Choose your font:
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Source Sans Pro


[Valid RSS] RSS

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Description of this bibliographical database (AFAR website)
Currently 3106 records
YouTube channel (tutorial)

Created on : 02 Dec 2004
Modified on : 02 Dec 2007

 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!

Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Easy

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Letter. Making sense of rising caesarean section rates. Caesarean section on demand is obstetric dilemma. The British Medical Journal 2004;329:1240.

Author(s) :

Jain V.

Year of publication :


URL(s) :…

Résumé (français)  :

Reponse a ’editorial fiche 904.

Abstract (English)  :

EDITOR—Anderson’s editorial on rising caesarean section rates highlights an important medical and ethical dilemma in current obstetric practice—the relevance of patients’ choice in deciding the mode of delivery.1 Anderson points out the lack of clear evidence supporting caesarean section as a safer option in terms of immediate and long term pregnancy outcomes.

Clarification of this issue can help resolve the ethical and moral conflict of doctors who agree to perform a caesarean section at the mother’s request in the absence of a medical indication. In addition, it would make the informed consent for a vaginal delivery more complete, with information on the short and long term complications, including risk of pelvic floor dysfunction.

Fetal distress, labour dystocia, and previous caesarean section are the commonest indications for caesarean section. However, at least for the first two indications it is not possible to carry out randomised controlled trials to study the safer route of delivery. By the time the fetal distress or labour dystocia is diagnosed, a continued trial of vaginal delivery is not feasible in many cases. For example, a baby cannot be delivered vaginally when cephalopelvic disproportion is diagnosed in active labour or when fetal acidaemia worsens far from delivery. Therefore such cases cannot be randomised to vaginal delivery or caesarean section.

Instead, a feasible and informative trial may be to randomise women during early pregnancy into two groups—a trial of vaginal delivery versus elective caesarean section, with analysis on an intention to treat basis rather than actual mode of delivery. Comparison of outcomes for mothers and babies from such a trial will go a long way in guiding evidence based obstetric practice.

Sumário (português)  :

Resumen (español)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Argumento (español):

Keywords :

➡ c-section/caesarean ; evidence-based medicine/midwifery ; ethics ; deontology ; informed consent ; fetal distress ; dystocy

Author of this record :

Cécile Loup — 02 Dec 2004
➡ latest update : Bernard Bel — 02 Dec 2007

Discussion (display only in English)
➡ Only identified users

 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)


New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact


This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR,
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE,
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting AFAR (see below)
(3) or joining the AFAR (or another society affiliated with CIANE).
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase) for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donating to AFAR (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth