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.
This article on the US caesarean rate is expected of a tabloid
newspaper but not in a scientific journal.
The "American Way of Birth" has had a lot to answer for over the
years and this is another example. Citing the old bogey of scar rupture
and then fetal trauma would more likely suggest inability to manage VBAC
properly,poor wound repair,poor understanding of the use of
Prostaglandins, and deficient skills in managing the second stage of
labour...whether by spontaneous delivery or by assisted birth (loss of
skill in forceps or ventouse delivery).
For a good review of the literature (albeit with some subjective
comment) I would refer readers (including Dr Sachs) to Henci Goer's
excellent work "Obstetric Myths vs Research Realities.....A review of the
Medical Literature".
Making women afraid of the birth process and destroying their
confidence in their bodies' innate abilities (the paternalistic model of
obsterics) does nothing but increase the intervention rate.
Philip Watters MB.BS.FRANZCOG.FRCOG.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
12 March 1999
Phil Watters
Private Practice Obs&Gyn Hobart Tasmania Australia
Sensationalist Journalism vs Scientific Data
This article on the US caesarean rate is expected of a tabloid
newspaper but not in a scientific journal.
The "American Way of Birth" has had a lot to answer for over the
years and this is another example. Citing the old bogey of scar rupture
and then fetal trauma would more likely suggest inability to manage VBAC
properly,poor wound repair,poor understanding of the use of
Prostaglandins, and deficient skills in managing the second stage of
labour...whether by spontaneous delivery or by assisted birth (loss of
skill in forceps or ventouse delivery).
For a good review of the literature (albeit with some subjective
comment) I would refer readers (including Dr Sachs) to Henci Goer's
excellent work "Obstetric Myths vs Research Realities.....A review of the
Medical Literature".
Making women afraid of the birth process and destroying their
confidence in their bodies' innate abilities (the paternalistic model of
obsterics) does nothing but increase the intervention rate.
Philip Watters MB.BS.FRANZCOG.FRCOG.
Competing interests: No competing interests