Birthing Beautiful Ideas

Many women who want to have a vaginal birth after cesarean (or VBAC, pronounced “vee-back”) in the U.S. have faced some sort of opposition from their care providers when they have expressed their desire to VBAC.  Oftentimes, this opposition comes in the form of ” VBAC scare tactics.”

The (outrageous) statements are often misleading, exaggerated efforts by OBs (and yes, even midwives) to discourage women from VBAC and to encourage them to “choose” a repeat cesarean.  (Of course, it’s not really a choice if your provider won’t even “let” you VBAC, is it?)

And if you find yourself up against a barrage of scare tactics–as I once did–it can be exceedingly difficult to stake your claim and argue against the doctor (again, or midwife) who may or may not have your and your baby’s health prioritized higher than medico-legal concerns and who may or may not be hurling phrases like “catastrophic uterine rupture” and “dead baby” your way.

If you do find yourself facing such scare tactics, and if you do want to have a VBAC, there are some questions that your care provider should be able to answer when s/he hurls those scary and/or outrageous comments and standards your way.  And if s/he refuses to or even cannot answer these questions, then you might want to consider finding an alternative care provider–one who is making medical decisions based on research, evidence, and even respect for your patient autonomy and not on fear, willful ignorance, or even convenience.

I encourage all mothers who read this post (and others in my “VBAC Scare Tactics Series”) to  take the information contained herein as a springboard from which they can 1) continue their research on VBAC, 2) maintain a communicative relationship with their care providers, and 3) find a care provider who best supports the mother’s interests and plans for the birth of her child.

(To read my disclaimers about “why I am not anti-OB” and “why I take the gravity of uterine rupture seriously,” please see my posts on VBAC scare tactics (1) and (2) .)

Scare tactic #9: You’ve had more than one c-section?!  No.  No way.  You’re not going to find anyone who will attend a VBAC after multiple cesareans.  You need to schedule a repeat cesarean.

Questions to ask your care provider:

• What reason(s) do you have for refusing to attend a VBAC after multiple cesareans?
• Is the risk of uterine rupture increased after more than one cesarean?
• What are the comparative risks and benefits of VBA2C and third cesareans?
• Are there any increased cesarean risks when one has a third, fourth, etc. cesarean? 
• What is ACOG’s position on VBA2C (or VBAC after two cesareans)?
• What does the current research say about VBA2C?

A more nuanced analysis:

It is important to realize first and foremost that many women in the United States and Canada are able to find care providers (including obstetricians) to attend VBA2Cs and even VBACs after three or four cesareans.  In fact, you can find many of their inspiring birth stories online.

This does not mean that finding a VBAmC (or VBAC after multiple cesarean)-supportive care provider will be easy in many cases.  But it is still possible.

Nonetheless, many women seeking a VBAmC encounter a specific roadblock when they are planning their child’s birth: namely, they cannot find a care provider who will agree to attend a VBAC after two or more cesareans.  And the reasons that these care providers have for denying women the opportunity to attempt a VBAmC are varied.

One reason may be that the risk of uterine rupture for a VBA2C is higher when compared with the risk for a VBAC after one cesarean.  A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of VBA2C in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which examined twenty studies and included combined statistics for well over 55,000 births, found the rate of uterine rupture for VBA2C to be approximately 1.36%.  This is compared with an overall uterine rupture rate of approximately .7% for women attempting a vaginal birth after one cesarean.

When examining these rates, however, one should take into account the ways in which pitocin acts as a confounding factor when assessing the uterine rupture rate among all women attempting a vaginal birth after cesarean.  Although the overall uterine rupture rate for VBACs after one cesarean is approximately .7%, this rate drops to approximately .4%when one focuses solely upon VBAC labors that begin and proceed spontaneously–that is, without pitocin augmentation or induction (which increase the uterine rupture rate to approximately .9% and 1.1%, respectively).  It seems safe to assume, then, that the uterine rupture rate would probably drop below 1.36% (at least within the BJOG meta-analysis) for VBA2Cs if one were to factor out those labors in which pitocin was administered.

In that light, one of my favorite online resources on VBAmC, Plus-Size Pregnancy, offers a tremendously helpful overview of the research on uterine rupture during a VBA2C.  Part of this overview includes not only a look at the correlation between pitocin and uterine rupture but also a critique of the studies on VBA2C that do not distinguish between between induced, augmented, and spontaneous VBA2C labors in their results.  As Kmom, the site’s author, surmises, the rate of uterine rupture among spontaneous VBA2Cs would likely be significantly lower than 1.36% if studies on VBAmC were to make these distinctions.

What’s more, the increased rate of uterine rupture does not necessarily make VBA2C unsafe.  In fact, comparing the outcomes of VBA2Cs with third cesareans, the BJOG study also concludes that the maternal morbidity rate for the VBA2C group was similar to that of the group undergoing third cesareans.  Futhermore, although the authors note that the data regarding neonatal morbidity was “too limited to draw valid conclusions,” they also note that there were “no significant differences” in the NICU admissions rates and the asphyxial injury and neonatal death rates among the VBA2C, third cesarean, and VBAC after one cesarean groups.

In other words, when compared with the option of a third cesarean, VBA2C is comparably safe for the mother and for the baby.

It is also worth noting that the study shows not only a success rate (or rate of labors ending in vaginal birth) for VBA2C that is similar to the success rate of VBACs after one cesarean (76.5%) but also a high success rate: namely, 71.6%.  In other words, if you attempt a VBA2C you have a 71.6% chance of having a vaginal birth.   This rate is not only encouraging but also indicative of the fact that a second cesarean does not give one a “low” chance of delivering vaginally in the future.

Another reason that OB-GYNs in particular may refuse to attend VBA2Cs is that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (or ACOG), in a 2004 Practice Bulletin on VBAC, only recommends VBA2Cs in cases where the mother has already given birth vaginally.  This practice bulletin cites three studies in its short section on VBA2C, all of which found the uterine rupture rate for VBA2C to range anywhere from 1% to 3.7%.  For reasons not explicitly articulated in the practice bulletin*, ACOG focuses primarily on a particular study from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology–i.e. the one with the 3.7% uterine rupture rate (Caughey et al. 1999).  They go on to claim that based on this study’s results, the risk of uterine rupture is nearly five times greater for women attempting VBA2C than for women attempting VBAC after one cesarean; but for women who have had a previous vaginal delivery before attempting a VBA2C (for instance, one vaginal birth and then two cesareans), the risk of uterine rupture is only one fourth of what it would be otherwise.

It is worth looking at this section of the practice bulletin with a critical eye, especially in light of the recent BJOG study (which, to be fair, was published five years after the ACOG practice bulletin).  One should ask why Caughey et al.’s findings differ so drastically from the more recent meta-analysis and systematic review of VBA2C.  One should ask if ACOG plans to update their practice bulletin according to the BJOG findings–especially in light of their conclusion that the maternal and neonatal morbidity rates for VBA2C and third cesareans are comparable.  (Not surprisingly, Kmom offers an excellent critique of the Caughey study on Plus-Size Pregnancy.)

Of course, if you have had a previous vaginal birth and are seeking a VBA2C-supportive care-provider, this portion of the practice bulletin should work to your advantage!  For it explicitly states that “for women with two prior cesarean deliveries, only those with prior vaginal deliveries should be considered candidates for spontaneous labor.”  At the very least, then, ACOG sanctions considering you as a candidate for VBAC.  (In my humble opinion, however, you ideally want a care provider who will do more than consider you as a candidate for birthing your baby in a way that is relatively safe, especially when compared to the option of a third cesarean!)

Finally, it is entirely within your right to insist that you would rather take on the relative risks of VBA2C than the relative risks of a third (or fourth, fifth, etc.) cesarean surgery.  While uterine rupture is a serious occurence (though one that is not always, or even often, catastrophic), the risks of cesarean surgery are also serious, and even potentially catastrophic, occurences.  When compared with a vaginal birth, a c-section carries an increased risk of hemorrhage, blood clots, and bowel obstruction for the mother; and an increased risk of breathing difficulties around the time of birth and childhood and adulthood asthma for the baby.  What’s more, one’s risk of hysterectomy, placenta previa and placenta accreta in future pregnancies increase significantly with each subsequent cesarean section. 

And avoiding these risks (and more) should give any woman grounds for contesting a repeat cesarean that she does not want.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*I can only guess that the writers of the practice bulletin chose to focus solely upon the third study since used Level II evidence, while the others used Level III evidence.  Updated to add: Nonetheless, it was also pointed out to me in a comment to this post that one of the authors of this study (Zelop) was also one of the authors of the practice bulletin, thereby raising suspicions of a conflict of interest in the bulletin’s reportings on uterine rupture and VBA2C.

After months and months of a persistent cough, my son, M, has finally been diagnosed with bronchial asthma.  And while I’m sad that he has to deal with this condition for the next few years (or at least I hope for only a few more years), I’m also happy that he at least has options for treating his cough.

What’s more, I’m also thrilled with the way his new pediatrician handled his treatment options.  In fact, my interaction with her had me day-dreaming about what her approach to informed consent would look like if it were mapped onto the ways that OB/GYNs (and even midwifes) tend to approach the option between VBAC and repeat cesarean.

But before I recount my day-dream, I should give you a picture of what my interaction with M’s pediatrician looked like:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. S: Based on what you’re telling me, it sounds like your son probably has bronchial asthma, or what some people call “cough asthma.”  *Explains a bit about what it is.*

Me: What sorts of treatments do you recommend?

Dr. S: There are generally two options: Singulair, a medication traditionally used to treat the symptoms of asthma, or Boswellia, an herbal medication that I have also recommended to many of my patients.  From my experience, both seem to treat bronchial asthma equally well.  That being said, there have been many parents who have told me that they have preferred Boswellia since it doesn’t seem to have the same sorts of negative side effects that Singulair does.

Me: What are some of those negative side effects?

Dr. S: Mainly, some parents report that their children experience significant mood changes while taking Singulair.  And this is one of the side effects associated with the drug.

Me: Oh, okay.

Dr. S: *Explains the dosage and administration of each drug, the risks/benefits of each drug, also addresses where we could safely purchase Boswellia.*  Do you have an idea about which treatment you would like to use?

Me: My gut reaction tells me Boswellia, but would it be alright if I went home and researched it first?

Dr. S: Of course!  I actually encourage that.  Why don’t you call me in a couple of days when you make your decision, and then we can talk about how we will proceed from there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And then I started dreaming of what a prenatal appointment would look like if a doctor or midwife were to take the same empowering, informed-consent-supporting attitude that my son’s pediatrician took to his asthma treatment.

Dr. OB/GYN: Congratulations on your pregnancy!  Since you had a cesarean for your last birth, have you thought about what you would like for this birth?

Pregnant mama: Do you mean VBAC or a repeat cesarean?

Dr. OB/GYN: Yes!  Both are relatively safe options, although each one carries particular risks and benefits.

Pregnant mama: Can you tell me a little more about that?

Dr. OB/GYN: Of course.  The main risk associated with VBAC is that the uterine scar will begin to separate during labor.  This risk of “uterine rupture” is very small–only .7% for all VBACs, and only .4% if your labor begins on its own. 

Pregnant mama: Uterine rupture sounds very serious.  What about repeat cesarean?

Dr. OB/GYN: You’re right, uterine rupture is serious, but it is only “catastrophic” in approximately .05% of all VBACs.  So the risk itself is very, very small.  We may monitor you a bit more carefully in the hospital, but we can also take steps to make sure that you can still be upright and mobile during your labor.  And repeat cesareans, although relatively safe, also have serious risks.  For instance, each subsequent cesarean increases your risk of serious placental complications, such as placenta previa and accreta.  In addition, a recent study has shown that babies born after VBAC have lower NICU admission rates and fewer respiratory problems than babies born via elective repeat cesarean.

Now, this isn’t meant to scare you!  But it’s always good to know that there are risks associated with both options.

Pregnant mama: Do I have to decide right now?

Dr. OB/GYN: Of course not!  I encourage you to take the next few weeks to do some research on VBAC and repeat cesarean, and then we can discuss your plans during your next appointment.  (Editorial note: In a super-ideal world, the OB/GYN would also give the mom a couple of pamphlets on cesarean section and VBAC from ICAN.  A girl can dream, can’t she?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But I know from experience that these sorts of prenatal appoinments often look a little bit more like this.

Dr. OB/GYN: Congratulations on your pregnancy!  So, when are we going to schedule your repeat cesarean?

Pregnant mama: Well, what about VBAC?

Dr. OB/GYN: VBAC?!?!?!  Why would you ever want to do a thing like that?!?!?!  I.  DON’T.  DO.  VBACs.

Dear Dr. OB-GYN,

You have some really amazing skills.  You have a vast array of challenging, admirable, and even life-saving skills of which you should be proud.

You have intricate knowledge of the female anatomy.

You can perform a cervical biopsy.

You can detect a lump in a woman’s breast.

You can diagnose pre-eclampsia, endometriosis, or any number of sexually transmitted diseases.

You can perform an external cephalic version.

You can perform a vaginal exam.

You can perform a cesarean section.

You can perform a colposcopy, cryosurgery, a LEEP procedure, a hysteroscopy, a pelvic laparoscopy, and a D&C.

And the above list barely scratches the surface of the multitude of diagnostic and procedural skills that you possess!

But then with all of these skills under your belt, why do you claim that you cannot catch a baby unless a woman is pushing while flat on her back?

Dr. OB-GYN, I believe in you!  If you can learn how to perform a laparoscopic hysterectomy, then surely you can learn how to catch a baby while a woman is not in the lithotomy (or “stranded beetle”) position!

YOU CAN DO IT!

You can learn how to catch a baby while a woman is:

• In a squat
• Leaning/kneeling over the back of the bed or the back of a chair or over a birth ball or against a wall
• Lying on her side
• On her hands and knees
• Or any combination of these positions

You can learn to allow a woman’s body to follow her natural urge to push!  You can learn how to encourage a woman to gain the benefit of gravity while pushing!  You can learn the birthing positions that help to rotate a posterior baby or that reduce the chance of vaginal lacerations or episiotomies or that help to improve fetal oxygenation!

And please don’t take offense, but even if it is easier for you to get a visual of the baby while a woman is pushing flat on her back, it’s not about what is easier for you.  I can assure you that a mom who is pushing a baby out of her vagina is working much, much harder than you are!

So take a moment.  Learn a little.  Consulting a midwife–or even The Lamaze Healthy Birth Practice Papers–may be a good place to start!

And once you’ve learned how to catch a baby from a variety of pushing positions, feel free to brag about how you have added one more skill to your dazzling array of OB-GYN talents.

Many women who want to have a vaginal birth after cesarean (or VBAC, pronounced “vee-back”) in the U.S. have faced some sort of opposition from their care providers when they have expressed their desire to VBAC.  Oftentimes, this opposition comes in the form of ” VBAC scare tactics.”

The (outrageous) statements are often misleading, exaggerated efforts by OBs (and yes, even midwives) to discourage women from VBAC and to encourage them to “choose” a repeat cesarean.  (Of course, it’s not really a choice if your provider won’t even “let” you VBAC, is it?)

And if you find yourself up against a barrage of scare tactics–as I once did–it can be exceedingly difficult to stake your claim and argue against the doctor (again, or midwife) who may or may not have your and your baby’s health prioritized higher than medico-legal concerns and who may or may not be hurling phrases like “catastrophic uterine rupture” and “dead baby” your way.

If you do find yourself facing such scare tactics, and if you do want to have a VBAC, there are some questions that your care provider should be able to answer when s/he hurls those scary and/or outrageous comments and standards your way.  And if s/he refuses to or even cannot answer these questions, then you might want to consider finding an alternative care provider–one who is making medical decisions based on research, evidence, and even respect for your patient autonomy and not on fear, willful ignorance, or even convenience.

I encourage all mothers who read this post (and others in my “VBAC Scare Tactics Series”) to  take the information contained herein as a springboard from which they can 1) continue their research on VBAC, 2) maintain a communicative relationship with their care providers, and 3) find a care provider who best supports the mother’s interests and plans for the birth of her child.

(To read my disclaimers about “why I am not anti-OB” and “why I take the gravity of uterine rupture seriously,” please see my posts on VBAC scare tactics (1) and (2) .)

Scare tactic #8: Look, I’m  the one who has earned the medical degree and I am telling you that you cannot attempt a VBAC.  Your only choice is a repeat cesarean.  Period.

Questions to ask in response:

• I appreciate all of your hard work!  So could you please share with me your medical, evidence-based reasons for why I cannot attempt a VBAC?
• Are you suggesting that you will ignore any questions I ask you regarding my desires for this birth or about the comparative risks of VBAC and repeat cesarean?
• Does your malpractice insurance company prohibit you from attending VBACs?  Are there any other bureaucratic or administrative (i.e. non-medical) reasons that force you to deny your patients the opportunity to attempt a VBAC?
• Where is the nearest exit?

A more nuanced analysis:

It is worth noting first and foremost that VBAC has been shown to be a relatively safe option for most women who attempt it.  The medical literature consistently shows uterine rupture–the main risk specifically associated with VBAC–to occur in less than 1% of all VBAC attempts.  The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (or “ACOG,” OB-GYNs’ organizational body) claims that VBAC is not only “a safe option for many women” but is also a way to help reduce the United States’ skyrocketing cesarean rate.  What’s more, even though the risk of uterine rupture is lower (though not eliminated) if one chooses an elective repeat cesarean instead of a VBAC, there are still risks specifically associated with repeat cesarean that are not necessarily associated with VBAC.

Thus, there is absolutely no reason for any care provider to quash any and all discussion about VBAC by injecting the “MD trump card” into a conversation.

That being said, the reasons as to why a care provider might use the “MD trump card” are varied.

Occasionally, it might be that the care provider’s malpractice insurance refuses to cover VBACs.  And perhaps s/he then hides behind the “MD trump card” because s/he is too embarrassed or even frustrated to admit that s/he must make medical decisions not based on the evidence but based on what insurance companies dictate.  This is certainly an instance of the sorry state of the current relationship between insurance companies and medical care in the United States–especially when it comes to obstetricians.

Nonetheless, if you are a woman wanting to attempt a VBAC, and your care provider’s malpractice insurance does not cover VBACs, then it is certainly a wise idea to begin seeking a new care provider.

More often than not, however, it seems that the “MD trump card” arises after a woman has posed various questions challenging other scare tactics that the care provider might have uttered. 

To use an example, suppose that a woman’s care provider tells a her that VBAC is synonymous with placing a child in a car without a carseat or safety belt.  (I know of multiple women who have reported hearing this sort of comment during their prenatal appointments.)  But since this mom has done her research on the relative risks of VBAC and repeat cesarean, she reminds her care provider that the risk of uterine rupture is approximately .7% for all moms attempting VBAC and that the risk of catastrophic uterine rupture is approximately .04-.255%.   Perhaps she even cites this study or this study from the New England Journal of Medicine from which she discovered these statistics!  And perhaps she declares that she has made the informed decision to take on the risks (and benefits) of VBAC rather than to take on the risks of repeat cesarean!

And in response, the care provider claims that s/he is the one with the medical degree and that s/he will decide what is best for this mom and her baby.

This response is unquestionably problematic.  For one, it fails to engage the mother’s responsible decision to research her plans for her child’s birth.  And even if the care provider suspects that a patient has misinterpreted medical research, it is the care provider’s responsibility to rectify this misinterpretation.

What’s more, using the “MD trump card” often illustrates a care provider’s possible (and perhaps probable) arrogance.  For even if  some care providers do not know about the recent studies on VBAC and uterine rupture, or even if their teachers or mentors during medical school or residency explicitly (and incorrectly) taught that VBAC was inordinately dangerous, and even if they are embarrassed about being challenged by their patients, this does not mean that they should obscure their (perhaps innocent) lack of knowledge about the facts of VBAC and uterine rupture by using their medical degree to trump any questions that their patients may have.

In other words, if they don’t know the answer to the questions their patients are asking, then they should inform their patients that they need some time to perform additional research.  

If their patients cite research that differs drastically from the research with which they are familiar, then they should ask their patients for a couple of days to review that research in more detail.

These responses respect true informed consent.  These responses honor patient autonomy.  And these responses support the sort of participatory medicine that midwife Amy Romano talks about in her recent article on e-Patients.net.

For what it’s worth, my MD dad always tells me that if a doctor refuses to answer your questions, then it’s time to find a new doctor!  We should want care providers who who engage with us and who listen to us (both of which are good tools for diagnosis, I might add).

So instead of heeding entirely to your care provider’s “MD trump card” or even to well-meaning friends or family members who tell you that, “Your doctor is the one who went to medical school, so S/HE knows best,” consider taking a participatory role in your medical care.  Find a care provider who is willing to discuss VBAC and repeat cesarean with you–who is willing to offer transparent information about both options, who does not use the “MD trump card” when you ask questions, and who will support you in whichever decision you make for your baby’s birth.

You will be participating in the decisions regarding your baby’s health for the rest of his or her life.  Why not begin by finding a care provider who supports you in actively participating in the way you bring that baby into the world?