Toward an Ethically Responsible Approach to Vaginal Birth After Cesarean

Seminars in Perinatology

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 337-344

  Lyerly, Anne Drapkin ^a   Little, Margaret Olivia ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Birth; Childbirth; Decision making; Ethics; Guideline development; Vaginal birth after cesarean

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; CHILDBIRTH; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; OBSTETRIC CARE; OBSTETRICS; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PATIENT SAFETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; REVIEW; TRIAL OF LABOR;

CESAREAN SECTION; CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; FEMALE; FETAL DEATH; HUMANS; MATERNAL MORTALITY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTORS; TRIAL OF LABOR; UTERINE RUPTURE; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 77957005616     PISSN: 01460005     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2010.05.007     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Flamm B.L. Once a Cesarean, always a controversy. Obstet Gynecol 1997, 90:312-315.
2. State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 107:1386-1397. National Institutes of Health.
3. Gregory K.D., Fridman M., Korst L. Trends and patterns of vaginal birth after Cesarean availability in the United States. Program and Abstracts for the NIH Consensus Development Conference, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: New Insights, 24-30, 2010 http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/images/vbac/vbac_abstracts.pdf.
4. Wells C.E. Vaginal birth after Cesarean: Views from the private practitioner. Program and Abstracts for the NIH Consensus Development Conference, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: New Insights, 106-10, 2010 http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/images/vbac/vbac_abstracts.pdf.
5. Martin J.A., Hamilton B.E., Sutton P.D., et al. Births: Final Data for 2006: National Vital Statistics Reports 2009, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD.
6. Practice Bulletin Number 54: Vaginal birth after previous Cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004, 104:203-212. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
7. Sachs B.P., Kobelin C., Castro M.A., et al. The risks of lowering the Cesarean-delivery rate. N Engl J Med 1999, 340:54-57.
8. Behague D.P., Victora C.G., Barros F.C. Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: Informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality?. A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ 2002, 324:942-945.
9. Greene M.F. Vaginal birth after Cesarean revisited. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:2467-2469.
10. Landon M.B. Vaginal birth after Cesarean. Clin Perinatol 2008, 35:491-504.
11. McMahon M.J., Luther E.R., Bowes W.A., et al. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second Cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996, 335:689-695.
12. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 5: Vaginal birth after previous Cesarean delivery 1999, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC.
13. Roberts R.G., Deutchman M., King V.J., et al. Changing policies on vaginal birth after Cesarean: Impact on access. Birth 2007, 34:316-322.
14. Ryback E.A. Hippocratic ideal, Faustian bargain and Damocles' sword: Erosion of patient autonomy in obstetrics. J Perinatol 2009, 29:721-725.
15. Kukla R., Kuppermann M., Little M., et al. Finding autonomy in birth. Bioethics 2009, 23:1-8. The Obstetrics and Gynecology Risk Research Group.
16. Orfali K. Parental role in medical decision making: Fact or fiction?. A comparative study of ethical dilemmas in French and American neonatal intensive care units. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58:209-222.
17. Kukla R. Conscientious Autonomy: Displacing Decisions in Health Care 35 2005, 34-44. Hastings Centre, REP.
18. Minkoff H., Lyerly A.D. Doctor, what would you do?. Obstet Gynecol 1999, 113:1137-1139.
19. Little M., Lyerly A.D., Mitchell L.M., et al. Mode of delivery: Toward responsible inclusion of patient preferences. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112:913-918.
20. Vaginal delivery after a prior Cesarean birth. Pract Patterns 1995, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Number 1 Washington, DC.
21. Harer W.B. Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery: Current status. JAMA 2002, 287:2627-2630.
22. Landon M.B., Hauth J.C., Leveno K.J., et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior Cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:2581-2589.
23. Guise J.-M., Eden K., Emeis C., et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean: New insights. Evidence Report/Technol Assessment 191 (Prepared by the Oregon Health and Science University Evidence-based Practice Center Under Contract Number 290-2007-10057-I): AHRQ Publication Number 10-E001 March 2010, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
24. Eden K.B., Hashima J.N., Osterweil P., et al. Childbirth preferences after Cesarean birth: A review of the evidence. Birth 2004, 31:49-60.
25. DeClercq E.R., Sakala C., Corry M.P. Listening to mothers: Report of the First National US Survey of women's childbearing experiences 2002, Maternity Care Association, New York.
26. Minkoff H. The immediately available physician standard. Program and Abstracts for the NIH Consensus Development Conference, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: New Insights, 106-10, 2010 http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/images/vbac/vbac_abstracts.pdf.
27. Merton V. Ethical obstacles to the inclusion of pregnant women in research. Feminism and Bioethics: Beyond Reproduction 1996, Oxford University Press, New York. S. Wolf (Ed.).
28. Green-Top Guideline No 45 2007, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in Birth After Previous Cesarean Birth, RCOG, London, UK.
29. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous Cesarean birth 155 (Replaces Guideline 147). Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005, 89:319-331.
30. District of Columbia Court of Appeals Reports: In re AC 573A 2d, 1235 (DC 1990).
31. ACLU of Florida, and American Medical Women's Association, brief of amici curiae in support of appellant, in Burton vs. State of Florida (Case ID: 1958, LT Number 2009 CA 1167), July 31 2009 American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/reproductiverights/burton_v_florida_acluamicus.pdf.
32. Annas G.J. Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. N Engl J Med 1987, 316:1213-1214.
33. Minkoff H., Paltrow L. Obstetricians and the rights of pregnant women. Womens Health 2007, 3:315-319.
34. Bewley S. Bad medicine and bad law. BMJ 1997, 314:1184.
35. Committee Opinion #321: Maternal decision making, ethics and the law. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 106:1127-1137. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics.