Cesarean section Alternative to vaginal delivery? Ethical considerations
Keywords:
caesarean section, vaginal delivery, autonomy, non-maleficence
Abstract
In recent years, cesarean births have increased globally, even in the absence of clear therapeutic indications. This increase is due to a number of circumstances, among which are the greater access to health interventions, the level of education or culture of mothers and greater economic returns to health workers. The health professional who decides to perform an intervention at the request of the patient must face several ethical considerations and clinical, social and economic judgment.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, et al. Capítulo 30: Parto por cesárea e histerectomía periparto. In: Obstetricia de Williams. 25th ed. McGraw Hill Brasil; 2016.
2. Schnapp C, Sepúlveda E, Robert JA. Operación cesárea. Rev Médica Clínica Las Condes [Internet]. 2014;25(6):987–92. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0716-8640(14)70648-0
3. Wells JC, Wibaek R, Poullas M. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Vol. 394, Lancet (London, England). England; 2019. p. 24–5.
4. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2006 Jun 3;367(9525):1819–29. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16753484
5. Konechne T. Declaración de la OMS sobre tasas de cesárea. Perform Res. 2001;6(1):90–3.
6. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Heal [Internet]. 2015/04/09. 2015 May;3(5):e260–70. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25866355
7. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet (London, England). 2018 Oct;392(10155):1349–57.
8. Betran AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, Mohiddin A, Opiyo N, Torloni MR, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet (London, England). 2018 Oct;392(10155):1358–68.
9. Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. China’s 50% caesarean delivery rate: is it too high? BJOG [Internet]. 2014/08/20. 2015 Jan;122(2):160–4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25138909
10. Ministerio de Salud Pública. Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Parto normal versus cesárea electiva. Boletín ETES Ecuador. 2014.
11. Ortiz-Prado E, Acosta Castillo T, Olmedo-López M, Armijos L, Ramírez D, Iturralde AL. Cesarean section rates in Ecuador: a 13-year comparative analysis between public and private health systems. Rev Panam Salud Publica [Internet]. 2017 Feb 8;41:e15–e15. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31391814
12. Jahnke JR, Houck KM, Bentley ME, Thompson AL. Rising rates of cesarean delivery in Ecuador: Socioeconomic and institutional determinants over two decades. Birth [Internet]. 2019/02/13. 2019 Jun;46(2):335–43. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30761590
13. Sañudo Velázquez ME, Vázquez Parra JC. Aproximación ética y racional de la operación cesárea. Real y Reflexión. 2017;44:82.
14. Albor Urzola MA, Gaviria Higuita, Lina Marcela Marín Machado MC. EFECTOS DEL ALTO USO DE LA CESÁREA EN EL BINOMIO MADRE - HIJO. ARTICULO DE REVISIÓN. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(9):1689–99.
15. Jou J, Kozhimannil KB, Johnson PJ, Sakala C. Patient-Perceived Pressure from Clinicians for Labor Induction and Cesarean Delivery: A Population-Based Survey of U.S. Women. Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2014/09/23. 2015 Aug;50(4):961–81. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25250981
16. Ralston SJ, Farrell RM. The Ethics of Access: Who Is Offered a Cesarean Delivery, and Why? Hastings Cent Rep. 2015;45(6):15–9.
17. Martínez-Salazar GJ, Grimaldo-Valenzuela PM, Gabriela Vázquez-Peña G, Reyes-Segovia C, Torres-Luna G, Escudero-Lourdes GV. Operación cesárea. Una visión histórica, epidemiológica y ética para disminuir su incidencia. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc [Internet]. 2015;53(5):608–15. Available from: http://www.medigraphic.com/pdfs/imss/im-2015/im155r.pdf
18. González Pérez R. Bioethical considerations: Caesarean section at the request of the patient and autonomy. Medwave. 2012;12(03):e5334–e5334.
19. Vergara F, Abel F, Álvarez D, Coll C, Cuadrado C, González-Merlo J, et al. Consideraciones éticas sobre la cesárea. Comisión de bioética de la SEGO. Progresos Obstet y Ginecol [Internet]. 2001;44(2):46–55. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-5013(01)75616-6
20. Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, Mortazhejri S, Rader T, Petkovic J, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2018 Sep 28 [cited 2019 Nov 30];(9). Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub3
2. Schnapp C, Sepúlveda E, Robert JA. Operación cesárea. Rev Médica Clínica Las Condes [Internet]. 2014;25(6):987–92. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0716-8640(14)70648-0
3. Wells JC, Wibaek R, Poullas M. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Vol. 394, Lancet (London, England). England; 2019. p. 24–5.
4. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2006 Jun 3;367(9525):1819–29. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16753484
5. Konechne T. Declaración de la OMS sobre tasas de cesárea. Perform Res. 2001;6(1):90–3.
6. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Heal [Internet]. 2015/04/09. 2015 May;3(5):e260–70. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25866355
7. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet (London, England). 2018 Oct;392(10155):1349–57.
8. Betran AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, Mohiddin A, Opiyo N, Torloni MR, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet (London, England). 2018 Oct;392(10155):1358–68.
9. Hellerstein S, Feldman S, Duan T. China’s 50% caesarean delivery rate: is it too high? BJOG [Internet]. 2014/08/20. 2015 Jan;122(2):160–4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25138909
10. Ministerio de Salud Pública. Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Parto normal versus cesárea electiva. Boletín ETES Ecuador. 2014.
11. Ortiz-Prado E, Acosta Castillo T, Olmedo-López M, Armijos L, Ramírez D, Iturralde AL. Cesarean section rates in Ecuador: a 13-year comparative analysis between public and private health systems. Rev Panam Salud Publica [Internet]. 2017 Feb 8;41:e15–e15. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31391814
12. Jahnke JR, Houck KM, Bentley ME, Thompson AL. Rising rates of cesarean delivery in Ecuador: Socioeconomic and institutional determinants over two decades. Birth [Internet]. 2019/02/13. 2019 Jun;46(2):335–43. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30761590
13. Sañudo Velázquez ME, Vázquez Parra JC. Aproximación ética y racional de la operación cesárea. Real y Reflexión. 2017;44:82.
14. Albor Urzola MA, Gaviria Higuita, Lina Marcela Marín Machado MC. EFECTOS DEL ALTO USO DE LA CESÁREA EN EL BINOMIO MADRE - HIJO. ARTICULO DE REVISIÓN. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(9):1689–99.
15. Jou J, Kozhimannil KB, Johnson PJ, Sakala C. Patient-Perceived Pressure from Clinicians for Labor Induction and Cesarean Delivery: A Population-Based Survey of U.S. Women. Health Serv Res [Internet]. 2014/09/23. 2015 Aug;50(4):961–81. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25250981
16. Ralston SJ, Farrell RM. The Ethics of Access: Who Is Offered a Cesarean Delivery, and Why? Hastings Cent Rep. 2015;45(6):15–9.
17. Martínez-Salazar GJ, Grimaldo-Valenzuela PM, Gabriela Vázquez-Peña G, Reyes-Segovia C, Torres-Luna G, Escudero-Lourdes GV. Operación cesárea. Una visión histórica, epidemiológica y ética para disminuir su incidencia. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc [Internet]. 2015;53(5):608–15. Available from: http://www.medigraphic.com/pdfs/imss/im-2015/im155r.pdf
18. González Pérez R. Bioethical considerations: Caesarean section at the request of the patient and autonomy. Medwave. 2012;12(03):e5334–e5334.
19. Vergara F, Abel F, Álvarez D, Coll C, Cuadrado C, González-Merlo J, et al. Consideraciones éticas sobre la cesárea. Comisión de bioética de la SEGO. Progresos Obstet y Ginecol [Internet]. 2001;44(2):46–55. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-5013(01)75616-6
20. Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, Mortazhejri S, Rader T, Petkovic J, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2018 Sep 28 [cited 2019 Nov 30];(9). Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD005528.pub3
Published
2019-11-30
How to Cite
1.
Gangotena–Valdez N, Simancas-Racines D, Pérez-Tasigchana F. Cesarean section Alternative to vaginal delivery? Ethical considerations. PFR [Internet]. 2019Nov.30 [cited 2024Nov.22];4(3). Available from: https://practicafamiliarrural.org/index.php/pfr/article/view/119
Section
Artículos de revisión
Copyright (c) 2019 Rural Family Practice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
