Comments on: RIP VBAC? http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/10/rip-vbac.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/10/rip-vbac.html#comment-90486 Anonymous Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:42:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/10/rip-vbac.html#comment-90486 Why does the rate of rupture for a non-C patient get an actual stat percentage (.18) but the rupture in a prior c/s patient does not. You specificially point out the 9 in 1,000 but give no actual stat percentage on that one (still less than 1%)<br/>Yet another fear mongering tactic to scare women. Why does the rate of rupture for a non-C patient get an actual stat percentage (.18) but the rupture in a prior c/s patient does not. You specificially point out the 9 in 1,000 but give no actual stat percentage on that one (still less than 1%)
Yet another fear mongering tactic to scare women.

]]> By: Eileen Sullivanhttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/10/rip-vbac.html#comment-81271 Eileen Sullivan Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:10:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/10/rip-vbac.html#comment-81271 You've got to be kidding me. Did you seriously expect the "findings" of this study to be any different?! While we're at it, why don't we do a study to determine if people with HIV are more at risk of developing AIDS. Of COURSE women who've never had a cesarean are much less likely to experience a uterine rupture. All the more reason not to go around slicing women's uteri to deliver their babies!<br/><br/>Meanwhile, you seem to have missed the important parts of the article. A rupture rate of nine in 1000 is still LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. In other words, more than 99% of the time, women attempting to VBAC will NOT experience a uterine rupture. The medical profession as a whole does a lot of procedures that are far more risky, and no one thinks to limit you to things that are more than 99% safe. <br/><br/>But let a woman want to VBAC and all hell breaks loose. Clearly, risk management and defensive medicine have a lot to answer for. Talk about seriously limiting a woman's choices. Worse, the media has jumped on the bandwagon and is fully assisting. Seems like every report I've seen on this BJOG article is dedicated to fear-mongering, rather than balanced reporting of the facts. I hope women will read between the lines, but there's no doubt that the medical profession and news services together are making that very hard to do. <br/><br/>I would've hoped that someone with your background would more thoroughly read and understand the research being presented. But I guess the Chicken Little approach to VBAC is the party line these days, for M.D.s of all types. Never mind the facts: "the sky is falling!" You'll pardon me if I don't join you in running for cover.<br/><br/>Eileen Sullivan<br/>(My qualifications? I can read.) You’ve got to be kidding me. Did you seriously expect the “findings” of this study to be any different?! While we’re at it, why don’t we do a study to determine if people with HIV are more at risk of developing AIDS. Of COURSE women who’ve never had a cesarean are much less likely to experience a uterine rupture. All the more reason not to go around slicing women’s uteri to deliver their babies!

Meanwhile, you seem to have missed the important parts of the article. A rupture rate of nine in 1000 is still LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. In other words, more than 99% of the time, women attempting to VBAC will NOT experience a uterine rupture. The medical profession as a whole does a lot of procedures that are far more risky, and no one thinks to limit you to things that are more than 99% safe.

But let a woman want to VBAC and all hell breaks loose. Clearly, risk management and defensive medicine have a lot to answer for. Talk about seriously limiting a woman’s choices. Worse, the media has jumped on the bandwagon and is fully assisting. Seems like every report I’ve seen on this BJOG article is dedicated to fear-mongering, rather than balanced reporting of the facts. I hope women will read between the lines, but there’s no doubt that the medical profession and news services together are making that very hard to do.

I would’ve hoped that someone with your background would more thoroughly read and understand the research being presented. But I guess the Chicken Little approach to VBAC is the party line these days, for M.D.s of all types. Never mind the facts: “the sky is falling!” You’ll pardon me if I don’t join you in running for cover.

Eileen Sullivan
(My qualifications? I can read.)

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/10/rip-vbac.html#comment-80636 Anonymous Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:27:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/10/rip-vbac.html#comment-80636 The VBAC may be dead because of the modest, but real risk of death associated with it. I'm a believer that a truely informed 'informed consent' should about cover all outcomes. (unfortunately, people who do have the outcome that they didn't like but yet selected for themselves will seek to have a change of heart for their day in court).<br/><br/>Since most women who get their first C section are not fully appraised of the near absolute need for subsequent C section, we could lower the section rate by suing it into oblivion. The VBAC may be dead because of the modest, but real risk of death associated with it. I’m a believer that a truely informed ‘informed consent’ should about cover all outcomes. (unfortunately, people who do have the outcome that they didn’t like but yet selected for themselves will seek to have a change of heart for their day in court).

Since most women who get their first C section are not fully appraised of the near absolute need for subsequent C section, we could lower the section rate by suing it into oblivion.

]]>