Let's take the ARRIVE trial, for example.

If you haven't heard of this study, it aimed to show that inducing ALL women at 39 weeks gestation, regardless of medical need, reduced the rate of c-section.

Now, let's think about this for a minute. Does this make sense to you, logically?

Does it make sense that forcing a baby out of the womb before it's ready would result in more or less trauma to that baby? And if that baby experiences trauma from medications that cause strong, long & irregular contractions, is it more or less likely the baby will start having issues & will need to be "saved" with surgery?

Does it make sense that giving a woman uterotonics like Pitocin, which make contractions more painful & more frequent would result in more or less use of pain medication like epidurals? And if more women have epidurals, which can tank your blood pressure, cause fever, slow labor, etc., is it more or less likely that an "emergency" c-section will be suggested?

You also have to think about who benefits. Is it the mothers & babies? Or is it the doctors & hospitals who can plan EVERY birth, and the companies that make the medications used for induction? I think you know the answer.

I'm all for research. It can be really helpful in lots of instances. This is why I say I'm "evidence-considerate" - I'll consider it, but I don't base my decisions & opinions on it. The push to have to "prove" everything with a study is nonsensical. We can know things without formal research & peer review. Just use logic.

What do you think about the push to be "evidence-based"?