Rising caesarean section rates worldwide
Despite the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendation that caesarean section (c-section) rates should not exceed 15% [1], the high rates in some countries are cause for concern. For example, Italy, China, Mexico and Brazil all have rates higher than 36% [2] with great variation within each nation. The need for c-section has probably increased for many reasons, including rising rates of obesity, diabetes and maternal age, but rates more than twice the WHO recommendation probably reflect more than medical necessity. Although the lives of millions of mothers and infants have been saved by c-section, surgical delivery is not without costs. Risks to mothers include haemorrhage, pulmonary embolism, sepsis and death [3] as well as compromised breastfeeding and bonding [4]. C-sections may carry risk for infants regarding respiratory, metabolic, gastrointestinal and immune function [5]. Finally, there is increasing evidence for epigenetic changes with c-section [6] suggesting that it may not be just the mother and infant who are affected by surgical deliveries, but there may be transgenerational effects.
Evolutionary perspectives on difficult birth
Many birth complications today can be attributed to modern lifestyles and technology, but challenging birth can be traced to the origin of bipedalism 5–7 million years ago [7]. Bipedalism restructured the pelvis, altering the birth mechanism so that the infant usually emerges occiput anterior, making it advantageous to have assistance [7]. Worldwide it is extremely unusual for women to give birth alone. Assistance at birth is deeply rooted in human evolutionary history and may explain evidence that social support has a positive impact on birth outcomes [8].
Implications
Fear of birth or tocophobia is a common reason for electing to give birth by c-section. The evolutionary perspective argues that fear and the deeply rooted need for assistance during birth can often be alleviated with emotional support such as provided by doulas, thus avoiding unnecessary risky and costly c-section.
REFERENCES
- 1.Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21:98–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Rep. 2010;30:1–31. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schuitemaker N, Van Roosmalen J, Dekker G, et al. Maternal mortality after caesarean section in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76:332–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.1997.tb07987.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Karlström A, Lindgren H, Hildingsson I. Maternal and infant outcome after caesarean section without recorded medical indication: findings from a Swedish case-control study. BJOG. 2013;120:479–86. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cho CE, Norman M. Cesarean section and development of the immune system in the offspring. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:249–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Almgren M, Schlinzig T, Gomez-Cabrero D, et al. Cesarean delivery and hematopoietic stem cell epigenetics in the newborn infant: implications for future health? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:e1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rosenberg K, Trevathan W. Birth, obstetrics and human evolution. BJOG. 2002;109:1199–206. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2002.00010.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, et al. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD003766. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]