「运动式“反剖宫产”引发悲剧，家属维权与院方冲突（2025.12.15）」12月15日，湖南省衡阳县妇幼保健院爆发了一场激烈的医患冲突。家属们在住院部门口拉起白底黑字的横幅，上面写着：“医术低劣草菅人命，制造虚假病历，还我宝宝”。扩音器中传出的控诉声引来众多路人驻足。现场视频显示，医院人员在试图抢走横幅时，与维权的家属发生了冲突。
冲突的导火索，可以追溯到三天前一个新生儿的死亡。家属指控，衡阳县妇幼保健院为了控制剖宫产率指标，无视产妇两次强烈的剖宫产请求，强行要求顺产，最终导致惨剧发生。根据家属提供的详细时间线，这原本是一场可以避免的悲剧。产妇于2025年12月2日办理住院待产。12月4日下午，产程开始。在生产过程中，产妇因疼痛和对自身状况的担忧，曾两次明确向医生提出进行剖宫产手术，但均遭到当值医生的拒绝。12月4日14时45分，监测显示胎心出现异常，这通常是胎儿宫内缺氧的危险信号。然而，家属指控称，院方并未对此进行严密的持续监护，依然坚持“顺产优先”的处置原则。一小时后的15时45分，胎心率急剧下降。直到此刻，医生才意识到情况失控，紧急将产妇推入手术室进行剖宫产。7分钟后，也就是15时52分，孩子出生，但已被诊断为严重窒息。在进行了长达20分钟的心肺复苏后，奄奄一息的新生儿被转送至上级医院重症监护室。在经历了7天的生死搏斗后，奇迹没有发生。12月12日，孩子因抢救无效死亡。家属透露，事件发生后，医院为逃避责任，还制作了一份虚假报告。
近年来，中国卫生健康部门为扭转长期以来的“高剖宫产率”，将“提高自然分娩率”作为一项重要的政绩工程，在全国范围内推行严格的“降剖”行动。这一原本旨在回归科学、减少非医学指征剖宫产的倡议，在层层下压的科层制执行中，逐渐异化为一场“数字运动”。各地卫健委将剖宫产率直接挂钩医院等级评审、重点专科建设，甚至将其纳入公立医院绩效考核（国考）与院长任期目标责任制。对于衡阳县妇幼保健院这类基层专科医院而言，剖宫产率一旦“超标”，可能意味着评级降级或财政补贴的巨额削减。在这种“运动式治理”的压力下，医学指征的专业判断被迫向行政指标让步。医生在面临临界情况时，往往不敢果断决策，而是倾向于“再等等”、“以此搏一搏顺产率”。在衡阳这起悲剧中，产妇痛苦的诉求被视为需要克服的“阻力”，而非手术的理由；直到胎儿濒死时刻才启动的手术，正是这种为了保住“漂亮数据”而牺牲个体安全的典型恶果。
事态的后续发展则如同当下无数起底层维权事件的翻版，家属们在遭遇了院方的推诿卸责，警察的驱逐以及互联网的信息封锁后，迅速被推入孤立无援的境地。在一套娴熟的“维稳”组合拳后，家属的声音连同那个未及长大的生命一起，被迫在公共视野中彻底“消失”。
“Campaign-Style ‘Anti-Cesarean’ Policy Sparks Tragedy, Family Clashes with Hospital (2025.12.15)”
On December 15, a tense conflict erupted between patients’ families and staff at Hengyang County Maternal and Child Health Hospital in Hunan Province. Families gathered at the entrance of the maternity ward, displaying a white banner with black lettering that read: “Incompetent medical care, reckless disregard for life, falsifying medical records, return our baby.” Voices of protest through loudspeakers drew the attention of many passersby. Video footage from the scene shows hospital staff attempting to seize the banner, leading to clashes with the protesting family members.
The trigger for the conflict can be traced back to the death of a newborn three days earlier. The family accused Hengyang County Maternal and Child Health Hospital of ignoring the mother’s repeated requests for a cesarean section in order to control cesarean rate targets, insisting instead on vaginal delivery, which ultimately led to the tragedy. According to a detailed timeline provided by the family, the death could have been prevented.
The mother was admitted for labor on December 2, 2025. On the afternoon of December 4, labor began. During delivery, the mother explicitly requested a cesarean section twice due to severe pain and concerns for her condition, but both requests were denied by the attending physician. At 14:45, fetal monitoring indicated abnormal heart activity—a warning sign of potential fetal hypoxia. The family alleged that the hospital failed to conduct continuous, rigorous monitoring and continued to prioritize vaginal delivery. One hour later, at 15:45, the fetal heart rate dropped sharply. Only at this point did the doctors recognize the emergency and rush the mother to the operating room for a cesarean. Seven minutes later, at 15:52, the child was delivered but diagnosed with severe asphyxia. After 20 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the critically ill newborn was transferred to the intensive care unit of a higher-level hospital. After seven days of life-and-death struggle, the child died on December 12. The family claimed that the hospital even produced a falsified report to evade responsibility.
In recent years, China’s health authorities have sought to reverse the long-standing “high cesarean rate,” promoting “increasing natural births” as a key performance target. This initiative, originally intended to reduce non-medically indicated cesareans, has gradually been transformed into a nationwide “campaign-style” effort under hierarchical bureaucratic enforcement. Local health commissions link cesarean rates directly to hospital evaluations, specialty construction, and even the performance assessment of public hospitals and the target responsibilities of hospital directors. For grassroots hospitals such as Hengyang County Maternal and Child Health Hospital, exceeding cesarean rate limits could result in lower ratings or substantial cuts in funding.
Under this “campaign-style governance,” clinical judgment is often subordinated to administrative targets. Faced with borderline situations, doctors may hesitate to make decisive interventions, preferring to “wait and see” in hopes of maintaining vaginal delivery rates. In this Hengyang case, the mother’s urgent requests were treated as obstacles to overcome rather than valid reasons for surgery. The cesarean was performed only when the fetus was near death—a stark example of prioritizing “good statistics” over individual safety.
The aftermath mirrors countless other grassroots rights-defense incidents. After encountering hospital evasions, forced removal by police, and information suppression online, the family was quickly left isolated and powerless. Through a well-practiced combination of “stability maintenance” measures, the family’s voice—and that of the child who never grew up—was effectively erased from public view.