TOKYO - A Japanese medical society has called on doctors to generally avoid using the term "abnormal delivery" when speaking to expectant and new mothers, out of concern that the wording could cause distress.
The term has been used for cases including caesarian sections and vacuum extractions but does not necessarily indicate a medical problem affecting the mother or baby. It has also been used to classify deliveries for health insurance purposes.
Presenting the policy to the health minister and the minister in charge of children's policy in late-October, the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology said doctors should describe specific delivery methods and procedures rather than label births as "normal" or "abnormal."
It also asked doctors not to use "natural delivery" to mean vaginal delivery, as the wording could suggest that other methods are unnatural.
The society urged doctors to explain that cesarean sections and other interventions are only medical responses to protect mothers and babies and are by no means a measure of a mother's efforts or her experience of childbirth.
If an emergency prevents doctors from giving a full explanation, the society said they should offer to discuss what happened with the mother after the birth. Medical records and other documents should also specify diagnoses, delivery methods and procedures, it said.
The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare said it has replaced the term "abnormal delivery" in notices on childbirth and childcare benefits with terms like "deliveries involving treatment covered by health insurance." It also plans to ask private insurers to follow the move.
Akihiko Sekizawa, the society's vice president, told the health minister that replacing the term with specific diagnoses or procedure names would not hinder diagnosis.
In a July online survey targeting members of the society, 33.9 percent of the 1,383 respondents said they sometimes used "abnormal delivery" when speaking to expectant and new mothers. They most often used it to explain insurance coverage, costs and official classifications of deliveries.
Some 82.4 percent supported avoiding the use of the term in principle in such conversations.
