John Stossel did a bit on the Edwards/Caesar connection which was somewhat correct but stil bore the much-too-self-assured Stossel brand. I found what is, IMHO, a pretty balanced take on the issue:
from
http://brian.carnell.com/archives/ye...07/000037.html
Quote:
Edwards' basic argument went like this -- the cerebral palsy suffered by his client was caused by oxygen deprivation which the attending obstetrician could have prevented if he had performed a cesarean section or other medical intervention earlier than he or she did. Edwards was apparently very good at both choosing the best cases to go forward with as well as making his case in court and made himself millions of dollars.
The problem is that this explanation for cerebral palsy and what might be done to prevent it appears more and more bogus. Oxygen deprivation does play a part in a very small number of cases, but the vast majority of the 8,000 or so annual cases of cerebral palsy appear to have other causes. Moreoever, research on the subject is pretty clear that performing cesarean sections doesn't reduce the likelihood of a baby being born with cerebral palsy. In fact as Stossel notes, the percentage of births done by c-section has climbed steadily since 1970, but the percentage of infants born with cerebral palsy hasn't changed.
But Stossle then goes on to make a claim about cesearean sections that is just as spurious. According to Stossel,
However, today many C-sections are still done in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit, even though C-sections are a more painful way to give birth, as well as more expensive, requiring a longer hospital stay, and carrying greater health risks.
There are probably more C-sections being performed today due to concerns of lawsuits, but everything else in the above sentence is false.
Contrary to Stossel, studies have found that C-sections are not more expensive than vaginal births. They do cost a bit more upfront, but the cost is lower on average because women having C-sectionse experience fewer long-term complications.
Which brings us to Stossel's claim that C-sections carry greater health risks. In fact, a recent Health Grades Inc. found that post-natal complications occurred in 8.4 percent of cesarean sections but in 12 percent of vaginal births. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found a lower maternal mortality rate for women undergoing c-sections compared to those undergoing a vaginal birth (though maternal mortality rates are extremely low in the United States for vaginal births).
It appears Stossel didn't bother to interview anyone about the alleged dangers of cesarean sections but simply assumed that since it is a surgical procedure it must be more dangerous than "natural" child birth. Sounds like he's got the makings of a good trial lawyer there.
|
Now, this doesn't mean that John Edwards was
directly and
singly responsible for the rise in C-Sections, although a lot of the more inflammatory articles out there seem to imply that. Also, when the author says that Edwards was good at choosing the best cases to go forward, that may mean that he chose pretty legitimate cases. Maybe not, but we can't assume otherwise without actually knowing the case history.