13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ‘Maternal request’ caesarean sections and medical necessity

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Currently, many women who are expecting to give birth have no option but to attempt vaginal delivery, since access to elective planned caesarean sections (PCS) in the absence of what is deemed to constitute ‘clinical need’ is variable. In this paper, we argue that PCS should be routinely offered to women who are expecting to give birth, and that the risks and benefits of PCS as compared with planned vaginal delivery should be discussed with them. Currently, discussions of elective PCS arise in the context of what are called ‘Maternal Request Caesarean Sections’ (MRCS) and there is a good deal of support for the position that women who request PCS without clinical indication should be provided with them. Our argument goes further than support for acceding to requests for MRCS: we submit that healthcare practitioners caring for women with uncomplicated pregnancies have a positive duty to inform them of the option of PCS as opposed to assuming vaginal delivery as a default, and to provide (or arrange for the provision of) PCS if that is the woman's preferred manner of delivery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study

          (2011)
          Objective To compare perinatal outcomes, maternal outcomes, and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour for women with low risk pregnancies. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting England: all NHS trusts providing intrapartum care at home, all freestanding midwifery units, all alongside midwifery units (midwife led units on a hospital site with an obstetric unit), and a stratified random sample of obstetric units. Participants 64 538 eligible women with a singleton, term (≥37 weeks gestation), and “booked” pregnancy who gave birth between April 2008 and April 2010. Planned caesarean sections and caesarean sections before the onset of labour and unplanned home births were excluded. Main outcome measure A composite primary outcome of perinatal mortality and intrapartum related neonatal morbidities (stillbirth after start of care in labour, early neonatal death, neonatal encephalopathy, meconium aspiration syndrome, brachial plexus injury, fractured humerus, or fractured clavicle) was used to compare outcomes by planned place of birth at the start of care in labour (at home, freestanding midwifery units, alongside midwifery units, and obstetric units). Results There were 250 primary outcome events and an overall weighted incidence of 4.3 per 1000 births (95% CI 3.3 to 5.5). Overall, there were no significant differences in the adjusted odds of the primary outcome for any of the non-obstetric unit settings compared with obstetric units. For nulliparous women, the odds of the primary outcome were higher for planned home births (adjusted odds ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.86) but not for either midwifery unit setting. For multiparous women, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the primary outcome by planned place of birth. Interventions during labour were substantially lower in all non-obstetric unit settings. Transfers from non-obstetric unit settings were more frequent for nulliparous women (36% to 45%) than for multiparous women (9% to 13%). Conclusions The results support a policy of offering healthy women with low risk pregnancies a choice of birth setting. Women planning birth in a midwifery unit and multiparous women planning birth at home experience fewer interventions than those planning birth in an obstetric unit with no impact on perinatal outcomes. For nulliparous women, planned home births also have fewer interventions but have poorer perinatal outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study.

            To assess and compare the preferences of pregnant women in the public and private sector regarding delivery in Brazil. Face to face structured interviews with women who were interviewed early in pregnancy, about one month before the due date, and about one month post partum. Four cities in Brazil. 1612 pregnant women: 1093 public patients and 519 private patients. Rates of delivery by caesarean section in public and private institutions; women's preferences for delivery; timing of decision to perform caesarean section. 1136 women completed all three interviews; 476 women were lost to follow up (376 public patients and 100 private patients). Despite large differences in the rates of caesarean section in the two sectors (222/717 (31%) among public patients and 302/419 (72%) among private patients) there were no significant differences in preferences between the two groups. In both antenatal interviews, 70-80% in both sectors said they would prefer to deliver vaginally. In a large proportion of cases (237/502) caesarean delivery was decided on before admission: 48/207 (23%) in women in the public sector and 189/295 (64%) in women in the private sector. The large difference in the rates of caesarean sections in women in the public and private sectors is due to more unwanted caesarean sections among private patients rather than to a difference in preferences for delivery. High or rising rates of caesarean sections do not necessarily reflect demand for surgical delivery.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              FIGO position paper: how to stop the caesarean section epidemic

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Ethics
                Clin Ethics
                CET
                spcet
                Clinical Ethics
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1477-7509
                1758-101X
                26 June 2023
                September 2023
                : 18
                : 3 , Special Issue: Medical Necessity
                : 312-320
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford, UK
                [2 ]School of Law, Ringgold 8809, universityTrinity College, Dublin 2; , Ireland
                Author notes
                [*]Rebecca CH Brown, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Suite 8 Littlegate House, 16–17 St Ebbe's Street, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK. Email: rebecca.brown@ 123456philosophy.ox.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8023-1092
                Article
                10.1177_14777509231183365
                10.1177/14777509231183365
                7614977
                37635933
                dd89c234-ae0b-4b33-9530-17ea37bea6a8
                © The Author(s) 2023

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Arts and Humanities Research Council, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000267;
                Award ID: AH/W005077/1
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100010269;
                Award ID: WT203132/Z/16/Z
                Categories
                Papers
                Custom metadata
                ts19

                Ethics
                caesarean section,medical necessity,informed consent < clinical ethics,autonomy,childbirth,decision making

                Comments

                Comment on this article