Elective caesarean section on request
BMJ 1999; 318 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7176.120 (Published 09 January 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;318:120All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I find it very demeaning that many of the OB/GYN practitioners do not
feel that women should be able to choose elective C-sections and very
interesting that 31% of British female OB's vs only 8% of male OB's would
have elective C-sections for uncomplicated singleton deliveries.
Obviously when it is your own pelvic floor that is at risk it affects
one's decision making.
As a physician who is nearing her own due date I am very insulted
that I am not allowed to make an educated choice to elect for a C-section.
My decision not to undergo spontaneous vaginal delivery is made based on
my own personal experiences with traumatic deliveries while in medical
school: rectovaginal tears, emergency C-sections with death of newborn,
fetal distress during labor, etc.
The practitioners who would deny women the right to make a choice for
elective C-section obviously have missed the boat when it comes to "caring
for your patients." Somewhere in all your statistics and arguing this and
that you have forgotten that it is your priveledge to be a part of a
woman's delivery - not her priveledge to be a part of your practice.
Supporting women's educated, informed choices is the mandate of any
good OB; any good physician for that matter. Not to do so causes harm.
It destroys trust and rapport, makes the woman a mere by-stander in her
own body, and invalidates her sense of what is right for her and her baby.
Competing interests: No competing interests
P. de Zeulueta is surely correct in saying that pregnant woman (like
all patients) have the right to refuse a particular treatment but not to
demand it. I wonder, however, whether it is always clear-cut. Recent
judgements appear to suggest that courts will no longer permit enforced
caesarean sections on competent women [1]. However, it also seems that a
registered doctor or midwife should attend in childbirth (except in
emergency) [2]. Thus, should a woman refuse a caesarean section that the
practitioner strongly believes she should have, this would appear to place
the practitioner in the position of having to partake in a treatment he or
she believes is not in the woman's best interest (i.e. some form of
"conventional" delivery).
References:
[1] Report in Health Service Journal 108(5617):13.8.98:28.
[2] Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, 1979.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Which journal has titled "Too posh to push"
About elective cesarean section.
One journal has titled: Too posh to push.
I would like which journal ? (When and the name of the journal)
and for which woman ?
Competing interests: No competing interests