Caesaerian section effect on new born

Mrs OBumble

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

...if you have one then you will have to have another one the next time.

Not necessarily. I know people who were in this scenario and had a natural delivery next time round. Not many, but some.

I also don't believe that we really know the full story about the effect on the child as yet. Psychotherapists have some interesting theories about this and the emotional consequences.

mariaalice

I suppose it's like being asleep in a warm cozy bed and suddenly the duvet is ripped off and a very bright light is put on versus slowly waking naturally.

Rubberlegs

I have had 3 sections. My first one as my baby did not turn and I am very small myself so it was deemed safer. I was going to be left to try labour with my second but due to my baby having a disability it was safer for her to again have a section. Believe me when you are faced with that you don't argue. Third baby was then automatically a C section as they said my womb might rupture having been cut twice before. At the end of the day I had my 3 babies whatever way they were born and I have refused to be made feel less of a woman, 'too posh to push'.
As an aside C section babies have perfect little roundy heads, not distorted from forceps or being pushed out

iamwhoiam

A C section saved many a sick baby . Babies with weak hearts , babies in danger , mums in danger , babies who would be severely damaged , babies in distress and babies who needed out in a hurry . Medically many a disaster was averted by a C Section .
I think having the duvet ripped off as opposed to waking naturally was the least of their troubles

mariaalice

iamwhoiam wrote: »

A C section saved many a sick baby . Babies with weak hearts , babies in danger , mums in danger , babies who would be severely damaged , babies in distress and babies who needed out in a hurry . Medically many a disaster was averted by a C Section .
I think having the duvet ripped off as opposed to waking naturally was the least of their troubles

It was meant as a joke as per how silly this thread is, C sections save lives.

Sassygirl1999

Homegrown in the matrix and delivered by the machines, Zion would not approve

Mrs OBumble

mariaalice wrote: »

It was meant as a joke as per how silly this thread is, C sections save lives.

Some c-sections save lives.

Others ensure that consultant's golf-games aren't interrupted by natural labour happening at inconvenient times.

The problem is, in comparing rates it can be difficult to work out which is which.

But I suspect we'd get more improvement in child-health if the focus was on ensuring that only babies who need artificial feeding are actually given it - and those whose mother's don't have contra-indications get the support they need to breastfeed successfully.

Gimme A Pound

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

Homegrown in the matrix and delivered by the machines, Zion would not approve

Well I've said the same thing a thousand times myself.

Ursus Horribilis

Haven't we all?

looksee

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Some c-sections save lives.

Others ensure that consultant's golf-games aren't interrupted by natural labour happening at inconvenient times.

The problem is, in comparing rates it can be difficult to work out which is which.

But I suspect we'd get more improvement in child-health if the focus was on ensuring that only babies who need artificial feeding are actually given it - and those whose mother's don't have contra-indications get the support they need to breastfeed successfully.

30+ years ago my (4th) newborn was not feeding and I tried to tell staff that I didn't think she was getting any milk. Finally I insisted on her being weighed before and after a feed and she was immediately given a bottle, she had been getting nothing for several days.

The point I am making is that staff were so reluctant to give bottles that I had to insist on it to get it. I don't think there has been any amount of artificial feeding for over 30 years.