|
|
|
|
|
by public_defender
1323 days ago
|
|
My opinion isn't stupid, I have just considered and valued sources that you have disregarded. The ACOG is a trade group that supports medical intervention in birth. It doesn't make their contributions to research on the efficacy of medical intervention in birth irrelevant, but you should consider their contributions in the same light as Exxon's sponsored research into the environmental impacts of oil extraction. There is no good reason to have a medical doctor attend every birth. Of course in a country with a 30% c-section rate, there is much more for doctors to do. I don't think that any credible source will defend 30% as an optimal rate of surgical intervention in birth, but feel free to rebut me. C-sections are only "no worse" for the mother and baby if you only consider mortality. Let's also consider: 1) Mother-child bonding time in the first two hours after birth. 2) Inoculation of the baby to mother's flora in the birth canal. 3) Mother's ability to care for the baby while recovering from surgery. 4) Postpartum mental health of mother who has been denied natural birth. |
|