Labor and birth interventions do not equal improved outcomes for babies

Not to sound like a broken record, but yet another study shows that unnecessary labor and birth interventions do not lead to improved health outcomes for babies. According to new, but not surprising research, published in the April issue of The Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, labor induction rates and cesarean delivery rates do not correlate with improved health outcomes for newborns, if the newborn's mama is experiencing a low-risk pregnancy. Since the researchers found out that intervention rates had zero bearing on the health of new babies, it just begs the question (again) why in the heck intervention rates are so high in the U.S. Christopher Glantz, M.D., M.P.H., study author and professor of Maternal Fetal Medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center says in an interview:

"Like virtually all medical therapies and procedures, these [labor and birth] interventions entail some risk for the mother, and there is no evidence in this study that they benefit the baby. In my mind, if you are getting the same outcome with high and low rates of intervention, I say 'Do no harm' and go with fewer interventions."

This study only mimics past studies that show that labor and birth interventions are seriously over-performed here in the U.S. - often without cause to do so. Unwarranted interventions can lead to problems, such as...

• Increased fetal distress
• Blood loss and extended hospital stays for the mother
• Interventions can result in even more interventions and stronger pain relief than you wanted
• Infection
• And much more.

Glantz goes on to say, "'More is better' seems to be the epitome of U.S. healthcare today, with doctors and patients often choosing to do more rather than less, even when there is no evidence to support it. But, as our study suggests, more may not always be better." + Source