Wow..oh wow..

I wonder if this Darwin expert has had the personal experience of both
a c-section and vaginal birth to make such a comparison. Seeing can't
be the same as experiencing.
Of course the c-section would look easier to the medic who now sees the
mother as numb and quiet.
Evolution for the interventionist maybe....because evolution favours
the stronger option. Not so for the mother!

in article , Raebo at
wrote on 6/2/05 9:26 AM:

I wonder if this Darwin expert has had the personal experience of both
a c-section and vaginal birth to make such a comparison. Seeing can't
be the same as experiencing.
Of course the c-section would look easier to the medic who now sees the
mother as numb and quiet.
Evolution for the interventionist maybe....because evolution favours
the stronger option. Not so for the mother!


I don't think there's any question there has been "evolution for the
interventionist" - indeed - all women who truly need c-sections benefit from
the evolution of interventionism.

Todd

I've heard this many times, both from medical practitioners and from
lay people. There is a large population who think anyone who attempts
natural/non intervention birth is insane.

So to me, it isn't surprising. Very sad, but not surprising.

Sharalyn
mom to Alexander James (9/21/01)

sharalyns wrote:
I've heard this many times, both from medical practitioners and from
lay people. There is a large population who think anyone who attempts
natural/non intervention birth is insane.

So to me, it isn't surprising. Very sad, but not surprising.

On a related note:

http://www.bromleyexpress.co.uk/cont...A42%3A12%3A960

....not that I agree with the opinions expressed in the article - it
just reminded me of this thread, is all...

Amy
EDD 8/17/05

"Amy" wrote in message
oups.com...
sharalyns wrote:
I've heard this many times, both from medical practitioners and from
lay people. There is a large population who think anyone who attempts
natural/non intervention birth is insane.

So to me, it isn't surprising. Very sad, but not surprising.

On a related note:

http://www.bromleyexpress.co.uk/cont...A42%3A12%3A960

...not that I agree with the opinions expressed in the article - it
just reminded me of this thread, is all...

It certainly sounds like the failure to intervene in this case may well have
caused the child's cerebral palsy. Notwithstanding, I believe recent
research suggests that *most* cases of CP do not occur as a result of birth
trauma, although birth trauma was commonly thought in the past to be the
cause of most, if not all, cases of CP.

In addition, there is generally no need to perform tests during labor to
determine whether the cord is around the baby's neck. Nuchal cords are
*very* common (up to 30% of all births) and rarely causes any lasting
problems. It is also not clear to me what blood test the hospital failed to
perform.

Typically, in a situation like the one described, a fetal heart monitor
(even if done only intermittently) clearly shows that the baby is not
tolerating labor well and a c-section is performed. It sounds to me like the
hospital's failure lay neither in failing to determine whether the cord was
around the baby's neck nor in failing to perform a fetal blood test, but in
failing to accurately assess the baby's condition throughout labor.
--
Be well, Barbara

wrote in message ...
Shell writes:
: Yup, that just about sent me over the edge. In fact she stated vaginal
: birth was no longer necessary and our medical practices have improved.

: I told her if anyone dared say that to me at the Dr's office I'd kick
them
: out immediately and report them!

: ~Shell

Hmm. Shell, I empahthise with your position, but you might want to try
a bit more articulate and less directly attacking response. :-)

I would suggest memorizing all the the bad things that can happen with
a surgical or assisted birth, and just start quoting statistics.

Larry

I hear ya. I didn't explain well. This wasn't to the nurse directly, this
was to her sister (my step-daughters mom) who was repeating what her sister
said.

~Shell

"xkatx" wrote in message
news:I2Gne.1542404$8l.735267@pd7tw1no...

"Shell" wrote in message
...
I have to share this conversation with you guys... I think I'm still in
shock.

I was having a conversation this weekend with my step-daughter's mother.
Her sister is a nurse practitioner. We were talking about birthing
methods and the fact that I'm planning on having another natural birth
(had a natural birth with my 1st). She told me that her sister says
that "All women should have a c-section. It's much easier and less
risky."

?!!?!!!

I just about fell off the couch. She went on to explain that her sister
sees births everyday and the complications and insists it would be much
easier if everyone just scheduled a c-section and that "we've evolved
past giving birth. It isn't necessary."

I'm just in shock that someone in the medical industry (in L&D no less!)
would say something like that!!

~Shell
EDD Oct 25

Oh wow! That's amazing. I had an emergency c-section with my first. I
had no choice, but quite frankly, it was THE worst experience of my life.
I was under the impression and understanding that c-sections are
considered major surgery. There's way more chance of infection and
complication, and the healing time is substantially longer, since it is
major surgery!
My second was a vaginal birth, and as I barely remember, I do recall it
being hell, but well worth it when compared to a c-section... Maybe
there's some difference between a planned, scheduled c-section and an
emergency one, but I can't see the difference in the 2 being so much since
it's the same procedure and all that.
I think maybe I'm just behind the times a bit... I don't think I've quite
evolved to this stage where I don't have to give birth... Does anyone
have any suggestions on how I could possibly hurry up with my evolution?
Any changes in my diet? Lifestyle? Any medication or creams that have
worked for you? lol I still think that's kind of funny, anyways!

lol!

~Shell

"Raebo" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wonder if this Darwin expert has had the personal experience of both
a c-section and vaginal birth to make such a comparison. Seeing can't
be the same as experiencing.
Of course the c-section would look easier to the medic who now sees the
mother as numb and quiet.
Evolution for the interventionist maybe....because evolution favours
the stronger option. Not so for the mother!

I know she has a couple of children.. hmmm... I'll have to ask how they
were born.

~Shell

"sharalyns" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've heard this many times, both from medical practitioners and from
lay people. There is a large population who think anyone who attempts
natural/non intervention birth is insane.

So to me, it isn't surprising. Very sad, but not surprising.

Sharalyn
mom to Alexander James (9/21/01)

Although I strongly believe natural is the best for mom and baby, I can't
fault anyone for taking pain meds. But just skipping to c-section, without
reason is just so baffling to me!

~Shell

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:57:23 -0500, "Shell"
wrote:

I just about fell off the couch. She went on to explain that her sister
sees births everyday and the complications and insists it would be much
easier if everyone just scheduled a c-section and that "we've evolved past
giving birth. It isn't necessary."

Ack. I'd hate to have her be *my* L&D nurse!!

Nan

She wouldn't have lasted long as mine! My side-lying deliveries still left
me one free foot to kick the head of anyone who dared make a comment like
that. Evolved my ass!

--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
barton . souto @ clear . net . nz
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/