Caesaerian section effect on new born

Sassygirl1999

There has been postulations that Caesaerian sections can have a devastating effect on a new born infants microbiome, does it worth?

Your Face

Who was phone?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Only in months with a Y.

Sassygirl1999

Zander Famous Schoolhouse wrote: »

Only in months with a Y.

y chromosome?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Helena Christiansen was worth "it".

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

y chromosome?

No, Y why.

TheValeyard

I was wondering why the frisbee was getting bigger… Then it hit me.

Sassygirl1999

Zander Famous Schoolhouse wrote: »

No, Y why.

Gender-bending Transcaucasian mole voles you must be referring to

Sassygirl1999

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

I was wondering why the frisbee was getting bigger… Then it hit me.

then you died , next

TheValeyard

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

then you died , next

I was in heaven, wondering why the frisbee was getting bigger… Then it hit me.

Sassygirl1999

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

I was in heaven, wondering why the frisbee was getting bigger… Then it hit me.

should have gone to spec savers then got a microbiome inspection of the gut to live longer

What is the stars

Canis Lupus

How is babby formed?

Sassygirl1999

Canis Lupus wrote: »

How is babby formed?

in the women

Badly Drunk Boy

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

There has been postulations that Caesaerian sections can have a devastating effect on a new born infants microbiome, does it worth?

It definitely worths.

Are they my feet?

Sassygirl1999

Under His Eye wrote: »

It keeps the love tunnel tight.

so it gratifies

Sassygirl1999

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

It definitely worths.

it is worth?

Pherekydes

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

it is worth?

No. Just let them all die.

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

What is the stars

Daft though it might seem on the surface B, I have read stuff about this(I read the weirdest stuff). Very basically the theory is that because the baby isn't exposed to the biome in the birth canal* in the usual way, such babies have been found to have a smaller number of bacteria than babies born through the usual way and that this may affect future health. The latter is up for grabs though. Far more of an issue is early use of antibiotics in babies and toddlers. The effects there are well enough noted. IE if a baby has a course of antibiotics in their first year of life, they're near guaranteed to have allergies later on. Then again if antibiotics are in play in a properly clinical way, then potential hay fever is a better outcome than not making it past your first birthday.










*I didn't type "vagina", in case women out there considering this feel the same way as I would considering a kick in the male ovaries..

Four Phucs Ache

My First born came out hands first. I was allowed watch , midwife said oh oh hands shouldn't be first , so I moved and held her hand and told her she looked great all sweaty.

Second child was cesarean because hands first made a balls of it.I wasn't allowed watch and they put up a screen around her so I held her hand and told her they were writing their names on her belly.

Annasopra

Zander Famous Schoolhouse wrote: »

No, Y why.

Why?

JupiterKid

I've heard the term "too posh to push"...

Whispered

What wibbs said. It does have an effect on the gut health of babies apparently, anecdotally many section babies suffer with constipation.
It can also effect the mothers milk and some mothers struggle to breastfeed after a section. Compounding the potential gut issues.

However it's often a life saving procedure. 14hrs of labour and I could hear the alarms monitoring heartbeat going off with every contraction. Turns out chord was around his neck so a section was required.

Although Ireland's numbers of sections are huge! way higher than they should be.

cherryghost

We had our one and only through Caesaerian. No antibiotics needed (so far). No allergies either (that I'm aware of).

eviltwin

JupiterKid wrote: »

I've heard the term "too posh to push"...

Which is hugely insulting to any woman who has had a section.

It's major surgery with all that entails, it's not the easy option by any means. In many cases it's the difference between a living mother and baby or dead ones.

paw patrol

bluewolf wrote: »

What is the stars

whole worl's in a terrible state o' chassis

Sassygirl1999

eviltwin wrote: »

Which is hugely insulting to any woman who has had a section.

It's major surgery with all that entails, it's not the easy option by any means. In many cases it's the difference between a living mother and baby or dead ones.

do you think some women are too posh, too push?

eviltwin

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

do you think some women are too posh, too push?

No I don't

What does that mean in practical terms? Do you think the maternity system is going to do unnecessary surgery on woman just because they don't want to push.

Sassygirl1999

eviltwin wrote: »

No I don't

What does that mean in practical terms? Do you think the maternity system is going to do unnecessary surgery on woman just because they don't want to push.

Victoria beckham and Brittany spears have been said to be, Ireland has a higher than the norm c section rate

eviltwin

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Victoria beckham and Brittany spears have been said to be, Ireland has a higher than the norm c section rate

The average Irish woman isn't a Victoria or Britney. We don't get to pick and choose our healthcare like that. Yes our rates are high but it's due to the way birth has become almost like a production line rather than treated holistically as it should. It's not because women are demanding sections.

Sassygirl1999

eviltwin wrote: »

The average Irish woman isn't a Victoria or Britney. We don't get to pick and choose our healthcare like that. Yes our rates are high but it's due to the way birth has become almost like a production line rather than treated holistically as it should. It's not because women are demanding sections.

so they are harangued into c sections

Whispered

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

so they are harangued into c sections

Not really. Interventions such as sweeps bringing in labour, breaking waters in early labour, makes it more likely that a section will be needed.
Women are/were (apparently it's to change) routinely pressured into accepting these interventions. I refused a sweep and the doctor was quite annoyed about it, shockingly so. It's on my file that I "refused medical advice". Which in my view is a disgrace.

eviltwin

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

so they are harangued into c sections

I wouldn't say that. I think our maternity system is at breaking point with staff desperatly trying to manage everyone safely and because of the nature of birth sometimes a section might seem the better option. We've also had the 8th Amendment in place up until recently which no doubt had an impact on clinical decisions.

Under His Eye

Lazy doctors wanting a quick result?

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

birth has become almost like a production line rather than treated holistically as it should. It's not because women are demanding sections.

I agree, and it varies hugely depending on where a woman is lucky (or unlucky) enough to give birth. Some hospitals have twice the rate of caesarians as others, and it isn't because they're specialist centres for difficult births. It seems to be at the whim of the obstetrician.

Induction rates and episiotomies are also very high in Ireland, and again it varies depending on who your obstetrician is, or where you give birth.

This isn't all in the imagination of women. The statistics are there for all to see, and the State has been criticised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw)

http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsgA84bcFRy75ulvS2cmS%2f%2bil2Olic4vOOol%2b%2fJdEApK4Y1bDvfs5hiCDBBEjK%2fEX3%2bio9SY4WyO2qG7JijYBEmLaDNBkAtODampBJJZhUgVH%2fsStH8n1EM2GaPB3Iu%2bPRA%3d%3d

The Committee is concerned at some reports that child delivery is highly medicalized and dependent on the use of artificial methods to accelerate the process such that women are made to deliver babies within 8 hours of hospitalization, owing to a lack of resources in hospitals.

45. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that women can have access to maternity and delivery services without time pressure or being exposed to artificial methods of accelerating births, and provide information in the next periodic report on the strategic plan aimed at launching a widely supported maternity health-care policy and programme respecting the birth process.

Melodeon

It's vitally important that babies are extracted the way nature intended:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v7Xne4f2Tg

Teyla Emmagan

eviltwin wrote:

Yes our rates are high but it's due to the way birth has become almost like a production line rather than treated holistically as it should. It's not because women are demanding sections.

In fact women are not demanding sections. They just aren't given a choice. They are given one at the drop of a hat. Because the hospitals don't want to take any risks because they don't want to be sued. But it means women lose all control over their own birth experience.

My cousin has cerebral palsy because she got stuck in the birth canal. If my aunt had been given a section then she would have been able to lead a 'normal' life. One without wheelchairs and physio and speech therapy. But there has to be a balance. Birth is a natural process but in Ireland it is far too 'medicalised'. A section is major surgery, and if you have one then you will have to have another one the next time. Our levels of intervention are just far too high. It is ridiculous, we should be waiting more to let nature take its course.

But it doesn't seem to harm the baby at least, even though they are not exposed to the bacteria in the birth canal there doesn't seem to be long term implications. Which again means there isn't a deterrent to performing what in other countries would be seen as unnecessary surgery.

Malayalam

Whispered wrote: »

Not really. Interventions such as sweeps bringing in labour, breaking waters in early labour, makes it more likely that a section will be needed.
Women are/were (apparently it's to change) routinely pressured into accepting these interventions. I refused a sweep and the doctor was quite annoyed about it, shockingly so. It's on my file that I "refused medical advice". Which in my view is a disgrace.

Had never thought about those factors when considering why we have such a high rate of caesarian. Interesting.
Looking back I had a sweep on the first - had no clue what was happening to be honest as I was young and wasn't even told what was happening - and thinking about it now it's a terrible thing to routinely do. Of course it causes problems. Didn't have caesarian but had a high forceps delivery which now I think about it must have been due to the sweep and aggressive time management in the ward. Ugh.

Yeah, I also got the ''refused medical advice'' tag on my record when I would not be induced on one of mine and opted for us to go 3 weeks overdue. I was told ''you are off my books now.'' Meh. Whatever. Feckers. There are fantastic people in maternity wards, I fell in love with my midwives, but there are also some horrible unnecessary crap things about the way birth is done here and it feels particularly poignant when something is ''off'' in such a powerful scenario.

In keeping with the spirit of the thread - What blue saves east? Thick aboudit forever mice.

LirW

I'm glad nobody gives in to the obvious mom-shaming the OP wants to do here with the "but people choose C-Sections, so they risk their pinky fingers of their newborn".

Yes of course the rates of sections are high, it's no surprise with how dysfunctional the maternity system is. Some hospitals have you on the clock from the moment you enter their premises, everyone is overworked, every ward is understaffed and there's nothing anyone can do.

Before OP is so quick to judge about how easy Sections are, did you have one? Do you know how this is definitely not the easy way out? You can't lift your child yourself for a few days, you have to run around with a pee bag for at least a day, you have to take some strong painkillers to cope with the strong pain afterwards (they sliced your tummy open, you can't drive for 6 weeks, it's not a particularly gravy experience.

Sassygirl1999

LirW wrote: »

I'm glad nobody gives in to the obvious mom-shaming the OP wants to do here with the "but people choose C-Sections, so they risk their pinky fingers of their newborn".

Yes of course the rates of sections are high, it's no surprise with how dysfunctional the maternity system is. Some hospitals have you on the clock from the moment you enter their premises, everyone is overworked, every ward is understaffed and there's nothing anyone can do.

Before OP is so quick to judge about how easy Sections are, did you have one? Do you know how this is definitely not the easy way out? You can't lift your child yourself for a few days, you have to run around with a pee bag for at least a day, you have to take some strong painkillers to cope with the strong pain afterwards (they sliced your tummy open, you can't drive for 6 weeks, it's not a particularly gravy experience.

you are in vogue
https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/lets-not-start-the-parent-shaming-already-hes-eight-days-old-vogue-williams-hits-back-at-critics-after-photoshoot-one-week-after-birth-37315657.html

LirW

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

you are in vogue
https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/lets-not-start-the-parent-shaming-already-hes-eight-days-old-vogue-williams-hits-back-at-critics-after-photoshoot-one-week-after-birth-37315657.html

Yeah, why do women feel the need to put others down for something that doesn't remotely affect them?

Sassygirl1999

LirW wrote: »

Yeah, why do women feel the need to put others down for something that doesn't remotely affect them?

why do some women need to feel victimized during all rational discussions?

eviltwin

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

why do some women need to feel victimized during all rational discussions?

Its not a rational discussion when the focus is on the patient, the person who doesn't get to call the shots. Until recently pregnant women didn't even have the right to object to medical treatment. You want a rational discussion then frame it round the management of labour which goes against best practice.

Sassygirl1999

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not a rational discussion when the focus is on the patient, the person who doesn't get to call the shots. Until recently pregnant women didn't even have the right to object to medical treatment. You want a rational discussion then frame it round the management of labour which goes against best practice.

you just have, the scope has widened...

LirW

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

you just have, the scope has widened...

Just because women have a say now for a few weeks it's not going to shatter a system that's in place for decades.

Also if a woman opts for a C-section, it's none of anyone's business, isn't it?

With my second I had a really troublesome pregnancy and at the end the baby didn't turn. All the usual didn't help and I was given the choice of trying to turn the baby from the outside, which is 50% successful and can have some pretty nasty complications or a C-section. Given the difficulty of this pregnancy I decided to go for the C-section and got a date for it. Then I went into labour over a week before and was on the table in the theatre just a few hours later and had the baby safely delivered, she was completely twisted in there.

How exactly imagine that to be? If you have a healthy pregnancy you don't just go in to the consultant and tell them a C-section would suit you more, they tell you exactly what your options are and why it would make more sense trying it naturally.
We're not celebrities that have so much money that they could literally buy the world, for us mortal women the normal rules apply.

So what exactly is your point, what do you wanna talk about? That there are health implications when children are born via Section? It was mentioned before, yes, it might not be as beneficial as a natural birth but then rather a healthy section baby than a birth injury or a dead baby.

Whispered

Whispered wrote: »

Not really. Interventions such as sweeps bringing in labour, breaking waters in early labour, makes it more likely that a section will be needed.
Women are/were (apparently it's to change) routinely pressured into accepting these interventions. I refused a sweep and the doctor was quite annoyed about it, shockingly so. It's on my file that I "refused medical advice". Which in my view is a disgrace.

That is shocking

Sassygirl1999

LirW wrote: »

Just because women have a say now for a few weeks it's not going to shatter a system that's in place for decades.

Also if a woman opts for a C-section, it's none of anyone's business, isn't it?

With my second I had a really troublesome pregnancy and at the end the baby didn't turn. All the usual didn't help and I was given the choice of trying to turn the baby from the outside, which is 50% successful and can have some pretty nasty complications or a C-section. Given the difficulty of this pregnancy I decided to go for the C-section and got a date for it. Then I went into labour over a week before and was on the table in the theatre just a few hours later and had the baby safely delivered, she was completely twisted in there.

How exactly imagine that to be? If you have a healthy pregnancy you don't just go in to the consultant and tell them a C-section would suit you more, they tell you exactly what your options are and why it would make more sense trying it naturally.
We're not celebrities that have so much money that they could literally buy the world, for us mortal women the normal rules apply.

So what exactly is your point, what do you wanna talk about? That there are health implications when children are born via Section? It was mentioned before, yes, it might not be as beneficial as a natural birth but then rather a healthy section baby than a birth injury or a dead baby.

yes exactly its so we can discuss the implications of c section rationally

LirW

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

yes exactly its so we can discuss the implications of c section rationally

Can we talk about your one sentence replies that make a discussion next to impossible because they make no real sense as responses?
You wanna discuss the effect of a C-section rationally?
What part of it? That children are delivered safely?
I really don't get what exactly you want to discuss.

Sassygirl1999

LirW wrote: »

Can we talk about your one sentence replies that make a discussion next to impossible because they make no real sense as responses?
You wanna discuss the effect of a C-section rationally?
What part of it? That children are delivered safely?
I really don't get what exactly you want to discuss.

we are discussing, thanks for your participation

Whispered

bluewolf wrote: »

That is shocking

Also, I had to press him to find out exactly what he was doing. It was my due date and I had a routine appointment. He listened for heartbeat, asked some questions and said everything looked good. Then told me to get on the table for "an examination"

"What type of examination?"
"A routine examination"
"What type?"
"An internal"
"A sweep?"
"Yes"
"Why?"
"It's routine"
"But you said everything was ok, doesn't a sweep usually bring on labour?"
"Not necessarily"
"I'd rather not"
"It's routine"
"If everything is ok and baby is healthy and happy, I'd rather not"
"Today is your due date"
"Yes but we're in no rush, no thank you"
"It's routine"
"No. Thank. You"
I sat back down and was asked if I realised that I was actively refusing medical assistance and it would be on my file that I wouldn't take medical advice. It was only after I learned that in some cases, if at any stage social services are involved with the family, this information is given to them.

Not only that but during labour my waters were broken without my permission. A cursory "I'm going to do this now.....done" by the midwife.