Women's autonomy and scheduled cesarean sections in Brazil: A cautionary tale

Birth

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 33-40

  Potter, Joseph E ^a   Hopkins, Kristine ^a   Faúndes, Anibal ^b   Perpétuo, Ignez ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

^c FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Cesarean; Decision making; Medical ethics; Patient autonomy; Patient views; Scheduled cesarean

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAZIL; CESAREAN SECTION; ETHICS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; LABOR ONSET; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUERPERIUM; RESPONSIBILITY; SELF REPORT; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAZIL; CESAREAN SECTION; ETHICS, MEDICAL; FEMALE; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; MATERNAL WELFARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PREGNANCY; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

EID: 40149106158     PISSN: 07307659     EISSN: 1523536X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00209.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bewley S, Cockburn JI. The unethics of 'request' caesarean section. BJOG 2002a 109 : 593 596.
2. Bewley S, Cockburn J. II. The unfacts of 'request' caesarean section. BJOG 2002b 109 : 597 605.
3. FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health. Ethical aspects regarding cesarean delivery for non-medical reasons. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1999 64 : 317 322.
4. Ghetti C, Chan BKS, Guise JM. Physicians' responses to patient-requested cesarean delivery. Birth 2004 31 (4 280 284.
5. Kalish RB, McCullough LB, Cervenak FA. Decision making about caesarean delivery. Lancet 2006 367 : 883 885.
6. Klein MC. Quick fix culture: The cesarean-section-on-demand debate. Birth 2004 31 (3 161 164.
7. McGrady E. It is every woman's right to choose to be delivered by elective caesarean section: Opposer. Int J Obstet Anesth 1999 8 : 45 48.
8. Minkoff H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003 348 (10 946 950.
9. Minkoff H, Powderly KR, Chervenak F, McCullough LB. Ethical dimensions of elective primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004 103 (2 387 392.
10. National Institutes of Health. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement. Obstet Gynecol 2006 107 (6 1386 1397.
11. Dunn EA, O'Herlihy C. Comparison of maternal satisfaction following vaginal delivery after caesarean section and caesarean section after previous vaginal delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 2005 121 : 56 60.
12. Hildingsson I, Radestad I, Rubertsson C, Waldenstrom U. Few women wish to be delivered by caesarean section. BJOG 2002 109 : 618 623.
13. Scott JR. Cesarean delivery on request: Where do we go from here? Obstet Gynecol 2006 107 : 1222 1223.
14. Brazil, Ministério da Saúde. Sistema de Informações Hospitalares do Sistema Único de Saúde [Hospital Information System of the Unified Health System]. Datasus, Brasília, D.F., 2006. Accessed November 27, 2006. Available at : www.datasus.gov.br.
15. Finger C. Caesarean section rates skyrocket in Brazil. Lancet 2003 362 : 628.
16. Potter JE, Berquó E, Perpétuo IH, et al. Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: Prospective study. BMJ 2001 323 : 1155 1158.
17. Stata Corporation. Stata Statistical Software Program, Version 9.0. College Station, Texas: Author, 2005.
18. Albrechtsen S, Rasmussen S, Dalaker K, Irgens LM. The occurrence of breech presentation in Norway 1967-1994. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998 77 : 410 415.
19. Hickok DE, Gordon De, Milberg JA, et al. The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: A large population based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992 166 : 851 852.
20. Faúndes A, Cecatti JG. Which policy for caesarian sections in Brazil? An analysis of trends and consequences. Health Policy Plan 1993 8 : 33 42.
21. Gomes UA, Silva AAM, Bettiol H, Barbieri MA. Risk factors for the increasing cesarean section rate in Southeast Brazil: A comparison of two birth cohorts, 1978-1979 and 1994. Int J Epidemiol 1999 28 : 687 684.
22. Faúndes A, Perpetuo IHO. Cesárea por conveniencia e ética médica [Cesarean for convenience and medical ethics]. Ser Médico (São Paulo) 2002 5 (19 32 34.
23. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean: An evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004 59 (8 601 616.
24. Fogelson NS, Menard MK, Husley T, Ebeling M. Neonatal impact of elective repeated cesarean delivery at term: A comment on patient choice cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005 192 : 1433 1436.
25. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, et al. Cesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcome: The 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006 367 : 1819 1829.
26. MacDorman MF, Declerq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with "no indicated risk," United States, 1998-2001 birth cohorts. Birth 2006 33 (3 175 182.
27. McKinnie V, Swift SE, Wang W, et al. The effect of pregnancy and mode of delivery on the prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005 193 (2 512 517 discussion 517 518.
28. Fritel X, Ringa V, Varnoux N, et al. Mode of delivery and severe stress incontinence. A cross-sectional study among 2,625 perimenopausal women. BJOG 2005 112 : 1646 1651.
29. Buchsbaum G, Duecy E, Kerr L, et al. Urinary incontinence in nulliparous women and their parous sisters. Obstet Gynecol 2005 106 : 1253 1258.
30. Press JZ, Klein MC, Kaczorowski J, et al. Does cesarean section reduce postpartum urinary incontinence? A systematic review. Birth 2007 34 : 228 237.
31. Meikle SF, Steiner CA, Zhang J, et al. A national estimate of the elective primary cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2005 105 (4 751 756.