
![]()
The National Center for Health Statistics released a new report today, Recent Trends in Cesarean Delivery in the United States. The report is most notable for a startling statistic; the C-section rate has reached the astronomical level of 32%, an increase of more than 50% since 1996. This is disturbing news.
As the authors explain:
... Although there are often clear clinical indications for a cesarean delivery, the short- and long-term benefits and risks for both mother and infant have been the subject of intense debate for over 25 years. Cesarean delivery involves major abdominal surgery, and is associated with higher rates of surgical complications and maternal rehospitalization, as well as with complications requiring neonatal intensive care unit admission . In addition to health and safety risks for mothers and newborns, hospital charges for a cesarean delivery are almost double those for a vaginal delivery, imposing significant costs.
It's not surprising news, though, since it merely a continuation of a worrisome trend. As the graph demonstrates:

Why is the C-section rating sky high? The pervasive nature of the increase may hold some clues. The increase has been remarkably consistent across all possible variables. The C-section rate increased among all races. It increased in all maternal age groups. It increased at every gestational age, and it increased in all 50 states. The global nature of the increase suggests that it is due to a global factor, rather than the increase in a particular diagnosis a dramatic change in specific risk factors. Like many obstetricians, I suspect that the rising C-section rate is driven by liability concerns.
It's true that there is no correlation between numbers of lawsuits and the C-section rate. In addition, there is no correlation between the size of monetary awards and the C-section rate. There is a correlation between malpractice premiums and the C-section rate, but the association is not dramatic. So how could the C-section rate be tied to liability concerns?
The assumption behind searching for a correlation between C-section rate and malpractice lawsuits or monetary awards is that as the rate or payout of lawsuits rises, obstetricians will be reminded that they are at risk of being sued. However, if every obstetrician expects to be sued, the increasing rate of suits or payouts will be irrelevant. At this point, every obstetrician expects to be sued at least once in a professional lifetime.
According to Victoria Green, MD, JD author of the chapter Liability in Obstetrics and Gynecology in the textbook Legal Medicine:
Nearly 77% of obstetrician/gynecologists have been sued at least once in their career and almost half have been sued three or more times. Moreover, virtually one-third of residents will be sued during their residency. Fear of malpractice, in general, may cause physicians to order more tests than medically necessary, refer patients to specialists, and suggest invasive procedures to confirm diagnoses more often than needed. Nearly 40% may prescribe more medications than medically necessary due to concerns of legal liability. The public has responded by escalating the “punishment” associated with malpractice claims where multimillion-dollar jury awards are commonplace.
When obstetricians expect to be sued, it no longer matters how many other suits are filed, how high the monetary judgments are, or even whether malpractice premiums are rising. The only consideration when a lawsuit is inevitable is how to successfully defend oneself.
Consider the most common reasons for an obstetrics lawsuit. The paper Liability in High Risk Obstetrics explains the most common causes. Although the paper concentrates on high risk obstetrics (perinatology), the results appear to be generalizable to obstetrics as a whole. According to the paper's author James L. Schwayder, MD, JD, obstetric lawsuits center on errors of omission or commission. The most common alleged errors are:
1. Errors or omission in antenatal screening and diagnosis
2. Errors in ultrasound diagnosis
3. The neurologically impaired infant
4. Neonatal encephalopathy
5. Stillborn or neonatal death
6. Shoulder dystocia, with either brachial plexus injury or hypoxic injury
7. Vaginal birth after cesarean section
8. Operative vaginal delivery
9. Training programs (Resident supervision markedly impacts litigation exposure. Increased used of nurse midwives and nurse practitioners may increase ones liability exposure.)
Of the 9 most common reasons for obstetric malpractice suits, 6 (#3-#8) allege failure to perform a C-section or failure to perform a C-section sooner. In other words, performing a C-section when there is any doubt about the baby's health, or even before there is any doubt, will virtually eliminate the chance of being sued successfully in connection with the delivery; it might even make a lawsuit less likely if the plaintiff cannot argue that a C-section should have been performed.
Most of these potential complications are equally distributed across maternal age, maternal race, gestational age, and state of residence, leading to a rising C-section rate across all demographics. The skyrocketing rate is being driven by an attempt to defend or potentially avoid lawsuits, since the majority of lawsuits allege failure to perform a C-section or to perform a C-section sooner. An ever increasing C-section rate is the inevitable result.
The C-section rate is skyrocketing primarily for non-medical reasons. While doctors blame the tort system as the proximate cause, the fundamental cause rests with patients, not lawyers or insurance companies. The fundamental cause is an inability to tolerate any risk to a newborn. In the current legal climate, there is no possible justification for not doing a C-section, regardless of how tiny the risk posed by vaginal delivery may be. Unless and until people stop penalizing doctors for not doing C-sections, they will continue to do them in ever increasing numbers. They really have no choice. You cannot say to obstetricians, "Give me a perfect baby or I will sue you for failure to perform a C-section" and then express shock and dismay that obstetricians will perform C-sections in order to guarantee that you will have a perfect baby.
The sky high C-section rate all too predictable result of parental expectations. As long as parents continue to sue for failure to perform a C-section, the C-section rate will continue to rise.


Salon.com
Comments
Then it goes into 'how many are needed' and the whole bit. I don't know what the 'right' % is for c-sections, no one does, even Dr's. I imagine if the 'rush to sue' climate of Medicine went away, you'd see the numbers drop.
I've had two myself; the first because of a breech presentation and the second because I was afraid to bust open if I pushed. (Good thing, too; my OB opened my uteran scar by pushing on it with her FINGER) But if everything had been upside down the first time, I wouldn't have considered ASKING for a c-section, let alone suing if something went wrong with my vaginal delivery.
This is a suit-happy nation. It's sad.
You're right, but part of the problem is expectations. Most women do not realize that childbirth is inherently dangerous and think that they are guaranteed a healthy baby. If a baby is not perfect in every way, the assumption is that the obstetrician should be punished.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and this information.
No, not at all.
Consider the case of breech presentation. The increased risk of breech vaginal birth is approximately 6 neonatal deaths/1000. For every 1000 C-sections done for breech, 992 are unnecessary (in retrospect). Another way of saying that is: 165 C-sections for breech need to be done to save the one baby who will benefit.
We have decided that it is worth doing 164 unnecessary C-sections to save a life, but there are other risks of childbirth that are far lower. The risk of neonatal death from attempted VBAC is much lower. We are probably doing around 500+ unnecessary repeat C-sections for every baby we save.
How many unnecessary C-sections are too many to save one life? One thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand? The fact is that we could reduce the risk of neonatal death a tiny bit more by raising the C-section rate to 100% but does that make sense?
It makes sense only if you think that any risk, no matter how trivial, must be avoided. But we don't really think that, otherwise we would never put a baby in a car; accidents cause quite a few infant deaths each year. So we don't really believe that we must do every possible thing to reduce any possible risk to zero. We just have to figure out where we draw the line for C-sections.
meantime, you have sky-high punitive damages and full-time ambulance chasers. oh and a health care system that bankrupts people for the bad luck of being unwell. (hopefully this latter will soon change!)
Meanwhile, last year my stepsister goes to have her first baby. She is two days past her due date. The baby is expected to be big, but not monstrously so, and there aren't any health problems with her or her son. She goes to the hospital, the doctor induces labor at 8 am, and when 8 hours later the baby hasn't arrived yet, the doctor decides that she needs to have a C-section. By 5:30, the doctor's heading home, the baby is out and perfect in every way, and my stepsister has six weeks of recovery from major surgery to go through.
So, would I risk people having unnecessary c-section to save my own baby's life? You betcha. I'm not carrying a kid for 9 months in order for it to die. People can always say no to their own c-cection if they feel it is unnecessary.
That makes no sense. The medical choices YOU and your Dr make are relevant to YOU, no one else. Those choices should have no bearing on what another woman chooses. If your section was needed (and in the situation you describe, it appears that way) then great, but there is no 'cookie cutter' when it comes to birth (or medicine in general)
That's right! My medical decisions are mine, and I'd rather have a skittish OB. Last I heard, there weren't deranged knife weilding doctors out there forcing other people to have c-sections against their will. If YOU think your OB is just covering their butt, you can always say no. I know people that have asked their OB to hold off on the c-section a few hours just to make sure.
An aside. I know of only two people that almost died giving birth, they were both vaginal deliveries. One was a v-bac that went horrifically wrong, and one was a misweighed 12 pound fetus that got jammed for several minutes. Then they sent the mother home with half her blood and puerperal fever (who gets that anymore?).
As I already said, my personal experiences have colored my opinions-just as your personal experiences have colored yours. I don't like to see unnecessarily retarded people, that's all. It's very expensive and time consuming for parents, taxpayers, and insurance companies to take care of a even one moderately brain damaged person in a humane and loving way. Far more expensive than a c-section. That's probably why all those parents are sueing in the first place.
"Last I heard, there weren't deranged knife weilding doctors out there forcing other people to have c-sections against their will."
You may want to check some facts: there have been recent court cases where hospital got a COURT ORDER to compel women to have a section. Its not common, but it IS happening.
"I'd rather have a skittish OB."
I'd rather have a Dr who was more focused on sound practice and good judgment, rather than jumping to cut "because they might get sued" Sadly, OB's are caught between a rock and a hard place: and they and they're patients are paying for it.
And with all the VBAC banning going on, its going to be alot harder for women to just "say no" to a section, unless you want women to put themselves are even greater risk by waiting in the parking lot and enter the hospital crowning.
Thanks for the article. I posted this on the 'big salon' version, and I'd be intereted to here what you think:
This is of particular intrest to me as my wife successfully VBAC'd our second daughter a few weeks ago. Today, a good friend of ours is having a scheduled C-section for her second daughter (her first is just a couple months younger than our first) because in the large, east coast metro area she lives in, not a single hospital will do a VBAC, even though her doctor says she's a good candidate. The hospitals she spoke to said it's all because of malpractice insurance issues.
There's a collective harm to our society with this many c-sections (expense, complications, etc.), so it's time for a solution to what is a market failure. Congress created a special fund for people to go to if they believe they or their children have been harmed by vaccines. (virtually all vaccines have some slight risk of serious complications)The fund is paid for by a tiny tax on vaccine doses, and all cases are heard by a panel of medical experts. There is an appeal process for those not satisfied with the ruling, but generally awards are limited to damages (ie, cost of caring for a disabled child, the loss of a child, etc.)
Why not a similar system for childbirth? Each physician or mid-wife assisted birth would pay a small tax. (you already pay this, it just goes to lawyers and insurers now) If a couple feels there was negligance, they take it to the board, and will get compensated. Takes runaway juries and lawsuits out of the picture. Seems like a good solution for a growing problem...
"Seems like a good solution for a growing problem..."
I think it is an excellent solution. Some form of no fault insurance is needed and that seems like the best one.