Originally Posted by dinahx
As it is, when something wrong happens, as long as the baby is relatively fine, most moms DON'T sue or even report the malpractice. And so it continues . . .
Well, the thing is, you *can't* sue for malpractice (and win) unless you can demonstrate harm. The real issue is, we need to look at our definitions of "harm" and include things that are NOT obvious death or disability. If mom has an unnecessary surgical birth, and then is unable to establish nursing and has to formula-feed, we need to be able to argue IN COURT that the extra health costs of formula-feeding instead of nursing are, to some extent, a consequence of the surgical delivery. We actually can calculate the average extra costs of illness, time off school/work, etc. caused by formula feeding, and the percentage increase in formula feeding due to cesarean births, so this *should* be doable... but you need (1) a standard of care that recognizes these factors and (2) expert witnesses who will testify to them.
Unfortunately, the differential rates of exclusive nursing for babies born surgically is the EASIEST to prove. The long-term effects of slowed bonding, mom's incapacity immediately after the birth, and the effect on future pregnancies and births is somewhat more nebulous, but not less significant.
You show a jury a picture of a dead or mutilated baby, they'll give you money every time. You show them a baby sucking on a bottle, and they say, "What's the problem?" And that's where we're at right now. So, the question is, where do we go from here?