Champions League draw: Manchester United to face Barcelona in last eight

Manchester United will face Barcelona in a heavyweight Champions League quarterfinal after the draw was made at UEFA’s Swiss headquarters in Nyon on Friday.

Serie A giants Juventus will face Ajax following the Dutch side’s incredible victory over Real Madrid while last year’s beaten finalists Liverpool was arguably handed a favorable draw against Porto.

Meanwhile, Tottenham will face the competition’s top scorers Manchester City in the only all-English quarterfinal.

The semifinal draw was also made on Friday, with Manchester United or Barca due to face Liverpool or Porto, with the winner of the tie between Manchester City and Tottenham playing either Ajax or Juve.

The quarterfinal first legs will be played on April 9/10 with the reverse fixtures scheduled for April 16/17.

The semifinals will kick off on April 30 and May 1 — with the second legs set for May 7/8 — ahead of the final at Atletico Madrid’s Wanda Metropolitano stadium on June 1.

English dominance returns?

It is the first time in a decade that four English Premier League clubs will be in the Champions League quarterfinals, with Chelsea the last side to win the tournament in 2012.

Only two other English teams, Liverpool in 2005 and Manchester United in 2008, have been crowned European champions this century. In the same period Spain has had 10 Champions League winning teams.

United fixture reversed

United last met Barca in the 2011 Champions League final when it was well beaten by a side inspired by Lionel Messi. However, confidence will be high for United caretaker manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and his squad after a dramatic second leg comeback saw them overturn a 2-0 deficit away to Paris Saint-Germain.

That both Manchester clubs have reached the last eight has provided an organizational headache for Champions League organizers UEFA and a small bragging rights victory for City, a club former United manager Alex Ferguson once Old Trafford’s “noisy neighbors.”

Local authorities in Manchester have made it clear that both teams cannot play on the same night in the city nor on consecutive nights during the knockout stages.

So UEFA has ordered Barcelona’s game against Manchester United be switched, meaning the first leg will now be played at Old Trafford, with Solskjaer returning to the Nou Camp — the scene of his last-minute goal in the 1999 Champions League final against Bayern Munich — on April 16.

Champions League knockout matches are played over two legs with many managers and players preferring to play the first leg away and the second leg at home.

A 2007 paper published in the Journal of Sport Sciences found the “second leg home advantage” phenomenon was “real” with the teams who play the second leg at their own stadium historically having a greater than 50% chance of progressing to the next round.

However, the study also found that the extent to which having the second leg home at home was advantageous had decreased significantly in modern times.

A 2017 paper from academics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, also found a “slight second-leg home advantage” remained evident.

Europa League

In the Europa League quarterfinals, Arsenal face a tough fixture against Napoli while Chelsea will play Slavia Prague following the Czech side’s stunning comeback against Sevilla in the last round.

Arsenal boss Unai Emery is looking for his fourth Europa League success after winning three successive titles as manager of Sevilla.

Elsewhere, Spanish side’s Villarreal and Valencia were drawn together and Benfica will face Eintracht Frankfurt.

The first legs will kick off on April 11 with the reverse fixtures scheduled for April 18.

‘Big Bang Theory’ star Kaley Cuoco reveals why she was originally denied Penny’s role

“The Big Bang Theory” star Kaley Cuoco revealed she almost wasn’t cast as Penny ahead of the series finale in May.

As the hit CBS comedy is preparing to come to a close, Cuoco told TV Insider she was “too young” for the role of Penny, then named Katie, when they originally cast the show.

“I didn’t get [the role of Katie] the first time around. I was too young, which I love saying because I don’t get to say that I’m too young anymore,” Cuoco told the outlet.

‘BIG BANG THEORY’ STARS KALEY CUOCO AND JOHNNY GALECKI REACT TO SERIES FINALE DATE ANNOUNCEMENT

Instead, actress Amanda Walsh got the role for the original pilot, which failed for the 2006-2007 season.

“In the first pilot, the character of Penny [originally named Katie] was not as appealing as that proverbial girl next door. It was not the actress but rather the concept of the character,” Peter Roth, Warner Bros. president and the chief content officer, told TV Insider.

“Fortunately, Nina Tassler, then-president of CBS Entertainment, realized we had something very special and said, ‘Let’s do it again,’” he added.

For Cuoco, that was the second chance she needed.

‘BIG BANG THEORY’ STAR KALEY CUOCO SHARES THROWBACK PIC OF CAST

As the beloved sitcom prepares to end after 12 seasons, the cast members have been getting emotional about the one-hour finale, scheduled to air on May 16.

Cuoco’s co-star Johnny Galecki (Leonard) posted on Instagram Tuesday about the final airdate.

“273 episodes filmed. 26 days left on the Big Bang stage. 6 episodes to be filmed. 66 days until the 1 hour finale airs. All VERY surreal. Much ❤️ to all the fans,” he wrote.

Cuoco herself posted a throwback picture of herself and castmates Galecki, Kunal Nayyar (Rajesh), Jim Parsons (Sheldon) and Simon Helberg (Howard) on Instagram earlier this month.

“#mcm men crush Monday on these handsome boys! This photo was taken at our very first Comic Con many moons ago. We only have a few episodes left, the nostalgia is getting insanely real,” Cuoco wrote in the caption.

The troubling epidemic of unnecessary C-sections around the world, explained

“Your baby is going to die. You’re putting your baby at risk.”

This is what Jill Arnold remembers her doctor telling her over and over, while she was in labor in August 2005.

Around 7 pm, Arnold started having regular contractions and was admitted to Kaiser Permanente in San Diego. A few weeks earlier, her doctor had recommended a planned cesarean section, which Arnold declined because she wasn’t convinced by her doctors’ reasoning. “I kept asking questions,” Arnold says, “and didn’t really think what they had to say” merited a C-section.

But a doctor insisted and, at one point during the labor, even asked Arnold’s husband to sign forms saying he consented to the risk of losing his child if his wife refused a C-section.

She did refuse, and less than five hours into her (unremarkable, uncomplicated) labor, with her husband and doula at her side, she delivered her healthy baby girl. The only scar that lingered from that day is the “unnecessary stress” of repeatedly being told her daughter could die.

We’ve long known that many C-sections — like the one Arnold’s doctor tried to pressure her into getting — are unnecessary, and that the unnecessary ones have become a problem in the US. The C-section rate in the US shot up by 60 percent between 1996 to 2011. Though it’s declined slightly in recent years, a third of all births in the country still involve the operation.

A new series on the procedure, published in the Lancet, suggests the US is by no means an outlier: The global C-section rate has almost doubled in less than a generation, from 12 percent of all births in 2000 to 21 percent in 2015.

While women in some areas still die during childbirth from conditions that could be addressed with C-sections they couldn’t access, “overuse and its implications are now of growing concern,” a Lancet editorial says.

In Latin America, C-section rates are 44 percent, compared with only 4.1 percent in Western and Central Africa. Optimal rates are generally considered to be between 10 and 15 percent of births, and the World Health Organization just put out new guidance on how to bring the global C-section rate down.

“There’s certain cases where everybody would agree a cesarean is appropriate,” says Gene Declercq, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University. “And there are cases where only a few fanatics would say a C-section should be done. But there’s this large number of cases in a gray area.”

Understanding that gray area is crucial to understanding how cesarean sections became a global epidemic, and what patients and health care providers — who usually make the decisions about when to do a C-section — should be doing about their overuse.

C-sections, explained
Over the last century, medical advances have transformed childbirth from the most common cause of death for young women and infants into a much more survivable one. And the C-section has been an important tool in an ob-gyn’s arsenal.

“It’s the most common major surgery that’s performed in humans,” Neel Shah, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School who was not involved with the Lancet series, tells Vox.

No one is more eloquent on what a C-section involves than surgeon and New Yorker staff writer Atul Gawande, who described the procedure in extraordinarily vivid detail in a 2006 article about childbirth:

Another uterine contraction, and doctors deliver the placenta through the cut. The mom is sewn up, and the procedure is over.

When a mother has placenta previa (when a baby’s placenta covers the mother’s cervix), when a baby is in a breech (upside-down) position, when labor isn’t progressing at all, or when the umbilical cord may get pinched or compressed — C-sections, without a doubt, save lives. That’s why it’s a tragedy of maternal health that in certain areas of the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, C-sections are still out of reach.

The risks of an unnecessary C-sections
But according to Lancet, in cases where cesarean sections aren’t truly medically necessary, there are no health benefits for moms and only potential harms. The risk of maternal death and disability is higher after the procedure, recovery tends to be longer, and there’s a greater chance of complications in future births.

A woman’s bowels can get lacerated accidentally — and so can her child. Infections in the wound are a regular occurrence. And while vaginal birth is no cakewalk, it’s associated with “reductions in length of hospital stay, the risk of hysterectomy for postpartum hemorrhage, and the risk of cardiac arrest compared with planned [c-section],” according to the Lancet.

After a cesarean section, a woman is also at a greater risk of complications in future births — and with every C-section, these risks increase. For example, the rates of placenta accreta, a dangerous condition that can cause the placenta to grow out of control like a cancer, have exploded — because more women are getting the procedure.

The condition was exceedingly rare in the 1950s, occurring in only one in 30,000 deliveries in the US. Today, it shows up in about one in 500 births. One in 14 American women with accreta die, usually from excessive bleeding.

So if C-sections are an immensely serious surgery, with potential risks and complications for mom and baby, why do doctors do them so often?

Some people blame mothers (some of whom may be considered too old and too overweight to have normal births); others blame doctors, who might prefer to get out of the hospital before 5 pm instead of working through weekends and who receive higher reimbursements with C-sections.

But the story of the rise in C-section is a lot more complicated than that. As researchers pointed out in the Lancet, their explosion has “virtually nothing to do with evidence-based medicine.”

Why the C-section rate rose dramatically
There were 141 million babies born around the world in 2015, and 29 million of them — or 21 percent — started life with a C-section, according to the Lancet. Rates of the procedure have also skyrocketed in the last two generations of moms.

As for why, “some people argue moms looked different in the 70s than they do today,” Harvard’s Shah says. “There’s more obesity, moms are older, more hypertension and diabetes.”

But Shah has parsed the data, and found “this explosion” of C-section rates occurring in every demographic category. “They’ve gone up in young, healthy 18-year olds and in 35-year-olds,” he adds. “When you only look at only low-risk women, you see 15-fold variation” in rates of the procedure.

It’s also not that women are requesting more C-sections. According to a nationally representative survey, Listening to Mothers, only 3 percent of women elect to have the procedure because they are afraid of vaginal birth. “And there’s no health care service in the US that varies as much as this one: Cesarean rates by hospital go from 7 percent to 70 percent,” says Shah.

So after investigating the rise, he’s boiled the cause down to one thing: Over time, the cost for health care providers of waiting for a woman in labor has increased.

“If you are a clinician, you face the dichotomous choice — persist with a woman in labor whose labor has lasted longer than average, whose fetal heart monitoring is giving you an ambiguous reading,” he says, “or you can pull the rip cord.” Performing a C-section can offer a certain outcome through an uncertain process.

When it comes to cost, on average C-sections are reimbursed at 50 percent more than vaginal deliveries in the US, Shah says. Eighty percent of the cost of labor and delivery is staffing, and C-sections generally require a much small staff working for fewer hours. “So it’s not the additional money doctor makes. A vaginal delivery, from a resource point of view, just costs more.” These lower costs, and better reimbursements, are also found in other middle- and high-income countries.

Together, those two benefits of the surgery have far outweighed even the wishes of moms, though unlike Arnold, many moms don’t fight back. And they help explain why researchers have found that while C-sections driven by more objective criteria — like a baby being in a breech position — have been pretty stable over time, C-sections driven by less objective criteria — like a slow labor — have risen sharply.

How to stop the epidemic of unnecessary C-sections
Doctors are well aware of the unnecessary cesareans problem, and they’ve been studying ways to reduce them. Several approaches are described in the new Lancet series, including in a paper from the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, as well as by the WHO:

  • Hospitals need to address perverse incentives: If being reimbursed more favorably than vaginal births is driving the rise in C-sections, The Lancet argues “delivery fees for physicians for undertaking [the procedure] and attending vaginal delivery should be the same, using a mean fee.”
  • Doctors need clear, evidence-based standards — and feedback: Since more subjective criteria — like a labor that’s going too long — are driving the rise in C-sections, the Lancetseries also suggests standardizing exactly when C-sections should happen, and making sure physicians adhere to those standards and even seek out a second opinion before performing the surgery. The WHO recommends Cesarean audits — looking at doctors’ and nurses’ C-section rates, and why they decided to opt for the procedure — including giving feedback on those decisions.
  • Hospitals should be transparent about C-section rates: The Lancet again: “Hospitals should be obliged to publish annual rates [of the procedure], and financing of hospitals should be partly based on c-section rates.”
  • Midwives can help: They are trained to view birth as a normal process, and seek out ways to limit unnecessary medical interventions. And researchers have found the presence of more midwives and midwife-led units in hospitals correlates with fewer C-sections.

What women can do
If your doctor recommends a C-section, don’t panic; it may be completely appropriate. But unnecessary cesareans are a widespread problem, and there are some things women can do to reduce their chances of an unneeded procedure.

1) Ask what your provider and hospital are doing to promote vaginal birth. Christian Pettker, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale School of Medicine, suggests asking questions like: Do you have criteria for admission to make sure a woman isn’t admitted too early? Do you do external cephalic versions to try and turn a breech baby around? Do you do vaginal births after C-sections? What criteria do you use for performing a cesarean if a woman’s labor is stalling? Hospitals that are addressing these issues — and have clear standards in place — are promoting vaginal births, he said.

2) Show up at the hospital as late as possible. “In movies, the depiction of labor is somebody breaks water, jumps into a car, runs red lights, and [the baby arrives],” Shah says. “Real labor takes hours. If you show up in active labor, you’re much less likely to get a Cesarean.”

3) Consider a midwife or supportive partner such as a doula who is experienced at serving as a coach during labor. “Places that rely more heavily on midwifes have fewer cesareans,” Declercq says. “They are trained not to intervene until it’s necessary.”

4) Research your hospital’s C-section rate: “The biggest risk factor [for a C-section] is not a woman’s personal risks — it’s what door you walk through,” Shah said. While a higher rate can mean the hospital is dealing with more complicated births, it might also be an indication of too many unnecessary surgeries.

There are also several sources that compare state- and hospital-level C-section rates. Jill Arnold was inspired to launch Cesareanrates.org, a website that tracks state-level data for women, after being pressured to have the procedure. The Leapfrog Group, a national non-profit focused on health care quality, has C-section rates for many hospitals across the US. Simply Googling and asking around at your local hospital might yield additional information.

“I didn’t anticipate that the need for CesareanRates.org would still exist in 2018. I was really banking on its eventual obsolescence,” Arnold said. For now, she wants to remind women that they can question a C-section recommendation. “It’s okay to say no and to ask what their doctor, midwife, or nurse thinks will happen if they wait and watch.”