C-section - the easy way out (teens, newborn, son, friends)
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 wonder if modern women are physically changing in a way that makes normal birth more difficult.
As harsh as it might sound, from a logical standpoint, I assume natural birth will become more of a problem in the future as those mothers whose anatomy would have killed both them and their babies hundreds or thousands of years ago routinely survive now and pass those genes that made their anatomy that way on to their children, the female ones of whom might suffer from the same problem.
I also wonder if such birth problems occur in other mammals as well. Do elephant or lion or chimp moms die at birth?
I wonder if modern women are physically changing in a way that makes normal birth more difficult.
As harsh as it might sound, from a logical standpoint, I assume natural birth will become more of a problem in the future as those mothers whose anatomy would have killed both them and their babies hundreds or thousands of years ago routinely survive now and pass those genes that made their anatomy that way on to their children, the female ones of whom might suffer from the same problem.
I also wonder if such birth problems occur in other mammals as well. Do elephant or lion or chimp moms die at birth?
Complications from childbirth have existed since birthing began. Many women have died in childbirth decades and centuries ago because they couldn't have a c-section like they can today. Every women's body is different. Every pregnancy is different. Even having twins doesn't guarantee both will be born the same way.
Yes, animals struggle with birth as well. There's a reason animals on farms and zoos are kept penned up and frequently have help from humans. Yes, animals can and do die from child birth.
We don't tolerate mother or infant mortality during the birthing process any more. We also don't tolerate birth complications. It was the norm in the not so distant past.
Complications from childbirth have existed since birthing began. Many women have died in childbirth decades and centuries ago because they couldn't have a c-section like they can today. Every women's body is different. Every pregnancy is different. Even having twins doesn't guarantee both will be born the same way.
Yes, animals struggle with birth as well. There's a reason animals on farms and zoos are kept penned up and frequently have help from humans. Yes, animals can and do die from child birth.
Except the issue of c-sections "back then" vs. now can't be compared as equals, because infant and maternal morbidity and mortality had unique causes that women don't face in today's industrialized/developed world. "Back then" midwifery was a longstanding tradition and practice and variations of normal -- breech and twin births, were managed according to this model of practice. The skills were passed down by older generations of midwives and caregivers. One of the main culprits of maternal death was child bed fever due to poor hygiene practices of attending physicians, that didn't wash and sterilize their hands between births, which made birthing mothers and babies susceptible to infection. (Routine VEs carry risks of infection once membranes are ruptured, and AROM is one of the most common go-to interventions in the obstetric model of practice, often to induce or augment labor. It's not without drawbacks and risks. Like infection and uterine stimulants.)
The advent of proper/sound hygiene practices and antibiotics were one of the major improvements of maternal morbidity and mortality. One of the complications that indicated and necessitated c-sections "back then" was contracted pelvis, which was common among the poor and working class women who lacked proper nutrition and developed rickets. Rickets often lead to malformed pelvises in girls and women, and the younger birthing age of birthing mothers that were likely to already have smaller pelvises, lead to what we now call arrest of descent, where baby is unable to be born vaginally due to the head's and/or shoulders' inability to pass and rotate through the birth canal. (Polio was another cause and other congenital defects)
So, again, different set of circumstances. Depending on the culture, in past years it was more common for birthing women to use gravity to aid the labor/birth process, so standing, walking, squatting, moving, as motion assists the normal progression of active labor and pressure on the cervix facilitates effacement and dilation (because, you know, that thing called gravity). Contrast that to when obstetrics became the standard model of care that put women on their backs, drugged or confined to a bed, narrowing the pelvic outlet, ignoring gravity, etc. And the rise in the use of uterine stimulants that are known to cause uterine hyperstimulation that could lead to fetal distress due to the overstimulation caused by meds like pitocin, PE2, and misoprostol. And uterine stimulants administered when the body/baby aren't ready increases the risks of necessitating a c-section due to, again, fetal distress, or in the case of prolonged ROM, maternal infection/chorioamnionitis due to artificially rupturing membranes to induce or augment labor and routine VEs. A lot of meddling can absolutely create a chain of events that end up requiring a c-section to remedy the adverse effects, and these routine practices have become standard practice.
Of course, complications like complete placenta previa/accreta, placental abruption, HELLP, eclampsia, severe preeclampsia, high-order multiples, transverse lie, velamentous cord insertion, preexisting maternal complications, uterine malformations, footling breech, and other rare conditions would have necessitated a c-section even back then, but these occurrences still made up a smaller portion of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Today, PPH remains the leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality in the developing world largely due to low-resource settings, which contributed to similar outcomes of birthing women in the "old days." In the developed world, if a birthing mom bleeds out, we have access to uterotonic agents and hemabate and methergine to control bleeding, and blood transfusions to replenish blood loss. Access to these life-saving resources cut down on poor maternal outcomes. These are the same resources that could greatly benefit providers in developing countries with poorer outcomes. The causes behind the complication often differs as the management of labor/birth varies based on culture and scope of practice/model of care. In the developing world, PPH is often the result of uterine atony due to having had multiple previous and/or fast births, and while uterine atony also affects birthing mothers in the developed world, it's often a side effect of uterine stimulants, where the uterus tires out due to being overstimulated, thus doesn't contract efficiently to close off blood vessels once the placenta is delivered. The only women I know that didn't opt for routine VEs, AROM and uterine stimulants went into the process wanting to avoid hands-on management unless necessary. If a c-section wasn't planned due to multiples, breech presentation or another preexisting condition without a trial of labor, induction and/or augmentation is pretty much a sure thing, which carries risks depending on how it's managed. C-sections do save lives and are the best and only option, due to need or accessibility, for many women. It's just there are many factors and variables as to why they would have been needed in the past vs. the multitude of reasons for why they're practiced now.
Childbirth was excruciating & I’m not one that “forgot” the pain... maybe because I had so many.
I had c-sections with both sets of twins & with my youngest but that last one was horrific; I developed a Hematoma the size of a grapefruit in my abdomen, just over the scar. That was the worst recovery ever.
All of the other births were natural except one, where I had an epidural but it didn’t really work. The other thing that hurt really bad was the episiotomy I had with my first, ugh.
The c-sectioned babies, of course, had prettier heads. They also were more “wet” & congested.
The naturally born babies were more alert, active & hungry. Just my personal experience.
[quote=Girl;50116647]With my first child we attempted natural childbirth but after several hours of pushing with no success AT ALL, my doctor thought it would be safer for the baby to go with a c-section.
My recovery was AWFUL because I basically had 90% of the natural childbirth process and 100% of a c-section. My recovery was so hard that I debated whether I'd ever have a 2nd child.[quote=Girl;50116647]
^^^^Yep me too on no 4. Labored for 10hr pushed for THREE, no fetal distress so OB balked at my reqest for a section; I knew on a 4th delivery I should not be pushing for hours; my home delivery entailed just 15 MINUTES of pushing/FOUR pushes and out, no episiotomy.
I was told by the PEDIATRCIAN, hours later in my room, no less that I had had a uterine rupture, I was shocked to hear this! Apparently they had already opened the abdomen when the rupture ocurred so they were able to act fast and kid was not O2 compromised nor the hemorrhage significant
So yeah I too had 100% of the labor and 100% of the section due to poor case management by the attending OB. he wanted me to keep pushing; had I not INSISTED they section me the rupture would've ocurred in the labor room thus a far worse outcome.
I mean, many of us don't 'choose' a C-section but it does happen. Without a very quick C-section - my baby boy wouldn't have made it.
I expected a natural childbirth like everyone else. But when the you-know-what hit the fan and my baby's heart stopped beating ~ i didn't care WHAT they did as long as he lived.
Yes exactly. I had two c-sections, and I’m proud that I had my babies...no matter how they came to be on this earth. And I too wonder what is the point of a thread like this. Oh, and btw, it’s not “easy”. Many women use an epidural anyway during vaginal birth, then that too is “easy” because they don’t feel anything.
Just for the record, I had an epidural with both of my labors, and I still felt plenty. They take the pain away from the contractions for a while, but once you get really down to business, you still feel everything. I think it's unfair to say birth is "easy" for women who had an epidural.
Oh, and after pushing for 2 hours (after 14 hours of labor already), they stopped the epidural meds. So the next 2 hours of pushing and tearing were un-medicated. Yeah, birth with an epidural is so easy!
I don't care if women have c-sections, natural births, epidurals, water births, etc. All that matters is they have a healthy baby in the way that's best for them.
Last edited by CarnivalGal; 11-18-2017 at 11:09 AM..
I mean, many of us don't 'choose' a C-section but it does happen. Without a very quick C-section - my baby boy wouldn't have made it.
I expected a natural childbirth like everyone else. But when the you-know-what hit the fan and my baby's heart stopped beating ~ i didn't care WHAT they did as long as he lived.
Same here. I was past my due date and the doctor had me to go to the hospital for a fetal non-stress test--and they kept losing the heartbeat. Next thing I knew I was surrounded by this team of people who ran me down the hall and took her out. The obstetrician later said, "You know how fast I got her out? I cut you at 11:35 and at 11:37 she was out."
As I said, I found the documentary disturbing. I always thought c-sections were for emergencies only, not as the default. Being a man, I haven't really had much to do with that topic, yet.
They showed one of those child-bearing factories in Rio de Janeiro, it has grown into a very efficient industry there. Not the only dubious development, Rio is also the world's center of plastic surgery.
When c-sections in fact hurt the health of the new earthling, they should be discouraged, except in emergencies. It is like with breast-feeding in my view. Formula is inferior, yet many women prefer that artificial way.
When you already had two c-sections, it is not really unusual that a normal birth did not work the third time.
The use of the word "normal" for a vaginal birth has always bugged me. I refer to it as a natural birth or vaginal birth. I had my kids in the early 2000s (2000, 2002, 2003). My first was a c/s and I studied the facts quite a bit after that point. I read a lot about elective c/s in Brazil and some other countries as an effort to escape some of the body changes that are more likely to happen with natural childbirth. I was appalled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat
2 c-sections here. Definitely not "easy." The first baby likely wouldn't be here without it. The second was because the doctor was unwilling to risk a VBAC. Was it because of his risk of lawsuit or my risk of rupture? Probably both.
Was this documentary current? I was under the impression that, after a rise in the rate of c-sections, things were starting to swing back the other way.
The pendulum does swing rather quickly, in my experience I had my first in the fall of 2000 as an unplanned but not quite "emergency" c/s. (They made it sound more like an emergency than it actually was, but we made the best decision we could with the information we had). 18 months later, I was ready to deliver number 2. The pendulum at that time supported VBACS in the area where I lived. I had my second by VBAC in a hospital with a midwife. 18 mo after #2, I was ready to deliver #3. The pendulum had swung back the other way, hard, and I was denied a second vac at the same hospital where I'd delivered #2 less than 2 years before. I planned for an hbac (home birth after cesarian). The policy was very firm at that time- once a c/s, always a c/s. Never mind that I had experienced a protracted, extremely difficult vaginal birth just months prior. My argument was that my uterus was proven. if it didn't rupture during the 22 hour labor (6 hours of which were during transition- baby was jammed in there all funny and completely stuck), it was unlikely to rupture with another vaginal delivery (which, as it turns out, was 90 minutes start to finish).
I haven't kept up with the research, but I'm sure it's swung back and forth a few times in the meantime. I strongly believe in the woman's responsibility to do her research and make a selection that makes sense for her and her specific situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bondaroo
:lol I've heard this perspective before, and it always makes me laugh. C-sections hurt like a mofo, for longer than any normal labour.
All c/s and vaginal birth experiences are different- even in the same woman. I think true emergencies and especially those that happen after a long labor, are more likely to be complicated and make for a difficult experience and recovery. The actual experience of my c/s was intense and extremely scary (I don't think I reacted to the spinal well), and fairly quick. My vbac was long, painful (I didn't use medication and I was stuck, as previously mentioned), and I ended up ripping *and* getting cut (two different directions, mind you- the cut was to prevent the tear from going all the way through) and had a largish baby (9 1/2 lb) with a really big (unmolded) head and a fist right up next to his head. And I *still* preferred it to my c/s experiences (although my midwife was shocked when I went for another vbac for the third).
Recovery was another story. Yeah, the c/s recovery was painful. I eschewed pain medications (fearful after my bad reaction to the spinal and knowing that morphine makes me puke) and got up and moving pretty quickly. That really helped. The first vbac recovery was so, so, so much worse. The stitches going in two directions and the pain of using the restroom was intense. The third birth? Recovery was a piece of cake compared to the other two.
Theoretically, I don't understand the desire to choose major surgery as an option to deliver a baby when our bodies were supposedly made to deliver a baby vaginally. However, I can't pretend to know someone else's experiences or circumstances, and I do firmly believe it is the mother's choice to do what works best for her circumstances. I also believe strongly in the power of being informed. I will admit to having less respect for decisions that were made based on hearsay or superficial or under informed media reports without having really done the work to be informed.
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.
I had my first in the fall of 2000 as an unplanned but not quite "emergency" c/s. (They made it sound more like an emergency than it actually was, but we made the best decision we could with the information we had). 18 months later, I was ready to deliver number 2. The pendulum at that time supported VBACS in the area where I lived. I had my second by VBAC in a hospital with a midwife. 18 mo after #2, I was ready to deliver #3. The pendulum had swung back the other way, hard, and I was denied a second vac at the same hospital where I'd delivered #2 less than 2 years before. I planned for an hbac (home birth after cesarian). The policy was very firm at that time- once a c/s, always a c/s. Never mind that I had experienced a protracted, extremely difficult vaginal birth just months prior. My argument was that my uterus was proven. if it didn't rupture during the 22 hour labor (6 hours of which were during transition- baby was jammed in there all funny and completely stuck), it was unlikely to rupture with another vaginal delivery (which, as it turns out, was 90 minutes start to finish). 