Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I ended up high risk. I have no problems with C-sections as long as it's not because of the doctor's schedule. It's major surgery, and shouldn't be taken as lightly as it seems to be in many cases.
I think the trend (and it really was a trend for about 10 years from the very late 80s) , from what I can see, of scheduled for convenience only c-sections is going by the way-side. Some docs may be that way still...and some parents want everything planned out to that extreme, but it's not the baseline.
And certainly, no matter what some people think, having a c-section does not mean it was for lazy reasons, or a c-section birth is any 'less' than any other. I will rant against that attitude until I am a little old lady.
From an engineering point of view, natural birth is a poorly designed/evolved system. You shut down the mother's digestive system so you can crush the most sensitive organ of the newborn through a tiny gap (typically completely filled with the most essential components of the mother's GI tract). Meanwhile, the crush often cuts off the infant's life-support system and sometimes even strangles the child with it. The whole process can severely damage the mother even under normal circumstances, and has killed both mother and/or child on a regular basis all throughout history.
Talk about traumatizing! C-sections aren't much better, since you're trading one set of risks for another. I wonder what the success rate would be if you could stack C-sections for healthy problem-free pregnancies against natural birth of the same type of pregnancy? Save for the odd Dr. performing one due to schedule, they're mostly done with births that are more dangerous from the get-go, so the statistical risks may be artificially inflated. My guess would be that C-sections are the safer and saner route.
I wonder if we'll ever come to our senses and invent artificial wombs to get around the evolutionary dead-end of our too-small pelvises and too-big heads. It seems like a no-brainer to eliminate the 9 months of disability and risk, and bypass the dangerous and painful process at the end.
SMH. Natural childbirth is in no way a poorly designed system. Sometimes medical intervention is necessary and used to save mother or child, or both. And as far as the "too small" pelvis you describe; ummm, have you ever seen a baby born? I have. The passage is designed to create life and to deliver it, make no mistake, it will widen up as much as necessary -or- the doctor will cut it or the stomach to get the baby out.
Death in childbirth has nothing to do with the "birth system" being antiquated, rather the numerous complications that can and sometimes do arise during pregnancy and childbirth. However, in modern society, many complications are now detected and resolved early on - even when the mother fails to seek prenatal care consistently. It's truly amazing what can be done now for pregnant women and newborns.
Some doctors do schedule C-sections prematurely and unnecessarily simply to fit their own schedules! Sad.
My doctor wanted me to do c section 32 years ago and i told him "This will probably be my only successful pregnancy and I plan on experiencing the whole shebang so no thank you" Turns out he was going on vacation the week I was due and he wanted to do c section for his convenience- not mine. Another doc took over and spent a long 32 hours with me to get my precious and only biological child to birth. So glad I listened to my gut feelings.
I agree that a C section should never be done for the convenience of the doctor. Never!
Twenty years ago this past November, I gave birth to my son, and I had a suspicion for many reasons, that this would be my first and last pregnancy, and only child through biology.
I also wanted to experience the "whole shebang" in all of it's natural glory.
The hospital where my son was born is a "progressive" university hospital, with an almost obsessive desire to keep C section rates down.
I was on board with that, and my husband and I were well prepared for a natural child birth.
Several things conspired to make that impossible. One was that this was a "dry birth". I was also not effacing normally and later it was discovered that I have a retrograde pelvis, which accounted for the back labor that I was experiencing.
Add to that, my size in comparison to my son's. I am 5'3" with rather narrow hips. My new born son was 9lbs, 15oz and 221/2" long.
At the 28th hour, I was BEGGING, literally BEGGING for a C section!
The fetal monitor was intermittently registering distress. I was terrified for my son and in incredible pain.
It took FIVE HOURS for this "progressive" anti C section hospital to respond to my request.
Of course, I wanted a natural delivery. But it's my body, and my baby. The minute I requested a C section, my request should have been honored.
Thank goodness nothing was wrong with my child.
I think that the tables have turned since you gave birth, NK, and some doctors and hospitals are almost obsessive when it comes to keeping the C section rates down at their obstetrical units.
Online stories of births can be rather misleading too. Most stories will report negative experiences, that's just human nature. I'm sure I've shared so much more about my horrific birth than I have about the other. Can you even write "I had a 100% unmedicated birth for 12 hours and 2 hours pushing without even a scratch and felt awesome 3 days later and nursed perfectly!" without offending someone? Even if it's true. But nobody gets offended if I said the same thing happened and I ended up with a dystocia baby and horrible episiotomy/3rd tear. Also true
Aint that the truth. I dont really go around bragging how easy my labor is (well , except this thread now). I had a 7 hour active labor and pushed him out in 30 minutes in the water. I was up, walking around and showering after about 45 minutes. My son had to go to the NICU from the birth center because his weight was low and needed to be checked out for 24 hours, he was perfectly fine though - but it meant my husband went with my son and I was alone after the birth. I posted on facebook, took a shower and waited impatiently for the 2 hour minimum til my midwife drove me to the hospital where my son was.
He was 5 weeks early (he came naturally that early on a full moon/lunar eclipse), so who knows, maybe the full moon caused it. He didnt even spend more than 48 hours in the NICU with how early he was too. Water popped at 4am, labor by noon, born at 7pm. No meds other than some IV antibiotics since I hadnt had my GBS test yet, but that was more of a "just in case". I think the IV bothered me more than the pain from labor, i wanted that thing ripped out of my arm SO bad.
I didnt tear, i didnt have anything wrong with me or my son. Even better, i only bled for 2 weeks
The reason for the increased Csection rate is largely because of the fact that every OB realizes that he/she is a potential target for malpractice lawsuits, without having committed malpractice, should there be a less than perfect outcome. So if there is ANY risk factor, or if the labor does not progress at a reasonable rate, the OB quickly recommends a Csection, to reduce his risk of being sued. That way, should the baby not get into Harvard, and the parents sue, he can point to the record which proves that he recommended a Csection as soon as there was any sign of trouble.
In my area, there is a hospital which does not have midwives. The Csection rate is over 40%. There is another hospital with a group which has half midwives, half OBs. Their Csection rate is about 20%, since a midwife has to call in an OB to do the section, so she's inclined to let a woman labor longer. But I don't know what the statistics are as far as birth asphyxia goes - I would suspect that their rate is higher, since I have seen slow deliveries by midwives who seemed far more concerned with avoiding an episiotomy or a perineal tear than with not delivering a gray, limp, asphyxiated baby. In addition, since even gray, limp, asphyxiated babies are usually fine after prompt resuscitation, with no residual sequelae, it would be tough to do a study comparing outcomes.
Point is, if the nation wants a lower Csection rate, they're gonna have to shield the OBs from malpractice lawsuits, since they're the ones assuming the risk and calling the shots.
Point is, if the nation wants a lower Csection rate, they're gonna have to shield the OBs from malpractice lawsuits, since they're the ones assuming the risk and calling the shots.
Is this really going to have any effect? This statement seems pretty condescending to doctors; I read it as assuming that the most significant influence on their decisions is how bad of a hit their malpractice insurance agency might take.
It seems like most doctors would still choose a--potentially unnecessary--surgical procedure over doing nothing and potentially delivering a clinically dead baby. Restarting cardiopulmonary activity in an infant seems a lot more dicey than performing surgery on a fully-grown (and fully-monitored) adult.
Faced with those choices, I would probably be interventionist at any sign of trouble, malpractice lawsuits or no, but I'm not a doctor.
On one hand, I can see why midwives wouldn't want to "fail" and let/encourage that their client go to surgery, since they have to give up control at that point and admit that they don't have the capability to get the kid out alive. On the other, I think they must have nerves of steel, because I would punt the very first second the monitor showed any sign of distress. That's a heck of a call to make, to keep pushing through and have faith that the child will survive without intervention.
Point is, if the nation wants a lower Csection rate, they're gonna have to shield the OBs from malpractice lawsuits, since they're the ones assuming the risk and calling the shots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sponger42
Is this really going to have any effect? This statement seems pretty condescending to doctors; I read it as assuming that the most significant influence on their decisions is how bad of a hit their malpractice insurance agency might take.
It is not so much the hit the "malpractice insurance agency" might take as it is the hit the physician's reputation takes from the publicity of a lawsuit, not to mention the stress of dealing with the legal system.
If there is a bad outcome, the plaintiff's lawyer can always find a doctor who will --- for a generous fee --- say the doctor being sued was negligent. The trial outcome usually depends on who has the better lawyer, not the merits of the case. Juries tend to favor handicapped children, too.
Sometimes physicians in research situations forget that there were reasons that doctors in the past did things the way they did. For example, "once a Cesarean, always a Cesarean" came about to prevent losing healthy, term babies due to rupture of the scarred uterus. Yes, many moms can safely deliver after a prior Cesarean, but how many fetal deaths are acceptable to avoid surgery for the mom?
One of the most common reasons for a Cesarean is that the labor fails to progress. Some things that cause that can be treated and progress resumes, but if the labor truly stalls, there is a reason. Perhaps a slow labor could be allowed to continue. If the labor has come to a halt, more time is unlikely to be helpful. A persistently abnormal fetal heart rate pattern will almost certainly result in a lawsuit and a big verdict if a Cesarean is not done within minutes.
What will longer labors do to the mother's anatomy? Will she avoid a Cesarean now only to need surgery for bladder, uterine, and rectal prolapse later? Will we see women develop bladder fistulas due to hours of attempting to push babies out?
Rather than focusing on Cesarean rates, each pregnancy should be evaluated on its own merits and the decision to proceed with a surgical delivery should be made by the patient and her doctor with the best interest of the baby paramount.
i had a vaginal birth and a c sectioned birth, i do feel as though i was a little cheated out on the birth experience when i had my c section. I feel that way because it was an emergency c section and everything happen so fast i was not able to enjoy the child birth or prepare myself for the csection. but it was life or death for me and my baby, if i hadnt had my c section my daughter and i prob would not be here so im very happy my docs took the initiative to save our lives by doing an emergency csection. so im all for c sections as long as they are not done just because
Everything today is about surgeries and medicine. Even my friends doubt I'll be able to go through with a natural birth, and it irks me to no end. It's become the norm today to take high dosage drugs to deal with the smallest amounts of pain (granted, pregnancy isn't a small amount of pain, lol). I'm hell bent on not taking anything; not even an epidural. Women have done it since the beginning of time naturally, so why can't modern women do it too?
Everything today is about surgeries and medicine. Even my friends doubt I'll be able to go through with a natural birth, and it irks me to no end. It's become the norm today to take high dosage drugs to deal with the smallest amounts of pain (granted, pregnancy isn't a small amount of pain, lol). I'm hell bent on not taking anything; not even an epidural. Women have done it since the beginning of time naturally, so why can't modern women do it too?
I assure you that laboring women from the beginning of time would have welcomed pain relief if it had been available.
You can have a laceration sewn up without anesthesia, too. Why would you want to?
If you can safely deliver without any pain medication, that's fine. I was very happy with my two epidurals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
