Full Version: C-section by choice
This article outlines a few of the risks associated with both vaginal delivery and Cesarean delivery.
I think this is a kind of strange statement. The doctor must believe that Cesarean delivery promotes the overall health more than vaginal birth in order for elective C-section to be ethical. That seems a bit strange to me. The article says that the risks associated with both ways are about equal. What's the difference in which way you elect to do it?
Do you think that women should be allowed to elect the method which they prefer to give birth? (Assuming that the Doctor agrees that neither option has greater risk than the other for that particular patient.)
QUOTE
Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published the opinion that it is ethical to perform elective C-sections, stating “If the physician believes that Cesarean delivery promotes the overall health and welfare of the woman and her fetus more than vaginal birth, he or she is ethically justified in performing a Cesarean delivery."
I think this is a kind of strange statement. The doctor must believe that Cesarean delivery promotes the overall health more than vaginal birth in order for elective C-section to be ethical. That seems a bit strange to me. The article says that the risks associated with both ways are about equal. What's the difference in which way you elect to do it?
Do you think that women should be allowed to elect the method which they prefer to give birth? (Assuming that the Doctor agrees that neither option has greater risk than the other for that particular patient.)
QUOTE
Do you think that women should be allowed to elect the method which they prefer to give birth? (Assuming that the Doctor agrees that neither option has greater risk than the other for that particular patient.)
Yes. Yet I do find these kind of comments alarming because many women have to fight for the right to give a vaginal birth. Some doctors ..especially true in certain areas of the US...just prefer to not allow a natural birth. It is a control issue. The doctors feel they have a lot more control of the situation when they opt for a c-section. So I would have to say yes if a woman prefers to opt for a c-section than she should have that right..as should a woman reserve the right to have a vaginal birth too, or a non medicated one.
I think there must be balance as the doctor is the trained professional you seek guidance and assistance in your child's birth and their professional opinion should matter..I just worry that the professional opinion given is often one that is being considered without the mother in mind.
I have read about this before tho...c-sections are now being considered by expecting mothers as a means to lessen their fears of birth and to place what they feel is more control over an uncontrollable situation in their lives. I find this view of birth very sad. Why are women becoming less empowered and even fearful of their physical capabilities? Why are women seeking to gain control of their being from medical procedures? I honestly do not see much difference in this new attitude in women towards birth here in America than say plastic surgery...same problems different symptoms.
QUOTE
The article says that the risks associated with both ways are about equal
Everything I've read mentions that there's a higher risk of maternal death and complications from a c-section. I posted some links on the thread "Murder because of a refusal of a C-section" to that effect.
QUOTE
Do you think that women should be allowed to elect the method which they prefer to give birth? (Assuming that the Doctor agrees that neither option has greater risk than the other for that particular patient.)
Assuming this is the case, I think it should be a choice, but in my opinion women choosing an elective c-section are nuts. The post delivery pain and recovery time are greater, plus there can be more complications and infections. And on top of all that it's more expensive!
I personally have an aversion to being cut open, but perhaps those who have under gone the knife previously don't have that same problem. But the choice should be the individual woman's -- it's her body, after all.
QUOTE
I honestly do not see much difference in this new attitude in women towards birth here in America than say plastic surgery...same problems different symptoms.
I agree with this thought -- this is the first thing I thought of when I first read about elective c-sections a few months ago when I was expecting my 2nd child.
QUOTE(jenreiautter @ Apr 13 2004, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE
The article says that the risks associated with both ways are about equal
Everything I've read mentions that there's a higher risk of maternal death and complications from a c-section. I posted some links on the thread "Murder because of a refusal of a C-section" to that effect.
From the article:
QUOTE
Cesarean deliveries were thought to be associated with more complications (and even maternal death due to bleeding and infection).
But these higher complication rates were due in part to the fact that C-sections were often performed under difficult conditions — after long hours of labor, ruptured membranes or fetal distress. When researchers compared complication rates of elective C-section with vaginal delivery, there was little difference.
But these higher complication rates were due in part to the fact that C-sections were often performed under difficult conditions — after long hours of labor, ruptured membranes or fetal distress. When researchers compared complication rates of elective C-section with vaginal delivery, there was little difference.
QUOTE(jenreiautter @ Apr 13 2004, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE
Do you think that women should be allowed to elect the method which they prefer to give birth? (Assuming that the Doctor agrees that neither option has greater risk than the other for that particular patient.)
Assuming this is the case, I think it should be a choice, but in my opinion women choosing an elective c-section are nuts. The post delivery pain and recovery time are greater, plus there can be more complications and infections. And on top of all that it's more expensive!
It can equally be said that the post delivery pain and recovery time from some vaginal births exceed the pain and recovery time from some C-sections. There are also instances of C-sections that went smoothly with no complications or infections. There are instances of vaginal births that did encounter such complications and infections. Just because you elect a ca-section doesn't mean you're relegating yourself to more pain, recovery time, and more risk of complication than had you chosen a natural birth. Each individual case has equal likelihood of going well or going bad, despite which method you choose. (Provided there aren't any mitigating circumstances.)
QUOTE(jenreiautter @ Apr 13 2004, 11:23 AM)
I personally have an aversion to being cut open,
Me too. I watched my mother give birth to my baby brother when I was 16. She ripped.
I decided that day that I'd rather be cut open purposefully then ripped open accidentally. QUOTE(jenreiautter @ Apr 13 2004, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE
I honestly do not see much difference in this new attitude in women towards birth here in America than say plastic surgery...same problems different symptoms.
I agree with this thought -- this is the first thing I thought of when I first read about elective c-sections a few months ago when I was expecting my 2nd child.
I don't see anything disappointing about women wanting to exert control over serious health procedures in their lives. Women throughout history have died in childbirth - at a very high rate. It's a serious matter. It's not like getting a shot - "Just suck it up, you'll live." Sure, giving birth in this day and age, you'll probably live because you're in the immediate care of medical professionals, but still - that does not make the act of giving birth any less dangerous. I don't see it as a "sad attitude" to want to exert some control over a dangerous medical procedure. And it surely is not along the lines of plastic surgery/vanity. It's an issue of safety or preference for most women. There will always be the few who would elect a vaginal birth even when it would be safer to go with a C-section - they'll attempt the vaginal birth to avoid scarring their stomachs - that, to me, is vanity. But most women would consider the dangerous nature of the procedure and go with their intuition, their doctor's recommendation, and their own personal comfort preference to decide which way to go. There's nothing shameful or sad in that. IMHO.
QUOTE
Just because you elect a ca-section doesn't mean you're relegating yourself to more pain, recovery time, and more risk of complication than had you chosen a natural birth.
Not true -- it takes 6 weeks after a c-section to get to the same level of recovery 2 weeks after vaginal birth -- that's 3 times the recovery time.
there's some more info on the risks to mother and baby at http://www.motherfriendly.org/Downloads/csec-fact-sheet.pdf there's way too much stuff here to post on AD.
In my second round of childbirth prep classes, my teacher has 3 children. Two of them she delivered vaginally and one was a c-section.
After watching a birthing video, one of the scared first time pregnant moms said "can I just schedule a c-section right now?" My teacher told her that as far as pain and complications and recovery time go, she really would be better off with a vaginal birth. She talked about how long it took just to be able to function without pain -- and she had a newborn to take care of on top of all that.
from: http://www.ican-online.org/news/091003.htm
QUOTE
Caesarean section, even when planned, carries with it a fourfold increase in maternal death. Additional risks include injury to internal organs (2 per 100), scalpel wounds to the baby (1 to 2 per 100), infections (50 times more often than after vaginal births) and hemorrhage. Babies are significantly more likely to develop life-threatening breathing problems, and, in the case of elective Caesareans, are often inadvertently delivered prematurely.
Women who have had C-sections have higher rates of secondary infertility and miscarriage, as well as radically increased incidences of dangerous and often life-threatening placental abnormalities in subsequent pregnancies.
Women who have had C-sections have higher rates of secondary infertility and miscarriage, as well as radically increased incidences of dangerous and often life-threatening placental abnormalities in subsequent pregnancies.
It sounds like you were really traumatized by watching a birth. But after having two labors from hell (80 hours and 57 hours) if I were to have any more children I'd still do it "naturally".
Personally, I wouldn't risk major surgery if I didn't have to. I've known a lot of women who have had cesareans and, as jenreiautter indicated, the recovery time was very long by comparison to a natural delivery. About two hours after I gave birth to each of my kids, I was pretty much recovered. No stitches, nothing. I also had a tremendous adrenaline high that went on for about three months of sleep deprivation before it finally wore off. I believe it's nature's way of allowing you to cope with a newborn after arduous labor. I know that's all anecdotal, but I've never known a person with a cesarean to have that. They are usually exhausted, woozy, and hurting for a long time.
I voted 'yes' to the poll question. I believe that the woman should have the choice over her own delivery, whether she wants it in water, at home, surgery, epidural, or none. I would simply recommend anyone who makes that choice go into it fully informed and without coercion.
I voted 'yes' to the poll question. I believe that the woman should have the choice over her own delivery, whether she wants it in water, at home, surgery, epidural, or none. I would simply recommend anyone who makes that choice go into it fully informed and without coercion.
QUOTE
I also had a tremendous adrenaline high that went on for about three months of sleep deprivation before it finally wore off.
I can attest to this high, Mrs. Pigpen as well, and do believe that it's nature's little helper.
I also want to clarify that I do believe that it's a woman's choice what she does with her body, so I wouldn't be for restricting elective c-sections.
On another note, after giving birth to my first daughter 9 years ago, with a labor that lasted over 80 hours and was almost drug free. I was able to use the empowerment I felt from that accomplishment whenever I had difficult physical tasks ahead. I would just think to myself "I've given birth -- I can do anything".
QUOTE(jenreiautter @ Apr 13 2004, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE
Just because you elect a ca-section doesn't mean you're relegating yourself to more pain, recovery time, and more risk of complication than had you chosen a natural birth.
Not true -- it takes 6 weeks after a c-section to get to the same level of recovery 2 weeks after vaginal birth -- that's 3 times the recovery time.
I've met mothers who needed 2 or 3 months to fully recover from vaginal births. (my own mother). It seems that if all goes optimal (comparing best case scenarios vaginal and Csection), a C section would take more recovery time. But just because you decide to go vaginal doesn't guarantee that you'll be spending less time in recovery then had you gone C section.
QUOTE(jenreiautter @ Apr 13 2004, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE
Caesarean section, even when planned, carries with it a fourfold increase in maternal death. Additional risks include injury to internal organs (2 per 100), scalpel wounds to the baby (1 to 2 per 100), infections (50 times more often than after vaginal births) and hemorrhage. Babies are significantly more likely to develop life-threatening breathing problems, and, in the case of elective Caesareans, are often inadvertently delivered prematurely.
Women who have had C-sections have higher rates of secondary infertility and miscarriage, as well as radically increased incidences of dangerous and often life-threatening placental abnormalities in subsequent pregnancies.
Women who have had C-sections have higher rates of secondary infertility and miscarriage, as well as radically increased incidences of dangerous and often life-threatening placental abnormalities in subsequent pregnancies.
This site's statistics are tainted in the way mentioned in the first article. Sure only some of the 26% C-sections were elected C-sections, the rest were unelected, but decided due to already existing complications. Meaning in the rest of the cases the complications were caused or exacerbated by natural birth.
The articles are old anyway, compared to the latest study referenced in the MSN article.
QUOTE
The articles are old anyway, compared to the latest study referenced in the MSN article.
Well, since the trend of increases in elective c-sections is a relatively new phenomenon, I will wait a few years to reserve judgment on this one.
I hesitate to post on this subject since I'm male and after having gone through the births of my two kids as a LaMaze coach for their mothers, I really don't wanna mess with you females that have been through the process. Y'all are one heckuva lot tougher than I ever hope to be.
I would like to add to this thread though the consideration of what is best for the health of the child. It's been quite awhile since my last child was born (12 years), but at least at that time I was told there were health risks to the child associated with a C-Section. The theory at that time was that children born via C-Section tended to be a higher risk for respiratory problems. This was because in a vaginal birth the baby's lungs were "squeezed out" of the fluid they contained in the womb. I dunno, made sense to me at the time, but then again all I was doing was the breathing exercises we learned in LaMaze class.
I would like to add to this thread though the consideration of what is best for the health of the child. It's been quite awhile since my last child was born (12 years), but at least at that time I was told there were health risks to the child associated with a C-Section. The theory at that time was that children born via C-Section tended to be a higher risk for respiratory problems. This was because in a vaginal birth the baby's lungs were "squeezed out" of the fluid they contained in the womb. I dunno, made sense to me at the time, but then again all I was doing was the breathing exercises we learned in LaMaze class.
I have a unique perspective as I am a V-BAC (Vaginal Birth after C-Sec). Both methods were uneventful medically though in terms of quality of experience, it was black and white. My Daughter was an Emergency C-Sec and for 2 days following her birth, Mom was on morphine. It was the most painful experience of my life, this coming from a woman that has had her foot rebuilt (10 operations). Abdominal surgery is a whole different animal, I won't get too graphic lets just say there isn't an organ in my abdomen that went untouched by the Dr., oweeeee! Due to the general state of post surgical torpidity, I also failed miserably at breast feeding, with pain comes stress. Breast Feeding and stress do not go well together especially in the beginning. Now my son well, they couldn't keep me down after delivery. I felt so good and was so excited about my new son that I wouldn't stay in bed. My Dr. ran into me in the hall with my family and yelled at me! Get into bed you just gave birth! I couldn't leave my sons side and the Dr.'s had to take him away to check him out LOL! This time breast feeding wasn't a problem at all. I was allowed a 3 day stay as I was a scheduled C-Sec and checked out a day early as I couldn't waite to get home and be with my family. I believe is must be a womans choice though I would never choose a C-Sec if it were not a medical emergency, you loose all the fun. I felt like a victim, and control was not an option (well I did have control in the sense that I was required to request pain injections when the pain began to return) 
Aquilla Posted on Apr 13 2004, 06:34 PM
I believe you are correct kind Sir I will further support your post with a comparison to my children. My Daughter (C-Sec) suffered from Asthma from 3-5yrs old. Early intervention has strengthened her lungs and as the Dr. predicted she was able to overcome her problem. She was sick all of the time and it was quite scarey. My Son on the other hand (vaginal birth) has been to the Dr. for a sick visit 2 times in his life, both for a bad cold. He has never needed antibiotics. He is turning 5 in June. Be it vaginal birth of the fact that he was breast fed he is very healthy. It is hard to admit that if I had breast fed my daughter she may not have had such problems. I do believe that my failure to breast feed was a consequence of the C-Sec. We will never know all of the woulda's and coulda's as it just didn't go well in the delivery room and we needed to save her life.
Aquilla Posted on Apr 13 2004, 06:34 PM
QUOTE
This was because in a vaginal birth the baby's lungs were "squeezed out" of the fluid they contained in the womb. I dunno, made sense to me at the time, but then again all I was doing was the breathing exercises we learned in LaMaze class.
I believe you are correct kind Sir I will further support your post with a comparison to my children. My Daughter (C-Sec) suffered from Asthma from 3-5yrs old. Early intervention has strengthened her lungs and as the Dr. predicted she was able to overcome her problem. She was sick all of the time and it was quite scarey. My Son on the other hand (vaginal birth) has been to the Dr. for a sick visit 2 times in his life, both for a bad cold. He has never needed antibiotics. He is turning 5 in June. Be it vaginal birth of the fact that he was breast fed he is very healthy. It is hard to admit that if I had breast fed my daughter she may not have had such problems. I do believe that my failure to breast feed was a consequence of the C-Sec. We will never know all of the woulda's and coulda's as it just didn't go well in the delivery room and we needed to save her life.
I voted yes even though after browsing a few sites much of the information on c-sections was negative.
ICAN's FAQs states:
But if you scroll to the bottom:
My mother may be a petite woman but her pelvis isn't deformed! She was in the final stages of labor for hours before doctors performed a c-section. Not once, but three times. She didn't suffer any of the negative affects noted. She always sounded happy recalling our births.
The WHO recommends a static 15%+- of births should result from c-sections. I don't doubt there are doctors that place convenience over health and pressure women into c-sections for a number of ulterior reasons. Perhaps for monetary gain as well? However women have legal recourses. I was pressured to opt for surgery once myself and walked away. I know I made the right choice. I'm glad no one made it for me.
Perhaps ICAN and like-minded websites feel they can help stop the increasing number of c-sections by projecting worst case scenarios. That, to me at least, has more to do with shaping opinion than raising awareness. If information's purpose to educate is secondary to effecting behavior women will still get the wrong story, regardless of the distributer's intention.
Food for thought. I found this story from the ICAN website:
ICAN's FAQs states:
QUOTE
Q: My doctor told me my pelvis is too small to vaginally deliver a baby over eight pounds. Is this true?
A: No, the pelvis and the baby's head are not fixed bone structures. During labor the pelvis opens, allowing room for the baby, whose head molds to fit. The pelvis will actually open up 33% larger than it's pre-pregnant size with...
A: No, the pelvis and the baby's head are not fixed bone structures. During labor the pelvis opens, allowing room for the baby, whose head molds to fit. The pelvis will actually open up 33% larger than it's pre-pregnant size with...
But if you scroll to the bottom:
QUOTE
Q: When is a cesarean absolutely necessary?
A: • Complete placenta previa at term.
• Transverse lie
• Prolapsed cord.
• Abrupted Placenta.
• Eclampsia or severe preeclampsia with failed induction of labor.
• Large uterine tumor which blocks the cervix
• True fetal distress confirmed with a fetal scalp sampling or biophysical profile
• True cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD- baby too large for pelvis). This is extremely rare and only associated with a pelvic deformity (or an incorrectly healed pelvic break).
• Initial outbreak of active herpes at the onset of labor.
• Uterine rupture
A: • Complete placenta previa at term.
• Transverse lie
• Prolapsed cord.
• Abrupted Placenta.
• Eclampsia or severe preeclampsia with failed induction of labor.
• Large uterine tumor which blocks the cervix
• True fetal distress confirmed with a fetal scalp sampling or biophysical profile
• True cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD- baby too large for pelvis). This is extremely rare and only associated with a pelvic deformity (or an incorrectly healed pelvic break).
• Initial outbreak of active herpes at the onset of labor.
• Uterine rupture
My mother may be a petite woman but her pelvis isn't deformed! She was in the final stages of labor for hours before doctors performed a c-section. Not once, but three times. She didn't suffer any of the negative affects noted. She always sounded happy recalling our births.
The WHO recommends a static 15%+- of births should result from c-sections. I don't doubt there are doctors that place convenience over health and pressure women into c-sections for a number of ulterior reasons. Perhaps for monetary gain as well? However women have legal recourses. I was pressured to opt for surgery once myself and walked away. I know I made the right choice. I'm glad no one made it for me.
Perhaps ICAN and like-minded websites feel they can help stop the increasing number of c-sections by projecting worst case scenarios. That, to me at least, has more to do with shaping opinion than raising awareness. If information's purpose to educate is secondary to effecting behavior women will still get the wrong story, regardless of the distributer's intention.
Food for thought. I found this story from the ICAN website:
QUOTE
Marlowe never returned. She gave birth vaginally Thursday morning at Moses Taylor Hospital in Scranton to a baby girl, her and her husband's seventh child. Court papers said it was her seventh pregnancy in seven or eight years. The Marlowes said the mother and infant are healthy.
Attorneys for General Hospital sought the highly unusual action through a lawsuit because its doctors said Marlowe, who went to the hospital Tuesday night, adamantly refused to deliver the fetus by C-section because of "religious" beliefs.
Her refusal came after warnings by doctors that a vaginal delivery could result in death for the fetus because it was expected to weigh 13 pounds. They also were concerned with complications Marlowe had in other pregnancies.
The hospital was acting to "preserve and protect the rights of (the fetus) regarding its health and survival," the hospital's attorney, Mary G. Cummings, wrote in court papers.
Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Conahan late Wednesday afternoon approved the request.
Marlowe's husband, John, said the hospital made up the story, including the part about the religious beliefs and the fetus' size, after its staff was "arrogant" in trying to force Marlowe to have a C-section.
-- Court delivers controversy
Attorneys for General Hospital sought the highly unusual action through a lawsuit because its doctors said Marlowe, who went to the hospital Tuesday night, adamantly refused to deliver the fetus by C-section because of "religious" beliefs.
Her refusal came after warnings by doctors that a vaginal delivery could result in death for the fetus because it was expected to weigh 13 pounds. They also were concerned with complications Marlowe had in other pregnancies.
The hospital was acting to "preserve and protect the rights of (the fetus) regarding its health and survival," the hospital's attorney, Mary G. Cummings, wrote in court papers.
Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Conahan late Wednesday afternoon approved the request.
Marlowe's husband, John, said the hospital made up the story, including the part about the religious beliefs and the fetus' size, after its staff was "arrogant" in trying to force Marlowe to have a C-section.
-- Court delivers controversy
QUOTE
I don't see anything disappointing about women wanting to exert control over serious health procedures in their lives
Well then why is the means you advocate to do this placing total control in the hands of another? How are you exerting control over the situation by completely removing your physical role in the whole event? If you and your body could be trusted to incubate the baby for over 9 months why do you have so much doubt in the final stage of pregnancy? Which is an essential stage mother and baby should progress through. Why are you claiming women should be considered to be unreliable in birth? Why aren't the doctors being casted as the unreliable factor too? Did you know that a certain percentage of mothers who have died in pregnancy died as a result of general anesthesia..and that those deaths have been on an increase. And why would a women giving birth be under general anesthesia? For a c-section perhaps? Yes there are certain risks and possible complications that can occur in giving birth..and there is also risks and complications in surgery.
QUOTE
I don't see it as a "sad attitude" to want to exert some control over a dangerous medical procedure.
Giving birth to a child is not a dangerous medical procedure. It is a natural phase of being a woman...we as the female species give birth. This gift of ours was not granted to us or bestowed on us in thanks to the medical industry and is not their procedure to lay claim to. Women have given birth and it has been a part of our identity since there were women..long long long before the art of medicine ever existed and it can't be all that dangerous since it has sustained and highly promoted the human race. I would imagine you have a better chance of dying in a car than you would in pregnancy in this country.
Yes women die at alarming rates in some countries in the world during birth...yet there are other far more significant factors involved and a c-section is not one of them. The same countries women suffer high rates of mortality in pregnancy also have high numbers of children dying from partaking in what we would consider completely harmless activities like drinking water.
QUOTE
And it surely is not along the lines of plastic surgery/vanity. It's an issue of safety or preference for most women.
From what I understood the question for this debate was elective c-sections. Not c-sections where safety of the mother or child was in question but rather where the birth plan from the start was to opt for a c-section. Mothers generally come up with their birth plan before a relationship has been established with a doctor to even determine risk factors and many women use their birth plans to help them choose their ob/gyn. I actually did not answer the poll because I don't feel this approach is ethical and I honestly don't feel any doctor who promotes this procedure from the start regardless of medical factors and solely based on preference is being ethical. The US federal govt agrees actually because they do feel our country's c-section rate is too high and they have been advocating vaginal birth since 2000. So perhaps I was being dishonest in saying yes..because personally I think it is wrong. I just don't expect everyone to have to do what I personally think.
And it is just like the same mentality of plastic surgery..it is women asking for the medical industry to help them gain control over the natural progression or outcome of their physical self. Too fatty thighs, small breasts, aging, a baby. Instead of looking within we seek guidance from modern medicine. Apparently the human genome is a cruel beast, who is vindictive, dangerous and untrustworthy.
Our country has one of the highest rates of c-section procedures and yet still suffers a high rate of maternal deaths for a developed nation. If the c-section was the correlating factor in safe births then why are we not seeing it? It is because some of the greatest and most important factors in having a happy healthy pregnancy are most reliant on our own selves...diet, education, exercise and mental health. No doctor has a quick fix to any of these.
Your statement about women refusing c-sections because of vanity ..that was a horrid thing to bring into this discussion and I see no reason why any of us should have to approach and treat that statement as a valid argument. Any women who has had a baby can tell you that by that time in your pregnancy you have completely and willingly subjugated your entire self to that baby....and the idea of getting a scar means nothing to you...any mother who feels otherwise is mentally ill.
Which actually brings me to a point I wanted to make. America has the high rate of post partum depression. Having given birth here in America and in Europe there is an immense difference between the two and altho the American focus is predominately on the safety and control of the birth...which is a good thing...the focus on the mother, the focus on the mother and child relationship post delivery and the overall human aspect of the entire event is severely lacking...you are right it has been made into a medical procedure and one we are expected to fear, doubt and remove ourselves from here in the US..yet that is not a good thing.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
[quote]I don't see anything disappointing about women wanting to exert control over serious health procedures in their lives[/quote]
Well then why is the means you advocate to do this placing total control in the hands of another? How are you exerting control over the situation by completely removing your physical role in the whole event? If you and your body could be trusted to incubate the baby for over 9 months why do you have so much doubt in the final stage of pregnancy? Which is an essential stage mother and baby should progress through. Why are you claiming women should be considered to be unreliable in birth? Why aren't the doctors being casted as the unreliable factor too? Did you know that a certain percentage of mothers who have died in pregnancy died as a result of general anesthesia..and that those deaths have been on an increase. And why would a women giving birth be under general anesthesia? For a c-section perhaps? Yes there are certain risks and possible complications that can occur in giving birth..and there is also risks and complications in surgery.
[/quote]
Whoa. First of all, I'm not advocating elective C-sections. I'm not campaigning for them. I am not doubting the ability of a woman to give vaginal birth. Neither am I claiming that women should be considered unreliable in birth. I'm saying that the numbers that women base their decision on are tainted. That's all I'm saying. You could have equal amount of trouble with either method. You agree, I agree - there are risks associated with both.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Giving birth to a child is not a dangerous medical procedure. It is a natural phase of being a woman...we as the female species give birth. This gift of ours was not granted to us or bestowed on us in thanks to the medical industry and is not their procedure to lay claim to.
[/quote]
You're right, giving birth is traditionally not a medical procedure. But it is, and always has been dangerous. I don't see the ability to give birth as a gift but a burden. I'm not being cynical, I really am not religious so bringing life into this world is just a biological process to me. It's a dangerous one, and an inconveniencing one.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Women have given birth and it has been a part of our identity since there were women..long long long before the art of medicine ever existed and it can't be all that dangerous since it has sustained and highly promoted the human race. I would imagine you have a better chance of dying in a car than you would in pregnancy in this country.
[/quote]
I agree.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
I actually did not answer the poll because I don't feel this approach is ethical
[/quote]
There was an option for you to vote NO if you felt it was unethical....
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
The US federal govt agrees actually because they do feel our country's c-section rate is too high and they have been advocating vaginal birth since 2000.
[/quote]
Who advocates this? Where? And why does the collective government care how the population grows when they can't provide for everyone who is already alive?
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
And it is just like the same mentality of plastic surgery..it is women asking for the medical industry to help them gain control over the natural progression or outcome of their physical self. Too fatty thighs, small breasts, aging, a baby. Instead of looking within we seek guidance from modern medicine. Apparently the human genome is a cruel beast, who is vindictive, dangerous and untrustworthy.
[/quote]
Apparently it is. The body's natural reaction to introduced poisons is to purge the stomach of the poison. (Through vomiting and diarrhea). Little does the body know that by trying to rid itself of one danger, it is putting itself into another danger (dehydration). Luckily, because of medical understanding, when someone is poisoned, we know that the body's reaction is not going to save the person, and we can take additional action. There are many situations like this where the body doesn't always know what is best.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Our country has one of the highest rates of c-section procedures and yet still suffers a high rate of maternal deaths for a developed nation.
[/quote]
Please site sources.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
If the c-section was the correlating factor in safe births then why are we not seeing it? It is because some of the greatest and most important factors in having a happy healthy pregnancy are most reliant on our own selves...diet, education, exercise and mental health. No doctor has a quick fix to any of these.
[/quote]
I agree with these.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Your statement about women refusing c-sections because of vanity ..that was a horrid thing to bring into this discussion and I see no reason why any of us should have to approach and treat that statement as a valid argument.
[/quote]
I was giving an example of how your choice of birth might be related to vanity. Choosing to scar yourself by electing a C-section is hardly a solid argument that elective C-sections are done in vanity.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Any women who has had a baby can tell you that by that time in your pregnancy you have completely and willingly subjugated your entire self to that baby....and the idea of getting a scar means nothing to you...any mother who feels otherwise is mentally ill.
[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]I don't see anything disappointing about women wanting to exert control over serious health procedures in their lives[/quote]
Well then why is the means you advocate to do this placing total control in the hands of another? How are you exerting control over the situation by completely removing your physical role in the whole event? If you and your body could be trusted to incubate the baby for over 9 months why do you have so much doubt in the final stage of pregnancy? Which is an essential stage mother and baby should progress through. Why are you claiming women should be considered to be unreliable in birth? Why aren't the doctors being casted as the unreliable factor too? Did you know that a certain percentage of mothers who have died in pregnancy died as a result of general anesthesia..and that those deaths have been on an increase. And why would a women giving birth be under general anesthesia? For a c-section perhaps? Yes there are certain risks and possible complications that can occur in giving birth..and there is also risks and complications in surgery.
[/quote]
Whoa. First of all, I'm not advocating elective C-sections. I'm not campaigning for them. I am not doubting the ability of a woman to give vaginal birth. Neither am I claiming that women should be considered unreliable in birth. I'm saying that the numbers that women base their decision on are tainted. That's all I'm saying. You could have equal amount of trouble with either method. You agree, I agree - there are risks associated with both.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Giving birth to a child is not a dangerous medical procedure. It is a natural phase of being a woman...we as the female species give birth. This gift of ours was not granted to us or bestowed on us in thanks to the medical industry and is not their procedure to lay claim to.
[/quote]
You're right, giving birth is traditionally not a medical procedure. But it is, and always has been dangerous. I don't see the ability to give birth as a gift but a burden. I'm not being cynical, I really am not religious so bringing life into this world is just a biological process to me. It's a dangerous one, and an inconveniencing one.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Women have given birth and it has been a part of our identity since there were women..long long long before the art of medicine ever existed and it can't be all that dangerous since it has sustained and highly promoted the human race. I would imagine you have a better chance of dying in a car than you would in pregnancy in this country.
[/quote]
I agree.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
I actually did not answer the poll because I don't feel this approach is ethical
[/quote]
There was an option for you to vote NO if you felt it was unethical....
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
The US federal govt agrees actually because they do feel our country's c-section rate is too high and they have been advocating vaginal birth since 2000.
[/quote]
Who advocates this? Where? And why does the collective government care how the population grows when they can't provide for everyone who is already alive?
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
And it is just like the same mentality of plastic surgery..it is women asking for the medical industry to help them gain control over the natural progression or outcome of their physical self. Too fatty thighs, small breasts, aging, a baby. Instead of looking within we seek guidance from modern medicine. Apparently the human genome is a cruel beast, who is vindictive, dangerous and untrustworthy.
[/quote]
Apparently it is. The body's natural reaction to introduced poisons is to purge the stomach of the poison. (Through vomiting and diarrhea). Little does the body know that by trying to rid itself of one danger, it is putting itself into another danger (dehydration). Luckily, because of medical understanding, when someone is poisoned, we know that the body's reaction is not going to save the person, and we can take additional action. There are many situations like this where the body doesn't always know what is best.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Our country has one of the highest rates of c-section procedures and yet still suffers a high rate of maternal deaths for a developed nation.
[/quote]
Please site sources.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
If the c-section was the correlating factor in safe births then why are we not seeing it? It is because some of the greatest and most important factors in having a happy healthy pregnancy are most reliant on our own selves...diet, education, exercise and mental health. No doctor has a quick fix to any of these.
[/quote]
I agree with these.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Your statement about women refusing c-sections because of vanity ..that was a horrid thing to bring into this discussion and I see no reason why any of us should have to approach and treat that statement as a valid argument.
[/quote]
I was giving an example of how your choice of birth might be related to vanity. Choosing to scar yourself by electing a C-section is hardly a solid argument that elective C-sections are done in vanity.
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Any women who has had a baby can tell you that by that time in your pregnancy you have completely and willingly subjugated your entire self to that baby....and the idea of getting a scar means nothing to you...any mother who feels otherwise is mentally ill.
[/quote]
I agree.
I have had 3 c-sections. Jaime being the first because I am a tiny woman and she was breach.
I had a spinal with her. They other 2 with gas.
I will never have another spinal if I can avoid it. They didn't tell me to lay flat for 12 hours and if you don't you get a MAJOR migraine headache.
I was told there is a bigger risk with gas but believe me if you ever had a spinal and got that migraine you will take the gas.
I do believe there is a greater risk with c-sections but with today's medicine I think it is pretty safe.
As for lung problems with kids born vaginally or a c-section I don't see a difference.
I have 2 sisters who one gave birth vaginally and one a c-section and one vaginally.
The sister who gave birth vaginally with her only child had more allergies than any of the kids born to us.
Even had St Vidas dance which is a form of Rhumetic Fever.
So I guess my thought is talk to the Dr and see what is best for YOU and your BABY
I had a spinal with her. They other 2 with gas.
I will never have another spinal if I can avoid it. They didn't tell me to lay flat for 12 hours and if you don't you get a MAJOR migraine headache.
I was told there is a bigger risk with gas but believe me if you ever had a spinal and got that migraine you will take the gas.
I do believe there is a greater risk with c-sections but with today's medicine I think it is pretty safe.
As for lung problems with kids born vaginally or a c-section I don't see a difference.
I have 2 sisters who one gave birth vaginally and one a c-section and one vaginally.
The sister who gave birth vaginally with her only child had more allergies than any of the kids born to us.
Even had St Vidas dance which is a form of Rhumetic Fever.
So I guess my thought is talk to the Dr and see what is best for YOU and your BABY
I voted yes because assuming there is no difference in risk for the two procedures, there is no ethical conflict for a doctor to offer and let the patient decide - this would actually be upholding one of the foundations of medical ethis - patient autonomy.
However, I don't think the two procedures have the same associated risk. I don't have any solid medical websites I can offer that are in the public domain, so most of this is based on what I am learning in school... None the less - c-sections have many associated risks for both mother and baby. In the past, there have not been as many elective c-sections to compare to vaginal delivery - but there are still some very serious risks that come with c-section, even if the labor and/or pregnancy are not high risk. The article mentions placenta previa (placenta basically blocks the exit) and placenta acreta (placenta essentially acts like a cancer in the mother) more likely in subsequent delivery. If you don't want anymore children, that might be an entirely acceptable risk - but if you do, it can cause problems for mother and baby... placenta acreta is especially troubling - the mother could not only lose the baby, but her uterus, ovaries and possibly even parts of other abdominal organs because the placenta acts like a very aggressive cancer.
Hemorrhage is a major concern for both vaginal delivery and c-section - but overall, healthy moms with healthy babies will lose about 25% more blood in a c-section compared to vaginal birth. Add to this the risk of hemorrhage that comes with any surgery. There is also risk of subsequent problems with blood clots and embolisms as in any other surgery.
There is a very real difference between the baby exiting from the naturally designed "door" which essentially limits the mothers risk from exposure to the elements so to speak, and opening up the entire abdomen. C section is one surgery that will never be laparoscopic, so risk of infection is still very serious. Also, after a normal vaginal delivery, the uterus is basically healed as soon as the placenta is gone... but with c section there is now a scar in the thick uterine wall that must heal... sometimes, this surgical trauma will cause the uterus to actually heal closed, or it heals with thick non-functional tissue or it just won't heal for whatever reason.
I think the risks of c-section tend to get down played in the world of "modern medicine". With advances in antibiotics and surgical techniques, some doctors act like the risks we expose the patient too simply from making any incision are now non-existent. They are not... and hospitals are especially dangerous places for acquiring infection (lots of resistant bacteria thrive in the hospital). The percentages (for getting a resistant bacteria) are low - around 1 to 2% depending on the hospital - but if there are 1000 different mothers delivering per month - that will be 120 women getting such dangerous infections per year! Doctors like to give out percentages for risks, because 1% sounds very small - but an actual number of 120 sounds much worse... these are not lottery odds, or odds of getting struck by lightening. Of course, 1 in 9 women will get breast cancer - a much scarier number, so c-section infections are not necessarily a large concern to doctors when they talk to a patient. Its sort of a "it cant happen to me" denial on the part of the doctor, thinking somehow s/he could beat the odds and not have 1% of his/her patients get the infections. This is rarely the case.
I still support the right of a woman to elect a c-section over vaginal delivery - but I worry about doctors who downplay the risks of c-section while overstating risks of vaginal delivery. Most patients have not had extensive biology or even science backgrounds... so they rely on the doctor to give the facts. But rectocele, cystocele or uterine prolapse sound just as scary as placenta previa or acreta. But in medical terms - its not necessarily the case. Plus, the manifestation of rectocele, cystocele or uterine prolapse are far down the road - they might affect your time spent with the grand children or even great grandchildren in your 60s, 70s and 80s... they will not affect your ability to have more children. Also, these conditions are not life threatening as in severe hemorrhage, placenta previa, placenta acreta, etc. Urinary incontinence sounds like a much bigger concern - its easier to imagine oneself having an embarrassing accident than imagining oneself facing death from a bacterial infection or because your baby's lifeline has become a sort of cancer.
I think the real tragedy is the women who get the c-section and then have serious consequences and look back and think "I never knew" or "the doctor didn't really explain what the risks actually would mean to my and my baby's lives". If the relative risks are actually explained, as well as the potential benefits of each procedure, and the woman then chooses to have an elective c-section, then it is truly ethical for the doctor to perform the procedure. But, if through some hidden agenda, or even simply from a bit of denial of one's own role in a patients adverse outcome the doctor downplays certain risks of c-section and overplays risks of vaginal birth - the doctor is not acting ethically.
However, I don't think the two procedures have the same associated risk. I don't have any solid medical websites I can offer that are in the public domain, so most of this is based on what I am learning in school... None the less - c-sections have many associated risks for both mother and baby. In the past, there have not been as many elective c-sections to compare to vaginal delivery - but there are still some very serious risks that come with c-section, even if the labor and/or pregnancy are not high risk. The article mentions placenta previa (placenta basically blocks the exit) and placenta acreta (placenta essentially acts like a cancer in the mother) more likely in subsequent delivery. If you don't want anymore children, that might be an entirely acceptable risk - but if you do, it can cause problems for mother and baby... placenta acreta is especially troubling - the mother could not only lose the baby, but her uterus, ovaries and possibly even parts of other abdominal organs because the placenta acts like a very aggressive cancer.
Hemorrhage is a major concern for both vaginal delivery and c-section - but overall, healthy moms with healthy babies will lose about 25% more blood in a c-section compared to vaginal birth. Add to this the risk of hemorrhage that comes with any surgery. There is also risk of subsequent problems with blood clots and embolisms as in any other surgery.
There is a very real difference between the baby exiting from the naturally designed "door" which essentially limits the mothers risk from exposure to the elements so to speak, and opening up the entire abdomen. C section is one surgery that will never be laparoscopic, so risk of infection is still very serious. Also, after a normal vaginal delivery, the uterus is basically healed as soon as the placenta is gone... but with c section there is now a scar in the thick uterine wall that must heal... sometimes, this surgical trauma will cause the uterus to actually heal closed, or it heals with thick non-functional tissue or it just won't heal for whatever reason.
I think the risks of c-section tend to get down played in the world of "modern medicine". With advances in antibiotics and surgical techniques, some doctors act like the risks we expose the patient too simply from making any incision are now non-existent. They are not... and hospitals are especially dangerous places for acquiring infection (lots of resistant bacteria thrive in the hospital). The percentages (for getting a resistant bacteria) are low - around 1 to 2% depending on the hospital - but if there are 1000 different mothers delivering per month - that will be 120 women getting such dangerous infections per year! Doctors like to give out percentages for risks, because 1% sounds very small - but an actual number of 120 sounds much worse... these are not lottery odds, or odds of getting struck by lightening. Of course, 1 in 9 women will get breast cancer - a much scarier number, so c-section infections are not necessarily a large concern to doctors when they talk to a patient. Its sort of a "it cant happen to me" denial on the part of the doctor, thinking somehow s/he could beat the odds and not have 1% of his/her patients get the infections. This is rarely the case.
I still support the right of a woman to elect a c-section over vaginal delivery - but I worry about doctors who downplay the risks of c-section while overstating risks of vaginal delivery. Most patients have not had extensive biology or even science backgrounds... so they rely on the doctor to give the facts. But rectocele, cystocele or uterine prolapse sound just as scary as placenta previa or acreta. But in medical terms - its not necessarily the case. Plus, the manifestation of rectocele, cystocele or uterine prolapse are far down the road - they might affect your time spent with the grand children or even great grandchildren in your 60s, 70s and 80s... they will not affect your ability to have more children. Also, these conditions are not life threatening as in severe hemorrhage, placenta previa, placenta acreta, etc. Urinary incontinence sounds like a much bigger concern - its easier to imagine oneself having an embarrassing accident than imagining oneself facing death from a bacterial infection or because your baby's lifeline has become a sort of cancer.
I think the real tragedy is the women who get the c-section and then have serious consequences and look back and think "I never knew" or "the doctor didn't really explain what the risks actually would mean to my and my baby's lives". If the relative risks are actually explained, as well as the potential benefits of each procedure, and the woman then chooses to have an elective c-section, then it is truly ethical for the doctor to perform the procedure. But, if through some hidden agenda, or even simply from a bit of denial of one's own role in a patients adverse outcome the doctor downplays certain risks of c-section and overplays risks of vaginal birth - the doctor is not acting ethically.
QUOTE
Whoa. First of all, I'm not advocating elective C-sections. I'm not campaigning for them.
What is the difference? And why do you feel such a need to campaign for something that is evidently already over used? Women DO get elective c-sections and our country's rate of caesarean births is on avg. 10% over what our gov feels is a healthy rate and our govt bases this on the recommended rate from WHO.
QUOTE
I'm saying that the numbers that women base their decision on are tainted. That's all I'm saying. You could have equal amount of trouble with either method. You agree, I agree - there are risks associated with both.
I don't recall to agreeing to equal amounts. I think the two are completely different scenarios and don't find much in comparison. Yes the information is tainted and if you look to see where the higher number of c-sections are occurring you will see that the heavy and constant corruptors are ..patriarchy and profits.
You didn't explain to me how a woman is gaining more control over her birth by removing herself from it.
QUOTE
You're right, giving birth is traditionally not a medical procedure. But it is, and always has been dangerous. I don't see the ability to give birth as a gift but a burden. I'm not being cynical, I really am not religious so bringing life into this world is just a biological process to me. It's a dangerous one, and an inconveniencing one.
Religion does not matter in this discussion except to those who have strong beliefs against medical intervention but I hadn't really thought that was the debate. Your comments are very interesting because they tell ..what is to me..the truth of the matter.
Not meant in any kind of demeaning manner but it is obvious that you have never been with child because when speaking of it and discussing it prior to experiencing it is is essentially a biological process. Once you have had the joy or creating a baby it becomes so much more. A true emotional and loving bond forms between you and your baby long before you ever birth them and the birth of that baby is the ceremonial celebration of this bond.
As for the inconvenience comment that is exactly one of my main points...control. Some women can't deal and a lot of doctors can't either with the whole aspect that you won't know exactly when the baby will come...so why not gain control over that uncontrollable, inconvenient factor and then you can just pencil it in! You can arrange your time off from work, your relatives visits, your spouses holiday, blah blah blah. Well that just shows how ridiculous we have all gotten about it all. That work dictates our birth plans, that we worry about our relatives convenience and concerns more than our own and our baby's and that we feel a need to show how good of a mother we are by having everything flawless and arranged perfectly.
Not to mention it is an extremely unrealistic view to start motherhood off with...baby's are not only born at inconvenient times, they want to be fed at inconvenient times, and sleep and poop when it is less than convenient. They get sick not according to your work schedule, they want to play and enjoy their time with you again not in tune to your schedule. The birth of a baby is just the beginning of all kinds of inconveniences...just many of us call it something else...life.
Here is an article I would like to share on this subject of inconvenience:
C-section birth rates increase in Asia
"Huang claims that the top reason that women want a c-section is not for medical reasons, but "to choose a good timing."
Other explanations include the ease to arrange maternity leave, attempting to avoid delivery pains, fear that spouses or relatives will not keep them company, negative effects on sex life, and that c-sections are covered by their insurance. "
QUOTE
There was an option for you to vote NO if you felt it was unethical....
Yes I read that. Your question was not very explicit...unethical for who? For the doctors to offer it even tho it is not medically necessary? Or for the women to want it regardless of their birth risk ?
QUOTE
Who advocates this? Where? And why does the collective government care how the population grows when they can't provide for everyone who is already alive?
Odd comments. It is here and our government supports the same "goal" number as the WHO does.
QUOTE
Apparently it is. The body's natural reaction to introduced poisons is to purge the stomach of the poison. (Through vomiting and diarrhea). Little does the body know that by trying to rid itself of one danger, it is putting itself into another danger (dehydration). Luckily, because of medical understanding, when someone is poisoned, we know that the body's reaction is not going to save the person, and we can take additional action. There are many situations like this where the body doesn't always know what is best.
So pregnancy should be medically approached much like when someone is poisoned? A baby isn't poison. And being pregnant is not a death sentence. This is such a tainted view. See if we compare all of the factors of having a natural birth.. even those with risks to the the stats of having a c-section yes they probably come out equal. Yet if we take women who have been determined to have no risks in having a vaginal delivery to that of those who opt for a c-section which do you think will be end up having more risks now? If you and your doctor have determined that you are at no risk for a vaginal delivery why introduce risk by opting for a c-section?
QUOTE
Please site sources.
Here is the maternal mortality rate.
Here is an article discussing this exact subject. Let it be known that Denmark (13.7%), Norway (12.6%) and Sweden (12.2%), with their c-section rates in parentheses (the US is at about 23%) also have the lowest levels of infant and maternal mortality rates in the world.
QUOTE
I was giving an example of how your choice of birth might be related to vanity. Choosing to scar yourself by electing a C-section is hardly a solid argument that elective C-sections are done in vanity.
I never said it had anything to do with vanity.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
[quote]Whoa. First of all, I'm not advocating elective C-sections. I'm not campaigning for them.[/quote]
What is the difference? And why do you feel such a need to campaign for something that is evidently already over used?
[/quote]
REREAD THE POST - I am NOT campaigning for them. And it's your opinion that they are over-used.
From your link:
[quote]
But Bill Dunlop, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, disagrees with the WHO target. "I don't think we would accept that in this college."
The figure was set in 1985 and needed updating. The survey showed that half of all obstetricians thought that caesarean rates above 20% were too high - and half did not.
"I don't think there is any way of knowing what a correct rate is," he said. "Not all caesarean sections are unnecessary. It is important we don't overreact and say this is a worrying rate and therefore it must go down."
[/quote]
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
Women DO get elective c-sections and our country's rate of caesarean births is on avg. 10% over what our gov feels is a healthy rate and our govt bases this on the recommended rate from WHO.
[/quote]
And neither the government or WHO has done an objective study on whether C-sections are more risky statistically than vaginal births. So I'll take their recommendations with a grain of salt. See the above snippet.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
I don't recall to agreeing to equal amounts.
[/quote]
You don't have to agree. The newest studies suggest that the risks are equal. Sure, more studies should be done on the subject - but antiquated numbers are not the numbers I'll be using when I need to decide. Medicine has come so far in just the last 50 years, using numbers from 100 years ago is pointless. Using numbers from 3rd world countries is pointless. Well, at least it is for me, because I won't be having children in 3rd world countries.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
You didn't explain to me how a woman is gaining more control over her birth by removing herself from it.
[/quote]
I don't need to be in control of the event personally. My OBGYN has been taking care of me for years, and she went to medical school for 5 years to learn how to handle child birth. She has infinite more experience than I do making the judgements. I'll gladly put her in the driver's seat. My control comes in my choice to elect someone I see as competent.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
Not meant in any kind of demeaning manner but it is obvious that you have never been with child because when speaking of it and discussing it prior to experiencing it is is essentially a biological process.
[/quote]
You're right that I've never experienced it. I'll don't even like children. I probably won't ever have children. But that's beside the point. If I did choose to have kids, perhaps you're right - I'm open to the possibility that I'll see giving birth as a gift (from who, I don't know). But those who have already given birth and who don't know the latest studies regarding the safety of C-sections are not the people whose opinions I'll be considering when I need to decide which way to go.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
Not to mention it is an extremely unrealistic view to start motherhood off with...baby's are not only born at inconvenient times, they want to be fed at inconvenient times, and sleep and poop when it is less than convenient. They get sick not according to your work schedule, they want to play and enjoy their time with you again not in tune to your schedule. The birth of a baby is just the beginning of all kinds of inconveniences...just many of us call it something else...life.
[/quote]
Point well made. Although none of these are the reasons why I personally don't want children. We've raised puppies for years and they are equally as inconvenient. I love my dogs. But anyway - suggesting that women want to control their births because they are ill-equipped to deal with inconveniences of children is a bit of a stretch. In your links, you presume to know the mindset of each individual woman. Who are you to judge their character and commitment to the pregnancy?
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
[quote]Who advocates this? Where? And why does the collective government care how the population grows when they can't provide for everyone who is already alive?[/quote]
Odd comments. It is here and our government supports the same "goal" number as the WHO does.
[/quote]
Yes, taken out of context, they do look like odd comments. See the first comment of this post - the WHO's studies are not current. My pregnancy would be.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
So pregnancy should be medically approached much like when someone is poisoned?
[/quote]
You sure do like to take comments out of context. You're assertion earlier was that a woman's body knows best how to deliver simply because the body knows best what to do. That is inaccurate. I offered a counterexample to show you why. In no way am I comparing child birth to being poisoned. Even some of the circumstances that occur during pregnancy - the body doesn't always know best. If the baby is breached, the body continues to try to expel the baby, even if the baby is choking. Obviously the body doesn't always do the best thing all by itself.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
If you and your doctor have determined that you are at no risk for a vaginal delivery why introduce risk by opting for a c-section?
[/quote]
There is no such thing as a no risk pregnancy. Both vaginal delivery and C-section introduce risk. There is no way a doctor could sit back and say absolutely that nothing would go wrong with either case. If your doctor does say that, you should get yourself a new doctor.
And this exchange, summarized for you:
You said:
[quote=bucket,Apr 13 2004, 12:18 PM] I honestly do not see much difference in this new attitude in women towards birth here in America than say plastic surgery...same problems different symptoms.[/quote]
Which I interpretted to mean 'vanity'. Or lack thereof.
I said:
[quote=perspective,Apr 13 2004, 11:56 AM]
There will always be the few who would elect a vaginal birth even when it would be safer to go with a C-section - they'll attempt the vaginal birth to avoid scarring their stomachs - that, to me, is vanity. [/quote]
You said:
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Your statement about women refusing c-sections because of vanity ..that was a horrid thing to bring into this discussion and I see no reason why any of us should have to approach and treat that statement as a valid argument. Any women who has had a baby can tell you that by that time in your pregnancy you have completely and willingly subjugated your entire self to that baby....and the idea of getting a scar means nothing to you...any mother who feels otherwise is mentally ill.
[/quote]
I said:
[quote]
I was giving an example of how your choice of birth might be related to vanity. Choosing to scar yourself by electing a C-section is hardly a solid argument that elective C-sections are done in vanity.
[/quote]
and then this:
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
I never said it had anything to do with vanity.[/quote]
Which is true - you never used the word 'vanity' but what is the plastic surgery comment?
edited: spelling
[quote]Whoa. First of all, I'm not advocating elective C-sections. I'm not campaigning for them.[/quote]
What is the difference? And why do you feel such a need to campaign for something that is evidently already over used?
[/quote]
REREAD THE POST - I am NOT campaigning for them. And it's your opinion that they are over-used.
From your link:
[quote]
But Bill Dunlop, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, disagrees with the WHO target. "I don't think we would accept that in this college."
The figure was set in 1985 and needed updating. The survey showed that half of all obstetricians thought that caesarean rates above 20% were too high - and half did not.
"I don't think there is any way of knowing what a correct rate is," he said. "Not all caesarean sections are unnecessary. It is important we don't overreact and say this is a worrying rate and therefore it must go down."
[/quote]
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
Women DO get elective c-sections and our country's rate of caesarean births is on avg. 10% over what our gov feels is a healthy rate and our govt bases this on the recommended rate from WHO.
[/quote]
And neither the government or WHO has done an objective study on whether C-sections are more risky statistically than vaginal births. So I'll take their recommendations with a grain of salt. See the above snippet.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
I don't recall to agreeing to equal amounts.
[/quote]
You don't have to agree. The newest studies suggest that the risks are equal. Sure, more studies should be done on the subject - but antiquated numbers are not the numbers I'll be using when I need to decide. Medicine has come so far in just the last 50 years, using numbers from 100 years ago is pointless. Using numbers from 3rd world countries is pointless. Well, at least it is for me, because I won't be having children in 3rd world countries.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
You didn't explain to me how a woman is gaining more control over her birth by removing herself from it.
[/quote]
I don't need to be in control of the event personally. My OBGYN has been taking care of me for years, and she went to medical school for 5 years to learn how to handle child birth. She has infinite more experience than I do making the judgements. I'll gladly put her in the driver's seat. My control comes in my choice to elect someone I see as competent.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
Not meant in any kind of demeaning manner but it is obvious that you have never been with child because when speaking of it and discussing it prior to experiencing it is is essentially a biological process.
[/quote]
You're right that I've never experienced it. I'll don't even like children. I probably won't ever have children. But that's beside the point. If I did choose to have kids, perhaps you're right - I'm open to the possibility that I'll see giving birth as a gift (from who, I don't know). But those who have already given birth and who don't know the latest studies regarding the safety of C-sections are not the people whose opinions I'll be considering when I need to decide which way to go.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
Not to mention it is an extremely unrealistic view to start motherhood off with...baby's are not only born at inconvenient times, they want to be fed at inconvenient times, and sleep and poop when it is less than convenient. They get sick not according to your work schedule, they want to play and enjoy their time with you again not in tune to your schedule. The birth of a baby is just the beginning of all kinds of inconveniences...just many of us call it something else...life.
[/quote]
Point well made. Although none of these are the reasons why I personally don't want children. We've raised puppies for years and they are equally as inconvenient. I love my dogs. But anyway - suggesting that women want to control their births because they are ill-equipped to deal with inconveniences of children is a bit of a stretch. In your links, you presume to know the mindset of each individual woman. Who are you to judge their character and commitment to the pregnancy?
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
[quote]Who advocates this? Where? And why does the collective government care how the population grows when they can't provide for everyone who is already alive?[/quote]
Odd comments. It is here and our government supports the same "goal" number as the WHO does.
[/quote]
Yes, taken out of context, they do look like odd comments. See the first comment of this post - the WHO's studies are not current. My pregnancy would be.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
So pregnancy should be medically approached much like when someone is poisoned?
[/quote]
You sure do like to take comments out of context. You're assertion earlier was that a woman's body knows best how to deliver simply because the body knows best what to do. That is inaccurate. I offered a counterexample to show you why. In no way am I comparing child birth to being poisoned. Even some of the circumstances that occur during pregnancy - the body doesn't always know best. If the baby is breached, the body continues to try to expel the baby, even if the baby is choking. Obviously the body doesn't always do the best thing all by itself.
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
If you and your doctor have determined that you are at no risk for a vaginal delivery why introduce risk by opting for a c-section?
[/quote]
There is no such thing as a no risk pregnancy. Both vaginal delivery and C-section introduce risk. There is no way a doctor could sit back and say absolutely that nothing would go wrong with either case. If your doctor does say that, you should get yourself a new doctor.
And this exchange, summarized for you:
You said:
[quote=bucket,Apr 13 2004, 12:18 PM] I honestly do not see much difference in this new attitude in women towards birth here in America than say plastic surgery...same problems different symptoms.[/quote]
Which I interpretted to mean 'vanity'. Or lack thereof.
I said:
[quote=perspective,Apr 13 2004, 11:56 AM]
There will always be the few who would elect a vaginal birth even when it would be safer to go with a C-section - they'll attempt the vaginal birth to avoid scarring their stomachs - that, to me, is vanity. [/quote]
You said:
[quote=bucket,Apr 14 2004, 12:35 PM]
Your statement about women refusing c-sections because of vanity ..that was a horrid thing to bring into this discussion and I see no reason why any of us should have to approach and treat that statement as a valid argument. Any women who has had a baby can tell you that by that time in your pregnancy you have completely and willingly subjugated your entire self to that baby....and the idea of getting a scar means nothing to you...any mother who feels otherwise is mentally ill.
[/quote]
I said:
[quote]
I was giving an example of how your choice of birth might be related to vanity. Choosing to scar yourself by electing a C-section is hardly a solid argument that elective C-sections are done in vanity.
[/quote]
and then this:
[quote=bucket,Apr 15 2004, 10:39 AM]
I never said it had anything to do with vanity.[/quote]
Which is true - you never used the word 'vanity' but what is the plastic surgery comment?
edited: spelling
Wow--I never figured this subject could get heated--live and learn.
I had my two boys vaginally in my twenties, one under general anesthesia (not my choice) and the other one with an epidural anesthetic. They had to give the epidural twice, and that was painful, but there's nothing like being wheeled into the delivery room with a smile on your face!
With my third child I really didn't have a choice. I had had uterine surgery to remove a leiomyoma the size of a grapefruit which had already caused a miscarriage. I was forty years old and still wanted a child even though the doctor said that myomas were generally recurrent and that a hysterectomy might be indicated. So I was told that I would not be allowed to go into labor (Aw gee, I was sooo looking forward to that
) because of the risk of uterine rupture. Instead, we scheduled the day my daughter was to be born.
My daughter was pulled out of my belly. She had Apgars of 9/9, very alert. But the doctor had to uncoil the umbilical cord which had wrapped several times around her neck. Whether I survived a vaginal delivery or not, she wouldn't have. I was awake for it. The epidural anesthetic was fine.
No, it's not a picnic having your belly cut, but I'll tell you--with the PCA pump (patient-controlled analgesia) it was a whole lot more comfortable post-partum for me than the vaginal births were with the sutured episiotomy cut and being given Americaine spray and Darvocet (big freakin' deal) to take care of the discomfort in a sensitive spot.
I preferred the C-section, belly scar or not. And it saved my daughter's life.
So I don't see that it's so bad to have an expectant mother opt for a C-section if she is mentally competent and fully informed by her OB/GYN.
I had my two boys vaginally in my twenties, one under general anesthesia (not my choice) and the other one with an epidural anesthetic. They had to give the epidural twice, and that was painful, but there's nothing like being wheeled into the delivery room with a smile on your face!
With my third child I really didn't have a choice. I had had uterine surgery to remove a leiomyoma the size of a grapefruit which had already caused a miscarriage. I was forty years old and still wanted a child even though the doctor said that myomas were generally recurrent and that a hysterectomy might be indicated. So I was told that I would not be allowed to go into labor (Aw gee, I was sooo looking forward to that
) because of the risk of uterine rupture. Instead, we scheduled the day my daughter was to be born.My daughter was pulled out of my belly. She had Apgars of 9/9, very alert. But the doctor had to uncoil the umbilical cord which had wrapped several times around her neck. Whether I survived a vaginal delivery or not, she wouldn't have. I was awake for it. The epidural anesthetic was fine.
No, it's not a picnic having your belly cut, but I'll tell you--with the PCA pump (patient-controlled analgesia) it was a whole lot more comfortable post-partum for me than the vaginal births were with the sutured episiotomy cut and being given Americaine spray and Darvocet (big freakin' deal) to take care of the discomfort in a sensitive spot.
I preferred the C-section, belly scar or not. And it saved my daughter's life.
So I don't see that it's so bad to have an expectant mother opt for a C-section if she is mentally competent and fully informed by her OB/GYN.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ May 31 2004, 03:10 AM)
Wow--I never figured this subject could get heated--live and learn.
I preferred the C-section, belly scar or not. And it saved my daughter's life.
So I don't see that it's so bad to have an expectant mother opt for a C-section if she is mentally competent and fully informed by her OB/GYN.
I preferred the C-section, belly scar or not. And it saved my daughter's life.
So I don't see that it's so bad to have an expectant mother opt for a C-section if she is mentally competent and fully informed by her OB/GYN.
Well, Paladin, we don't seem to agree that often, so figured I chime in here and support your argument
While I understand the various arguments presented against C-sections here, I also understand that this is a free country, and people can do as they wish. I don't think anyone undergoes major surgery without due consideration...so, if they elect to have a C-section, far be it for me to tell them otherwise. I think the last statement PE gave above is key--it is just very important for this to be a fully informed decision.
QUOTE
Do you think that women should be allowed to elect the method which they prefer to give birth?
As long as it won't bring unneeded harm to either mother or child. While personally I find it interesting that a woman would elect to have her stomach ripped open and have a living, breathing being pulled out of her. It should be any persons choice what they will or will not do to themselves and their body. However I would say C-sections are classified as "unnecessary" surgery and when a mother is ticked off at her doctor for something wrong with the child it seriously puts a damper on the idea.
I would have to vote yes for this debate because as long as the baby is born it does not matter by what means it was brought into this world, just so long as it got here.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.