nal and general anesthesia. This risk is a danger that mothers must be aware of.It would seem that if the situation presents itself in which a forceps delivery is necessary, the risks are immaterial in comparison to the alternative. However, there is another solution that is now available to women that has, according to certain studies (Johanson and Menon, 1999), “significantly less maternal trauma and with less general and regional anaesthesia.” This method is a vacuum delivery method. Unfortunately, there is a trade-in. Johanson and Menon (1999) go on to say that “the vacuum extractor was associated with an increase in neonatal cephalhaematomata and retinal haemorrhages.” Though this is also an unfortunate risk, it is much safer than a forceps delivery.Another procedure that is now becoming an extremely popular one is that of fetal monitoring during labor. The purpose of fetal monitoring is to have continuous observation of the vital signs of the mother and the fetus. It is designed to give doctors an advantage in diagnosing fetal distress and maternal trauma. To many this seems like a beneficial proposition, in theory. Unfortunately, studies show that this popular procedure is little more than wishful thinking. According to Kaiser (1991), “electronic fetal has consistently failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in either the perinatal mortality rate or the outcome of high risk pregnancies. In fact, some studies (Prentice and Lind, 1987) have indicated that electronic fetal monitoring increases the occurrence of cesarean sections and forceps deliveries. Such evidence indicates that the effectiveness of usefulness of electronic fetal monitoring is grossly overestimated.The findings of these various researchers are intriguing, but I have my own take on things. Much of the time, the researchers indicated that there were extreme risks involved in any of the procedures. How...
