<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Amy Tuteur</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/amy_tuteur/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 00:26:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>America&#8217;s frightening C-section spike</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/24/c_section_increase_stats_open2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/24/c_section_increase_stats_open2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pregnancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadsheet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Love and Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet//2010/03/24/c_section_increase_stats_open2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cesarean births are up by 50 percent since 1996. But it's not about saving women, it's about saving doctors]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The National Center for Health Statistics released a new report Monday, <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db35.pdf">Recent Trends in Cesarean Delivery in the United States</a>. The report is most notable for a startling statistic: The C-section rate has reached the astronomical level of 32 percent, an increase of more than 50 percent since 1996. This is disturbing news.</p><p>As the authors explain:</p><p style="margin-left: 0.5in">Although there are often clear clinical indications for a cesarean delivery, the short- and long-term benefits and risks for both mother and infant have been the subject of intense debate for over 25 years. Cesarean delivery involves major abdominal surgery, and is associated with higher rates of surgical complications and maternal rehospitalization, as well as with complications requiring neonatal intensive care unit admission . In addition to health and safety risks for mothers and newborns, hospital charges for a cesarean delivery are almost double those for a vaginal delivery, imposing significant costs.</p><p>It's not surprising news, though, since it is merely a continuation of a worrisome trend. As the graph demonstrates:</p><p>     <img class='wp-image-10020221' src='http://media.salon.com/2010/03/csec_rate.jpg' />   </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/03/24/c_section_increase_stats_open2010/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/24/c_section_increase_stats_open2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is there really a &#8220;maternal mortality crisis&#8221;?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/19/maternal_mortality_rate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/19/maternal_mortality_rate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pregnancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadsheet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Love and Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet//2010/03/19/maternal_mortality_rate</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An OB/GYN crunches the numbers on Amnesty's shocking report and finds it's not quite the scandal it seems]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In breathless language, Amnesty International urges the US to confront its "shocking maternal mortality rate." Entitled <a href="http://www.amnestyusa.org/dignity/pdf/DeadlyDelivery.pdf">Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Healthcare Crisis in the USA</a>, the report observes:</p><blockquote> <p>The total amount spent on health care in the USA is greater than in any other country&#160;in the world ... Despite this, women in the USA have a greater lifetime risk of dying of pregnancy-related complications than women in 40 other countries ...&#160;Amnesty International is sure that this increase is due to lack of access to medical care.&#160;The US government's failure to ensure that women have guaranteed lifelong access&#160;to quality health care, including reproductive health services, has a significant impact&#160;on the likelihood of having a healthy pregnancy and delivery.</p> </blockquote><p>Natural childbirth advocates, meanwhile, are sure that the rising rate of C-sections and other interventions is contributing to the rising maternal mortality rate. Amnesty International agrees, citing a "lack of information and autonomy" as the cause.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/03/19/maternal_mortality_rate/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/19/maternal_mortality_rate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The lawyer prescribes a C-section</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/11/c_section_vaginal_birth_open2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/11/c_section_vaginal_birth_open2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pregnancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadsheet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Love and Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet//2010/03/11/c_section_vaginal_birth_open2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's not medical wisdom that's preventing vaginal births after a Caesarean -- it's fear of law suits]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NIH Consensus Conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean has just released its findings offering strong support for a far more liberal policy regarding vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC).</p><p>The NIH conference on VBAC was convened because doctors, patients, and policy makers believe that the current VBAC policy is misguided and potentially harmful. As the <a href="http://consensus.nih.gov/2010/images/vbac/vbac_statement.pdf">statement</a> (PDF) explains:</p><blockquote> <p>Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) describes vaginal delivery by a woman who has had a previous cesarean delivery... In 1980, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Conference Panel questioned the necessity of routine repeat cesarean deliveries and outlined situations in which VBAC could be considered. The option for a woman with a previous cesarean delivery to attempt a trial of labor (TOL) was offered and exercised more often in the 1980s through 1996. Beginning in 1996, however, the number of VBACs has declined, contributing to the overall increase in cesarean delivery ...</p> <p>Although the number of women ... faced with the question of whether to attempt TOL has markedly increased, there has been a concurrent, dramatic drop in VBAC. Yet cesarean and VBAC rates are identified as quality indicators for maternal health by policymakers, insurance providers, and health care quality monitoring groups. Success of TOL is consistently high (60 to 80 percent), whereas the risk of uterine rupture is low (less than 1 percent)...</p> </blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/03/11/c_section_vaginal_birth_open2010/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/03/11/c_section_vaginal_birth_open2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;We&#8217;ve Got Issues&#8221;: Big Pharma might not be lying</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/02/25/judith_warner_open2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/02/25/judith_warner_open2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mental Illness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Our Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/24/judith_warner_open2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judith Warner's brave new book upends the myth that our children are being overmedicated]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A hundred years ago it was rarely diagnosed in children. In the intervening timespan the number and type of diagnoses have exploded. Moreover, the number and type of treatments have also exploded. The favored treatment usually involves powerful medications with serious side effects. Big Pharma has made a fortune from these medications and is constantly searching for new variations to patent and sell.</p><p>I'm talking about childhood cancer, but I bet you thought I was talking about childhood mental illness. After all, everyone in contemporary society knows that childhood mental illness is over-diagnosed, that drugging children is the preferred method for dealing with the normal problems of childhood, and that normal children are being treated with powerful psychotropic medications simply because they are quirky and authentic.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/02/25/judith_warner_open2010/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/02/25/judith_warner_open2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>124</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
