The Cost of Saving a Life
By Danell Swim
March 29, 2008
How much does a life cost? How much should the national economy pay in order to save one life?
According to some researchers, about $2.4 million.
That’s the excuse being used currently to justify the cesarean rate in this country, but researchers William A. Grobman MD, Alan M. Peaceman MD and Michael L Socol MD have come to the conclusion that to save one life, often means sacrificing another (and paying an exorbitant amount of money in the process).
Their study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2000 looked at hypothetical repeat elective cesareans of 100,000 women with lower transverse incisions (bikini cut). They used scientific data of the risks of uterine rupture and other complications to examine the overall neonatal and maternal health, as well as the costs to the healthcare industry.
They found that it took 1,591 caesareans and $2.4 million to save one neonatal life from uterine rupture. Furthermore, for every five neonatal lives “saved” by repeat cesarean, there is one maternal death.
In all, to “save” 37 babies from those 100,000 women exemplified, there were 117,748 cesareans, 7 maternal deaths, 5500 maternal morbid events and $179 million.
So the modern medical model of care, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stance on VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) is effectively concluding that it is worthwhile to perform 1,591 major abdominal surgeries on women in order to save one baby’s life.
Now don’t get me wrong. I believe wholeheartedly in saving lives where we can. But to use c-sections as the savior of mankind is ludicrous; it’s too narrow minded and short sighted to be worthwhile. The risks of a cesarean go beyond the immediate safe delivery of a newborn.
Having cesareans dramatically increases the risk of future pregnancy complications (leading to miscarriage, stillbirth or morbidity), as well as future fertility and complications. Those risks continue to climb with the number of cesareans a woman has. Because of this, several factors should be considered, such as desire for a large family and personal circumstances.
I also think that it should always be questioned when those doing the deciding are also the ones profiting from the decision.
Women should have a choice in the method of delivery for their unborn children. If one person desires a small family, is aware of the risks of repeat cesareans and has means to pay for that surgery, then she should be provided access to a physician that will provide those services. But far too often these days women are denied a choice in the matter, as fewer obstetricians and midwives are “allowed” or willing to attend VBAC deliveries.
Of course, it is all said to be because VBACs are dangerous procedures that recklessly put the mother and baby in harm’s way. But don’t you think there may be a chance that some policy makers in the medical field choose to perform these cesareans for the sheer fact that it’s convenient and profitable for them?
Instead, doctors continually choose to deny women the option of giving birth in the manner that they would like. And most women are too passive to bother debating their options; they simply take their doctor’s word as gospel and lie down for surgery.
What if doctors phrased it adequately? What if they said: “Well now Ms. Swim, I think that having a repeat cesarean is better for you, because if I don’t operate on 1,590 women besides you, one baby could die!” Or how about “I’m trying to reach my goal of two and a half million dollars so I can save a life!”
But they’ll never mention that for five of those lives that they save, they would also be killing one mother; rendering countless others infertile; damning future generations to miscarriage and stillbirth. All for the safety and well being of their patients.
The bottom line is that the risk of VBAC is small, and yet it’s being touted as a risky procedure. Women are being denied the option to safely VBAC in hospitals (and at home) due to policy makers. At the same time, these policy makers are making hundreds of millions of dollars off of the decisions that take women’s rights to choose away from them.
This is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated
Comments
Got something to say?