Tough decision - Elective C or not ?

In article ,
says...

I really enjoyed reading your good humoured reply to all my points
regarding my views on child birth. I am amazed everyone here seems to
be determined to say c-sections are an ooption to be avoided.

By most thoughtful people, riskier options are generally to be
avoided.

Looking
back at the posts before I shared my views however and the view seems
to be a little less one sided. I quote "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..." ALso, the woman who
had an emergency c-section and is now opting for an elective, but
won't say why....could it be because the vaginal part of her first
delvery was so awful she would rather not be back there again?

Google a little more, and you'll find people who have had c-sections
with non-working anesthetic. Like me, for instance. While my
vaginal births hurt like hell, especially the last one because there
was no time to get a better medication, but it absolutely did NOT hut
as much as feeling someone poke about my innards with sharp
implements.

Also, the raging cellulitis infection from my second c-section?
Totally worse than recovering from the (unnecessary) episiotomy from
my first birth. Also, with my second c-section, lying in bed in
extreme pain with another non-working anesthetic with Pitocin causing
my sliced-open uterus to contract and then having to fight with a
nurse because she didn't believe me was quite unpleasant, too.

The four days in the hospital for blood loss after the fourth birth
was much better than fighting with the nurse.

There is a reason that I bucked the hospital policy to do a VBA2C;
and if I have a fifth child, I'll do it again. C-section recovery
sucks, and it only gets harder with subsequent surgeries, because now
they have to cut through all the scar tissue from the first one.

There, now you have some more anecdotes.

I AM NOT SAYING that c-sections are less risky people

Saying they are only "theoretically" more risky is implying they are
safer, so yes, you were.

niave either (thanks!!) but the fact remains that pushing for hours in
agony, being cut in your nether regions, and ending up exhausted and
spent, whilst not everyones experience was in fact mine. Ceasarean in
this case, and for all those other women who feel damaged by the whole
procedure is a wiser option.

Wiser? No, not really, barring something more horrific than an
episiotomy. If it makes you feel emotionally safer, then great for
you, but that doesn't maker you wiser.

Why the hell would it be offered on
emotional and medical grounds for women like me if it weren't? I have
been told categorically that it is better given my history of bleeding
and larger babies - and to save me the mental trauma of before. Why
do so many people recommend this after traumatic vaginal delivery if
c-section is gonna be even more traumatising?

Why do hospitals disallow VBACs entirely? Money and liability. If
you have another traumatic birth, you're a liability risk because you
might sue the doctor. If you sign a surgical consent form for the c-
section, and then have another traumatic birth, your legal ground for
suing is shakier.

Michelle
Flutist
--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

"Liz" wrote in message


************************************************** **************************
****

Small point - yep womens bodies are made to nurture life, but
unfortunately not all do. This is why before the miracle of modern
medicine so many women died in childbirth. (My baby and I would have
were it not for ventouse and blood transfusions!) C-sections are part
of that advancement in medicine, developed to save women the pain of
loss when nature and their bodies let them down. If "dealing with
childbirth" means death or illness to a mother and child, then having
a c-section is not avoiding childbirth or a whim as you suggest, but a
decent, caring mother's obligation.


You didn't suggest the options were life or death. You made a sweeping
generalization. I won't argue that C-sections are medically necessary for
some women. I do, however, believe that more c-sections are becoming
increasingly more necessary because of the medical community's well meaning
interventions interferring with the natural labor process. Did that make
any sense?

Denise




-----= 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! =-----

Liz,

Maybe lies was too strong of a word. How about misconceptions ;o)
I understand that for *you* in your mind, having a C-section helped out you
to have a better outcome. But, for a lot of women having the proper
information on how birth works, how labor works and how to cope and do
different moves and techniques is what gets the baby out without
interventions. For the vast majority of women, this can be done. Information
is the key. C-sections should be reserved for the truly emergency
situations. I am sorry that your experience was as horrible as it was. I
don't hate you for your choices that you made for you and your baby. What I
don't like is you saying and I quote

""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?"

Those are misconceptions. Vaginal births without interventions will ALWAYS
be the best option for women (as long as there are no problems). The
problem is that doctors have a way of leading women into interventions that
don't need to be done. Okay, you had a large baby. What's large? I had a 9
pound baby and that was my easiest delivery compared to my 7 pound baby.
Why? Because I was more informed, I didn't lay in bed on my back trying to
get through contractions. I moved around, I went into the shower, I rocked
back and forth, etc. These are things that help to birth a baby. )
--
Sue (mom to three girls)
I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World...

Liz wrote in message
om...
"Sue" wrote in message
...
Liz wrote in message
compared with blood transfusion, piles, incontinence
and vaginal stitches. Please remember though I stress that this is
the case so long as my c-section ran smoothly.

All women should be doing kegel exercises to strengthen up the pelvic
floor.
That will take care of the incontinence problem. For piles, keep up a
high
fiber diet and drink plenty of water.

I can't believe you would even suggest not going through a vaginal birth
to
other women. The lies you are spreading is just terrible, but I am sorry
that you had such a bad experience. Not all women have your problems
because
they had a vaginal birth. Yours was an exception and not the rule. I had
three vaginal births in five years. No problems on my end. Do the
exercises
and eat healthy foods and your problems will most likely go away.


************************************************** **************************
****

Thanks for the advice. I wasn't aware I was spreading lies!! I am
simply sharing my personal experiences. I do believe that for a woman
like me c-section is an option to be considered - aside from the risks
of major surgery (and I know they are very real) I am gauranteed to
avoid a lengthy, exhausting labour which led to a distressed baby and
transfusions. Yes I know bleeding is more of a risk in c-sections,
but the point is my bleeding occured because of a large baby and
protracted labour. I never claimed that ALL labours were like mine,
and I realise the majority are ok - but I still feel that there is no
crime or shame in having a c-section when the alternative has been so
traumatic. If my next baby and I are spared the horror of the last
time, then surely that is a good thing?!

C-sections have extreme risks, but then so do vaginal births - 50
years ago I would have died in childbirth, and without the aid of
ventouse so would my baby. Many women, (lucky as they are) give birth
with tremendous ease, I and some other women don't. This is a fact -
c-section should be considered in these cases. Please allow me this
opinion without hating me.

Michelle J. Haines wrote in message .. .
In article ,
says...

I really enjoyed reading your good humoured reply to all my points
regarding my views on child birth. I am amazed everyone here seems to
be determined to say c-sections are an ooption to be avoided.

By most thoughtful people, riskier options are generally to be
avoided.

Looking
back at the posts before I shared my views however and the view seems
to be a little less one sided. I quote "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..." ALso, the woman who
had an emergency c-section and is now opting for an elective, but
won't say why....could it be because the vaginal part of her first
delvery was so awful she would rather not be back there again?

Google a little more, and you'll find people who have had c-sections
with non-working anesthetic. Like me, for instance. While my
vaginal births hurt like hell, especially the last one because there
was no time to get a better medication, but it absolutely did NOT hut
as much as feeling someone poke about my innards with sharp
implements.

Also, the raging cellulitis infection from my second c-section?
Totally worse than recovering from the (unnecessary) episiotomy from
my first birth. Also, with my second c-section, lying in bed in
extreme pain with another non-working anesthetic with Pitocin causing
my sliced-open uterus to contract and then having to fight with a
nurse because she didn't believe me was quite unpleasant, too.

The four days in the hospital for blood loss after the fourth birth
was much better than fighting with the nurse.

There is a reason that I bucked the hospital policy to do a VBA2C;
and if I have a fifth child, I'll do it again. C-section recovery
sucks, and it only gets harder with subsequent surgeries, because now
they have to cut through all the scar tissue from the first one.

There, now you have some more anecdotes.

I AM NOT SAYING that c-sections are less risky people

Saying they are only "theoretically" more risky is implying they are
safer, so yes, you were.

niave either (thanks!!) but the fact remains that pushing for hours in
agony, being cut in your nether regions, and ending up exhausted and
spent, whilst not everyones experience was in fact mine. Ceasarean in
this case, and for all those other women who feel damaged by the whole
procedure is a wiser option.

Wiser? No, not really, barring something more horrific than an
episiotomy. If it makes you feel emotionally safer, then great for
you, but that doesn't maker you wiser.

Why the hell would it be offered on
emotional and medical grounds for women like me if it weren't? I have
been told categorically that it is better given my history of bleeding
and larger babies - and to save me the mental trauma of before. Why
do so many people recommend this after traumatic vaginal delivery if
c-section is gonna be even more traumatising?

Why do hospitals disallow VBACs entirely? Money and liability. If
you have another traumatic birth, you're a liability risk because you
might sue the doctor. If you sign a surgical consent form for the c-
section, and then have another traumatic birth, your legal ground for
suing is shakier.

Michelle
Flutist

************************************************** ******************************

We don't have a culture of suing in the UK which matches that in the
US Michelle. Besides, mine would be a c-section after vaginal birth.

Larry - you there? To say sections are in theory more risky is to say
that yes there is a risk of complication, though in actuality these
risks are minimal (1 in 100000 births was it? The theoretical risk
exists also in vaginal delivery i.e can, but doesn't always happen. I
think I can say theoretical risk without negating risk completely.
Your section experiences were clearly awful, my vaginal delivery
experiences likewise, who is to say which was worse since pain is such
a subjective experience anyway.
Fact of the matter is that both can mean your body never feels same
again - and I think it is sad for us women who have had such an
outcome. Perhaps it is the management of our births, and after care
that was seriously lacking both in the case of c- section and vaginal
delivery. The fact is also I will not put myself thru vaginal
delivery again, and am willing to risk the outcome of section. I have
plenty of friends who have opted for section after vaginal delivery,
and were much happier with the results. You obviously have a
different tale to tell, but just as is my case, we have suffered with
our birthing methods.
It is not fair however to condemn me for publicising the potential
trauma of vaginal delivery, when so many here are free to tell section
horror stories with impunity. If I had criticised sections, then no
doubt I would have had women saying how wrong I was when section was
their only option, it went well, and potentially saved their life (in
case of emergeny section) I really can't win. Clearly both can go
wrong, BUT when section goes smoothly it is a better option for
someone like me.

Liz wrote:


To say sections are in theory more risky is to say
that yes there is a risk of complication, though in actuality these
risks are minimal (1 in 100000 births was it?


Whoa, that's *way* off, by orders of magnitude. In
one very large study comparing vaginal birth to c-sections,
the rate of complications for vaginal births was 4 percent
while the rate of complications for cesarean birth was
a whopping *16 percent*. The rate of uterine infection
for c-sections was 1.8 percent and the rate of hemorrhage
requiring transfusion was 1.9 percent. The rate of
complications for c-section is *four times* the rate
of complications for vaginal birth!

If you're talking just about maternal mortality
rates, you're still off by an order of magnitude, with
a large study in Washington State showing a maternal
mortality rate after c-section of 10.3/100,000, as
compared to a rate of 2.4/100,000 after vaginal birth.
Still, while maternal mortality is a very important
issue to look at, quality of life gets affected *long*
before mom actually dies. The rates of complications
that are serious and life-affecting are far higher
than 10.3/100,000.

Again, there are reasons to have c-sections,
obviously. But avoiding complications is not one of
them. It's the increased risk of complications with
c-section that one must weigh against any presumed
benefit of c-section!

In article ,
says...

It is not fair however to condemn me for publicising the potential
trauma of vaginal delivery,

No, you were "condemned" for exaggerating the LIKELY potential trauma
of vaginal birth and basically calling all women who don't choose c-
sections stupid.

Clearly both can go
wrong, BUT when section goes smoothly it is a better option for
someone like me.

And for someone like you, a better managed vaginal birth would go
even better. You're choosing c-section entirely on an emotional
basis, because you're afraid of vaginal birth. Fine, that's your
choice, but be honest about it.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

In ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

*positions to facilitate an easier delivery. For instance,
*while you were pushing, were you always on your back or
*semi-sitting? Were you able to try side-lying or hands
*and knees or squatting? Those positions increase the
*amount of space available for your baby by *30 percent*!

Whoah. Ericka is channeling Todd.



--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

Hillary Israeli wrote:

In ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

*positions to facilitate an easier delivery. For instance,
*while you were pushing, were you always on your back or
*semi-sitting? Were you able to try side-lying or hands
*and knees or squatting? Those positions increase the
*amount of space available for your baby by *30 percent*!

Whoah. Ericka is channeling Todd.




Yeah, I know--scary isn't it? Still, I think the
evidence is pretty clear that it works ;-) I think it
helped me significantly, at any rate!

Take care,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote in message ...
Liz wrote:


To say sections are in theory more risky is to say
that yes there is a risk of complication, though in actuality these
risks are minimal (1 in 100000 births was it?


Whoa, that's *way* off, by orders of magnitude. In
one very large study comparing vaginal birth to c-sections,
the rate of complications for vaginal births was 4 percent
while the rate of complications for cesarean birth was
a whopping *16 percent*. The rate of uterine infection
for c-sections was 1.8 percent and the rate of hemorrhage
requiring transfusion was 1.9 percent. The rate of
complications for c-section is *four times* the rate
of complications for vaginal birth!

If you're talking just about maternal mortality
rates, you're still off by an order of magnitude, with
a large study in Washington State showing a maternal
mortality rate after c-section of 10.3/100,000, as
compared to a rate of 2.4/100,000 after vaginal birth.
Still, while maternal mortality is a very important
issue to look at, quality of life gets affected *long*
before mom actually dies. The rates of complications
that are serious and life-affecting are far higher
than 10.3/100,000.

Again, there are reasons to have c-sections,
obviously. But avoiding complications is not one of
them. It's the increased risk of complications with
c-section that one must weigh against any presumed
benefit of c-section!


************************************************** ******************************

Oh God everyone is getting caught up on the figures, I was giving a
rough guide based upon what larry had previously said AND pointing out
that these figures still highlight that the risks are still
relatively low for BOTH sections and vaginal births - we don't want to
scare any women about to give birth whichever the method do we? I
was trying to make the point that both carry a risk, which is still
extremely low, this doesn't mean that vaginal births are necessarily
easier nor c-sections harder. Death and serious complications are
extremes anyway.

I can see I'm never gonna get anywhere in this group, everyone is so
determined to tell me how wrong I am. That is of course until I start
whole heartedly supporting vaginal births and saying how c-sections
are wrong and damaging and women are weak for requesting them.
However, then everyone will be on my case for misrepresenting
something which does in fact enable many women to have their baby
safely, allows some to enter into a second pregnancy without the fear
of a repeated long, horrendous labour. I can't even see why the
medical profession bothers with c-sections, afterall didn't everyone
have amazing trouble free vaginal births, and the maternal mortality
rate was at an all time high before they were introduced! Sorry for
the sarcasm, but I'm getting just a tad peeved........why can't anyone
acknowledge that yes some vaginal births are good, yet some are long,
arduous mentally damaging and can end in serious complications. In
these cases c-sections are in place to offer an alternative, otherwise
why bother even doing them? THIS IS NOT ME SAYING SECTIONS ARE
WITHOUT RISKS OR THAT THEY ARE SAFER - but when complications arise
or have arisen in past vaginal deliveries, then they may indeed be the
only option. This is a decision a woman should be able to make
without recrimination.

On 3 Oct 2003 05:16:33 -0700, (Liz) wrote:

Healing from a surgical scar would to me be "a
walk in the park" compared with blood transfusion, piles, incontinence
and vaginal stitches. Please remember though I stress that this is
the case so long as my c-section ran smoothly.

I had a c-section that ran smoothly, and I think that you don't have
any idea what you are talking about. In fact, I think you are talking
out of your arse.

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