 |
 |
 |
|
Caesarean Sections |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
This Entry: Date: 2005-11-16 Time: 10:58 Comments: 0 Return To: Recent Entries | |||
|
|
|
||
| ||||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Elsewhere:
Archive: • Apr 2008 (2) • Mar 2008 (2) • Feb 2008 (2) • Jan 2008 (4) • Dec 2007 (2) • Nov 2007 (4) • Oct 2007 (1) • Sep 2007 (6) • Aug 2007 (4) • Jul 2007 (3) • Jun 2007 (2) • May 2007 (2) • Apr 2007 (4) • Mar 2007 (2) • Feb 2007 (4) • Jan 2007 (4) • Dec 2006 (4) • Nov 2006 (24) • Oct 2006 (3) • Sep 2006 (1) • Aug 2006 (2) • Jul 2006 (3) • Jun 2006 (6) • May 2006 (5) • Apr 2006 (5) • Mar 2006 (1) • Feb 2006 (8) • Jan 2006 (11) • Dec 2005 (8) • Nov 2005 (12) • Oct 2005 (10) • Sep 2005 (18) • Aug 2005 (8) • Jul 2005 (10) • Jun 2005 (14) • May 2005 (8) • Apr 2005 (10) • Mar 2005 (14) • Feb 2005 (12) • Jan 2005 (12) • Dec 2004 (9) • Nov 2004 (18) • Oct 2004 (13) • Sep 2004 (12) • Aug 2004 (16) • Jul 2004 (6) • Jun 2004 (10) • May 2004 (8) • Apr 2004 (8) • Mar 2004 (27) • Feb 2004 (19) • Jan 2004 (8) • Dec 2003 (10) • Nov 2003 (18) Random Entry Others: • Jen • Keltie • On LiveJournal |
|||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Caesarean SectionsI’ve had conversations with several people regarding the bad trend of increased C-sections for the convenience of physicians. A story recently crossed my friends list where a prominent doctor in the US states his opinion that frivolous Caesarean sections amount to malpractice. I can also point you to the text of the actual report that he is commenting on. I looked up the numbers for Canada, and the rate increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 22.5% in 2004 (the period covered by the US study cited above). The numbers in the states have not been that low since a brief dip in the C-section rate in 1996. I should point out that despite being better, the Canadian rates are certainly not stable… they’ve risen from 18.7 in the year 2000 to today’s 21.4%
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
| ||||
|
|
|
||
|
Add your comment... |
|
||
|
|
|
||
