(clarification: after caesars; the first one emergency, the second one planned)
I think the major complication was Mrs M. Sort of always looking for reasons not to, if ya get my drift. :dubious: It’s getting so I’m past fretting.
Oye gevalt. Yanno, I even read that post on Preview and it didnt’ sound as insensitive as it does now having read your reply. I truly apologize. I didn’t mean to make it sound as though I thought that having a C.S. made anyone any less of a woman or mother. If that is how it sounded, then I’m sorry all around. I think I was aiming more along the lines of, " given a level playing field where there are no physical ramifications or questions or issues or problems, I would not chose to schedule surgery to extract my baby when I might well deliver vaginally and save my body the assault of surgery just for my or my OB’s convenience. "
I haven’t witnessed a birth. Three years as an EMT and I never got to deliver a baby. Both my kids are adopted. Man, I’d love to have witnessed a delivery. From the outside it appears one of the most astonishingly beautiful things we can do as humans. ( and messy? Feh ! 
) So my thoughts were based solely on what I felt about having elective surgery. Any C.S. that is required for any of the reasons our miss gypsy listed above ain’t elective, it’s life-saving and I’m all for it.
Cartooniverse, wiping crumbs of humble pie from corner of mouth.
Kegels can help - that doesn’t mean they work for everyone. They’re the first line of treatment because they’re non-invasive and cheap.
Some women become incontinent with age even if they never have children.
So do some men - and in that case you know preganancy and delivery is not a factor!
Urinary incontinence can be more than just a little problem when you sneeze, particularly if you had pelvic floor damage to begin with. If you have an episiotomy (which is often done without the consent of the patient) or assisted vaginal delivery (vacuum or forceps) you have considerable risk of having serious incontinence issues. Kegels may work for a few lucky women, but in the words of my urologist, they work slightly better than positive thinking. Desire to avoid pelvic damage is not inconsequential to many women. If vaginal birth can worsen a pre existing condition or cause the condition to appear earlier than it has to then why shouldn’t women look at the options and be able to make the choice that works for them?
Other reasons? Assisted delivery and episiotomy can also lead to sexual dysfunction and persistent vaginal pain.
Women who have experienced sexual abuse may find vaginal delivery to be exceptionally traumatic.
Extreme anxiety over the birthing process is frequently a factor as well, particularly when you know the hospital you must use disregards patient choice with regard to pain medication and medical intervention during vaginal delivery.
Without a doubt, major surgery has serious risks and potential complications (not to mention extensive recovery time) that need to researched and considered. However, studies showing C sections are much more dangerous than vaginal deliveries have been flawed. Most importantly, they have not separated non high risk pregnancies with elective c sections from emergency c sections. Here’s an interesting article. Some highlights:
How about another source?
Also, consider that 31% of female OB-GYNs interviewed for the British medical journal Lancet said they would choose elective caesarian section for themselves for no medical reason whatsoever. Dr. Jennifer Berman’s first person account of her own decision can be found here.
Elective ceasarian section isn’t better than vaginal birth, but it’s a valid alternative many women wish they had. I would NEVER criticize another woman’s desire to have her ideal delivery and I would certainly not judge her. No one can know what another person feels or exactly what their circumstances are. To imply that other women are selfish or ill-informed because they would chose a different route from our own is arrogant in the extreme.
Wow, I was thinking the same thing. Took me 24 hours to deliver my firstborn. :eek: 8 hours start to finish the second time, 13 hours for my third baby.
My mother’s Cesarean sections half-crippled her for most of the remainder of her life. Due to weakened stomach muscles she had bouts of horrible back pain that would keep her from doing anything more strenuous than lying in bed. When she went through a kind of mid-life reformation and started exercising and changing to a more healthy diet, she also thought about getting some cosmetic surgery for her stomach. Upon consultation the doctor asked her, “Who butchered you?” Until then, she didn’t know that the C sections were responsible for her back problems.
My aunt’s midwife assisted second birth was much less traumatic than her first, which was a hospital delivery. Both were vaginal births. Among other things, the epidural that the nurse screwed up during the first delivery was, according to my aunt: The. Worst. Pain. Ever. Hitting a nerve with the needle made contractions seem like sneezes in comparison. She had no drugs for the second delivery and her recovery time was less. She became a convert to natural births because of her experiences in a hospital. Before, she disdained the Hippy granola-munching LLL soccer mom types that put so much pressure on women to “do the right thing” (i.e.: have a vaginal birth with no drugs or artificial assistance).
Countries with low rates of Cesarean deliveries usually have lower mother and infant mortality rates. Japan, where I live right now, has half the infant mortality and half the rate of Cesarean sections performed relative to US rates.
Article here.
not “newer than Britney Spears.” - Whynot, I less than three you.
Long Time First Time, I hear what you’re saying. What about looking at it this way - it may have been what our bodies are designed to do, but not everyone’s body is necessarily made to specifications?
It’s taken me a long time, but eventually I have learned to just do what’s necessary and consider this all a bonus. I’m a little older than Britney Spears, but because of the ‘modern medical advances’ of the time that might not have been available a few years earlier, I might not have made it out of infancy.
And I knew I’d have to be induced (9lb7oz, at 38 wk induction) for a number of reasons aside from a large child, miniscule signs of pre-eclampsia, and considerations for maternal blood clotting problems (was also monitored during the pregnancy by a perinatologist), so I spent a lot of time reminding myself that a c-section wasn’t the end of the world. After 24+ hours of induction and laboring, he wasn’t coming out. He wasn’t sunny side up or down, he was frikken sideways and stuck. He’d crown, and back out. He’d crown, and back out. So they went in.
Breastfeeding was okay. My milk took the usual amount of time to come in, but as he was stricken with jaundice and I with blood pressure problems and blood pressure drug induced insanity, we supplemented a few days. I went back to work, my milk never did quite get up enough to keep up with him for more than a few months, so we supplemented.
Sure, maybe I could have, armed with the last ultrasound I had, gone to someone who could have helped turn the baby before being induced. Maybe I could have put off being induced a few days and brought him along with ‘natural induction techniques’ (lots of sex). I don’t know. There is a lot of two-years-later quarterbacking I can do, and I know what I can do to help the next one along.
I can do what I was built for - even if it’s not the same as we generally are designed to do. It took a long time to learn to stop beating myself up for what I my body can’t do, and just get along with what I can.
oh, and incontinence - I think it’s a lot higher than people will admit. For some folks, kegels help. Others need surgery or intense physical therapy. Even some with cesarians.
I wonder if our society’s preference for tall broad-shouldered men and skinny-hipped women is eventually going to get us in trouble? For example, really good prenatal care and the right/wrong genetics means you can get babies with really high birth weights; however, if the father is a big side-of-beef type (6 foot 4, 225) and mom is a skinny Desperate-Housewife build (5 foot 10, 110), then won’t you eventually get into a situation where they’re going to need to have C-sections? I’m thinking it could show up after two or three generations of husky men and skinny women. Am I off my nut?
I think the sister of the Mr. Big Beef would probably be a robust 5’11" 150 pounder, while Mrs. Desperate’s brother might be more of a Niles Crane type. It’s not like males and females sharing the same DNA are going to separate off into 2 distinct directions - big burly guys tend to come from big, burly mothers. So, no, I don’t the human race is selectively breeding itself towards a tendency for maternal-fetal disproportion.
It does strike me that it is only in child birth and breast feeding threads that persons appear to be so defensive about their choices. It’s not like somebody who posted to boast that they finished their first marathon would get all these -“You’re making everyone with lung and heart problems feel bad” and “I would have run one too, but my leg broke.” types of responses.
But just let somebody mention that they breastfed their child and it was easy and they found they made more than enough milk. Boy oh boy…
I had both my Wonderful Children vaginally.
Where ever I go, there is an echo.
In a study of the numbers, Freakonomics author Steven Levitt does a fair job of demonstrating a correlation between areas with delining birthrates and c-sections. Correlation isn’t causation, but it is plausible that doctors given the time, and lower opportunities to perform a service, opt for the more expensive service.
declining
sorry for the confusion
Hot damn. I’ve never met a woman who was limber enough to get her ear close enough to her vagina to even HEAR the echo.
I bow before you awesome limberness.
As I recall, the cost difference between a vaginal and a C-section weren’t all that great. With my first, four years ago, it was about $600. With my last, seven months ago, it was about $900. (That was regarding what would be the cost to me, if I didn’t have insurance, but I still had to sign some form that said if my insurance declined, I’d be responsible for the bill.)
That was the OB’s charge. Of course, hospital stays are longer with C-sections, so the hospital charges would be higher, but how would the OB profit from the hospital bill?
$900 difference for a procedure that promises to be shorter, or at the very least, more predictable… I think there is a potential motivator there. The insurance cost may have had an even more exaggerated difference.
Well, yes, I am that limber, but I walk likek Quasimodo where ever I go…go…go…
Shirley
She looked Good [size=1]looked good **
She looked Fine [size=1]looked fine**
But it doesn’t promise to be shorter. My understanding is that a C-section typically takes 30-45 minutes, unless it’s a real emergency. (I’ve heard in an emergency, they can get the baby out in a couple of minutes, but we’re talking about scheduled, elective sections.) For my last baby, there was no need for the OB to be there until the last ten minutes or so. Step into the room, gown and glove up, catch the baby, do the stitches, her job was done.
I don’t know that C-sections are more predictable, either. Unexpected effects of anesthesia, excessive hemorrhaging, difficulty breastfeeding, bonding issues, heart attacks, aneurysms, seizures … any can happen with either vaginal or surgical birth. Childbirth is NEVER predictable.
If any doctors of any sort are so motivated by money, let alone calculating the difference between what they can get from cash patients versus insurance companies, I’d be terrified. No offense intended, but I think you’re overly suspicious.
Yeah, but She [SIZE=4]Can’t Code.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: