Malpractise, in Fact

There are two issues at play here with the information released in a recent study whose conclusions were contained in an article published by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. One is that people generally are too ill-informed about their own health outcomes when contemplating procedures recommended to them by their doctors, and that they should take the time and make the effort to be more fully invested in their own health and well-being.

The second is that health practitioners who specialize in certain areas of the medical profession, particularly when it comes to delivering new souls into active life, appear to be inordinately busy figuring out a way to parlay that necessary activity into more complex procedures that are more costly to perform, therefore more highly remunerative, and since it all comes out of one big pot - the universal health care system - why not?

Why not is rather evident when that more complex procedure once only used as a method of last resort in emergency situations when normal childbirth protocol was felt to be inadequate, relates to the risks involved in Caesarean section surgical procedures. It's worth noting that a first-time C-section is billed $2,265 over the cost of a normal birth procedure.

"Compared to vaginal delivery, C-sections pose greater risk of cardiac arrest, hysterectomy, infection, fever, pneumonia, blood-vessel clotting and hemorrhaging, as well as risks for the baby", according to the article written by PhD student Esther Shoemaker.

Convincing as an argument against using C-sections other than for emergency responses in the delivery of newborns. Yet C-sections are often routinely advanced by gynaecologists to their patients, not only for initial, first-time procedures, but for following childbirth procedures. It is a more lucrative procedure for the doctor; more intrusive and potentially dangerous for the patient.

"Canada's health care system could save close to $25-million if the rate of first-time C-sections, let alone repeat C-sections, could be reduced to the 15% recommended by the World Health Organization", the article - considered to be a tool by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation to put to rest myths accepted by patients - states.

The current C-section rate in Canada stands at 27%. Higher rates of maternal obesity lead to higher rates of C-section as a result of riskier pregnancies, only partially explaining the trend. It seems clear enough - and has been evident for a number of years as the incidence of use of C-section has steadily risen in Canada to become a normative - that elective C-sections should be restrained.

Those doctors who counsel their patients to be compliant to the doctors' recommendations to have a C-section for any reason other than to address an emergency delivery could be considered to be practising medicine like a business where the practitioners seek the highest remuneration for their services, making them deliberately more complex than need be. In the process, endangering their patients.

This reeks of malpractise, in fact. Women who explain after the fact that it was not their original intention or desire to undergo a Caesarian section, but that they acceded to the professional advice of their doctor, point a finger of exploitation at the medical professional whom they must trust to provide them with the best possible outcome.

Clearly, those doctors who urge their patients to bypass the normal childbirth procedure in favour of the more dangerous and complex surgery do their patients no favour, while favouring their bank accounts.