Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
SynopsisW

Elective cesarean sections gaining acceptance

Benjamin Singer
CMAJ March 02, 2004 170 (5) 775; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1040209
Benjamin Singer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2004 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

New guidelines will make it easier for North American women to opt for elective cesarean delivery, but some women's groups and international health organizations disapprove.

Figure

Figure. Cesarean section or vaginal birth: Do women have enough information? Photo by: Health Canada

Recent studies indicating that a planned cesarean delivery is as safe for the mother as vaginal delivery (see page 813), coupled with an increasing demand for the surgery, prompted the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to publish a “committee opinion” in November 2003. It supports “the permissibility of elective cesarean delivery in a normal pregnancy, after adequate informed consent.”

In late spring, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) will release similar recommendations.

The SOCG guidelines won't give blanket permission for doctors to perform elective cesareans, said Acting Executive Director Dr. Vyta Senikas. “This is only for particular situations where it is at the behest of the patient, and doctors require guidance on how to deal with it.”

The guidelines were promptly criticized by natural childbirth advocates such as Lemaze International, whose president describes them as a “campaign of misinformation.” Barbara Hotelling argues that the balance of evidence shows that cesarean sections are far from safe. “Our concern is that women [are] making choices without information.”

The Canadian Women's Health Network emphasizes informed choice and accessibility to a full spectrum of options, including birthing support from doulas and midwives. Cesarean sections “should be at the end of the line, not at the top,” says chairperson Abby Lippman. “The last thing I want to do is take choice away from women, but I get very nervous when I see choices being constructed by other people.”

The more permissive attitude toward elective cesareans also runs counter to international recommendations. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics guidelines state that “Because hard evidence of net benefit does not exist, performing cesarean sections for non-medical reasons is ethically not justified.” Similarly, the World Health Organization states that a cesarean section rate of over 15% indicates “inappropriate usage.”

But many countries exceed that rate: Brazil reports rates of 32% and Hong Kong's rate reached 27% in 1999.

Senikas readily acknowledges the disadvantages of the surgery. “Ideally we'd not see cesareans at all,” she says. But even after doctors have discussed the risks “we will still be left with the odd patient who will elect for a cesarean section.”

In the United States, requests for planned cesarean delivery are becoming more common. A 2003 study showed that “patient choice” cesareans increased by 20% between 1999 and 2001, accounting for 1.87% of all deliveries or about 63 000 nationwide. There are no data on elective cesareans in Canada. Although Senikas does not perceive “an epidemic of requests,” she has seen an increase in demand. “Five years ago I'd get a request every year or two; now it's every month or two.”

Requests for elective cesarean delivery present obstetricians with a clinical and ethical conundrum. Do considerations such as avoidance of pain, fear of labour, worries about maternal complications and risks to the fetus, or the convenience of the mother, justify the risks of “unnecessary” surgery? How far should patient choice in the birthing process extend?

This is a new twist in the controversy that has surrounded cesarean delivery since the 1980s, when high cesarean rates — nearly twice those of some European countries — prompted North American obstetricians to reevaluate the practice. Canada's rate fell from a high of 20% of live births in 1986 to 15% in 1994, but then rose again to 19.6% by 1997. In the US, the rate of cesarean delivery reached an all-time high of 26.1% in 2002. – Benjamin Singer, CMAJ

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 170 (5)
CMAJ
Vol. 170, Issue 5
2 Mar 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Elective cesarean sections gaining acceptance
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Elective cesarean sections gaining acceptance
Benjamin Singer
CMAJ Mar 2004, 170 (5) 775; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040209

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Elective cesarean sections gaining acceptance
Benjamin Singer
CMAJ Mar 2004, 170 (5) 775; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1040209
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Planned elective cesarean section: A reasonable choice for some women?
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Making sense of rising caesarean section rates
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Does β-blocker prophylaxis improve survival after major noncardiac surgery?
  • The changing ecology of avian flu
  • Applying the 2005 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations: 4. Managing uncomplicated hypertension
Show more Synopsis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Maternal-fetal medicine
    • Women's health (including abortion)

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire