Thursday, September 01, 2016

My letter to Glendale Adventist Medical Center

Below is the letter I am sending to Glendale Adventist Medical Center regarding their recent ban on vaginal breech birth. Let the wrath of Rixa descend upon them!

Please, don't forget to write your own letters and make phone calls. If you are in the Los Angeles area, attend the rally on Sep. 7th. I am offering a ring sling and infant scale sling as a giveaway for anyone who participates.


Thursday, September 1, 2016

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to express my extreme consternation about the recent ban on vaginal breech births enacted by Glendale Adventist Medical Center. I am also contacting the Adventist Health Compliance Program and Karen Brandt, director of Women and Children's Services, about my concerns.

I am a maternity care researcher and academic, and one of my main research interests is vaginal breech birth. I am also a mother of four children, so a banning vaginal breech birth is a personal issue as well as a professional concern.

I am currently collaborating with a British midwife and breech expert, Shawn Walker, to help hospitals safely implement vaginal breech services. As the evidence mounts that vaginal breech birth can be a safe option, especially when supported by experienced providers (1-9), it is unethical to ban women and their providers from the option of a vaginal breech birth. Recent ACOG practice bulletins uphold vaginal breech birth with experienced providers (10).

I want to remind you that banning vaginal breech birth forces women to have surgery without their consent. This directly violates the principle of informed consent, which includes the right to informed refusal. AGOG’s May 2016 practice bulletin strongly upholds pregnant women’s right to refuse medical treatment (11):

[A] decisionally capable pregnant woman’s decision to refuse recommended medical or surgical interventions should be respected. The use of coercion is not only ethically impermissible but also medically inadvisable because of the realities of prognostic uncertainty and the limitations of medical knowledge. As such, it is never acceptable for obstetrician–gynecologists to attempt to influence patients toward a clinical decision using coercion.

A vaginal breech ban forces providers to coerce their patients into unnecessary, unwanted surgery.

Vaginal breech bans also violate legal rulings that uphold the right of competent adults to refuse surgery (12) In particular, the California Health & Safety Code §1262.6(a)(3) (enacted 2001) states:

Each hospital shall provide each patient, upon admission or as soon thereafter as reasonably practical, written information regarding the patient’s right to the following:… Participate actively in decisions regarding medical care. To the extent permitted by law, participation shall include the right to refuse treatment.

Glendale Adventist’s new policy banning vaginal breech birth is not just unethical and illegal—it is harmful to women and babies. Women who have cesarean surgeries face a higher risk of death (13-14). Their subsequent pregnancies have worse outcomes than those of women who had vaginal births (15). Banning vaginal breech births forces women to undertake these risks with no added benefit.

I urge you to make every possible effort to reverse this policy. Instead of banning vaginal breech births, the better course would be to encourage all maternity care providers to become skilled in vaginal breech births, so that all women are able to have a safe, respectful birth in the manner of their choosing.

Universal, mandatory cesarean section is not the answer to breech presentation. The solution? Upholding women’s autonomy and allowing providers to attend vaginal breech births.


Rixa Freeze, PhD

1. Uotila J, Tuimala R, Kirkinen P. Good perinatal outcome in selective vaginal breech delivery at term. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84:578–83.
2. Albrechtsen S. Breech delivery in Norway—clinical and epidemiological aspects [dissertation]. Bergen: University of Bergen; 2000:1–68.
3. Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Brand R, Loon A, Hemel O, Visser GH. Term breech presentation in the Netherlands from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33824 infants. BJOG 2003;110:604–9.
4. Hellsten C, Lindqvist PG, Olofsson P. Vaginal breech delivery: is it still an option? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;111:122–8.
5. Alarab M, Regan C, O’Connell MP, Keane DP, O’Herlihy C, Foley ME. Singleton vaginal breech delivery at term: still a safe option. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:407–12.
6. Kumari AS, Grundsell H. Mode of delivery for breech presentation in grandmultiparous women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85:234–9.
7. Haheim LL, Albrechtsen S, Berge LN, Bordahl PE, Egeland T, Henriksen T, et al. Breech birth at term: vaginal delivery or elective cesarean section? A systematic review of the literature by a Norwegian review team. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004;83:126–30.
8. Goffinet F, Carayol M, Foidart JM, Alexander S, Uzan S, Subtil D, et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:1002–11.
9. Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Visser GH. The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcomes in the Netherlands: an analysis of 35453 term breech infants. BJOG 2005;112,205–9.
10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin No. 161: External Cephalic Version. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127(2):e54–61.
11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Refusal of medically recommended treatment during pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 664. Obs Gynecol 2016;127:e175–82
12. See, for example:
     Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)
     Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 NE. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
     Cruzan V. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 270 (1990)
     In re Brown, 478 So.2d 1033 (Miss. 1985)
     Cruzan V. Harmon, 160 S.W.2d 408, 417 (Mo. 1988)
     Matter of Guardianship of L.W., 482 N.W.2d 60, 65 (Wis. 1992)
     In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905, 910 (Pa. 1996)
     Stouffer v. Reid, 993 A.2d 104, 109 (Maryl. 2010)
13. van Dillen, J., Zwart, J. J., Schutte, J., Bloemenkamp, K. W.M. and van Roosmalen, J. (2010), Severe acute maternal morbidity and mode of delivery in the Netherlands. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 89: 1460–1465.
14. Schutte JM, Steegers EA, Santema JG, Schuitemaker NW, Van RJ. Maternal deaths after elective caesarean section for breech presentation in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86:240–3.
15. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210(3):179–93.


Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...