I am generally a really big fan of RH Reality Check, including the quality of their reporting on health topics, which can be tricky for non medical types. They are also pretty good at posting on research, which can be an issue for non research types. Well, I am happy they covered the recent favorable VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) study I talked about in the last post. But, I was a little surprised that the weekly news magazine reporting on the study, US News & World Report, was mentioned several times by name, but it was never mentioned that the primary study was published in the ACOG journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. A minor point, but it is always a good idea to try to read the original research when writing about a study, and it adds strength to the good representation of the study already done in the blog entry if you mention it was published in the leading ob/gyn journal in the country, published by the organization that writes the position statements on standards of care in obstetrics in the United States, don’t ya think?
Anyway, after much ado, here is the post and here is my reply:
Not only was this study reviewed in US News & World Report, but it was published in this month’s issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which is the journal of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).
What is a shame is that hospitals, doctors, and as noted above, insurance companies are refusing this option, even though all the evidence points that it is a safer and better health decision and the intervention of cesarean is more dangerous. This happened to a friend recently, and she showed up in labor the day before her scheduled repeat section. And they still forced her to have a cesarean, even though that flies in the face of the evidence even more.
What is ironic is that it is ACOG’s own position statement on VBAC, recommending that a team be available for immediate cesarean, is part of the justification for refusing VBACs.