Journal of Medical Humanities

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 151–164 | Cite as

Whose Values? Whose Risk? Exploring Decision Making About Trial of Labor After Cesarean

  • Sonya CharlesEmail author
  • Allison B. Wolf


In this article, we discuss decision making during labor and delivery, specifically focusing on decision making around offering women a trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC). Many have discussed how humans are notoriously bad at assessing risks and how we often distort the nature of various risks surrounding childbirth. We will build on this discussion by showing that physicians make decisions around TOLAC not only based on distortions of risk, but also based on personal values (i.e. what level of risk are you comfortable with or what types of risks are you willing to take) rather than medical data (or at least medical data alone). As a result of this, we will further suggest that the party who is best epistemically situated to make decisions about TOLAC is the woman herself.


Risk Labor Choice Epistemology Birth 


  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 1999. "Practice Bulletin no. 2: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery." International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 64 (2): 201-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 2010a. ACOG Education Pamphlet on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: Deciding on a Trial of Labor After Cesarean Delivery ACOG.
  3. ———. 2010b. "Practice Bulletin 115: Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery." Obstetrics & Gynecology 116 (2): 450-463.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, Elizabeth M. 2003. Conceiving Risk, Bearing Responsibility: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the Diagnosis of Moral Disorder. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Block, Jennifer. 2007. Pushed: The Painful Truth about Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care. Cambridge, MA: DaCapo Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cunningham, FG, S. Bangdiwala, SS Brown, TM Dean, M. Frederiksen, Hogue CJ Rowland, T. King, et al. 2010. "National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights, March 8-10." Obstetrics & Gynecology 115 (6): 1279-1295.Google Scholar
  7. Davis-Floyd, Robbie E. 1992. Birth as an American Rite of Passage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gavaghan, C. 2009. "You can't Handle the Truth: Medical Paternalism and Prenatal Alcohol." Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5): 300-303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2003. Calculated Risk: How to Know when Numbers Deceive You. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Goer, Henci. 1995. Obstetric Myths versus Research Realities: A Guide to the Medical Literature. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  11. Harding, Sandra. 2004. "Introduction." In The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual & Political Controversies, edited by Sandra Harding, 1-15. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2006. Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harms, Roger W. "How Many C-Sections can a Woman Safely have?" Mayo Clinic. Accessed January 15, 2014. www.mayoclinic/health/c-sections/AN02070.
  14. Holbrook, Bradley D. and Sharon T. Phelan. 2013. "Umbilical Cord Prolapse." Obstetrical and Gynecological Clinics of North America 40:1-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kukla, Rebecca. 2005. Mass Hysteria: Medicine, Culture, and Mothers' Bodies. Explorations in Bioethics and the Medical Humanities. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  16. Longino, Helen E. and Ruth Doell. 1996. "Body, Bias, and Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science." In Feminism & Science, edited by Evelyn Fox Keller and Helen E. Longino, 73-90. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lyerly, Anne Drapkin. 2013. A Good Birth: Finding the Positive and Profound in Your Childbirth Experience. New York: Avery Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Lyerly, Anne Drapkin, Lisa M. Mitchell, Elizabeth Mitchell Armstrong, Lisa H. Harris, Rebecca Kukla, Miriam Kupperman, and Margaret Olivia Little. 2009. "Risk and the Pregnant Body." Hastings Center Report 39 (6): 34-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Medina, Jose. 2012. Epistemologies of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Studies in Feminist Philosophy. London and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. NIH Consensus Statement Online. 1980. Cesarean Childbirth: National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  21. Paltrow, Lynn. 2013. "Roe V Wade and the New Jane Crow: Reproductive Rights in the Age of Mass Incarceration." American Journal of Public Health 103 (1): 17-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scully, Diana. 1994. Men Who Control Women's Health: The Miseducation of Obstetrician-Gynecologists. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Seigel, Marika. 2014. The Rhetoric of Pregnancy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Tulloch, John and Deborah Lupton. 2003. Risk and Everyday Life. London, GBR: SAGE Publications Ltd. (UK).Google Scholar
  25. Wagner, Marsden, MD, MS. 2006. Born in the USA: How a Broken Maternity System must be Fixed to Put Women and Children First. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wertz, Richard W. and Dorothy C. Wertz. 1977. Lying-in: A History of Childbirth in America. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Comparative ReligionCleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Philosophy DepartmentSimpson CollegeIndianolaUSA

Personalised recommendations