Cesarean section without clinical indication versus vaginal delivery as a paradigmatic model in the discourse of medical setting decisions

Abstract

Natural childbirth has ceased to be considered the gold standard in the delivery room.

For this reason cesarean section on demand is increasing. Many obstetricians justify this phenomenon on evidence-based obstetrical practice. However, other pieces of evidence demonstrate that the data are often a product of the social milieu, and as stated by Wendland, “technology magically wards off the unpredictability and danger of birth”. In a recent paper, Kalish pointed out several problems with cesarean deliveries in the absence of medical indications regarding issues of good clinical practice, autonomy, and informed consent. From the late 1990s, the medical community began to speak in favor of women's autonomy in childbirth decisions thus supporting the maternal choice and request for a cesarean section. Starting from these new considerations, it is of primary importance to understand whether emphasizing patient's autonomy is the best, or the only, way to helping the medical decisional process. This general approach may be helpful in all the other cases in which patient's autonomy and physician's responsibility appear to be intertwined in an apparent conflicting manner. We fear that the rhetoric of autonomous choice represents a fundamental shift from medicine-based beneficence toward a perilous relationship founded mainly on patient's wishes, representing a dangerous slippery slope where the physician could be reduced to the role of a functionary delegated to execute patient's claims and demands.

Keywords:

• Cesarean Section
• Beneficence
• Autonomy
• Negative right
• Positive right

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.