Tough decision - Elective C or not ?

Paul W writes:
: "Helen Johnson" wrote in message
: ...
: In message , Elfanie
: writes
: And you're operating after many hours of labor...
: which is BENEFICIAL to the baby! That's why many moms who PLAN to
: have a cesarean...still want to wait and go into labor and labor for a
: while before the planned cesarean. There are many health benefits to
: mom and to baby if they labor prior to surgery.
:
: A cesarean after 25 hours of labor isn't usually considered the worst
: option....since you've given your body the option of having a vaginal
: delivery as well as prepared the baby for birth.
:
: i have to strongly disagree here. an emergency caesarean section after
: labourin for 35 hours is a terrible option - both pychologically and
: physically for the mohter. the risks of haemorrahge, infection and deep
: vein thrombosis are significantly raised.
: i disagree entirely that there are health benefits to be gained from
: labouring before the caesarean. show me your data, and i'll show you
: mine.
: --
: Helen Johnson

: Helen. Agreed. Can't see any way how this is beneficial.

Please take a look at Ericka's post citing the studies showing the
benefits of a trial of labor before c-section. It is pretty clear
cut.

Larry

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/p369
CONCLUSION: Severe RDS [respiratory distress sysndrome] on the basis of
HMD [hyaline membrane disease] can also occur in near-term babies after
CS; even a fatal outcome can not be excluded. The severity of illness in
elective CS without labour may be quite high and is comparable to
newborns delivered by CS (after onset of labour and/or rupture of the
membranes) who were 1 week younger.

and a bunch more cites, good stuff

The OP had been talking about a cesaerean after 25 hours of labor, which
after experiencing close to that I can agree sucks pretty badly. Is there
any concensus on how long a trial of labor confers these benefits on the
baby? Maybe 12 hours or 8 hours is long enough. I don't think there are too
many women planning an elective section who would volunteer to labor for
that long first, but might consider doing it for a shorter time if it would
be beneficial to the baby.

-Liz

Do you really understand the full risks of a section

http://www.parentsplace.com/expert/b...ival_freqCap=2

I ask because I certainly didn't when I had one with my first baby. I
also didn't realize of the implications for future pregnancies and
deliveries, and the angst and hassle I would go through to have VBACs.

I wouldn't take on the risks voluntarily unless there was a clearcut
advantage.

MEG

paul williams wrote in message
Since the baby is big (based on head and abdomen size NOT 'guessed'
weight) the consultant has said that an induction at term would be
done rather than waiting too long. Also, my wife plans to have an
epidural in the instance of natural birth anyway.


No sorry Paul, they are guesses. I know this because I almost became an
ultrasound technologist and was only 4 months away from graduating when I
decided that it wasn't for me. Ultrasound measurements are estimated sizes
of the baby. They measure the abdomen and the head as best as they can. No
two techs will get the same measurement because there is a margin of error,
baby's position and lie can make a huge difference. I would make no
decisions based on an ultrasound. When the baby is born, please come back
and tell us how much the baby weighed and how big/tall the baby was. I am
really curious. )
--
Sue (mom to three girls)
I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World...

On 29 Sep 2003 02:42:50 -0700, (paul williams)
wrote:

Research and expert opinion says that ultrasound measurements and
estimates are accurate to within 10-15%. We've had two and both have
been consistent.

Have you done the math on this? You are quoting this stat over and
over, but have you done the math? Do you know how much that actually
is in pounds or grams???

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

On 29 Sep 2003 03:05:55 -0700, (paul williams)
wrote:

My wife is keen on the C
section.

Then why are you asking for opinions and arguing? If she wants a
c-section, let her have one. You said that she is a nurse. She is
medically with it enough to figure out the risks etc.

Just let it go...

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

"paul williams" wrote in message
Head and abdomen measurements in both instances place the baby size
slightly above the 97th percentile on the fetal growth chart. So, I
guess this means its in the top 3% with regards to size...

but still within normal range!

So far it seems that you and your wife are scared about giving birth to a
large baby and are seriously thinking of opting for c-section. There is
nothing to suggest that she can't give birth vaginally to this baby and as
everyone else has pointed out the vaginal route offers far more benefits to
both mother and baby than a c-section that is not medically necessary.

I totally understand your fear, I was terrified of labour(having never
experienced it with my first child) with my second child after having had a
section with my first ( I begged for a repeat section but my hospital had a
policy of VBAC unless good reasons were present) but I can honestly tell you
that it was a far more positive experience. He was on the big side at 8lbs
11 oz and he had a big head too. He was my first labour and it was less than
3 hrs start to finish 9 I didn;t go into labour with my first- DD due to
elective CS for placenta previa)
Would you really opt for major abdominal surgery for no good reason?

Nicky

Circe wrote:

BTW. My wifes a registered nurse (and a theatre recovery
nurse at
that!) so knows a bit about things.

She knows what recovery from surgery is like; what she
doesn't
realize, I suspect, is how much *harder* recovery from
surgery
generally is than recovery from a normal vaginal birth.

Not to mention taking care of a newborn baby while
recovering from surgery, I don't think she'll have
experience in that. You can't pick up your baby to comfort
him when he cries, you can't put him to the breast, you
can't even pull the bassinette close by to gaze at him
without using that buzzer to get the staff to come in and do
it for you. Your totally dependant on other people to help
you care for *your* baby in those first day's after surgery,
it can be very depressing. It was torture to me, as I'm very
independent, to have to ask someone to pass me my baby when
she cried so I could put her to the breast.


--
Andrea

If I can't be a good example, then I'll just have to be a
horrible warning.

Elfanie wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:09:06 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:


While intrapartum c-sections are
slightly more risky than scheduled c-sections,

do you have some place that I can read more about this..? Because
this goes against what I have seen/read, which is that there are
benefits to labor for mom and the baby, and therefore having an
intrapartum cesarean is therefore LESS risky than a scheduled
cesarean....


Yes...let me dig up some cites. Basically, having
the c-section after labor starts is significantly better for
the *baby* (for several reasons--you know for sure the baby is
ready, and the labor prepares the baby for birth better), but
it is slightly more risky for the mother. In balancing the
two out, I'd take the intrapartum c-section personally because
I think the value to the baby is higher than the risk to the
mother in that case, but there is a slight increase in risk
to the mother.

Here's one cite to get started:

http://tinyurl.com/p45n
CONCLUSION--The attributable relative mortalities of caesarean section
compared with vaginal delivery and intrapartum compared with elective
caesarean section are lower than the overall relative mortalities of
these modes of delivery and are approximately 5:1 and 1.5:1
respectively. These data are crucially important in the decision to
recommend elective caesarean section compared with trial of labour.

Best wishes,
Ericka

paul williams wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote in message ...

If the baby is a girl, the 97th percentile at birth
would only be about 9.5 pounds, which many, many women
deliver quite successfully vaginally (even with lousy
support--with the support of a birth team skilled at
supporting vaginal births of large babies, the odds are
even better).

Why the difference between boy and girl? Are boys born larger then?

BTW. Its a boy.... (we know :-) )

Boys tend to be slightly larger. I just didn't happen
to have the boy weight-for-age charts on hand, so I looked it
up on the girl chart. It's not enough of a difference that
there's any more difficulty birthing boys (statistically
speaking), but there's a bit of a difference in weight.

Best wishes,
Ericka