Sunday News Round-Up, NIH VBAC+ Edition
First up, some posts on the NIH VBAC Consensus Conference:
ACNM at Midwife Connection: A Midwife’s Take on the NIH VBAC Consensus Conference
Science & Sensibility: Do women need to know the uterine rupture rate to make informed choices about VBAC? – asking whether the oft-mentioned uterine rupture risk is the main issue.
The Unnecesarean: NIH VBAC Consensus Development Conference: Gift Horse or Trojan Horse?, By Courtroom Mama on the refusal question.
PinkyRN is not sure she wants anything to change: Vbacs, sea glass and peacefullness – “I do not think Vbacs are going to become assessable to women. I don’t agree with it but I understand the mechanisms…Not sure I personally want to go back and take those risks anymore. Not sure I want to worry not only about my patients health but the legal risk and the insurance burden that I will incur.”
From Academic Ob/gyn: Micro Tort-Reform: A potential solution to the VBAC Liability Issue, suggesting “a nationally accepted consent form for VBAC and repeat cesarean delivery, vetted by as many people as would want to be involved.”
Feminist Breeder – Once a Cesarean, Rarely a Choice
Courtroom Mama: Why is VBAC a vital option? Because anything less is anti-woman. [not specific to the conference, but quite relevant]
And a couple of examples of news coverage:
At Shots, the NPR health blog: Panel Recommends Rethink On Repeat Cesareans
Baltimore Sun: Vaginal birth after C-section gets boost by NIH-convened expert panel
I’m sure there will be more to come (such as at OBOS this week) as more people have a chance to digest the boatload of conference materials, which are available from http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/vbac.htm and from http://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?File=15696 (for Day 3 video which is not yet linked from the main conference page). An NIH person confirmed for me that a transcript of the telebriefing will be made available as soon as their vendor provides it, as well.
Women Deliver talks about maternal mortality in Afghanistan.