IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v35y1992i6p789-793.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The value of symphyseotomy compared with caesarean section in cases of obstructed labour : Medical and anthropological considerations

Author

Listed:
  • Engelkes, Elly
  • Van Roosmalen, Jos

Abstract

Caesarean section in developing countries is a relatively unsafe obstetric intervention with a maternal mortality rate of more than one percent. Scar rupture in subsequent births occurs rather frequently and women are often reluctant to undergo the operation. Symphyseotomy is described as an alternative in some cases of cephalopelvic disproportion. Maternal mortality after symphyseotomy is negligible. Morbidity after symphyseotomy as compared to post-caesarean morbidity, although different in nature, shows no difference in frequency. It fulfils the cultural need for vaginal birth, thereby avoiding implications of witchcraft and magic for the woman. It is argued that although anthropologists know much about normal childbirth, an anthropology of abnormal birth does not exist. This can be accomplished by cooperation between the two disciplines of medicine and anthropology. Research on the attitudes of women towards caesarean section as compared to symphyseotomy is suggested as a starting point for such cooperation.

Suggested Citation

  • Engelkes, Elly & Van Roosmalen, Jos, 1992. "The value of symphyseotomy compared with caesarean section in cases of obstructed labour : Medical and anthropological considerations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 789-793, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:35:y:1992:i:6:p:789-793
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(92)90078-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:35:y:1992:i:6:p:789-793. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.