EFM(External Fetal Monitoring) is it too common and does it really benefit mothers and babies?

The use of EFM has long been argued about whether it is truly needed or even useful. EFM in the beginning was only used on high risk mothers in an attempt to decrease cerebral palsy(CP) in infants who were deprived of oxygen due to lack of oxygen. It has since grown into a standard of care for all birthing women. Many women do not question why this has become a requirement for everyone. In most hospitals in the US it is now stand practice for all women to be continually monitored for the entire labor, even those who are classified as "low risk". Many women do not question this practice at all, they agree, thinking that this is one more thing that will guarantee them a healthy baby. But the this is far from the truth. Since EFM has become standard care, the rate of CP in infants has NOT gone down, but the cesarean rate has drastically risen. The reason given for the raise in the cesarean rate by doctors? Maternal request. No one would admit that the over use of EFM could possibly be a problem. But finally an OB is speaking about EFM and had quiet a bit to say about just how unreliable and poor this procedure is. This is what Alex Friedman, a fellow
in maternal-fetal medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania said.

But fetal heart monitoring is an appallingly poor test. The test misses the majority of babies with cerebral palsy, the condition researchers hoped it would prevent. It causes increased rates of a painful and invasive surgery: cesarean section. Even worse, almost all women undergo continuous heart monitoring during labor, not just those at highest risk.

He also said:

The complication we feared most was hypoxia, the baby not getting enough oxygen during labor. Going too long without adequate oxygen could result in a serious permanent injury, such as cerebral palsy, or even death.

No test is perfect. But almost every time we whisked a mother back to the operating room, and I cut through skin, fat, fascia, and finally the muscle of the uterus, expecting a blue, floppy baby, the child I delivered emerged pink, healthy, and a little bit angry.

Were we saving lives and averting disaster? Or were we performing unnecessary surgery?

If EFM is so unreliable, then I ask why is it still even used, or at least why is it standard for all birthing patients? This to me does NOT look like evidence based medicine. Why?

Steven Clark and Gary Hankins, two prominent obstetricians, voiced my frustration. "A test leading to an unnecessary major abdominal operation in more than 99.5 percent of cases should be regarded by the medical community as absurd at best," they wrote in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. "Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring has probably done more harm than good."

If you would like to read the entire article, written by Alex Friedman see link included. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20100426_Test_leads_to_needless_C-sections.html

Cesarean mothers being denied insurance coverage due to previous cesarean delivery!

Just one more thing against moms who have had cesareans. They are getting denied for insurance! And IF they can get coverage its at a higher premium!

After Cesareans, Some See Higher Insurance Cost

"CPD" busted

CPD- When a babies head or body is too big to fit through the mothers pelvis. This diagnosis is way overused in the US. So much so that women who have had cesarean sections due to being told this are now going on to prove thier previous car providers wrong and birthing babies LARGER then the babies that were suppose to be "too big". More and more women are questioning that old "your pelvis is too small" line that so many women over the years have been told. ICAN(International Cesarean Awareness Network) posted this video on Youtube full of mothers who birthed babies bigger then their CPD babies who were cut from thier bodies who were only blamed.

I know many women who have been told this and have birthed babies double the birth wieght of their CPD babies. The increase in induction has increased the cesarean rate and the CPD diagnosis ad when you are induced you lack alot if not all of the natural hormones released in your body during natural labor. Womens bodies do not "fail" inductions because their bodies are working wonderfully! If that baby is not ready to come they arn't ready to come.

1 out of 3 women will have a c/section

This is an awesome sideshow of women who have gone through the pain of a c/section. Very powerful and raw. The truth needs to be out there! That c/sections are OVERDONE and COME WITH RISK. It goes so far beyond just physical but the emotional part is worse.



Too many women bury their feelings as we are told that all that matters is a healthy baby. NO that is not ALL that matters. Yes of course we are so happy that are children are healthy but that doesn't erase the pain, the sadness, the loneliness that can come with a c/section. Some women will never get over the experience.