The rally was yesterday! We had a good turnout, about 40 people, and the weather was PERFECT.
Despite repeated calls, we couldn’t get any news coverage. Apparently people enjoying the various festivals around town this weekend is more interesting than maternal and fetal health. Did you know that Georgia is dead last in the US for maternal mortality?
The location we chose this year was Piedmont Hospital, which has the 2nd highest c-section rate in Atlanta. A representative from the hospital contacted ICAN of Atlanta and the Georgia Birth Network to let us know they were aware of the rally, and wanted to be part of this “positive message sent to the women of Atlanta”. She attached an article that Piedmont’s Chair for Women’s and Newborns Services was interviewed for, suggesting that we might distribute it at the rally, and that it did “a great job of discussing the pros and cons of VBACs”.
Here is the article – VBAC risks and benefits: Is vaginal birth possible after a C-section?
By the title and her description, it sounds like a great article discussing both sides of VBAC vs. elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS), right? The problem is that if you read the article, you will see that it is not. Not even close. The article starts off quoting a recent study about the safety of VBAMC (vaginal birth after multiple cesareans), in this case 3 or more. While this was a very encouraging study, it isn’t the best one to use in an article about VBAC. There are many other studies demonstrating the safety of VBAC. In fact the National Institute of Health concluded at their recent Consensus Development Conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean that:
Given the available evidence, TOL is a reasonable option for many pregnant women with a prior low transverse uterine incision.
Going back to the article, we would expect to see some of the risks and benefits of VBAC laid out in the section titled “Risks and benefits of a VBAC” (or am I crazy here?). Instead what we find are “numerous risks for a woman attempting a vaginal birth after one or more C-sections” listed. The entire section on risks and benefits does not list a single benefit to a VBAC – or a single risk of ERCS. (For the record, some of those risks are infection, hemorrhage, injury to organs, adhesions, hysterectomy, secondary infertility, risks to future pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, accreta, and percreta, and uterine rupture).
Later in the article, a few risks of increasing cesareans are mentioned, but only in the context of how much MORE risky they would make attempting a VBAC after 3 cesareans. I’m really not sure why they are focusing so much on the VBAMC issue and study, when the article isn’t supposed to be about that.
Harry M. McFarling, III, M.D., the Piedmont physician who was touted as doing a great job discussing the pros and cons, instead offers this reason for why the mother might choose an elective repeat cesarean:
A mother with another child at home, for instance, may choose the predictability of a scheduled C-section.
While I’m sure that some mothers might choose this, for some it may be more important to try for the probability of a shorter recovery so that they can take care of their other children. Or it may be more important to them to choose the option that presents a smaller risk of them dying, another risk that the article does not list.
McFarling also says that the reason for the first cesarean is key.
If it was due to failure to progress, if baby was too large or pelvis too small her risk would be greater than, say, a woman who had a C-section for another obstetrical problem that didn’t involve failure to progress in a previous labor.
There are studies showing that if the reason for the previous cesarean was failure to progress (FTP) or cephelopelvic disproportion (CPD aka “baby too big/pelvis too small), the chance of a successful VBAC may be lower. But NOT that the risks of attempting a VBAC is increased. And both FTP and CPD are diagnoses that are not cut and dried. Was failure to progress possibly due to the mother being induced with a low Bishop Score? Or being confined to the bed instead of utilizing upright positions? How long before they declared the labor to have failed to progress? The inability of a baby to fit through the pelvis could also be for many reasons. Was the baby in the optimal position to fit through the pelvis? Was the mother allowed to push in a position that helps the pelvis open up more? Even if the baby was truly too big to fit (which is quite rare), is there any reason to believe that a future baby won’t? Every pregnancy and every baby is different.
The article ends with this gem:
Ultimately, McFarling says, a VBAC is something a mother needs to discuss with her doctor. “Together they can weigh the risks and options to help mom make the best decision for herself and her family.”
The risks and options. Not BENEFITS, because according to this article, there are none. This article is crap. And that’s using a nicer term than I normally would
The decision to attempt a VBAC can be a difficult one, but it should be made with real informed consent. If you are looking for evidence-based information on VBAC vs. ERCS, Childbirth Connection has a very thorough section on VBAC or Repeat Section.
There were hundreds of cars that drove by the rally location, hopefully our signs spurred some conversation or got them thinking about their options.



