Re: Assisted Vaginal Birth: Green-top Guideline No. 26
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Just weeks following the fifth anniversary of the landmark Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board Supreme Court judgment, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has delivered the fourth edition of its Green-top guideline on forceps and vacuum assisted births1. The irony of this is not lost on those who expected real change following last year’s peer review consultation (19 physicians and 6 maternity care organisations responded, including the first two signatories of this letter). The guideline opens with a fundamental question: Can assisted vaginal birth be avoided? The answers RCOG provides are solely in the context of labour (evidence on continuous support, epidural analgesia, positions adopted, delayed pushing), but a legal interpretation of Montgomery advises birth is “a situation that allows for significant advance planning and accordingly plans must be made.”2 The guideline concurs: women “should be informed about assisted vaginal birth in the antenatal period, especially during their first pregnancy [and] in advance of labour”. Nevertheless, while “lower rates in midwifery-led care settings” is included, ‘lower rates with planned caesarean’ is not, and there is no direct equivalent Green-top for this birth mode. The Montgomery judgment on consent specifically states that doctors are “under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments.” It also emphasises that in any pregnancy, the “principal choice is between vaginal delivery and caesarean section.” RCOG may argue that referencing the “alternative choice of a caesarean section late in the second stage of labour” sufficiently addresses these points. However, a Queen’s Counsel who was involved in the Montgomery case reminds doctors that the mother “was not advised that an alternative to vaginal birth (i.e. caesarean section) was an option available to her… and there was an increased risk… should vaginal birth be attempted.”2 He warns, “Where the patient asks a question, it must be answered honestly and fully”, which suggests that planned caesarean birth omission from this Green-top could have serious legal consequences, and there is every chance the Montgomery case could reoccur.Despite aiming “to provide evidence-based recommendations”, RCOG does not include pelvic organ prolapse as an adverse outcome. Instead, it says women who “achieve an assisted vaginal birth rather than have a caesarean birth… are far more likely to have an uncomplicated vaginal birth in subsequent pregnancies”, and that “much of the pelvic floor morbidity reported… may not be causally related to the procedure.” Furthermore, the stated aim of RCOG’s clinical Green-tops is to identify “good practice and desired outcomes”, which will be “used globally.”4 This is relevant because many countries define this as low caesarean birth rates. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) does not advocate targets, and recommends support for prophylactic caesarean birth requests.3 Yet decades of promoting vaginal birth rather than informed choice has obstructed autonomy and contributed substantially to rising litigation costs.5The truth is, the NHS simply cannot afford to keep repeating the same communication and consent mistakes, and in our view, this NICE accredited Green-top guideline clearly demonstrates that lessons from Montgomery have still not been learned.Pauline M Hull, Founder, Caesarean BirthKim Thomas, CEO, Birth Trauma OrganisationDr. Elizabeth Skinner, Faculty of Medicine, University of SydneyAmy Dawes, Co-founder and CEO, Australasian Birth Trauma AssociationPenny Christensen, Executive Director, Birth Trauma Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.059 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".