If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message om... (KR) wrote in message . com... The size of the baby as measured externally is just an estimate. To me, I would rather be induced then opt for a c-section any day. A c-section is major surgery. There is also the possibility that the baby could come naturally in the next 4 weeks. I will say, though, that it's not like you're necessarily choosing induction vs. c-section; you're choosing (induction + chance of post-labor-c-section) vs. elective c-section. I really, really wanted a vaginal birth with my son, and hung in through lots of hours of unproductive labor to try to have one. I have to admit, though, that if I do it again I would waver on whether to just go straight to the c-section, because a c-section after 36 hours of labor REALLY sucks. You get the worst of both worlds that way, or that's how it seemed to me. I guess you at least get the knowledge that you did try, but I'm not sure that would be enough for me when weighed against going into the surgery with no resources after a useless labor. Which is not to say that the OP's wife should opt for the section, because the big baby thing is notoriously unreliable apparently. However, if the provider is already talking c-section the chances aren't bad that it's going to end up that way anyway after the induction 'fails' (this does not sound like a let-nature-take- its-course kind of doctor) and the risk of that happening should be taken into account. Beth Sam 8/16/2002 There is a *HUGE* difference between choosing a repeat c-section, and choosing one right off the bat without even trying labor with a first baby. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
Sophie wrote: "Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message om... (KR) wrote in message . com... The size of the baby as measured externally is just an estimate. To me, I would rather be induced then opt for a c-section any day. A c-section is major surgery. There is also the possibility that the baby could come naturally in the next 4 weeks. I will say, though, that it's not like you're necessarily choosing induction vs. c-section; you're choosing (induction + chance of post-labor-c-section) vs. elective c-section. I really, really wanted a vaginal birth with my son, and hung in through lots of hours of unproductive labor to try to have one. I have to admit, though, that if I do it again I would waver on whether to just go straight to the c-section, because a c-section after 36 hours of labor REALLY sucks. You get the worst of both worlds that way, or that's how it seemed to me. I guess you at least get the knowledge that you did try, but I'm not sure that would be enough for me when weighed against going into the surgery with no resources after a useless labor. Remember that good things happen during labor too. Things that prepare the baby for birth. Which is not to say that the OP's wife should opt for the section, because the big baby thing is notoriously unreliable apparently. However, if the provider is already talking c-section the chances aren't bad that it's going to end up that way anyway after the induction 'fails' (this does not sound like a let-nature-take- its-course kind of doctor) and the risk of that happening should be taken into account. I had a similar situation with my doctor, and I believe his fear of a big baby contributed to my c-section. What I regret most was not switching providers. It is *never* too late to find a new doctor or midwife. There is a *HUGE* difference between choosing a repeat c-section, and choosing one right off the bat without even trying labor with a first baby. Yup, a whole new set of risks to consider. Mary |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
Puester wrote: KR wrote: There are lots of big babies (10+ pounds) who are born naturally without incident. Some people even claim that bigger babies are easier to push out. And some people lie.... Now that is an interesting comment. I'm going to remember that the next time I hear one of those horror stories I hear that women call "birth stories". They must be lying! Kris, mother to three babies who were all over 10lbs and easy to push out. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
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.... Confused Father.... Sorry, but I might be here to confuse you even further. Late pregnancy ultrasounds are notoriously bad at estimating weight accurately. The margin of error is at least 1.5 *POUNDS* either way, which is huge when you're talking about newborn babies! Furthermore, there is no medical evidence that it makes any sense to induce for suspected large baby, much less incur the risks of a c-section for suspected large baby. Frankly, if there's nothing going on besides a suspected large baby here, I would summarily *FIRE* any caregiver who actually suggested a c-section just because the baby seemed big. Yes, there are stats on the risks associated with elective c-sections. While elective c-sections are slightly less risky than emergency c-sections, both are significantly more risky for the mother than vaginal birth. According to one relatively recent study, the maternal mortality rate for c-sections is 5 times that of vaginal births (after eliminating the really high risk situations). They found the risk for intrapartum c-sections to be 1.5 times that of elective c-sections. A study came out earlier this year in the Journal of Perinatology showing that vaginal delivery is achievable in almost 90 percent of pregnancies with macrosomic infants. Personally, given that you don't even really know this baby is big to begin with, I would be extremely uninterested in signing up for a c-section when there's a really good chance that a vaginal delivery is possible! Furthermore, studies don't suggest that inductions improve outcomes in this case either, so I wouldn't be all that excited about signing up for an induction, which can put her on the fast track to a c-section if her body isn't really ready. Henci Goer's books (_Obstetric Myths verus Research Realities_ and _The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth_) give a bunch of stats on c-sections. Here are the risks mentioned: - Pain (25 percent report pain at 2 weeks, 15 percent at 8 weeks; 15 percent report difficulty with normal activities at 2 weeks; 10 percent at 8 weeks) - Transfusion (1-6 percent of women need a transfusion after a c-section) - Injury (2 percent rate of surgical injury to bowel, bladder, uterus, or uterine blood vessels; some studies show a uterine injury rate as high as 10 percent) - Infection (8-27 percent) - Pulmonary embolism (1-2 per 1000) - Blood clots in legs (6-18 per 1000) - Baby cut (1 percent of head down babies; 6 percent breech) - Baby more likely to be in poor condition at birth (babies with low APGARs after healthy pregnancies were half again as likely to have been c-sections; c-section babies three times as likely to need intermediate or intensive care and five times more likely to need help with breathing) One of the big things to weigh when considering a c-section that might not be necessary is the risk of placenta previa and/or placenta accreta/increta/percreta in future pregnancies. If you're planning on future pregnancies, a prior c-section significantly increases the risks of these conditions, which can sometimes be quite dangerous. In addition, with a prior c-section, you'll have to weigh VBAC versus an elective repeat c-section for future births. As far as the epidural goes, that could potentially be an issue. *IF* the baby is large (which is by no means established), her ability to move around and adopt different positions during labor can make a huge difference in her ability to deliver vaginally. An epidural can make it difficult for her to do that. Staying off her tailbone can open the birth canal an additional 30 percent. While some women with epidurals can manage a side-lying position, other positions will be impossible. Best wishes, Ericka |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote As far as the epidural goes, that could potentially be an issue. *IF* the baby is large (which is by no means established), her ability to move around and adopt different positions during labor can make a huge difference in her ability to deliver vaginally. An epidural can make it difficult for her to do that. Staying off her tailbone can open the birth canal an additional 30 percent. While some women with epidurals can manage a side-lying position, other positions will be impossible. My 2nd born was 9 lbs and facing the wrong way, I am SO glad I didnt have an epidural because i ws able to get on hands and knees long enough to get her to turn. I think its crucial to know what to expect and how to deal with it. I'd read a lot and when the time came, it was me who told the nurses "Put me on all 4s". No one suggested it, or gave me any ideas. They were perfectly content to let me labor miserably on my back for another few hours. You have to be aware o the possibilities and what actions YOU can take to deal with them. If not, you will be subject to more and more interventions. I think I did ok, a 9lb baby w/no epidural or episiotomy and a 6 hour labor. AND it was an induction, so there was a LOT of pain. But preparation andknowlege are crucial. Nina |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
"Puester" wrote in message ... And some people lie.... LOL. Well I don't know that my larger baby was easier, it certainly hurt one heckuvalot more, but it was faster. My 7lb9oz DD took over 2 1/2 hours, my 9lb11oz DS took just 1 1/4 hours. -- Rhiannon Madison Sophia - 9/6/01 Owen Grady - 6/23/03 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
Hi Paul
It is your decision at the end of the day but if you feel strongly about it I would opt for the Induction at 40 weeks. You may end up having a c section if things are not good but I would have this as the last option so to speak. My feeling anyway! Natalie "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.... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
Consultant has given us the choice :-
1. Elective C-section at 39 weeks. 2. Induce at 40 weeks. Having read all the comments, (and seconding strongly the suggestion to just wait to let your wife go into labor and then have a c-section IF NECESSARY if it turns out that the baby turns out to be too big to birth vaginally)... just one more question... if the consultant is pushing (no pun intended) for a c-section... why do it at 39 weeks? Why not wait until 40 weeks? At least that way you can be relatvelysure that baby is 'fully cooked.' And if she goes into labor before then... so what? So you either go ahead and try a labor and see what happens, or you go ahead with the planned section a little ahead of schedule. Does'nt this provide problems with larger babies anyway? I'e' forceps or ventouse delivery? Not what we want either.... I guess I'm a little puzzled as to why you are ok with an elective c-section but 'don't want' a forceps birth. Surely the c-section is FAR more invasive than a pair of forceps... Naomi CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator (either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail reply.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(IL.) Classroom misbehavior faces tough consequences | [email protected] | General | 0 | August 28th 03 05:35 PM |