Tough decision - Elective C or not ?

(Liz) wrote in message . com...

WHen I have my next child, I'll let you know which was the
best type of birth.

No, you won't. Because you will have experienced a difficult vaginal
birth, and an elective-C. Given those choices, an elective C *might*
be easier. (But might not - they are cutting your abdomen - skin,
muscle, and uterine wall -open, after all).

The best type of birth is - IMHO - an easy vaginal birth like the one
I had (I've only had one child, so I'm admittedly ignorant). 8 hours
of labor, no tears, no epidural, no drugs, in the privacy of my own
home. I gave birth, then felt WONDERFUL - high on endorphins and
excitement.

I'm willing the bet that the best, most skillful surgeons, the most
rested mommy, best of EVERYTHING - wouldn't make a c-section easier to
recover from than the birth I had.

The mistake you are making, is assuming that your next birth will be
like your first. Andrea - who has had 11 babies, 10 vaginally, can
tell you how much more difficult it is to recover from a c-section
than an easy vaginal birth.

I guess I'd like to know - is there anyone who has had a difficult
vaginal birth - then went on to have easier vaginal births - what made
it easier? What did you do differently?

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis - 12/01

"Liz" wrote in message
om...
I always feel irritated when people try to say c-sections are major
surgery and far more risky. Perhaps in theory they are, but if
they're so much the worse option, why do the rich and famous pay for
them in their droves?
From: "Liz"
Subject: Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
Date: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:03 PM


I always feel irritated when people try to say c-sections are major
surgery and far more risky. Perhaps in theory they are, but if
they're so much the worse option, why do the rich and famous pay for
them in their droves?

Um, it's a little more than a theory.

As far as the rich and famous, money buys objects and options, not
education.
--
JennP.

mom to Matthew 10/11/00
remove "no........spam" to reply

"Liz" wrote in message

Hi

I have read all previous messages regarding c-section versus vaginal
births, and I have to say that I would NEVER have a vaginal birth
again by choice. I am not saying that all vaginal births are
horrific, because thay arn't, but why put yourself through something
which is potentially damaging when you can now opt for a surgical
alternative?

You really sound naive. Women's bodies are created to nurture life through
pregnancy, birth and infantism. To say that you should just have a
C-section to not have to deal with childbirth is ridiculous, to say the
least. I'm 24. I've had 3 vaginal births in the last 5 years. I have no
scars other than my stretch marks. I've never had an episiotomy. I tore
and required stitches with the first, but not with the 2nd or 3rd. I've
never, ever had a problem with making it to the bathroom on time. I would
say a good 75% of my friends have children, and we're not sitting around on
the playground commisserating over "weaked pelvic floor muscles, piles, or
aches and pains."




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote in message ...

But, in fact, the opposite is true -- labor prepares the baby to be
born, and babies born from scheduled c-sections are more likely to
have breathing problems specifically because none of the hormones
generated in labor have helped the baby's system get ready. It is
significantly better to labor and see how it goes. When women have
problems like pre-eclampsia with super high blood pressure, the
response is to *induce* *labor*. Not to schedule a c-section!

Well, unless you're severely pre-eclamptic at 34 weeks, with a high,
tight, and closed cervix, have had the 48 hours worth of steroid
shots, and then the baby stops bothering to move and starts having
heart decels because of the magnesium sulfate IV drip -- in which case
trying to induce labor probably won't get you much of anywhere.

I'm just saying. :-)

As for the original post: I would *not* recommend a section for
suspected large baby. Only have a section if you need one for genuine
medical reasons, and get educated enough to avoid getting managed into
a section unnecessarily. Necessary abdominal surgery is one thing,
but a section for suspected large baby is hardly prophylactic for
anyone but the OB. There are plenty of good large randomized trials
to show that c-sections are often unnecessary at best and harmful at
worst.

--
C, mama to 11 month old nursling

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:26:00 +0000 (UTC), "Paul W"
wrote:


"Chotii" wrote in message
.. .

I haven't seen an answer yet in this thread to a couple of questions:

1. What is it about a "large baby" that frightens you and your wife so
badly? If you can express your fears, perhaps they can be addressed with
further cites from peer-reviewed medical journals.

Possible difficulty in V Birth. For my wife - epesiotomy. Baby injury.

I think I'd rather have an episiotomy than a section. Major surgery
versus what might be a small or might be a large cut, general/spinal
anaesthetic versus a local...


--
Hands! Hands in new places!

my baby was breech too. i opt for the Elective C. no problem. it is quick
and easy. he was out within a few minutes. no agony and pain. i too had
epidural. i was really scared at the begining, but afterwards, i felt
better once my baby is out. it is very confusing when you are given all
those option. go with your patternal instinct. talk to your wife about it.
think what is best for you both and go with it. nature does it without
anything. sometimes the doctor tells you so much , it is scary to know. i
think they don't help to solve your problem but give you a whole lot more to
worry. don't think about it too much. go with your paternal instinct. to me
it usually works out well for us. good luck to you both.
"paul williams" wrote in message
om...
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....

Confused Father....

Cathy Weeks wrote:

I guess I'd like to know - is there anyone who has had a difficult
vaginal birth - then went on to have easier vaginal births - what made
it easier? What did you do differently?

Well, what constitutes a difficult birth? I've attended births I
thought were a dream and wished I could have, but mom said it was
horrific and would never do /that/ again. I've also attended births
where mom was hooked up to every device possible, on every medication
possible, and babies born either surgically or with mechanical
intervention and thought it was the best birth ever and would do it
again in a heartbeat. Different prospectives will give you different
ideas of what easy and difficult is!

Kris

Daye wrote:


So why am I considering an elective c-section? Because I am. I
didn't say that I was logical. Yes, I am fully aware of the risks to
both me and my baby.


Well, but as I said, it really is a whole different
kettle of fish evaluating a *repeat* c-section versus a VBAC
than evaluating an elective primary c-section versus a
vaginal birth. I still think there are pretty good
arguments for VBAC in most situations, but it's a *much*
closer call and I can certainly understand those who
choose ERCS much more than those who choose elective
primary c-sections.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Liz writes:

: I have read all previous messages regarding c-section versus vaginal
: births, and I have to say that I would NEVER have a vaginal birth
: again by choice. I am not saying that all vaginal births are
: horrific, because thay arn't, but why put yourself through something
: which is potentially damaging when you can now opt for a surgical
: alternative? Ok I hear you cry, what do I know?

Damaging??? Surgical alternative. Excuse me, but these are loaded
expressions. Almost all medical studies comparing the two show that
the "surgical alternative" is more damaging (and *risky*) than vaginal
birth. Do the research on the comparisons of the two!

: I had a 9Ib 8oz baby boy who was three days early. Because I wasn't
: really large enough to give birth to him without problems, I went thru
: a 36 hour labour, had ventouse, had an episiotomy, heamorrhaged
: severely and was left knackered, drained and traumatised. At the time
: I was so excited about meeting my baby I went with the flow, but my
: baby's heart rate was constantly dropping so blood tests were taken
: from his head "in utero" to check his oxygen levels, and I didn't push
: for an emergency c-section to reduce the resulting trauma. With my 3
: pint blood loss, the obstetrician remarked that in hindsight it would
: have been wiser to opt for one. It took me months to recover.

While this may have happened to you, it is totally out of the norm.
It makes me wonder if you were induced or augmented, what position
you were required to labor in, and if you had an epidural, all of
which increase your risk. It also makes me wonder, that if you had
all these problems during labor that your OB didn't decide to section
when the baby went into distress.

: I believe that if vaginal births run smoothly then brilliant, they are
: the best option, but at best most women are left with a weakened
: pelvic floor, piles, and aches and pains for the rest of their lives
: (especially with larger babies)

Again, medical studies do not bear these conclusion out. Only for
women required to birth flat on their backs or semi-sitting. Size
of the baby is generally NOT a factor.

: (especially with larger babies) I am only 30, but can never make it
: to the loo in time - yet my friend who had two elective c-sections
: feels no after effects what so ever. She had a mild infection in her
: scar after the second, but after seeing me trying to get over my
: episiotomy, says her troubles were like a walk in the park.

: I always feel irritated when people try to say c-sections are major
: surgery and far more risky. Perhaps in theory they are, but if
: they're so much the worse option, why do the rich and famous pay for
: them in their droves?

Well, in the first place they are riskier. The odds of maternal death
for a c-section are about 1/10,000, for a vaginal birth about 1/70,000.
Now both those numbers are small, but they are worse for c-sections.
Also, c-section babies have more problems than vaginally born babies.

As for the rich and famous, I suspect that they gravitate toward
expensive doctors who are prone to practice convention-based medecine,
rather than evidence-based medecine.

: ALso, you ask the majority of women who have
: had an experience like me and then go on to have a c-section with
: second pregnancies which they found easier. All the women I have
: asked this question of have said c-section any day of the week. I have
: asked many women this question, because I felt guilty for wanting that
: option for my next baby. At the very least you haven't been in hours
: of labour with c-sections, you can look after your little one having
: had a good nights sleep the night before birth. You can justifiably
: stay immobile for a few days bonding with the baby. I certainly
: staggered around with a drip unable to sit or walk properly - you
: might have pain from surgery, but believe me you get pain with an
: episiotomy and pushing small elephant through your pelvis.

I tell you what, let's wait until the women on this newsgroup who have
had both weigh in on this thread. I've seen it before. The vast majority
will tell you that their vaginal experience was better. Just wait.

: I don't want to scare anyone with my experiences, but I feel quite
: passionate about this trend in making women feel bad about c-sections.
: True, things can go wrong with them also, but if your baby is large,
: you have had previous difficulties then I believe it to be the best
: option. WHen I have my next child, I'll let you know which was the
: best type of birth.

I don't think you will scare anyone who has done the research. The
results are pretty clear cut and quite different from your conclusions.
You experiences, as difficult as they have been, are atypical, and may
have been caused by additional factors that you haven't taken into
account.

: Love Liz xx

XXOO,
Larry

Liz wrote:

I
believe that if vaginal births run smoothly then
brilliant, they are
the best option, but at best most women are left with a
weakened
pelvic floor, piles, and aches and pains for the rest of
their lives
(especially with larger babies) I am only 30, but can
never make it
to the loo in time

I don't think that has much to do with it at all. Granted a
vaginal birth where you push and push and push without the
help of your uterus might concievably do your pelvic floor
muscles some damage but giving birth vagainally to big
babies in and of itself wont cause that.
I've given birth 10 times, to some fairly big babies I
suppose, my first was a 10lb baby, my biggest 11lb and
smallest 9lb 2oz, I had twins and still have a bladder of
steel. I've only experienced incontanance once 10 years ago
when I was about 5 months pregnant and had the worst cought
and flu this side of hell, but it went when the cold did.
Ditto for haemroids, I've had the odd day or two in
pregnancy when I've had them, but it wasn't to do with
giving birth, it was the weight of a baby pressing down on
me from inside and pg hormones like relaxin. In fact after
my c/section I experienced them for the first time POST baby
while I was in the hospital, I thought it must of had
something to do with the drugs relaxing my smooth muscle or
something.
And I' not sure what aches and pains you mean, can't say
I've had anything like that after I've had a baby. There's
been plenty of aches and pains after my c/section though.


--
Andrea

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