The Surgery Journal recently published a peer reviewed critique of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) by neurologist James C. Johnston, MD, JD and leading healthcare attorney Thomas P. Sartwelle.
These authors, Thomas P. Sartwelle and Dr. James C. Johnston, along with pre-eminent medical ethicist Professor Dr. Berna Arda, have repeatedly advised that continuous EFM should not be performed in routine labour due to a 99.8% false positive rate, and the fact it does not predict or prevent cerebral palsy or any other neonatal neurological injury.
EFM does increase the caesarean section rate, with an increase in maternal and newborn deaths and birth complications as well as devastating long term complications. In fact, these very concerns have led Australia, New Zealand and the UK to advise returning to intermittent auscultation (IA) instead of EFM, and in 2017 the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology finally provided a long overdue recommendation that women be given an informed choice between IA and EFM.
Unfortunately, there are EFM apologists continuing to defend the procedure, and journal editors suppressing scientific debate on the topic. This most recent Surgery Journal article exposes one example of these harmful practices, and should raise serious questions about those EFM proponents recommending a procedure that causes more harm than good to mothers and babies alike. But perhaps the more disturbing aspect is a medical journal editor determined to stifle scholarly debate.
This open access article is available through the following link:
The authors have also published their concerns in the Journal of Child Neurology, Maternal Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Neurologic Clinics, Journal of Pediatric Care, Maternal Health Neonatology and Perinatology, Medical Law International, Surgery Journal and several other journals and books. These articles are available at James C. Johnston’s ResearchGate.net site: