Elective C Section II Easier To Load

15 Replies
New Thread - February 11

The original elective c-section thread had a heated debate going on for over a year about whether women should elect a primary cesarean section ( or a subsequent birth) without medical need and whether it is ethical for a physician to perform patient request c/s. So again, should they be available for patients without medical need or not? Do they prevent or cause increased damage? Are they better for babies not in distress or not? Pain and recovery perceptions are entirely subjective and therefore are not scientific fact (except for the woman) so I leave that to the individual poster. I have not been convinced that a c-section without medical need has been proven. Ladies?

 

Biologist and pg - February 11

Yes, pain is a subjective issue. While it needs to be taken in to consideration to be sure, as a scientist I look at the histiological damage and also am not convinced that uneccessary invasive surgery should be performed unless medical need has clearly been established. Aside from charlatain surgeons who perform bogus surgeries for monetary gain, most ethical physicians should not apply risk to an otherwise healthy patient via uneccessary surgeries. I am hopeful I can deliver v____ally with proper labor and delivery management.

 

Suzanne - February 11

Not me. I elected for a c-section. Doctor is fine with it. This is my first and probably my last, and therefore I am not taking any chances with the life of this baby. It took me almost 15 years to get pregnant. It is a personal decision.

 

To Suzanne - February 11

First congrats, and second, why do you think women are taking "chances" with the lives of their babies by delivering them the way nature designed it? This is of course if they and their babies are determined to be healthy and low-risk?

 

To "To Suzanne" - February 12

Some women are in labour for 12-20+ hours and sometimes, especially if it is a woman's first baby, she has to push for 2-3 hours before the baby is born. If it took Suzanne almost 15 years to get pregnant, she may also be in her late 30's. Even though there are risks with the surgery it is not healthy either for a woman to possibly be in labour for that long. And if a woman is in her late 30s when she is in labour she may require a c-section anyway if there are complications. Ever hear of a woman being in labour and not progressing and her baby is in distress and she is taken in for an emergency c-section? That happened to a friend of mine and by the time her doctor finally did the emergency c-section her baby was not breathing. The doctors eventually got her baby girl breathing again. But my friend was left in labour for too long before her doctor decided to do the c-section and almost killed her baby in the process. Considering Suzanne's difficulty getting pregnant, combined with her probably being in her late 30's you cannot blame her for not wanting to put her baby and herself through all of that possibly happening. And obviously her doctor agreed with her. And a woman being in labour for 12-20+ hours and pushing for 2-3 hours and possibly ending up with a forceps and/or episiotomy delivery doesn't sound that natural to me anyway. Unfortunately, though, that is the fate for a lot of first time moms out there delivering v____ally. So as unnatural as a c-section is to deliver a baby, v____al delivery sounds just like the way nature designed it. Yeah really. All sarcasm set aside, there is no easy way or "natural"/ "nature's way" to deliver a baby. A c-section is not the easy way out and a v____al delivery is anything but "natural".

 

Re: - February 12

Ahem, sarcasm only works on those who feel outcla__sed or outnumbered. I feel neither so a different approach may be in order for me. I do know of women who have labor for that amount of time, not an unnatural or dangerous amount for a first birth especially. Pushing for 2-3 hours is rough, but since the advent of super-epidurals that is not considered unusual anymore either. I understand the long-awaited baby, but I do not feel any women has more stake in a child than another and do not feel like labor and delivery is taking chances. Not going in for a c-section when trouble arises is taking a chance, but to attempt it is not. Following this line of logic, and that of all who so adamantly support non-medical c-sections , I wonder why there is such a thing as v____al delivery anymore. To read these forums one would think a woman is almost remiss in her first duty as a mother by attempting to deliver with (gasp) her own body!!! Elective c's will do as every other "fad" has done, light up, spread like wildfire, become the accepted norm and then be refuted, disproved, exposed for being dangerous (or what have you) and then fade away. If you don't want forceps, vacuums, large episiotomies etc. a woman has to eat healthfully, EXCERSISE as much as she is able, forgo or limit the epidural so she can actually feel her body working and can push properly. Some cesareans will always be necessary, but non-medical c-sections make a mockery of pregnancy and birth and make it more difficult for women who require them to get the help they need when celebrities and ordinary women (who have them under the most ideal circ_mstances) make them sound like a trip to the plastic surgeon for a Botox injection.

 

If the logic is correct... - February 12

that says "might", "could", "maybe", etc...women should not attempt v____al birth at all! For God's sake, this is ridiculous how totally unable women have become in handling birth anymore. Guess what, ladies, if you took away the monitors, the pitocin, the forceps, the epidurals, the operating rooms, the fetal monitoring, most of us would still be able to have our babies. Yes, some women and babies need the help of cesarean section, most women and babies do not. External Fetal monitoring has not been proven after 20 years of study to have significantly improved fetal outcomes by performing a cesarean section due to fetal heart rate decels and has in fact, been implicated in a several-fold increase in unnecessary cesarean section.

 

Logic - February 12

Look at society and see how many ways that different drug companies have given people relief with a chemical. And what is worse is that people feel a bit out of sorts and the first thing they do is pop a pill. And as mothers we don't help the matter. When we see our little one ailing we reach for the tylenol or the numbing spray. It isn't that women are unable to handle the pain of birth, they have just been socialized that if drugs are available and work, then they use them. I am not saying this is bad, it is a personal choice. Women are meant to give birth, but sometimes nature gives us more than we can handle. Look at the animal planet--we aren't the only species that require c-sections. Giving birth has become more modern as society has. Babies are generally heavier because of the awful American diet most of us indulge in and the "birthweight" of babies is inherited. If one parent was a big baby, then the likelyhood of a big baby is greater. Looking back in history and seeing how many women actually died (and their babies) especially in rural areas, I am so glad we have the modern technology that we do. When I give birth I don't mind taking the epidural if I need it, and if I have to have a c-section of the healthy of myself or my baby, then that is what I will do. That is what any mother should do.

 

Re: Last poster - February 12

I know what you are saying, of course, no one should suffer. I just have come to the realization that if we think things to death we will use prophylactic reasoning to cross the street! I too would accept a cesarean section if the prevailing opinion indicates it is a judicious use of surgery. I agree with healthy mom and baby, if via surgery so be it. I guess I am just becoming increasingly disenchanted with the general tone going 'round that birth has become SO dangerous and risky that we should so easily be led to the operating theatre.

 

luci - February 12

Hi all, I was wondering why anyone cares if someone else wants an elective csection. What does it have to do with you personally. Do you all feel that you must "save" this person by pounding your beliefs on her?? Why not let everyone do what they feel is best and only worry about yourself and your own issues. Everyone wants to be in everyones business all the time,, " gee why ya doin that??" " why a csection" "oh my god you will endanger motherhood" "blah blah blah" Who died and made you all the "ethical god" one who decides all womens delievery fate?? Starts to sound a little like religion, ... " my way is better,.,,, do it my way" you almost expect that some of you have a little swinging medallion that you try to hypnotise us with.... Oh master of what is right or wrong, lead me, teach me, allow me to birth naturally as it matters so to you.... well perhaps I am being provocative and will have the wrath upon me... batter up, I have delivered both ways and can take it.......

 

marcie. - February 13

I agree with a lot of these valid points.It is true,it is down to the individual and the doctors,not strangers on these forums saying you "should not have a c-section".I do not believe people should have the right to a s_x change operation,but I would not go on a forum and start an argument over it!! It is true that years ago women had children with no medicine,they either had their babies,or died in childbirth. The fact is we have moved on since then,we as a nation,rely on pain management to ease it,be it for a headache,period pain,whatever the tablets are there.Women know that childbirth is reowned for being extremely painful,and on some cases,the natural worry of pain and wanting drugs,grows to something larger.Women like myself after my 1st birth,can have a real phobia about having a baby.A c-section,despite the risks which comes with any operation,and even though it is major surgery,is considered "safe" is they way out.Just like women who elect to have an epidural,others elect a c-section.I remember a women called "Mandy"she was scared at the even thought of giving birth,doctors said ok for a section.In this day and age we have moved on,the section is not a risk it once was,it is done so often on a daily basis,the doctors know fully the procedure,the nurses are well aware of the after care and medications.I support the right for a women to have understanding and support in however she chooses to birth her baby,the decision is not easy.

 

To Luci (and Marcie) - February 13

Your sarcasm doesn't work on some of us. Try being a grown-up who doesn't play "neener neener" with others. No one really cares how you personally have your baby, but many of us do care if BS is being pa__sed around. And Marcie, for the billionth time, quit saying it "is safe as they are done so often" it shows a lack of knowledge about surgery. There is a point where the risk doesn't decrease no matter how many times a day an operation is performed. We all know it is only okay to push elective c-sections on this forum and we all know the forum police come out in force to quell any dissention from your view.

 

Suzanne - February 13

Your right - I am in my late 30's. There is no medical reason I need a c-section but that is what we are going to do. My Dr. also advised an amnio, which we did. There were risks to that also but for us we are not taking any more chances. Sure, my baby could die in utero before my scheduled section. We felt that with a section, we had better odds of getting a healthy baby without the risks of normal birth. And my Dr agrees. It is a personal choice. I am willing to accept the complications for myself in the event of a problem.

 

marcie to the post aimed at me - February 14

I am not pa__sing around a pack of lies.I suggest you look up about a c-section,and read the information,you will find,as I did,they call the operation "major"..yes,but also you will see it mentions "safe".It is pretty obvious when you think logically about it.That there are so many of these operations being done,yet fail to hear about mortality,and severe complications,if there was a lot of it,its pretty obvious we would hear about it.I am sure yourself,like me,know of people who have had c-sections,for whatever reason,yet they are ok.So yes,any operation is a risk,having a baby is a risk,but it is also wise to keep it into perspective,that is,a c-section patient is expected to make a full recovery,otherwise obviously the operations would not be done so fequently,and the reasons for them would obviously be narrowed to when the situation is vital.I have know quite a few women who have had sections,and they are fine.Lets face it,if a pregnant friend of mine came up to me and said she is going in for a planned c-section,it is far different to that same friend saying she is having treatment for cancer/of brain tumour,that is far higher a risk,yet sometimes you read these threads and feel some ladies are making it seem like c-sections are in the same brand...!!!!!!!

 

Okey Dokey - February 16

Well, true, Marcie, it is expected that a pregnant women will recover from a c-section. On the other hand, when the mom nearly bleeds to death, the baby is delivered before IT is ready and damage occurs to important organs and systems, well that takes it out of the "safe" and simple category doesn't it? Any why would you think you would hear about complications? Doctors run through the risk section very rapidly and minimize the risks as everyone knows. Until patients such as yourself pushed so hard for them, c-sections WERE limited to vital situations. Just like cosmetic surgeons who put huge implants in women so they look like freaks there are OB's who will do patient choice surgery on women who don't need it.

 

Patience - February 18

I have to agree with last poster. While c-sections are safer than they used to be, we are not told about the complications and death that occur from them. They do not make the news and doctors do not advertise their existance. I, however, had no problem finding evidence of maternal deaths and severe complications from the surgery. I can find info on v____al complications too. The difference is, the complications from the c-sections ended up being far more "deadly" and disfiguring than the v____als. Risks both ways, to be sure, to both mothers and babies.

 

ADD A COMMENT:


You must log in to reply.

Are you New to the forum? Sign Up Here! Already a member? Please login below.

Forgot your password?
Need Help?
New to the forum?

Sign Up Here!


Already a member?
Please login below.





Forgot your password?
Need Help?  
Start A New Discussion