Confirmation of ACOG damage
/For the umpteenth time since release of ACOG's Committee Opinion #476 I have seen the propagation of its misinformation. I use Google Alerts to help me review stories around the world on home birth. In story after story having to do with this subject, other "experts", reporters and sources quote its conclusions of a 3-fold increase in neonatal death blindly and as definitive fact. Funny, how it is almost verbatim and the virtues of home birth quoted by ACOG are never equally extolled. I can only assume it is because an organization such as ACOG has a built in gravitas that writers will rely solely on its statement without doing any further research. I have spoken about this to ACOG leaders as a consequence of its standing in the medical community. With great power comes great responsibility. ACOG and Dr. Wax have much to answer for but almost certainly will not.
So, for the umpteenth time I have written to to the writer or posted a thought in the comment section to at least give another perspective. I encourage readers to take a moment to respectfully do the same when they come across a reporter quoting an expert who categorically uses the "3-fold" line. Dr. F
Here is what I wrote this morning in repsonse to an article in The Herald, an Australian newspaper:
Dear Ms. Hadfield, For the record, Dr. Andrew Pence is quoting data that is well known to be incorrect. It is from one flawed study by a researcher named Wax who cherry picked his meta-analysis data to reach his conclusion on the perils of home birth. Dr. Wax's motives for doing so are unclear. The truth is far different. He excluded the largest studies from North America and the Netherlands which showed no such risk and, in fact, in comparable low risk patients showed far less intervention and c/section rates and greater satisfaction in women who had home births. Dr. Pence makes a common mistake in relying on data that is supportive of the established medical position rather than looking critically as a scientist should. Then relaying this misinformation as if it is undisputed fact. Reporters often go to academic sources with a blind trust that they are objective and their advice is evidenced based. Sadly, neither is often true. Home birth in low risk women is a safe alternative and a choice that belongs to them when given true, not skewed, informed consent. I would be happy to discuss this further if you are interested. Warmest regards, Dr. Stuart Fischbein, MD FACOG
So, for the umpteenth time I have written to to the writer or posted a thought in the comment section to at least give another perspective. I encourage readers to take a moment to respectfully do the same when they come across a reporter quoting an expert who categorically uses the "3-fold" line. Dr. F
Here is what I wrote this morning in repsonse to an article in The Herald, an Australian newspaper:
Dear Ms. Hadfield, For the record, Dr. Andrew Pence is quoting data that is well known to be incorrect. It is from one flawed study by a researcher named Wax who cherry picked his meta-analysis data to reach his conclusion on the perils of home birth. Dr. Wax's motives for doing so are unclear. The truth is far different. He excluded the largest studies from North America and the Netherlands which showed no such risk and, in fact, in comparable low risk patients showed far less intervention and c/section rates and greater satisfaction in women who had home births. Dr. Pence makes a common mistake in relying on data that is supportive of the established medical position rather than looking critically as a scientist should. Then relaying this misinformation as if it is undisputed fact. Reporters often go to academic sources with a blind trust that they are objective and their advice is evidenced based. Sadly, neither is often true. Home birth in low risk women is a safe alternative and a choice that belongs to them when given true, not skewed, informed consent. I would be happy to discuss this further if you are interested. Warmest regards, Dr. Stuart Fischbein, MD FACOG
