I appreciate this article, it is good to know this can happen. However, I thought the title was unnecessarily harsh, pointing to the skin to skin contact with the baby as something dangerous in itself rather than pointing to the ECG mechanism itself. "False ECG readings post C-section may lead to misdiagnosis and incorrectly administered tachycardia treatments" would be more accurate, would still attract attention and would move the 'blame' away from the skin-to-skin contact as if it was wrong. Some people browse through titles without reading articles and may remember it differently from what the actual meaning is if they had read the article. Scientists must be careful to avoid such wrong conclusions being promoted by incorrectly chosen sensationalist titles.

ViraKirti