BMJ  2005;331:490-491 (3 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.38560.572639.3A (published 22 August 2005)

Paper

Could a randomised trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery

¹ Department of Midwifery Studies, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, ² Lancashire School of Health and Post Graduate Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, ³ Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool L8 7SS, ⁴ University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB, ⁵ School of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool L8 7SS

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Introduction

International concerns about rising rates of caesarean section are counterbalanced by arguments that planned caesarean section without specific clinical indication (such as breech presentation or HIV infection) falls within legitimate maternal choice.¹ Professional opinion is divided. To perform a caesarean section without clinical reason is seen as ethical, in response to maternal request, by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; is enshrined in law in Italy; but is viewed as unethical by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends that a second opinion should be offered.² A well designed, randomised controlled trial of planned caesarean section compared with planned vaginal birth could provide important evidence.³

Participants, methods, and results

We aimed to survey all consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery (gatekeepers to such a trial) practising in England between January 2003 and May 2004. We explored their views of women's requests for caesarean section . . . [Full text of this article]

Comment

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study

José Villar, Guillermo Carroli, Nelly Zavaleta, Allan Donner, Daniel Wojdyla, Anibal Faundes, Alejandro Velazco, Vicente Bataglia, Ana Langer, Alberto Narváez, Eliette Valladares, Archana Shah, Liana Campodónico, Mariana Romero, Sofia Reynoso, Karla Simônia de Pádua, Daniel Giordano, Marius Kublickas, Arnaldo Acosta World Health Organization 2005 Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group
BMJ 2007 335: 1025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Short term outcomes lead to long term questions

Sarah J Buckley
BMJ 2005 331: 698-699. [Extract] [Full Text]

Uncomfortable findings

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

For and against: Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial • FOR • AGAINST

Charles Weijer, Stanley H Shapiro, Kathleen Cranley Glass, and Murray W Enkin
BMJ 2000 321: 756-758. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Villar, J., Carroli, G., Zavaleta, N., Donner, A., Wojdyla, D., Faundes, A., Velazco, A., Bataglia, V., Langer, A., Narvaez, A., Valladares, E., Shah, A., Campodonico, L., Romero, M., Reynoso, S., de Padua, K. S., Giordano, D., Kublickas, M., Acosta, A., World Health Organization 2005 Global Survey on Ma, (2007). Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 335: 1025-1025 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Buckley, S. J (2005). Short term outcomes lead to long term questions. BMJ 331: 698-699 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

short-term outcomes, long-term questions

Sarah J Buckley
bmj.com, 9 Sep 2005 [Full text]

Perhaps this question is better left unanswered

David J R Hutchon
bmj.com, 11 Sep 2005 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>