Choose your font:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 English 
 Français 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

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

Description of this bibliographical database (AFAR website)
Currently 2992 records
YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://afar.info/id=831

Created on : 08 Jul 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) :

Elective cesarean section. Letters. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2004;171(1):13.

Author(s) :

Badrinath P.

Year of publication :

2004

URL(s) :

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/1/13-a?eto…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

Mary Hannah concludes her commentary on elective cesarean section1 by suggesting that if, after appropriate counselling, a woman continues to perceive that the benefits of such a procedure outweigh the risks, her health and welfare "will be promoted by supporting her request."

In this regard, it is important that all evidence on the benefits and harms be presented to the prospective mother. The UK’s National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), which provides authoritative, robust and reliable guidance on current "best practice" to patients, health care professionals and the public,2 is currently developing clinical guidelines on cesarean section,3 expected to be released in April 2004 [the guidelines have now been published; see CMAJ 2004;170(12):1779.—Editor].

According to the draft document (page 27),3 "maternal request is not on it’s [sic] own an indication for [cesarean section]," and "pregnant women should be supported in whatever decision is made following these discussions." The draft (pages 19–21) provides current evidence on length of stay, abdominal pain, perineal pain, postpartum hemorrhage, infection, breastfeeding, bladder and urinary tract injuries, need for further surgery, risk of thromboembolic disease and many other clinical outcomes, the majority of these data favouring vaginal birth over cesarean section.

Women should have a right to exercise their choice on the mode of delivery even when there are no clinical indications for cesarean section. However, providing this procedure in a publicly funded system such as the UK’s National Health Service would increase the overall cost, and the opportunity cost thus incurred might deny services that would be of benefit to other users of the service.

Sumário (português)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

➡ c-section/caesarean ; evidence-based medicine/midwifery ; ethics ; deontology

Author of this record :

Cécile Loup — 08 Jul 2004

Discussion (display only in English)
 
➡ Only identified users



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

barre

New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact

bar

This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, https://afar.info)
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
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)gmail.com 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