RCOG and VBAC

ISSN 0256-5004 (Print)

AIMS Journal 2007, Vol 19, No 3

We have been aware for many years that the risk of uterine rupture in a future pregnancy is underplayed by obstetricians when a caesarean is being suggested to a woman, and then suddenly it is put over as a grave concern when they want a VBAC, however we were still surprised to find the RCOG put this inconsistency of information into black and white.

In their advice on obtaining consent of women for a caesarean1 they state:

Serious risks include: ... Increased risk of uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancies/deliveries - up to 0.4' [%]

Yet in their guideline on VBAC2 they say:

Women considering the options for birth after a previous caesarean should be informed that planned VBAC carries a risk of uterine rupture of 22-74/10,000' [0.22 - 0.74%,nearly a doubling of the risk]

It would appear that the mean risk of rupture is quoted at consent. Neither guide gives women the information that for a normal birth the risk is in the region of 0.22%, but if her labour is induced the risk rises almost four fold to 0.74%. Are these figures quoted in a way which leads women to misunderstand the risks? Please send your comments to editor@aims.org.uk

References

  1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Caesarean section Consent Advice 7. May 2006 www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1633
  2. RCOG Green Top - Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth (45) February 2007 www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1633

AIMS supports all maternity service users to navigate the system as it exists, and campaigns for a system which truly meets the needs of all.

The AIMS Journal spearheads discussions about change and development in the maternity services. From the beginning of 2018, the journal has been published online and is freely available to anyone with an interest in pregnancy and birth issues. Membership of AIMS continues to support and fund our ability to create the online journal, as well as supporting our other work, including campaigning and our Helpline. To contact the editors, please email: editor@aims.org.uk

Latest Content

Journal

« »

What has the AIMS Campaigns Team be…

AIMS Journal, 2021, Vol 33, No 3 To read or download this Journal in a magazine format on ISSUU, please click here Covid-19: We have continued to be involved in the But N…

Read more

Birth Activists Briefing: Why it’s…

AIMS Journal, 2021, Vol 33, No 3 To read or download this Journal in a magazine format on ISSUU, please click here By the AIMS Campaigns Team Maternity Voices Partnership…

Read more

AIMS Commentary: the OASI care bund…

AIMS Journal, 2021, Vol 33, No 3 To read or download this Journal in a magazine format on ISSUU, please click here by the AIMS Campaigns Team The prospect of sustaining p…

Read more

Events

« »

AIMS 60th Anniversary Event - Confe…

POSTPONED FROM JUNE 2020 Making a difference past and future The purpose of the day is to celebrate what Birth Activists in general and AIMS in particular have achieved,…

Read more

Latest Campaigns

« »

NICE Inducing Labour Guideline - Co…

AIMS has prepared comments on the draft NICE Guideline for Inducing Labour You can read our comments here The details of the consultation on the draft guidelines can be f…

Read more

Submission to the Health and Social…

As part of its non-inquiry work, the Health and Social Care Select Committee have established a panel to conduct an evaluation of the Government's commitments in the area…

Read more

Report on the But Not Maternity/Nat…

AIMS and our partners in the But Not Maternity Alliance and National Maternity Voices organised a webinar for MVP/MSLC representatives. The purpose was to raise awareness…

Read more