On 26 Sep 2003 02:57:54 -0700, (paul williams)
wrote:

Wifes now 36 weeks but baby is measuring up to 40 weeks already so it
looks very large.

Consultant has given us the choice :-

1. Elective C-section at 39 weeks.
2. Induce at 40 weeks.

Option 1 seems OK but consultant highlighted the risks involved with
any C-section.

Option 2 seems better if natural birth is possible. However, theres a
higher risk of emergency C-section which is obviously worse.

Are there any stats on how many Elective C-sections have problems ?

What about stats on how many large babies get forced down the
emergency C anyway? What about the extra risks of an emergency C
compared to an elective?

Also, my wifes decided on an epidural anyway in the event of normal
birth. Does'nt this provide problems with larger babies anyway? I'e'
forceps or ventouse delivery? Not what we want either....

If you aren't sure about what's going on, do some research. Your
consultant seems to believe that measuring large automatically means
large baby but this isn't always the case. It could just be that your
baby is lying at a funny angle, or is stretched out, or is long, or
any of a number of other possibilities. A large baby isn't
necessarily harder to birth, it's the size of the head and the width
of the shoulders that can make the difference and both of those are
hard to determine before a trial of labour.

As far as the choices you've been given, I don't know much about
elective caesareans but an interesting study done in Australia might
be worth looking at:
http://www.acegraphics.com.au/articles/sally01.html

This shows what can happen with any interventions in labour and is
based on a study of low-risk patients who selected either private
obstetrician care or public hospital midwife care.

--
Cheryl
Mum to DS#1 (11 Mar 99), DS#2 (4 Oct 00)
and DD (30 Jul 02)