Another article on C-Sections.

Here’s the headline, and the paragraph that makes the difference between this article and the one I ranted about yesterday:

C-Sections May Be Bad for the Baby

The study, published in the September issue of the journal Birth, relied on birth certificates issued for the approximately 16 million babies born in the U.S. from 1998 through 2001, and linked them with infant death records. Birth certificates indicate whether an infant was delivered vaginally or by cesarean, and whether there was a medical need such as a previous C-section, a breech position, infant distress, or health conditions in the mother such as diabetes or hypertension. The study did not address the death rate among babies born to women who needed C-sections, but the authors emphasized that “timely cesareans in response to medical conditions have proved to be life-saving interventions for countless mothers and babies.”

The limitations of the study are mentioned right up front, and then the article goes on the discuss the possible reasons for the differences. Even the headline is more realistic: “C-sections may be bad for the baby” (emphasis mine) versus “Caesarean birth triples maternal death risk”

Anyway, I just found it interesting to see a much better written article on a similar subject as the one that annoyed me yesterday.