Posted on 11/23/2004 2:04:08 PM PST by WuzaDem
WASHINGTON (AP) - More than a quarter of babies born in the United States in 2003 were delivered by Caesarean section, the highest rate on record, according to a government report released Tuesday.
Birth rates for teenagers continued their steady decline last year while increasing for women age 35 to 44, the report from the National Center for Health Statistics said. The agency is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nearly 4.1 million births were recorded in the United States in 2003, a slight increase over 2002. Roughly 1.13 million, or 27.6 percent, were Caesarean deliveries. The rate is up by a third since 1996, said the report, which is a preliminary look at U.S. births last year.
A Caesarean section is major abdominal surgery with serious potential side effects. The report does not distinguish between those that were medically necessary and those that were elective.
The question of whether it should be performed when natural childbirth poses no threat to either mother or baby is controversial among obstetricians.
One unexplained trend in the annual report is the continued increase in the rate of premature and low birthweight babies even though the teen birth rate dropped, fewer women were smoking while pregnant, and more women were getting timely prenatal care.
The rate of babies born after less than 37 weeks of gestation rose slightly to 12.3 percent, the report said, and those weighing less than 5.5 pounds increased slightly to 7.9 percent last year.
Some of the rise in these early births can be tied to the increasing number of older mothers, who naturally and through fertility treatments are more likely to have twins and triplets. These babies are more likely to be born early and weigh less, said Joyce Martin, an epidemiologist and author of the report.
"But it's important to note that the increase in preterm and low birthweight is not restricted to older moms and for women just having singletons. So something else is going on here, too," Martin said.
Among other statistics in the report:
- Births to unmarried mothers rose slightly.
- Women of Hispanic origin had the highest birth rate, 96.9 per 1,000 women, compared to the overall rate of 66.1.
- Two teenage girls younger than 15 gave birth to at least their fourth child.
- There were 1,512 first-time mothers between the ages of 45 and 54.
---
On the Net:
2003 U.S. births report: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04facts/birthrates.htm
This has been going on for a long time, well before John Edwards filed any lawsuit. This was an issue when my kids were born, 20+ years ago for the oldest.
Blaming Edwards and lawsuits is an oversimplification. Sometimes it just makes sense. Some women just can't deliver on their own.
Blaming Edwards and lawsuits is an oversimplification. Sometimes it just makes sense. Some women just can't deliver on their own.
"The report does not distinguish between those that were medically necessary and those that were elective.
The question of whether it should be performed when natural childbirth poses no threat to either mother or baby is controversial among obstetricians. "
From what I've seen a lot more women are choosing to have C sections because of the pain of childbirth or they want to pick a childs birthdate. My firstborn son was an emergency C section (unexplained bleedout) and my second son was delivered about as naturally as one can say when painkillers are involved :)
The rate for Caesarean births can only increase. The limiting factors in natural childbirth are the size of the child's head, and the size of the opening in the pelvic bone of the mother. Increased use of Caesarean birth will skew the natural selection process towards larger heads and smaller pelvic openings. This will necessitate more Caesarean deliveries. After the fall of civilization, many children will die because their heads will not go through the pelvises of their mothers.
My own son was delivered by C-section long before John Edwards' first ($6.5 million) judgment was awarded, but Edwards himself filed more than 20 similar lawsuits after that "victory" and other attorneys naturally followed suit (no pun intended). In January of this year a jugde in Long Island returned a $122 million award in a similar case.
It's a fact that doctors are increasingly practicing "defensive medicine" because of lawsuits--and of course the lawyers who file them. They now have to keep themselves updated on the latest legal actions as well as the latest developments in medicine, and you can bet that an award of $112 million has not gone unnoticed by the nation's OB/GYN specialists. If the case itself did not get their attention, then the attention it got during the recent presidential campaign (sparse though it was) certainly helped bring to the attention of even more people.
I'm not trying to attribute all or most of the rise in Caesarean deliveries to Mr. Edwards or other PI attorneys, but no one deny that there will certainly be more C-sections performed as a result of the type of lawsuit he helped to "pioneer". That's not good for the mother, child, or society as a whole.
That is some strange language.
Vaginal births tend to take a lot longer - dilating to 10 takes time, the pushing stage takes time, and waiting for the perineum to stretch so the head can emerge takes time. Labor and delivery takes hours. No, the doctor is usually not there until the very end, but the hours must weigh on him as well, knowing his patient is in labor.
C-sections take less than an hour of an OB's time. The stage is set, the mother is prepped, he comes in and does his thing, then leaves.
I think it is perfered to have caesarean after having your first via that method? Don't really know, to be honest.
Wow, Just Darn...
That's why the hospital where my wife delivered will not allow a natural birth after a previous c-section delivery. When she was ready to have our second child, they told her there was too much risk of the scar tissue tearing - she had no option.
"larger heads and smaller pelvic openings".
My Dad, just an old farmer as he always reminds us, brought a farming analogy to the discussion: don't breed a big-shouldered bull to a small heifer.
It is also true that "older mothers" don't have the same response to the elastin that they would have at a younger age. That relaxes the ligaments of the pelvis during pregnancy, permitting it to open more.
And you just thought moms who could not fit into the same pair of jeans they wore before pregnancy, just got FAT. No, the pelvic bones do not recede to their previous position entirely; it is not a matter how much weight is lost.
Congratulations and good luck!
Your hospital is telling you a half truth. Yes, there's a risk of the old scar rupturing.....only it's less than one-half of one percent. And if the old scar actually does start re-opening, their monitors will pick it up.
Our first was a C-section (1st baby, 10 lbs, no thanks) and the next three were natural. I had a certified nurse midwife who was there the entire time and didn't leave me to be 'managed' by the nurses who are often too busy.
"will not allow a natural birth after a previous c-section delivery. "
That is a shame. A C-section is a painful surgery, with many weeks to heal. My advice: Find another hospital and/or OB group -- IF possible!!
Where I went, they promoted natural birth after a 1st C-section. The doc managed things well; after 2 hours of pushing, he put me in the OR, tried the vacuum suction, and said, if the baby would not come out, he would have to do a C-section. So I pushed for all I was worth and she was born.
For the first baby, a C-sec, the (OTHER) docs waited til I had NO strength left to push for a try with the vacuum or forceps, after MANY hours of 2nd stage labor -- IMO it was the docs fault they "had" to do a C-section. [so, I went to another hosp/OB group the next time!] Those many hours of labor caused stress on the baby; the C-sect. wound later became infected and busted open . . . HORROR story. I would NEVER have a C-sec. if it could be avoided! It is NOT convenient, it is SURGERY!
The Edwards factor is not beneign for another reason, besides women having to undergo unnecessary MAJOR surgery: an OB here sent a postcard out before the election, saying he was forced to relocate to another state because of high malpractise insurance rates -- even tho HE had never been sued!
"natural birth after a previous c-section delivery"
just thought of the name: VBAC (everything has to have an acronym these days!). Vaginal Birth After C-section. They had brochures about it; there must be stuff on the Internet you could print out and wave in the doc's face!
They also failed to account for the use of EFM (external fetal monitoring). Speaking from experience (4 times over, lol) when you have an epidural, or have your labor induced, they will put those monitors over the belly to measure the baby's responses to the stresses of labor. Sometimes it's just "hospital policy"--thanks, John Edwards! They are picking up a lot of things that used to go unnoticed...hence, more cesearean births. I personally plan to avoid it -meaning EFM or induction of labor- with my next baby (due in June). I don't want a c-section when I have avoided one thus far! Just my observation, for what it's worth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.