|Originally posted by Piglet68
I'm reading conflicting things here...
On the one hand, we all seem to believe that natural birth is safer and less risky than an elected C/S. Well, if that is the case, why are hospitals striving for increased C/S rates based on costs and malpractice? Doesn't this suggest that women are more likely to have complications and increased costs with a vaginal birth? One thing you can count on with insurance and HMO's - they are thinking mainly of the bottom line - the money. So if C/S aren't any safer, and we know that they are more expensive a procedure (surgery is always more expensive - you need more staff, anaesthetics, etc...), then doesn't that suggest that there are more problems with vaginal births?
First off, we know that not everything that modern medicine does is evidence based. But, from a legal standpoint, there is an attitude that "nobody has ever been sued for performing a cesarean". THat is the truth, unfortunately. The push for higher cesarean rates has to do with lowering malpractice insurance. There is a general belief among juries in our country that cesareans are the one thing a doctor can do to avoid any complications. However, losing your uterus or having your baby cut during the surgery is just a unmentionable side effect.
I imagine we may start seeing more suits from cesarean complications. But, I have heard leading doctors in the country and malpractice insurance companies say that the ideal goal is a 50% cesarean rate. The malpractice insurance companies have NEVER been into evidence-based medicine. It's all about covering your ass and what looks good in court.
As an insurance holder, I'm saddened that my premiums are creeping up due to people that smoke, people that don't take care of their bodies, and yes, high interventions and unnecessary surgeries in birth.