Archives for posts with tag: feminism

American Heritage Dictionary (my personal favorite) defines treatment in a medical context as

a. The use of an agent, procedure, or regimen, such as a drug, surgery, or exercise, in an attempt to cure or mitigate a disease, condition, or injury.
b. The agent, procedure, or regimen so used.
Notice the terms cure and mitigate.
If we go back to the dictionary, cure is
a. A drug or course of medical treatment used to restore health: discovered a new cure for ulcers.
b. Restoration of health; recovery from disease: the likelihood of cure.
c. Something that corrects or relieves a harmful or disturbing situation:
and mitigate is
a. To make less severe or intense; moderate or alleviate.
Thus, we should expect that any medical treatment should make us better than we would be without it.  Yet reporting on a systematic review in JAMA,  the New York TImes recently ran a piece called “If Patients Only Knew How Often Treatments Could Harm Them.”
Perhaps in these cases, we might want to reconsider using the term “treatment.”
The JAMA review, “Patients’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests,” concludes
The majority of participants overestimated intervention benefit and underestimated harm. Clinicians should discuss accurate and balanced information about intervention benefits and harms with patients, providing the opportunity to develop realistic expectations and make informed decisions.
But where are patients getting this information?  While some may see advertisements for a handful of drugs, for the most part, patients get information on “treatment” from their doctors.  A commentary on the review suggests limiting advertising and changing product labeling to be more transparent (big thumbs up from me on the second one in particular).  It also says that
[A] physician must first understand the risk herself (or himself) and must then communicate it effectively.  It is not clear that physicians do either of these things well.
Addressing OB care, the JAMA article notes that only 9% of women accurately identified the benefits of a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) over an elective repeat cesarean (ERCS), and only 37% accurately identified risks of a TOLAC. Patients also incorrectly identified the benefits of a fetal abnormality scan (90% overestimated the benefits), and 57% could not accurately identify the risks of amniocentesis.
One of the original articles from the review, Trial of Labor After Repeat Cesarean: Are Patients Making an Informed Decision, states
Women in both groups [TOLAC or ERCS] were insufficiently informed about the risks and benefits of TOLAC and ERCS, particularly women in the ERCS group. Specifically, our patients were not familiar with
  • the chances of a successful TOLAC,
  • the effect of indication for previous cesarean section on success,
  • the risk of uterine rupture,
  • the increased length of recovery with ERCS versus TOLAC
  • the increased risk of maternal death, neonatal respiratory compromise, and neonatal intensive care unit admission with ERCS.

In addition, if our patient felt her provider had a preference, she was more likely to choose that mode of delivery, whereas when patients felt their providers were indifferent or if they were unaware of their providers’ preferences, 50% chose one mode and 50% chose the other.

 Note there is no indication that the women who did not feel the provider had a preference were making their own decisions based on accurate information.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that providers rarely provide accurate information–and sometime provide no information, simply saying, “Let’s schedule your cesarean.”  Some examples:
  • Jessica: I was told I need not waste my time trying to attempt a vaginal birth because it would be another long birth that would ultimately end in another section.
  • Jenerra: “I was always told by my doctors that because I had my first c-section that I would have to keep having them, even though my first c-section was the result of an induction gone wrong.”
  • Kiara: I do believe that [my primary cesarean] was the best outcome for everyone, but I knew that I didn’t want that
    experience again. When I discussed this with my OB, she said ‘Oh, we don’t do VBACs in this practice. When you get pregnant again, we’ll just schedule you like a hair appointment. Easy!’
  • Jamie: [My OB said], “You don’t want to VBAC. You don’t need to tear up your little bottom.”
The JAMA article, which is not focused on obstetric care in particular, does not address other common obstetric “treatments.” For instance, many physicians conduct ultrasounds routinely during pregnancy.  A friend of mine said her doctor never measured her fundal height, instead conducting an ultrasound at every appointment, even though there is no indication that having ANY ultrasounds improves pregnancy outcomes.   Other “treatments” for which women may not be adequately informed of benefits and risks include elective inductions,  Pitocin augmentation, and episiotomies, along with any number of other “treatments” offered in prenatal care, labor, and childbirth.
Women often believe they have no say in these procedures at all, as they are often presented as something that is going to occur rather than a choice that the woman can make.  Unfortunately, though ACOG offers excellent guidelines on informed consent, in practice informed consent is rarely more than a women signing a form that she has no time to read, and informed refusal is never on the table at all.  In fact some recent cases have indicated that in some cases doctors override a woman’s informed refusal, as in the case of Rinat Dray’s forced cesarean and Kelly X’s forced episiotomy.
The New York Times report on the JAMA review states:
This study, and others, indicate that patients would opt for less care if they had more information about what they may gain or risk with treatment. Shared decision-making in which there is an open patient-physician dialogue about benefits and harms, often augmented with use of treatment decision aids, like videos, would help patients get that information.
Unfortunately, shared decision making operates as a buzz phrase rather than a practice most of the time.  Perhaps this uninformed approach to “treatment” is why Marinah Valenzuela Farrell, a certified professional midwife, and president of the Midwives Alliance of North America notes in the New York Times series “Is Home Birth Ever a Safe Choice?” that hospitals carry their own risks.
They just don’t inform you about them.

Sociological Images addressed two issues that have been pet peeves of mine for a long time, namely the sexualization of breast cancer and the sexualizing of breastfeeding.  The piece compares the admonishment of the author’s sister-in-law for allowing her “breast to fall out” when she fell asleep nursing on a plane and this 2012 ad for breast cancer awareness:

211

To create momentum to fund breast cancer research, breast cancer has been both feminized/infantilized through pink marketing, and sold as a way for men to save body parts to which they want to preserve sexual access.  Breast cancer awareness is all about the breasts.  Hence, you see bumper stickers that say

imgres-1

or

imgres-2

As if what is being preserved through breast cancer research and treatment are breasts, not human lives.  It is hard to imagine a campaign to raise awareness of testicular cancer that promoted blue teddy bears and selling beer with blue ribbons on it, along with bumper stickers saying “save the wienie beanies” or “save the family jewels” or “save the nuts” (which is what we are if we think such a campaign would ever occur).

While the 2012 ad featured in Sociological Images does include partial faces, many breast cancer awareness ads do not:

images

While it is possible for nubile young women to get breast cancer, most women who get breast cancer look more like this:

Portrait of a happy nurse and patient

Bodies and breasts getting cancer treatment, even when headless, look more like this:

images-1

and despite the blonde locks on the tatas model, many women battling breast cancer do not have hair, having lost it to chemo treatments:

images-2

Somehow, these sexy tata images, including apparently naked women (or women’s torsos), are okay to display because they are for the higher purpose of fighting breast cancer, and perhaps more importantly, preserving breasts so men can be titillated by them (yes, titillated, haha).

While it may be possible to find breastfeeding a baby sexy, usually it is fairly dull.  Most women-infant pairs look something like this while breastfeeding:

images-3

though many new mothers don’t look this good on a regular basis.

But the media also tends to portray breastfeeding as an activity of a breast rather than a human:

images-5

even when the intent is not remotely sexual:

images-4

But many photos of breastfeeding women are sexualized.  Beautiful women with no postpartum paunches wear attractive bras or negligees or form-fitting tops and pull the top down (rather than wearing a loose shirt and lifting it up from the bottom):

mother breast feeding her child, focus on the child

  While some women do feed their babies this way, usually it’s not the first-line choice for feeding in the presence of strangers.

Somehow, this image gets translated to the typical breastfeeding women, who is chastised for allowing her breast to show, or sometimes merely because she is breastfeeding, even if no one can see anything at all other than fabric:

images-6

No one excoriates women for having cancer in public.

The problem with breasts is, apparently, that they are attached to women.  Women need to go out in public to work, shop, get sunshine, see other people, and all of the reasons that human beings generally leave the privacy of their homes.  And when they go out, they take their breasts with them.  And when a woman gets cancer, the pain and fear are experienced by a human being, not a breast.

It’s fine to think breasts are sexy.  it’s not so fine to define them as separate from the women who have them.

????????????????????????

 

I read a comment once about depression as a “minor” side effect of taking oral contraceptives: depression is a minor side effect that merely ruins the entire quality of a woman’s life.  While pretty much everyone feels sad once in a while, depression is not the same as situational sadness.  Here is some basic information on depression from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI):

Major depression is a mood state that goes well beyond temporarily feeling sad or blue. It is a serious medical illness that affects one’s thoughts, feelings, behavior, mood and physical health….Without treatment, the frequency and severity of these symptoms tend to increase over time….[symptoms include] depressed mood (sadness), poor concentration, insomnia, fatigue, appetite disturbances, excessive guilt and thoughts of suicide. Left untreated, depression can lead to serious impairment in daily functioning and even suicide, which is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S.

Fortunately depression is treatable, and one main component of treatment is often taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which include commonly prescribed antidepressants such as Zoloft and Prozac.  Treatment for depression not only impacts quality of life, but life itself.

Imagine my surprise, then, to read New York Times writer Roni Caryn Rabin‘s comparison of giving up prescribed antidepressants to giving up smoking.  And imagine how much more surprising it was when she compared giving up antidepressants to giving up brie.  Yes, brie, as in a single type of gourmet cheese.

brie

I’m sure that anyone who has ever confessed to loving brie more than life was being hyperbolic.

The piece goes on to quote Barbara Mintzes, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health:

If antidepressants made such a big difference, and women on them were eating better, sleeping better and taking better care of themselves, then one would expect to see better birth outcomes among the women who took medication than among similar women who did not.  What’s striking is that there’s no research evidence showing that, [but on the contrary] when you look for it, all you find are harms.

Who is harmed by the continued use of antidepressants, you might ask?  After all, if they were harming the woman, wouldn’t she have stopped taking them on her own?  Wouldn’t it be likely that she would have stopped taking them before she became pregnant?

Well, it turns out that the “harms” of taking antidepressants accrue only to the fetus–maybe.

Among the possible harm that the article lists are autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), lower language competence at age 3, preterm birth, birth defects, a lung disorder, REM sleep disruption, and lower birthweight and Apgar scores.

The problem is, most studies were of low scientific quality.  In some of the studies, when further controls were used, many of the negative outcomes were associated with having a mother with depression, whether or not she took antidepressants.

The article does not distinguish between different SSRIs–although these drugs all impact seratonin, they have different chemical formations.  The only concession to this that the article makes is to note that Paxil in particular is associated with birth defects, but information about Paxil strongly recommends against using it in pregnancy, and the FDA changed Paxil’s labeling and pregnancy category in 2005.

Many women actually do give up antidepressants in pregnancy.  For instance, one study of over 100,000 women in the UK found that “Only 10% of women treated before pregnancy still received antidepressants at the start of the third trimester. In contrast, 35% of nonpregnant women were still treated after a similar time period.”  The study does not indicate whether women who continued using antidepressants had different outcomes.

Rabin’s piece does quote Dr. Roy Perlis, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and author of a study that found a connection between fetal antidepressant exposure and ADHD. Depite this research, he says,

The downside of these studies is that it ends up scaring women away from treatment…the severity of the depression or anxiety can make it very hard for [women] to take care of a child, and is such that their life is at risk if they’re not treated.

The article then closes with an implication that Dr. Adam Urato, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Tufts Medical Center, thinks women should stop using antidepressants in pregnancy in favor of non-drug options such as counseling, exercise, and bright light therapy.  I am in favor of all of these things as first line treatments, but if they are not sufficient, what should a pregnant woman do?

The response from pregnant women and young mothers who read this piece doesn’t indicate that Rabin’s information was helpful.  Isn’t it bad enough to be depressed without being shamed for seeking treatment?

Alexis, the mother of a 7-week-old, says

Well I guess I’m a horrible person and mother…Now I feel guilty about the drug that I was prescribed following a suicide attempt 2 years ago, a drug that literally saved my life.

Rachel, currently pregnant, writes

OMG, I am totally freaking out! I have been taking Prozac for symptoms of anxiety for the last few years. When I became pregnant, my ob/gyn, my current therapist, a past therapist whom I consulted, and my prescribing doctor all assured me, in no uncertain terms, that it would be better for my baby if I stuck to this regimen than if I were to discontinue it. Now I am about to start my second trimester, and I read here, also in no uncertain terms, that all my doctors were wrong! Now what am I supposed to do?! Help!!!

On a brighter note, unlike many articles that generate sympathy primarily for the fetus at the expense of the woman, many commenters here point out the deficits in Rabin’s presentation and her argument.  A number of them  are physicians or nurses, and many are also outraged at the comparison of antidepressant use to smoking and eating cheese.

Here’s Nicole:

As an obstetrician I am mortified that this article starts off by comparing quitting smoking and not drinking alcohol to weaning off SSRIs, and it blames the mother for staying on them while barely mentioning that it can’t happen without providers like me who do the prescribing.

And Alabama Doc:

First, medication for a serious brain disorder is nothing whatsoever analogous to buying cheese…There is muddling of several separate issues here, with the assumption that the women and their doctors are using an ineffective medication just for… what, a lifestyle preference? Yes, we have evidence that non-medication treatment can be highly effective for mild to moderate depression and that there may be no clear benefit of SSRIs for mild depression. For severe depression, however, medication appears to have significant benefit. Notice how all the discussion of risks/ benefits centered around the infant and really nothing was said about the mother? Is the mother’s life so unimportant?

and Caroline Cylkowski, Nurse Practitioner:

Shame on NYtimes for publishing an article completely based on pseudoscience. The author cites the opinions of one MFM doctor and one public health researcher as the basis for her argument. What is scary is that pregnant mothers, who already worry that everything they do might harm their future child, will read this this and discontinue their antidepressants. Antidepressants are not optional medications. The disease they treat has debilitating and sometimes life-threatening consequences.

In contrast to Rabin’s piece, sources from medical institutions take a very different tone.  For instance, Massachusetts General Hospital points out

Many women may consider stopping medication abruptly after learning they are pregnant, but for many women this may carry substantial risks.  Decisions regarding the initiation or maintenance of treatment during pregnancy must reflect an understanding of the risks associated with fetal exposure to a particular medication but must also take into consideration the risks associated with untreated psychiatric illness in the mother. Psychiatric illness in the mother is not a benign event and may cause significant morbidity for both the mother and her child; thus, discontinuing or withholding medication during pregnancy is not always the safest option.

The MGH site goes on to point out that each medication is different and some carry more risks than others.  They identify several antidepressants that appear to have no association with birth defects and point out that symptoms of neonatal withdrawal from antidepressants are generally mild and disappear within a few days.

What is perhaps most disheartening about Rabin’s piece is the addition of women’s legitimate medical treatment to the Pregnancy Outcome Blame Game.  Major causes of birth defects include environmental contamination and domestic abuse.  Major causes of preterm birth are racism and lack of prenatal care.  But these require broader social intervention to mitigate.  How much easier to blame individual women for poor birth outcomes, especially when they are too depressed to defend themselves.

Is this a bowl of eggs or a a bowl of chickens?

fetilized eggs

The eggs are fertilized, so by the logic of those who believe a fertilized human egg is the equivalent of a human being, this is indeed a bowl of chickens.

And this is a fried chicken:

fried egg

 

The claim that fertilized eggs are human beings reminds me of the joke (often attributed to Abraham Lincoln),

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t mean it is one.

One of the main arguments in Hobby Lobby’s case against providing comprehensive contraception is that  morning after pills and IUDs are abortifacients.  Many have pointed out that morning after pills (which are NOT the same as the pills that actual do induce abortion) work by preventing ovulation, and IUDs generally work by thickening cervical mucus and otherwise creating an inhospitable environment for fertilization to occur.  Olga Khazan offers a concise explanation of the whole thing at The Atlantic.

The only method that could possibly meet any definition remotely connected to abortion is the Paraguard IUD, which when inserted up to 5 days after intercourse, appears to prevent pregnancy in ways that no one has entirely determined.  It is remotely possible that one of these ways could be to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

This hypothetical fertilized egg has not developed into an embryo, much less a fetus, even less a baby (or child, adolescent, adult or senior citizen).  You can see slide show showing the process of ovulation to implantation here.  The passion with which some defend the life of a fertilized egg is mirrored only by the passion with which some defend an elephant fetus as a human being (seriously, click the link–the anti abortion crowd passionately defended the humanity of the elephant fetus).  Just in case you are curious, here is a photo of a fertilized human egg:

fertilized egg

And here is a photo of an elephant fetus:

elephant fetus

By the logic of the “personhood” movement, the top image is a person and the bottom image is an elephant.

There are many problems with assigning human status to fertilized human eggs (or elephant fetuses).  But the greatest problem comes when a woman becomes not a human being in her own right, but the vessel for the development of potential humans.

Thus, the argument that Hobby Lobby and others with their beliefs make is that it is immoral for a woman to make her body inhospitable to the implantation of a fertilized egg.  We already know that the methods of contraception that they claim prevent implantation actually prevent fertilization in the first place.  But let’s go ahead and pretend that implantation of a fertilized egg might be prevented.

Why is this a problem?  About half of fertilized eggs do not implant even when a woman is not using any form of contraception at all.  By the logic of the anti-IUD crowd, women should be banned from doing ANYTHING that might interfere with implantation of fertilized eggs.  This might include things such as being underweight.  If a fetilized egg is more likely to implant in heavier women, shouldn;t we force all women to be the ideal weight for implantation?  In fact, if a fertilized egg is a person, and that “person” has the indisputable right to grow inside of another person until it decides it can survive on its own, perhaps we should force all fertile women to take drugs that make implantation more likely.

If women use contraceptives, including IUDs, they are actually less likely to expel fertilized eggs because the eggs are less likely to become fertilized in the first place.  Libby Anne at Love, Joy, Feminism has a great explanation of how using birth control is the best way to prevent the deaths of fertilized eggs/zygotes/blastocysts.  And as I have argued, if we really believed fertilized eggs to be human, we would insist on funeral services and other respectful disposal of them instead of allowing them to pass along with ordinary vaginal discharge (the fertilized egg would be expelled before menstruation; implantation occurs about 5 days after ovulation, but menstruation occurs about two weeks after).

Believing that a fertilized egg is a person does not make it so.  Believing that morning after pills and IUDs cause abortions does not make it so.  And believing that a woman is an obligatory vessel not deserving of human rights does not make it so either.

 

Dr. Patrick Johnson is the director of Personhood Ohio, “an organization committed [to] the restoring the personhood rights of unborn children through an amendment to the Ohio constitution.”

Dr._Patrick_Johnson

In case you are wondering if a woman is a person in Johnson’s intolerant mind, here is the Personhood Ohio argument against abortion:

The Ohio constitution states the following:

Article 1, Section 1: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

Article 1, Section 16: All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.

Thus (according to Personhood Ohio):

The Ohio Personhood Amendment will insert Section 16(b):

“Person” and “men” defined:

(A) The words “person” in Article 1, Section 16, and “men” in Article 1, Section 1, apply to every human being at every stage of the biological development of that human being or human organism, including fertilization.

Apparently if one gives constitutional rights to defend life and liberty and obtain happiness and safety to fertilized eggs but not women, then we have personhood.  Because everyone knows that women are not people.

In any case, Johnson has a new obsession, and that is preventing children and married men from seeing women’s breasts.  here is another area in which a woman’s breast becomes separate from the human breast.  All people have nipples and breast tissue.

There are innumerable arguments about the sexualization of women’s breasts being a social construction.  Here are a few points:

In many indigenous societies, women go topless as a matter of course, and the exposure of breasts is incidental to existing.  Here is a woman farming in Cameroon:

woman farming

In the Victorian era, when women’s sexuality was repressed and showing an ankle was scandalous, breastfeeding was a sign of mothering, which was not considered sexual.  Thus, the ankle, not the breast, was sexualized:

victorian breastfeeding

Throughout history, Mary, who was so desexualized that many worship her as a virgin, has been depicted breastfeeding with exposed breasts:

Maria-Lactans-Mary-and-Child-detail-by-Gerard-David-1490-640x784

And going topless on the beach is typical for women of all ages and sizes in much of Europe (not just for the stereotypically sexy).

Yet we have worked Americans into such a tizzy about human women’s breasts that I once had a class of fifth graders completely freak out when exposed to this image:

nude-with-oranges-1951-1

This is just black lines.  The person represented doesn’t even have a face.  Yet the very idea of a breast is somehow outrageous.  It is somewhat like thinking one must dress a zucchini in a burquah.  Or like the Shel Silverstein poem about putting a bra on camel humps.

Men have breasts, and while people might not like to see them when they are large, they can be exposed with no one challenging the legality of exposure:

imgres

Yet a flat chested women’s breast are somehow obscene:

007bflat

Women’s and men’s breasts are not particularly different.  It is actually possible for men to breastfeed.  Seriously.  There’s even a very short, highly amusing movie about it, “Milk Men,” which you can watch here.

But preventing women from exposing their breasts, particularly when exposure is incidental to breastfeeding, is a way to have men define women’s sexuality and thus demand to control women’s bodies.  When people tell women to cover up, sit in toilet stalls, or stay home because they are feeding babies, they are telling women that they cannot be female in public.  They are privileging certain people’s perceptions of a woman’s body over the actual woman in that body.

People have nipples.  Everyone is born with them.  It is not an exciting concept:

nipples

Can you even be certain which of these belong to women and which to men?

Then whose body will you know to control?

Let’s say you are CPR certified and the woman next to you on the morning commuter train goes into cardiac arrest.  Is your first thought, I had better let this woman die because if I perform CPR, I might hurt her fetus?  Apparently this is the attitude of many health care providers.
The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) has issued a new consensus statement regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for pregnant women.  Pregnant women may have special needs regarding CPR, especially later in pregnancy when the size of the fetus compresses veins sending blood back to the heart.
cpr_pregnant
Sometimes a hysterotomy (basically a cesarean, but the idea is to get the fetus out of the woman’s body) is the best way to preserve the woman’s life.  Some might be concerned about hysterotomy because of the concern for the life of the fetus being born prematurely.  We might then ask, what happens to a fetus inside of a woman who has gone into cardiac arrest and dies?  Well, the fetus generally dies too.
One of the things the new guidelines state is the importance of administering care that prioritizes saving the pregnant woman’s life.  Generally when a person goes into cardiac arrest, saving that person’s life is the goal, and it is alarming that it has to be stated that the life of a pregnant woman is equally valuable to the life of any other person who goes into cardiac arrest.
In a Q & A with Brendan Carvalho, Chief of Obstetric Anesthesia at Stanford University Medical Center, Dr. Carvalho notes that pregnancy CPR guidelines are important because pregnancy can increase a woman’s risk for cardiac arrest (and all women, pregnant or not, are at some level of risk).  It is laudable to recognize the normalcy of pregnancy in a woman’s life and determine how to provide appropriate medical treatment.  While Carvalho notes that U.S. maternal mortality has decreased dramatically over the last century, he does not mention that it has increased dramatically over the last two decades, with a rate that is now among the worst in the developed world.  The U.S. rates 60th nationally–59 countries have lower maternal death rates.
Perhaps part of rising maternal mortality stems from an attitude toward pregnant women that their humanity is suspended while they perform as vessels for fetal growth.  Such an attitude has been evidenced in the case of  Marlise Munoz (see here), the Texas woman whose dead body was kept artificially functioning against her wishes and those of her family so that it could serve as an incubator for her fetus. Louisiana has created an official law (which is expected to be signed by the governor) that mandates women’s dead bodies be artificially sustained as incubators for any fetus inside them that has reached 20 weeks.   Pregnant women are routinely criminalized for behavior that is not prosecuted in other adults, such as alcohol consumption or refusing to follow the recommendations of a physician (see here), indicating that pregnant women cannot be accorded basic human rights–the kind of rights accorded to all other adult humans.
Carvalho says,
Caregivers are often reluctant to administer medication to pregnant women because of potential harm to the baby. The consensus statement emphasized that caregivers can use the same drugs they typically give to a nonpregnant patient who has a cardiac arrest. The best thing you can do for baby is to provide the mom the best possible care and not withhold any drugs or procedures that would normally be used managing a critically ill person.
The key word here is person.  What justification would there ever be to intentionally withhold treatment from a critically ill person whose life could be preserved?  If pregnant women were truly viewed as people, no one–not Carvalho, not anyone–would ever have to make this statement.

There has been renewed interest in cesareans in the news (and on this blog) since the release of the ACOG/SMFM consensus statement on preventing primary cesareans in March.  When all health care providers are following best practices, rates of procedures should be relatively similar in patients with similar risk profiles.  This is not so for cesareans, where rates of the procedure in low risk births (singleton, cephalic fetus at term; woman with no health complications) can range from less than 5% to nearly 60% depending on the hospital.

Recently the Contra Costa Times ran a story about the issue in which they quoted Dr. Kirsten Salmeen (whose research interests indicate that she is interested in shared decision making models).  Here is the section of the story in which she comments on practice variation:

Why such profound variations? Should our standards of medical practice be so flexible?

The answer is “complicated” replies Dr. Kirsten Salmeen of the Maternal Fetal Medicine Division at UC San Francisco. She thinks variations in cesarean rates across the country are “likely due to a combination of factors.” That includes differences in patient populations and preferences, provider availability and coverage, hospital and provider culture, access to anesthesia and surgical obstetric services, and the prevailing medico-legal climate.

For example, Salmeen proposed that a difference in rate might depend upon the scope of available obstetrical services. In a hospital staffed with 24/7 obstetric coverage and resourced to provide a C-section when needed, a woman might be allowed more time for labor with a vaginal delivery. In contrast, that may not be as feasible with a solo or small-group provider who’d have to cancel scheduled clinic appointments with many patients in order to wait upon one patient’s labor.

While resource allocation can affect cesareans, in many countries, scant resources mean that women cannot get cesareans that they do need, which is one reason infant and maternal mortality rates are so high in developing nations where hospitals are not universally accessible by birthing women.  It seems preposterous that a lack of resources would lead to more cesareans–it’s how those resources are allocated.

The more important question in terms of shared decision making and informed consent is what women are told when a doctor performs a cesarean.  Are they given the real reasons as outlined by Dr. Salmeen:

  • Does an obstetrician in solo practice say, “Your labor is normal and you and the baby are doing fine but it looks like your birth is going to take several more hours, and I have patients waiting at the office, so is it okay if I just do a cesarean?”
  • Or perhaps in a state with high malpractice claims, the obstetrician says, “Your labor is normal and you and the baby are doing fine, but you had a brief indeterminate fetal heart rate tracing, and if your baby isn’t perfect, you could use that to sue me, so is it okay if I just do a cesarean?”
  • Or perhaps the obstetrician says, “Our culture here at this hospital is to do cesareans on women who don’t really need them, so let’s schedule yours now.”

Somehow, I think not.  Here is a video, intended to be humorous, in which the “OB” convinces a woman to have a cesarean, which “will be way easier” for him:

 

Unfortunately, the kinds of things the actor says are often not that far from things some obstetricians say in real life.

As Dr. Elliott Main (a generally great guy) points out, a doctor can convince pretty much any woman to have a cesarean.  Few women will refuse when a doctor tells them their baby is in danger.

That’s a much easier sell than needing to get back to the office.

 

%d bloggers like this: