Are caesareans a safer method of giving birth than natural birth? I thought it was more dangerous for both the baby and the mother but my co-worker said it was safer for the baby because of the lack of stress caused by the journey through the birth canal. Anyone got the Straightdope?
Besides having to go through the birth canal in horizontal normal births, the baby is also being pushed a lot… (if you give birth when squatting vertically apparently there is less pushing involved due to the effect of gravity)
But in both cases for hospital births there would be bright lights and loud noises, which would be somewhat stressful for the baby. Perhaps there would be less noise during caesarians.
According to What to Expect When You’re Expecting, “Today…caesareans are nearly as safe as vaginal deliveries for the mother, and in difficult deliveries or when there’s foetal distress, they are often the safest delivery mode for the baby. Even though it is technically considered major surgery, a caesarean carries relatively minor risks–much closer to those of a tonsillectomy than of a gall bladder operation, for instance…Though there has been some speculation that caesareans are somehow harmful to babies, there’s no hard evidence that this is so. Of course a higher proportion of caesarean babies are found to have medical problems, but these problems are most often due to the distress that necessitated the operation, not to the operation itself…caesarean babies do have the edge in the initial appearance. Because they don’t have to accommodate to the narrow confines of the belvis, they usually have nicely rounded, not pointy heads…caesarean-born babies do have the slight disadvantage of not having some of the excess mucus squeezed out of their respiratory tracts in the birthing process, but this mucus can be easily suctioned after delivery. Very, very rarely is any serios damage sustained by a baby during caesarean delivery–much more rarely than during vaginal deliveries.”
Don’t know if that helps. The book has been criticized for leaning too heavily on doctors and hospitals, with relatively little mention of “natural” birthing processes.
Topical. The BBC has an article on this subject today.
Posted to soon… I guess the question has two parts. Is it safer for the Baby and is it safer for the Mother?
For an uncomplicated presentation, vaginal births are safer for both the mother and baby.
Caesarian births may be safer for the mother if she has had a previous pregnancy and required a Caesarian after a trial of vaginal birth due to poor powers (uterine atony), passage (narrow pelvis when baby has big head), placental problems.
Caesarian births are safer for the baby when there is cord prolapse, fetal distress (as shown from a non-stress test), fetal malposition (especially posterior chin presentation, transverse lie, brow/shoulder/compund presentations), placental previa or abruption or baby has a big head (cephalopelvic disproportion).
Routine Caesarian births tend not to be safer for the mother. The goal of pregnancy is healthy mother and baby, though, and a C/S would be done in most of the above instances.
Also don’t forget that once a mother has had a Caesarean, she cannot return to natural birth if she has any more children. Having to have multiple Caesarians, therefore would increase the risk of complications happening to the mother.
That’s not entirely true, Nocturnal. Most women prefer and are recommended to have future children by section, but a fair number successfully have vaginal birth after caesarian (VBAC), and a larger number at least attempt it.
Also, multiple c-sections increases one’s risk of complications, but no more so than multiple vaginal births (or multiple pregnancies, for that matter) increases them.
My wife had a C-section when our twins were born, one of the girls was mooning the birth canal. 11 months and 9 days later she had a vaginal delivery. And yes I do know about birth control.
Okay, I underestimated the number to Caesarian to vaginal births. But it is still something that is not recommended, isn’t it?
Also, surely multiple natural births would not have the same amount of risk as multiple surgeries, which Caesarians are. Mind you I am of the impression that some natural occurance that has happened for thousands of year should be a relatively safe procedure.
Yes, and for thousands of years it was fairly common for women to die in childbirth. At least, much more common than it is now in the developed world. Infant mortality rates were also much higher. Caesareans, like most medical procedures, have gotten safer over the years.
Thing is, travelling down the birth canal helps to squeeze fluid out of the baby’s lungs, making those first breaths easier and less stressful. It’s not all bad.
Under normal circumstances, a vaginal birth is better for both mother and baby than a c-section. C-sections exist because not all circumstances are normal.
C-sections generally give prettier babies, at least at first, because there is no coning i.e. the head is not squished into a cone shape. Not much chance of vacuum cup or forcep marks either. My ped. praised my daughter saying that she looked like a c-section baby, so perfect no scars, no coning. I did not have an epidural and from transition to full delivery was about as short as it can safely get;Three contractions and she shot out.
VBAC is much riskier for the mother, and IIRC most midwives won’t deal with it and many hospitals won’t either. A mother who plans to have subsequent births in less than fully modern settings is wise to eschew a c-section. Her next pregnancy could well be a death sentence.
I don’t have a cite for this, but it seems to me that natural childbirth would be safer since OUR BODIES ARE DESIGNED FOR IT. Women’s bodies aren’t designed to be cut open to remove the baby. . . at least I don’t think they are. 
As Dr. Paprika put it so well in his earlier post, natural childbirth is safest for uncomplicated deliveries, but c-section is much safer for certain complications.
And while women’s bodies are designed for childbirth, frankly they’re not designed that well for it. Vaginal childbirth is an extremely natural process, which when left on its own naturally results in a rather high amount of maternal and infant demise.
Not really. We were designed for it when we were quadrupeds, but the necessity of standing upright has screwed with the birth canal and made delivery much harder.
Let’s put it this way. I had my baby by vaginal delivery and if they had let me, would have left the hospital 18 hours later. They said they had to keep me 24 just to make sure there were no complications. I left after 24 hours and 2 minutes :). If I had had a caesarean, I would have had to stay in hospital at least 5 days.
Another thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that anesthesia from caesareans and the wound itself can jeopardise the breastfeeding relationship between mother and child, so in that way can be detrimental to the health of both as breastfeeding brings MAJOR benefits to both mother and child.
For a healthy, normal pregnancy, c-sections are NOT necessary. They are not safer and can cause later problems. You are pointing out the moment of birth, talking about VBAC’s and such and this is great–but keep in mind the after effects of the medications involved. You may end up with a baby that is drugged and as a result have problems with breastfeeding (which is also what a woman’s body was meant to do), crankiness and other assorted things. This can last for quite some time-I’m talking 6-8 weeks. This is not a normal course of pregnancy and/or birth and c-sections ought to be left for medical necessity rather than scheduling for convenience sake.
You can read more about this and inform yourself by checking out Doctor Sears’ website:
Sorry, should also add this was BoringMom writing the previous note… with 3 children safely delivered without a c-section.
Not long after I gave birth, a coworker’s wife also gave birth. She had a c-section because the baby was large and seemed developed, had a freakishly huge head (family trait in the father’s family) and was not in the vertex poisition. Her c-section went as well as one can, the baby was very healthy and hind sight showed that the c-section was the best idea, because not only was the baby fairly huge with a freakishly huge head, she had no vernix left and meconium was falling out of as soon as they pulled her out. None was in the amniotic fluid, but soon it would have been. She was more than ready to be born and more time would only have hurt her.
BUT even though I had a third degree tear, I was up walking around that evening. She had a much harder recovery than I had. She was not out of bed as quickly as I was, she certainly was not up for a road trip 3 weeks after as I was. And having discussed what it is like to have a c-section row of stitches, I would much rather go with my perineal row of stitches.
C-sections can be a blessing, but natural is best for uncomplicated deliveries. My daughter spent 45 minutes of her first hour of life nursing, and continued to nurse every few hours, whenever she was awake enough to nurse. That caused uterine contractions that helped stop the bleeding and speed recovery. After the first 24 hours my lochia was no where near as heavy as my average period. After that initial nursing, nursing was much more difficult. It was days before Loren was as awake as she was that first hour. Memory of the first hour helped me stay the course and stick with nursing. I can eaisly see how a c-section would get in the way.