3 things they would conclude are:
- The first cesarean should be avoided both because of the inherent risks of major surgery and because it introduces risks into future pregnancies.
- Induction of labor should only be done when the risks of awaiting labor outweigh the risks of inducing it -- a situation that occurs far less often than the typical obstetrician thinks it does.
- When induction seems the most prudent course, don’t use prostaglandins.
Are OBs really objective about VBAC? Obstetric opposition to VBAC isn’t about safety. Obstetricians have been quite open about their motivation to condemn VBAC. In 1996, a prominent obstetrician and the editor of an obstetric trade magazine proposed a prototype of what he called an “informed consent” form. It described the dreadful things that could go wrong with a VBAC but said nothing about the equally dreadful things that could go wrong with a repeat cesarean, let alone the dangers of accumulating scars for future pregnancies. Few women would be brave enough to attempt a VBAC after reading this form. This doctor frankly admitted that the form was intended to forestall lawsuits and that using it would “send your [cesarean] rate soaring.” Since then, malpractice insurance companies have widely adopted it and begun recommending that their obstetrician clients use this form or others like it. Many of them have.