News article about c-sect

babyspice

Have you all seen this? Very interesting to me, gets my mind going for sure

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38210837

Gators&BoSox

really interesting. 

OctoberLove13

Very interesting! 

npaulie

That is really interesting! I hadn't thought about the evolutionary aspect of those moms traditionally not surviving labor before modern medicine. 

lovelongdog06

*Visiting from April '17* I personally think that this article/theory is lacking because it fails to consider the possibility that fetopelvic disproportion can be and is often misdiagnosed. Call me crazy, and it's not a scientific method, but hang out in a VBAC group or two and you'll meet a bunch of women whose doctors swore their pelvises were too small and they went on to birth healthy, even bigger, babies.

babyspice

lovelongdog06 said:

*Visiting from April '17* I personally think that this article/theory is lacking because it fails to consider the possibility that fetopelvic disproportion can be and is often misdiagnosed. Call me crazy, and it's not a scientific method, but hang out in a VBAC group or two and you'll meet a bunch of women whose doctors swore their pelvises were too small and they went on to birth healthy, even bigger, babies.

The same thought crossed my mind. I'm sure it's true to a certain extent that women have smaller pelvises due to more c sect and therefore those genetics are able to be passed on but I don't think that study accounted for the fact that doctors push c sect for many many other reasons and blame it on pelvis size or like you said they just miscalculated and the pelvises weren't too small in actuality. 

wintersong

I've also heard of women being told their provides were too small erroneously. I'm under the impression that that is truly extremely rare. One such woman I went to college with andvaginally birthed a 9.5 pond baby. The article was interesting, but contained a lot of asumptions.

Cbeanz

True FPD is extremely rare but blamed frequently in developed nations hospitals. Our c-section rate has more to do with fear of malpractice lawsuits than anything else. Look at statistics of any midwife based birthing center and the CS rates are nowhere near 30%. interesting idea, but this article is bogus.

sunshine507

Interesting article but I'm on the skeptical train with this one. Can anyone find the actual study on PNAS? 

Cbeanz

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/11/29/1612410113.full.pdf?sid=5f68e3b5-1898-4103-b28b-79c94bae83d0

I will read the PNAS study more thoroughly tomorrow, but at first glance they're quoting single digit cephalopelvic disproportion which is a much more scientifically founded rate.

@sunshine507

Cbeanz

OK, after reading the study, I realize that all the "news" articles I've seen on this topic from BBC, CNN and elsewhere are grossly exaggerating the point of the research and the findings.  This was an exercise in biological/genetic math of a population, to model the well-known evolutionary dilemma between fetal head size and maternal pelvic size (which are directionally opposed).  With an estimate of 3% fetopelvic disproportion globally, and assuming that C-sections are available across the entire human population, the conclusion here is a PREDICTION that the rate of FPD could increase to a whopping 3.27% over the course of two generations.  The authors state that this finding has nothing to do with the actual C-section rate, "which has increased much more rapidly for other reasons; the obstetric literature typically considers the actual disproportion rate constant."

Cbeanz

Curious what @datalover13 would have to say about this!

datalover13

Haha! I've been trying to figure out what to say about this. @Cbeanz I think you nailed it, though. It's always best to go back to the original source or article, every news source has a way of interpreting that can be taken largely out of context. The PNAS article also talks about genetics, and how it's obviously not just the mother's that are passed on - and the genetic structure of this gene is complex. Also, as humans have evolved, babies have gotten bigger, too. Basically, evolution is evolution. Things are changing slowly. The increase in c-sections isn't just from narrow pelvises and big babies, as everyone's mentioned. 

But whatever you do, don't read the comments section on the BBC article. Anyone seen my faith in humanity? I've lost it.

RunBooRun

Cbeanz said:

OK, after reading the study, I realize that all the "news" articles I've seen on this topic from BBC, CNN and elsewhere are grossly exaggerating the point of the research and the findings.  This was an exercise in biological/genetic math of a population, to model the well-known evolutionary dilemma between fetal head size and maternal pelvic size (which are directionally opposed).  With an estimate of 3% fetopelvic disproportion globally, and assuming that C-sections are available across the entire human population, the conclusion here is a PREDICTION that the rate of FPD could increase to a whopping 3.27% over the course of two generations.  The authors state that this finding has nothing to do with the actual C-section rate, "which has increased much more rapidly for other reasons; the obstetric literature typically considers the actual disproportion rate constant."

datalover13

@RunBooRun that is AMAZING. 

Happyhiker

@runboorun, this is great! I'm a professional science communicator, and this totally resonated.