dw.com
Serbia's High Episiotomy Rate: A Critical Examination
In Serbia, the episiotomy rate during vaginal births is alarmingly high, reaching 50% compared to the WHO's recommended 10%, resulting in significant pain and psychological distress for women due to outdated practices, insufficient hospital staff, and a lack of informed consent.
- What historical and systemic factors have contributed to the widespread use of episiotomies in Serbian hospitals?
- The high episiotomy rate in Serbia stems from outdated practices and insufficient staff, leading to rushed procedures. While previously believed to benefit mothers and babies, evidence now shows that routine episiotomies are unwarranted and can cause significant harm. The lack of patient autonomy and informed consent are also major concerns.
- What are the immediate consequences of Serbia's high episiotomy rate, and how does it compare to global best practices?
- In Serbia, nearly half of vaginal deliveries involve episiotomies, significantly exceeding the WHO's recommended 10%, with some hospitals reporting rates as high as 85%. This practice often occurs without informed consent or anesthesia, causing prolonged pain and psychological trauma for women.
- What steps are necessary to reduce the rate of episiotomies in Serbia and improve the overall birthing experience for women?
- Addressing this issue requires a multi-pronged approach including improved staff training emphasizing patient-centered care and the WHO guidelines, increased hospital staffing levels, and greater emphasis on non-interventionist birthing practices such as those incorporating movement and water birthing techniques. Continued monitoring of hospital practices and increased patient advocacy are crucial for long-term change.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames episiotomies overwhelmingly negatively, highlighting traumatic experiences and emphasizing the high rates compared to WHO recommendations. The use of quotes from women who suffered negative consequences and the focus on exceptionally high rates in certain hospitals contribute to this framing, which might affect readers' perception of the procedure's risks and benefits. The headline itself (although not provided) likely contributes to this negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language such as "slashed," "mutilated," and descriptions of intense pain. While reflecting the women's experiences, this language lacks neutrality and might unduly influence the reader's emotional response. More neutral terms could be used, such as "incision" instead of "slash." The repeated emphasis on pain and trauma further contributes to the negative framing.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on negative experiences with episiotomies in Serbia, but omits data on positive experiences or alternative perspectives on the procedure's necessity. While acknowledging limitations of space, the lack of balanced perspectives could mislead readers into believing all episiotomies are traumatic and unnecessary. The article also omits discussion of potential long-term complications from avoiding episiotomies.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by portraying the issue as a choice between routine episiotomies versus no episiotomies, neglecting the possibility of selective and informed use of the procedure based on individual circumstances. This simplification ignores the complexity of medical decision-making during childbirth.
Gender Bias
The article primarily focuses on women's experiences, which is appropriate given the topic. However, it could benefit from including male perspectives, such as those of partners supporting women through recovery, or doctors discussing their rationale for performing the procedure. The focus on physical and emotional trauma for women could inadvertently reinforce traditional gender roles in childcare.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the high rate of episiotomies in Serbia, exceeding WHO recommendations. This practice leads to significant pain, prolonged recovery (months in some cases), and negative psychological impacts on women, hindering their ability to care for newborns and impacting their overall well-being. The unnecessary procedure violates women