versus 3.8 per 100,000 for TOL. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between TOL and ERCD. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean is 3 per 1,000 and the risk was significantly increased with TOL (4.7 1,000 versus 0.3 1,000 ERCD). Six percent of uterine ruptures were associated with perinatal death. Perinatal mortality was significantly increased for TOL at 1.3 per 1,000 versus 0.5 per 1,000 for ERCD… VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean. Moreover, there is emerging evidence of serious harms relating to multiple cesareans.”

So neither option is inherently safe or risky. Both offer a different set of risks. I think it’s important for women to understand these risks when considering their options. I wrote a summary here: Nervous About Planning a VBAC.

Once again, I’m so sorry about your son and I thank you for taking the time to leave your comment.

Warmly,

Jen

To which he replied:

Your statistics mean is nowhere near the mean quoted in the doctors letter. This doctor has performed how many births? and participated in many more. He travels around the country lecturing on this subject? His mean is 2.5% not .05%. .05% is risky too. But I believe 2.5% is more likely for for complications with VBAC.

Accidental death from cesarean he pegs at .001%. That’s .00001

To which I replied:

Anthony,

His statistics are wrong. That is why I posted the letter. I wanted to illustrate how important it is to educate yourself because some OBs just don’t know and give incorrect information either because they don’t know any better or because they are actively skewing their information.  Please read my comment on the differences between an OB’s opinion and medical research.

There is not one large study on VBAC that shows a fetal mortality rate of 1 in 200 (0.5%.) Please check out my bibliography. I’ve read all these studies. If you can find a study on VBAC including over 5,000 women, controlling for scar type, induction method and dose that shows an infant mortality rate of 0.5%, I would love to see it.

Warmly,

Jen

To which he replied:

I still agree with the doctor’s letter above. Why invite the risk? and it is way way too risky. How could the liability limits of a midwife, or small hospital possibly cover such a tragedy? Should that be handled by malpractice reform? By allowing our health professionals to be unaccountable? Recovery for even economic loss is nearly impossible today. The liability is tremendous. Childbirth is already risky enough. I agree that induction may be a contributing factor and maybe more research should be done on those drugs and their use. Cervadil was used to induce my wife, and it was contra-indicated at that time in women with a scarred uterus by “the Physicians Desk Reference”; but that didn’t stop it’s use. This catastrophe didn’t happen in a busy hospital. It happened because the hospital and physicians were not prepared to deal with the profound emergency. I see no benefit to anyone, by lobbying for VBAC’S. Thanks for the reply

To which I replied:

Anthony,

There is about a 0.4% risk of having a uterine rupture with one prior low transverse cesarean in a spontaneous labor (meaning you weren’t induced or given Pitocin or other similar drugs during your labor) (Landon, 2004). One would think that with all the hoopla about uterine rupture, that this rate would be significantly higher than other obstetrical complications.

You might be surprised to learn that uterine rupture occurs at a similar rate to other obstetrical complications such as post partum hemorrhage, cord prolapse or placental abruption! And when we look at infant outcomes, there is about a 6% chance of infant death or oxygen deprivation after an uterine rupture (Landon, 2004) compared to the 12% risk of infant death after a placental abruption (Ananth, 1999).

Yet how many first time moms worry their entire pregnancies about placental abruption? How many considered an elective primary cesarean in an attempt to circumvent abruption? How many were offered, or even strongly pressured, to consider an elective cesarean by their friends, family, or OB? How many where made to feel selfish over their desire to plan a vaginal birth in the face of risks such as abruption?

And where are all the lawsuits resulting from the infant deaths as a result of placental abruption? Why aren’t people outraged that all these babies are dying as a result of selfish moms who should have been prudent and had scheduled cesareans to prevent this tragedy? We hold VBAC to such an impossible standard because the tolerance for risk has been reduced to zero.

Moms planning a VBAC are often made to feel that having a repeat cesarean is the most prudent, conservative choice whereas only selfish women who wish to experience vaginal birth plan a VBAC. Only people who do not understand the statistics would make such a bold claim.

The problem is that most people don’t understand the rate of obstetrical complications in a first time mom. Conventional wisdom and rumor does not give your average individual enough information to adequately compare the risks of a primary vaginal birth, repeat vaginal birth, primary cesarean, repeat cesarean, primary VBAC and repeat VBAC. That is why we have medical studies because even doctors, who themselves attend thousands of births over their career, do not control for variables like researchers do. Doctors focus on practicing medicine whereas researchers, who are often medical doctors who still see patients, focus on constructing studies, maintaining records, and controlling for variables. All of this enables researchers to accurately detect and measure the incidence of complications and also identify larger patterns.

One thing we have learned from medical studies is that the risk of infant death during a VBAC attempt is “similar to the risk” of infant death during the labor of a first time mom (Smith, 2002). Should all first time moms have cesareans because their labor is just to risky?

Let’s not forget that while a cesarean could prevent a would-be uterine rupture, placental abruption, or cord prolapse, cesareans themselves introduce many serious risks. In the face of immediate death or damage to mom or baby, these risks are absolutely acceptable. However, when we are performing major abdominal surgery on the other 99.6% of women who will not have a uterine rupture, we are subjecting them to an unnecessary level of risk.

There are several complications that occur during a second scheduled cesarean section at a rate similar to or greater than the risk of uterine rupture during a spontaneous trial of labor after cesarean after one prior low transverse cesarean (0.4%) (Landon 2004). These complications include hysterectomy (0.42%), any blood transfusion (1.53%), a blood transfusion of four or more units (0.48%), maternal intensive care unit admission (0.57%), maternal wound infection (0.94%), and endometritis (2.56%) (Silver, 2006). And while Silver (2006) found that the maternal death rate was “only” 0.07% during a second cesarean, this is 3.5 times higher than the rate of maternal death in a trial of labor after cesarean (0.02%) and 1.4 times higher than the risk of infant death or oxygen deprivation (0.05%) (Landon, 2004.) Keep in mind that all the cesareans included in the Silver (2006) study were scheduled. All the complications noted were a direct result of the surgery, not of any other medical complication.

These are important facts for people to know before they make the judgment of which option is more “risky:” VBAC vs. repeat cesarean. It’s not enough to understand the risks of VBAC, one must also understand the risks of cesarean section. Only then can one see that neither are inherently safe or risky. They both offer a different set of risks. You can read more about the specific risks that cesareans pose in the article The risks of cesarean sections.

Cesareans also have major implications for all future pregnancies and delivery options. The risks of complications increase with each cesarean section which make subsequent pregnancies more precarious which increases the likelihood of a bad outcome for mom or baby. According to Silver (2006), a four year study of up to six repeat cesareans in 30,000 women:

Increased risks of placenta accreta, hysterectomy, transfusion of 4 units or more of packed red blood cells, [bladder injury], bowel injury, urethral injury, ileus [absence of muscular contractions of the intestine which normally move the food through the system], ICU admission, and longer operative time were seen with an increasing number of cesarean deliveries…. After the first cesarean, increased risk of placenta previa, need for postoperative (maternal) ventilator support, and more hospital days were seen with increasing number of cesarean deliveries.

Because the risks of cesarean are so great, they conclude their study with the following statement, “Because serious maternal morbidity increases progressively with increasing number of cesarean deliveries, the number of intended pregnancies should be considered during counseling regarding elective repeat cesarean operation versus a trial of labor and when debating the merits of elective primary cesarean delivery.”

Additionally, scheduled cesarean section puts anyone else who experiences a medical emergency requiring surgery in danger because those operating rooms become unavailable. I wonder how often women with true obstetrical complications requiring immediate cesareans, such as your wife, or non-obstetrical emergencies such as car accident or gunshot victims, have been unable to receive that urgent, time sensitive care due to otherwise healthy moms and healthy babies undergoing scheduled elective repeat cesareans and tying up the operating rooms? With 92% of women having repeat cesareans (Martin, 2006), I’m sure it’s happened, especially in smaller hospitals, many of which only have one or two operating rooms. These routine repeat cesareans impact everyone and it’s only going to get worse.

According to the CDC (Menacker, 2010), “The number of cesarean births increased by 71% from 1996 (797,119) to 2007 (1,367,049) [and] In 2007, approximately 1.4 million women had a cesarean birth, representing 32% of all births, the highest rate ever recorded in the United States and higher than rates in most other industrialized countries.” The latest data from the CDC shows that 92% of women have a repeat cesarean (Martin, 2009).  So with 1.4 million cesareans annually, we can look forward to approximately 1 million repeat cesareans annually in the future.  With primary cesarean rates growing, our repeat cesarean rate will grow, we will witness more of the complications identified by Silver (2006), including more maternal deaths, and more cases of people who really need emergency surgery dying because operating rooms are filled with otherwise healthy moms and healthy babies undergoing scheduled cesareans.

You said, “It happened because the hospital and physicians were not prepared to deal with the profound emergency.” I would gently suggest that the problem was more with your hospital than VBAC. They induced your wife with a drug that was contraindicated in a trial of labor after cesarean and then were unprepared for an obstetrical emergency. If your wife had a placental abruption or a serious complication from a repeat cesarean, it sounds like they would have been just as unprepared. That is an entirely separate issue than whether VBACs are excessively risky.

Thank you again for your comments and I wish you the best.

Warmly,

Jen