An Argument For An Case Of Minimal Medicalized Intervention During Birth

Giving birth to a baby is the most amazing and miraculous experiences for parents and their loved ones. Every woman’s birth story is different and full of joy. Furthermore, the process from the moment a woman knows that she’s pregnant to being in the delivering room is very critical to both her and the newborn baby. Prenatal care is extremely important and it can impact greatly the quality of life of the baby. In this paper, the topic of giving birth will be discussed thoroughly by describing the stories of two mothers who gave birth in different decades and see how their prenatal cares are different from each other with correlation of the advancement of modern medicine between four decades.

Johnson et al. emphasize lower cesarean section rates of physician-mothers under physician-induced demand (2). One reason concerns higher reimbursement of surgical births rather than vaginal deliveries, which functions as a non-medical factor. Financial incentives are imposed on uninformed patients so that cesarean deliveries become more frequent in the health environment. Despite the non-medical factors applying cesarean sections should be regarded in terms of maternal mortality and morbidity. In addition, performing the vaginal delivery safely could involve more resources and treatment of any arising complications during the birth. Patients’ knowledge about interventions could achieve larger cuts in cesarean section

The author is a nurse in a level two trauma facility in a community of approximately fifty thousand people in Oregon. The community is a college-town surrounded by a large agricultural area. There is a minimal ethnic diversity within the community. The diversity present occurs mainly from internationally students and faculty from the college. There is a growing population of women who desire low interventional births in the community. The author has worked on the labor and delivery unit of the hospital for the last 14 years. The hospital is the only one in the area to offer trial of labor services to women who have previously undergone a cesarean section. The unit on average experiences around 1000 deliveries annually.

The intent of this paper is to examine effective solutions for reducing cesarean deliveries. Cesarean deliveries involve more risk to both the mother and baby than vaginal births do. Cesarean deliveries have a higher potential of complications than vaginal births. Cesarean deliveries cost more, require longer hospital stays, and require more resources—both human and systemic—than vaginal births.

Over the years birthing methods have changed a great deal. When technology wasn’t so advanced there was only one method of giving birth, vaginally non-medicated. However, in today’s society there are now more than one method of giving birth. In fact, there are three methods: Non-medicated vaginal delivery, medicated vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery, also known as c-section. In the cesarean delivery there is not much to prepare for before the operation, except maybe the procedure of the operation. A few things that will be discussed are: the process of cesarean delivery, reasons for this birthing method and a few reasons for why this birthing method is used. Also a question that many women have is whether or not they can vaginally

Cesarean section (C/S) births can occur in the hospital for several reasons. Some women choose to have elective C/S birth and others require C/S births out of infant or maternal safety, complications, or by necessity. This paper discusses both elective and emergency C/S deliveries and reviews both National Guideline policy and Carilion Clinic policies on C/S births. The problem statement is: in pregnant women (population), does C/S delivery following National or Carilion policies (IV: exposure vs. none-exposure) differ in terms of patient care and outcomes concerning maternal and neonatal health (DV)?

Healthy childbirth is defined as a safe, natural process that rarely requires medical intervention (Goer & Romano, 2012). The medical model of care, however, often includes interventions that are not supported by the evidence and can increase a woman’s risk of having a cesarean section. These intrusions into labor and birth often lead to what has been called the “cascade of interventions” (DeClercq, Sakala, Corry,

In the United States giving birth has become medicalized and it is because the medical community has convinced women that having a baby in a medical facility is mandatory and better for the baby. Medial birth is not natural birth. The American populace is uneducated about the natural process of labor. The overwhelming amount of women having babies in hospitals is unique to the United States. Most other nations including first world nations, women give birth in the presence of midwives rather than a doctor. According to experts documented in the film, “The United States has the second worst newborn death rate in the developed world.” Also “The US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among all industrializes countries.” The makers of this film link those fact with the common practice of hospital birthing. According to the film makers, Doctors should only be used in high risk pregnancy and births.

In this article they observed the increased rate of c-sections among women that used epidural intervention during labor. The study was conducted among 753,895 women between the years of 2000-2003.

In today’s era, new moms to be have developed different opinions about birthing techniques. Some strongly demand for a vaginal delivery, some wish to opt for C-sec just to avoid labor pains and many more. All these opinions are based on several myths and facts associated with delivery patterns. Doctors guide the patients the correct delivery pattern based on several factors most important being the maternal and fetal health. Following are some myths associated with caesarian section and their reality:

“In the United States, approximately 25,000 births (0.6%) per year occur in the home. Approximately one fourth of these births are unplanned or unattended. Among women who originally intend to give birth in a hospital or those who make no provisions for professional care during childbirth, subsequent unplanned home births are associated with high rates of perinatal and neonatal mortality. The relative risk versus benefit of a planned home birth, however, remains the subject of current debate” (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists).

For a woman’s next birth after caesarean, she is faced with the choice between having a repeat elective caesarean section or a vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC). If a woman fits the criteria for a VBAC, she should always be offered a VBAC before being booked for a repeat elective caesarean section. This is supported by discussing the benefits and risks of having a VBAC, the risks of a caesarean section, views of healthcare professionals, the impact on subsequent births and women’s beliefs on both VBAC and repeat elective caesarean section.

Many people question which method is the best way to deliver a baby, hospital birth or homebirth? Considering the risk and interventions associated with both births that have plagued people’s minds for years. The increase rate of birth defects, including the physical and emotional damage contributed to the mother and the baby before and after pregnancy, have left people minds with a moot. Growing into a continuous debate, hospitals and professional providers have struggled to find an answer to the question which method is safer and will provide fewer risk and interventions. Nonetheless, this topic is relevant because of women wanting a safer birth method for their baby; and although some women can handle pain tolerance, others cannot, which

Not many large scale studies of the safety of home birth have been done in North America, perhaps because home birth in the United States and Canada is still considered “fringe” by many. To remedy this, in 2000, authors Kenneth Johnson and Betty-Anne Daviss conducted a large scale prospective study of planned home births in both countries. Few distinctions were made between nulliparous and multiparous women, but because it was the only large-scale study done in the United States, it is included in the review. The North American Registry of Midwives made participation in the study mandatory for recertification, and in the end 409 midwives agreed to participate. Each midwife obtained consent from their patients, who were then tracked through their pregnancies to six weeks post-partum. Data was sent back to the authors every three months. In total, 5418 women were included in the study. All were considered low-risk and planned to deliver at home. Low-risk was defined in this, and the subsequent studies cited, as singleton, vertex births at 37 weeks or more gestation, receiving prenatal care. Of those 5418 women, 655 (12%) were transferred to the hospital intrapartum (83.4%), mainly for failure to progress, pain relief or exhaustion. Following delivery, 1.3% of mothers and 0.7% of infants were transferred, mainly due to maternal hemorrhage or infant respiratory distress. Transfer rates of nulliparous women were four times higher than multiparous women.

Prenatal care is widely accepted as an important element in improving pregnancy outcome. (Gorrie, McKinney, Murray, 1998). Prenatal care is defined as care of a pregnant woman during the time in the maternity cycle that begins with conception and ends with the onset of labor. A medical, surgical, gynecologic, obstretic, social and family history is taken (Mosby's Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, 1998). It is important for a pregnant woman as well as our society to know that everything that you do has an effect on your baby. Because so many women opt not to receive the benefits of prenatal care, our society sees the ramification, which include a variety of complications primarily