A Strange Juxtaposition of Articles on VBAC
I read two articles about VBAC today. I’ll give you the first paragraph of one and the last paragraph of the other.
From the Health section of the New York Times today comes the article “New Guidelines Seek to Cut Rate of Repeat C-Sections.” The article is pretty neutral and covers some interesting points about twin VBACs and VBA2C.
Most women who have had Caesarean sections can safely give birth the normal way later, studies have shown, but in recent years more and more hospitals, doctors and insurers have been refusing to let them even try, insisting on repeat Caesareans instead.
This doozy of an editorial is found on OBGManagement.
It’s up to us to determine whether VBAC should stay or go
I estimate that we have a window of opportunity of 5 to 10 years to resolve whether VBAC remains part of practice. If we don’t take that opportunity, we’ll be left with a generation of physicians who have little or no experience performing the procedure. VBAC will disappear, in a self-fulfilling prophecy—which, when you think about what happened with vaginal breech delivery, may not be a bad thing.