Cesarean or (natural) birth

Grawns · 28-02-2011 10:16pm

SanFran07 wrote: »

The birth of your choice is a human right but I would like to see elective caesareans (caesareans that are not medically necessary) not paid for by the taxpayer and taking place in private hospitals so the already over stretched maternity units can care for women who have not opted for unnecessary surgery.

It's interesting that according to AVIVA etc every single caesaren that has taken place in the last few years for any of their members has been an 'emergency'.....so it looks like there are in fact no elective (maternal choice) caesareans happening in Ireland so this discussion is really a non event....

Personally I don't think the birth of your choice should depend on how much money you have. I went semi-private but luckily I was able too. Another girl on rollercoaster was also desperate to have a section (in Cork) but she was a public patient. I guess they thought her mental well being was important or something because she got her way.

Grawns · 28-02-2011 10:32pm

Babyblessed wrote: »

Im absolutely concerned about your obvious lack of knowledge of the role of the Midwife. Its very clear you view these degree level professionals very poorly.

I honestly don't have a general poor view, I just think there is a natural bias towards vaginal birth when women continuing to have them is a prerequisite of your career. It's like someone who is pro-home schooling being attacked by a school teacher.

It is true that I did not have a good experience with the nurses in the rotunda. However I am very capable, felt fine and managed very well without them. If I had been through some horrible extended labour followed by an emergency section I would have been in trouble. However the place was so busy ( I was in a 12 bed public ward for the first 2 days) that I don't blame them, I blame the baby boom.

lonestargirl · 01-03-2011 4:48am

Grawns wrote: »

I am a huge fan of planned sections for people who want them just as I think water births, hynobirths, epidurals etc are great if that's what you want. The birth of your choice is a human right. However all women should be aware of the risks involved in birth ( whether section or vaginal) and the liklihood of medical intervention and injury so that it does not come as a huge shock. A bad labour can be linked to poor bonding and an increased risk of post natal depression.

And it is really important to investigate how the risks involved effect your specific circumstances and medical situation.

Grawns wrote: »

I'm definitely more in the knowledge is power school of thought than ignorance is bliss..

I really hope that everyone has a positive experience of childbirth. I certainly did.

+1

metrovelvet wrote: »

grawns - a section can also lead to poor bonding and all sort of troubles and they are very expensive, in the US about $30,000 so don't tell me there isnt a financial interest in pushing the section.

C-sections are clearly more expensive but nowhere near the cost you say. I have all my bills and the total cost of my pregnancy was approx $13,000. My doctor's practice (not him personally) got about $6,000. This was for every visit, scan and follow-up as well as the delivery. From this he has to pay his staff and run his business (not to mention the $1 million a year in insurance). Yes, I'm sure he is financially well-off but I seriously doubt he's looking for sections just to make money (he never offered me one - I asked him). In the public system in Ireland nobody makes any extra money from a section.

Babyblessed wrote: »

If you choose to not have experience of labour and choose to have a caesarean section prior to labour beginning (for whatever reason) then thats an elective. By their nature they are undertaken before 40 weeks (which means some women might start to labour before they come in for their ELECTIVE section) which means babies may be early and therefore at increased risk of prematurity and of course associated risks there of. We generally judge ESTIMATED delivery date by scan rather than mothers menstrual cycle and scans can be inaccurate and see us all as 40 week incubators rather than see us as individuals.
For example, my cycle might be 35-40 days, I might not ovulate til late in the cycle. My scans might show my baby as being inaccurate for dates and my EDD might change. I then end up needing a CS, because of placenta praevia grade 4 (for example and a legit reason for CS). They decide to do this at 38+5 going on my scan dates but infact my baby should wait a little longer to allow for development................. baby well and delivered by the best method but needs a 10days stay in NNU because he was actually premature......

Every women should have appropriate dating scans. The lack of this can also lead to inappropriate inductions in women who want a natural labour - it is not an issue specific to c sections.

Squiggler wrote: »

I can't imagine having a more stress-free pregnancy experience than I've had, even though this is my first baby. Not having to keep hospital appointments, sit in waiting rooms, worry about packing a bag, stress about making it to the hospital in time or worry about whether my wishes will be respected during the birth or not is so nice.

I can relate to this quote - yet I had a elective section. I had no hospital appointments prior to the birth, office visits were pleasant and just a short stroll from my own workplace. No stress about a hospital bag or making it in time as I knew when I was going in (this would have been a big issue for me as my husband works 80-100 hours a week and we have no family on this continent!). Another aspect of choosing a section was knowing who was going to be there for the birth. Over the last year I have built up a very good relationship with my obstetrician. I was nervous the morning I went in but relaxed as soon as he came and said hello - because I knew that he knew what I wanted would respect my wishes.

Ultimately we all have our own impressions of what the right birth experience is for us and the factors that influence my decisions may not be seen as important to others, but they are important to me. I hope every women gets to have the experience that they would like but that those who don't get it don't feel that they have 'failed' in any way - bringing a baby into this world is a wonderful thing.

wolfpawnat · 01-03-2011 8:46am

SanFran07 wrote: »

Just to add - there is a huge difference in having a caesarean in an Irish hospital and an American one. It's a regular occurance that post surgical Mums in Ireland are left to rely on other Mums to help them get their babies during the night due to lack of staff on the night shift.

Have to disagree, we all got help from our nurse at night regardless of how we all gave birth!

I had my son by section, I was walking around within 3 hours. It was sore but not excruciating! It was sitting down was sore!

Everyone is different, I would think natural is easier, but never having had one. I couldn't tell you for sure!

Hannibal Smith · 01-03-2011 11:23am

Squiggler wrote: »

Regarding your comment about "too posh to push celebs", plastic surgery can be dangerous, and result in all kinds of complications, hideous deformities and even death, and many of them don't even think twice about going through it either.

that's true, I never thought of it that way

Hope you continue to have a stress free pregnancy and a easy enough birth

Hannibal Smith · 01-03-2011 11:26am

Grawns wrote: »

Personally I don't think the birth of your choice should depend on how much money you have. I went semi-private but luckily I was able too. Another girl on rollercoaster was also desperate to have a section (in Cork) but she was a public patient. I guess they thought her mental well being was important or something because she got her way.

When I was wheeled in for my section the nurse asked the doctors which of them wanted to do it...one of the doctors asked..'is she public or private'...when the nurse said I was semi private he volunteered to do it. Don't know what the difference would have meant if I was public, but thought it was a very strange thing to ask

flowerpower 66 · 01-03-2011 4:21pm

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

When I was wheeled in for my section the nurse asked the doctors which of them wanted to do it...one of the doctors asked..'is she public or private'...when the nurse said I was semi private he volunteered to do it. Don't know what the difference would have meant if I was public, but thought it was a very strange thing to ask

I have been following this tread for a few days now and I don't really intend to get involved as yet in the main argument as the evidence speaks for itself, however I would like to point out an inaccuracies in regards to scanning. The Rotunda do in fact have a dating scan it is done on the first visit along with a full booking history, this should ideally be done at 12/14wks however due to the increase in recent years in the birth rate this can be usually pushed up to 17/18 if not more, however I am informed that this has improved recently. On a personal note I would like to add that I am able to speak with some knowledge on csection versus natural birth, I had both! My first baby was c-section and the whole experience was so awful, that I spent my subsequent pregnancy telling everybody that I did not want another one. My 2 normal births were just that 'normal' in adverse to the c-section which is 'abnormal' and should only be done when medically required.

SanFran07 · 01-03-2011 5:01pm

FutureMom2Two wrote: »

Just to back up what you said SanFran07 there practicly are no 'elective sections' without medical reason happening in the public system.
I regard those who had a choice as lucky to have it.
I'm pregnant with twins from IVF.
I don't have a choice in my delivery method
If my twin 1 is head down that means I'm automaticlly supposed to have a vaginal birth even though its risky for both me and my babies and carries up to 50% chance of emergency section(or so I'm told)

My twin 2 is transverse/breech and is bigger than twin 1.
I have anterior placentas so they shouldnt attempt external manipulation increasing the risk one twin will be delivered vaginally and the other by section.
To top all this I've battled with vaginal infections all this pregnancy including strep so for me antibtiotics or not I'd feel safer having on elective section
They want to force epidurals on twin deliveries because of the risk of section but why put me through labour if I can't have the choices I want anyway which would be a labour where I could move around.

However I feel for the safety of my babies on elective section would be best but because the government wants to save money I have to suffer a labour of medical interventions with a high risk of section anyway.

Hi Futuremom - I'd suggest writing down all of your concerns and bringing along your partner or supportive friend to your next antenatal visit. Don't let anyone fob you off. I know of several women who have had twin births with no epidural so it's definitely your choice. I saw some new research recently about twin births - I'll try to find it for you.

SanFran07 · 02-03-2011 8:52am

Grawns the links you sent me isn't really considered research and still doesn't support your claim. As much as you believe surgery to be safer I am more concerned that your caregiver led you to believe this and may still be doing so.

To the OP - hope your partner has a wonderful pregnancy and an amazing birth. It's the most amazing day in all of your lives.

Grawns · 02-03-2011 10:48am

SanFran07 wrote: »

Grawns the links you sent me isn't really considered research and still doesn't support your claim. As much as you believe surgery to be safer I am more concerned that your caregiver led you to believe this and may still be doing so.

To the OP - hope your partner has a wonderful pregnancy and an amazing birth. It's the most amazing day in all of your lives.

When you're right you're right! I guess we'll agree to disagree then. I had a look at your posting history and you could be considered to have an agenda. I've nothing against your agenda per se. However I will continue to give feedback on the very positive experience of elective section that I had and you can continue with your agenda.

Here is the evidence you dismiss ( nothing scary here). Does it support my claim that elective sections are safer for babies than so-called natural childbirth? Um...Yes it does! Does it back up the reality that sections are inherently riskier for the Mother... Yes it does
I didn't chose a section because of the statistically safer outcome for my baby ( that was just a happy bonus) I chose it because I was nervous that ( due to a combination of family history, my age and hospital statistics) that I would have ended up having a non-spontaneous protracted and painful labour followed by fetal distress and an emergency section.
Unfortunately this is not a rare outcome of labour and it's something that should be discussed with more openess and less judgement.

Hannibal Smith · 02-03-2011 4:45pm

Grawns wrote: »

When you're right you're right! I guess we'll agree to disagree then. I had a look at your posting history and you could be considered to have an agenda. I've nothing against your agenda per se. However I will continue to give feedback on the very positive experience of elective section that I had and you can continue with your agenda.

Here is the evidence you dismiss ( nothing scary here). Does it support my claim that elective sections are safer for babies than so-called natural childbirth? Um...Yes it does! Does it back up the reality that sections are inherently riskier for the Mother... Yes it does
I didn't chose a section because of the statistically safer outcome for my baby ( that was just a happy bonus) I chose it because I was nervous that ( due to a combination of family history, my age and hospital statistics) that I would have ended up having a non-spontaneous protracted and painful labour followed by fetal distress and an emergency section.
Unfortunately this is not a rare outcome of labour and it's something that should be discussed with more openess and less judgement.

I guess San Fran is the authority on what links qualify as informative :eek:

SanFran07 · 02-03-2011 5:14pm

Grawns wrote: »

When you're right you're right! I guess we'll agree to disagree then. I had a look at your posting history and you could be considered to have an agenda. I've nothing against your agenda per se. However I will continue to give feedback on the very positive experience of elective section that I had and you can continue with your agenda.

Here is the evidence you dismiss ( nothing scary here). Does it support my claim that elective sections are safer for babies than so-called natural childbirth? Um...Yes it does!
Does it back up the reality that sections are inherently riskier for the Mother... Yes it does
I didn't chose a section because of the statistically safer outcome for my baby ( that was just a happy bonus) I chose it because I was nervous that ( due to a combination of family history, my age and hospital statistics) that I would have ended up having a non-spontaneous protracted and painful labour followed by fetal distress and an emergency section.
Unfortunately this is not a rare outcome of labour and it's something that should be discussed with more openess and less judgement.

In case anyone hasn't time to read through this paper here are the conclusions.....

Conclusions: The incidence of cesarean delivery without medical or obstetric indications is increasing in the United States, and a component of this increase is cesarean delivery on maternal request. Given the tools available, the magnitude of this component is difficult to quantify.

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate fully the benefits and risks of cesarean delivery on maternal request as compared to planned vaginal delivery, and more research is needed.

Until quality evidence becomes available, any decision to perform a cesarean delivery on maternal request should be carefully individualized and consistent with ethical principles.

Given that the risks of placenta previa and accreta rise with each cesarean delivery, cesarean delivery on maternal request is not recommended for women desiring several children.

Cesarean delivery on maternal request should not be performed prior to 39 weeks of gestation or without verification of lung maturity, because of the significant danger of neonatal respiratory complications.

Maternal request for cesarean delivery should not be motivated by unavailability of effective pain management. Efforts must be made to assure availability of pain management services for all women.

NIH or another appropriate Federal agency should establish and maintain a Web site to provide up-to-date information on the benefits and risks of all modes of delivery.

If anyone would like to explore this area further this is a very helpful site regarding the information presented by the NIH at this conference.

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10375

"The panel's statement and commissioned evidence report failed to report a single study with any data about

the extent to which U.S. women are initiating and planning an initial or "primary" cesarean with the understanding there is no medical reason
the panel's assertion that "limited evidence suggests that cesarean delivery on maternal request is increasing"
the short- and long-term effects on mothers and babies of such a strategy in comparison with planned vaginal birth
the many well-established ways for women and providers to increase the likelihood of safe, spontaneous vaginal birth, in contrast to present record-level trends for surgical birth.

Deeply flawed analyses used proxy studies rated as "weak" for nearly all reported outcomes. Flaws included: failure to search for and include many relevant outcomes, including numerous studies that were too small to measure specific outcomes, including numerous studies with no vaginal birth comparison groups, and including numerous studies focusing on the unique question of mode of birth for women with breech presentation (see question 2, below). These poor-quality analyses should not be used to guide policy, practice, education and research."

Hannibal - my post wasn't that the links weren't informative but they would not be considered evidence based research.....

Grawns - please feel free to share the other links you sent to me and others so everyone can determine for themselves how informative they feel they are.

Grawns · 02-03-2011 6:00pm

I love your selective editing

Here's some from me

"neurologic injuries such as intracranial hemorrhage and brachial plexus injury are less common with elective cesarean"

"More than one in four women who do not have a cesarean
section by choice will end up having one anyway, and their morbidity and mortality will exceed that sustained by women whose surgeries are scheduled."

"one can conservatively estimate that delivery by scheduled cesarean section at 39 weeks would prevent 2 fetal deaths per 1,000 ongoing living pregnancies"

"infants born to women who had not undergone
labor, which would necessitate a scheduled delivery by cesarean section, had an 83 percent reduction in moderate to severe encephalopathy."

"In summary, the risk of maternal death with primary elective cesarean delivery is less than that associated with vaginal delivery. In addition, death directly due to the surgery itself is extremely rare."

Now what about that agenda of yours I mentioned.

January · 02-03-2011 6:22pm

Grawns, can you take the question of SanFran having an agenda to PM between yourselves please?

axel rose · 02-03-2011 8:24pm

Feck it. (this thread has become so damn predictable anyway).

I admit it- I demanded my CS because I am a terrible mother and dont really love my child. I also wanted to get the tummy tuck out of the way as soon as I could.

Anyone want to borrow my kid for a week?

Hannibal Smith · 02-03-2011 9:01pm

axel rose wrote: »

Feck it. (this thread has become so damn predictable anyway).

I admit it- I demanded my CS because I am a terrible mother and dont really love my child. I also wanted to get the tummy tuck out of the way as soon as I could.

Anyone want to borrow my kid for a week?

lol....don't forget the bonding...you never bonded with your child either did you?

axel rose · 02-03-2011 9:10pm

Bond????
LOL you're sooo working class- why would I bond when I've a perfectly good nanny to do the grunt work for me?

Chuchu · 02-03-2011 9:26pm

Too funny!!!
In all seriousness though, I think it might have been mentioned in this thread in passing already, but if that bonding stuff is brought up I will lose the plot! Just how is 'bonding' quantified?? And if someone tries to answer that I will be sure to take issue with their methodology.:p

Chuchu · 02-03-2011 9:28pm

Oh and poor darrenon... I think we lost him on page 2!!!!!

wmpdd3 · 02-03-2011 10:12pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Have to disagree, we all got help from our nurse at night regardless of how we all gave birth!

I had my son by section, I was walking around within 3 hours. It was sore but not excruciating! It was sitting down was sore!

Everyone is different, I would think natural is easier, but never having had one. I couldn't tell you for sure!

Wow, I can't believe you were up and walking within 3 hrs, that's faster than me after the epi.

I never really saw anyone after a section until i was in hospital. Being able to move and look after you baby after 3 hrs is totally different to what i saw.

Fair play to you.

wolfpawnat · 02-03-2011 10:21pm

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Wow, I can't believe you were up and walking within 3 hrs, that's faster than me after the epi.

I never really saw anyone after a section until i was in hospital. Being able to move and look after you baby after 3 hrs is totally different to what i saw.

Fair play to you.

I had the epidural, but I had that about 3.30am, was out of bed by 8.30, given out to by midwives at 8.31am promptly. I didn't have my baby for the first 12 hours after he was born, he was in Neo-nates. I kept telling them, I was well enough to see him, obviously wouldn't let me though!

I was bored and just wandered around with my catheter bag in my hand

I had him on the Tuesday, was left out at 1pm Saturday, then walked from Rathmines into Stephens Green and back home again because I had to get a sterilizer. I didn't really think about it, to me my baby needed me and I just got on with it!

She Devil · 02-03-2011 10:38pm

My experience C Section :

My baby was breech all the way through, he never moved, we got scanned once a week for the whole pregnancy, towards the end I was praying and hoping he would turn, I did everything to avoid surgery, I am so scared of needles etc (heard you had to get lots in the bum the days after a csection aswell) so there I was on hands and knees trying to get that baby to move, bouncing on balls the lot, but to no avail!
Went in at 7am, was so excited to know I was going to have him that day but the stress of it, the no sleeping worrying about the operation etc !!!!!
Have to be fair to say, it was grand, the injections didnt hurt, the surgery was uncomfortable, I was shaking, the baby was firmly stuck, I felt so bad for him to be dragged out so quickly from his comfy spot, but he was safe and well and I got to see him a week early YAY \o/

But the aftermath :
Oh it was torture to me, My fiance had the first feed the first hold the first nappy change, the first cuddle, I couldnt get my own baby without him being handed to me all the time, I felt so helpless, and it really got me down!! I didn't get the guilty feeling of not being able to push but I did honestly feel like I couldn't enjoy my baby the way I wanted to!!
Next thing visitors were on top of us, I was feeling really ill, no energy and couldnt walk, tried to walk to the shower and fell, lost alot of bloody after the surgery and ended up getting a blood transfusion, more time in hospital!!!
Now I didnt experience the other but if I have the luck to go again, I will hope that I can go natural!

I think (this is my opinion only) that when you get pregnant you shouldn't be saying hmmm I wonder which I'll go for, it should like always be expected natural unless there is a problem!

But for me, either way once the baby is here, then happy days!

Oh and I did experience PND, I dont know if it was down to the section or not, but I suppose they will put me down as a statistic anyways! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hannibal Smith · 03-03-2011 11:49am

axel rose wrote: »

Bond????
LOL you're sooo working class- why would I bond when I've a perfectly good nanny to do the grunt work for me?

hehe *sits back and sips on her can of stella while the sprog drags around a 3 day old dirty nappy*

January · 03-03-2011 11:59am

Please stop the off-topic posting

axel rose · 03-03-2011 2:41pm

Apologies January. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I get a bit piddled off when people who do not know me or my child tell me that

A-I have made a medically unsafe decision for both of us-despite the trained professional dealing with my case knowing better.

B- somehow not bonded with my child properly

Sometimes its easier not to fight the stereotype

GoerGirl · 03-03-2011 2:45pm

I have had natural vaginal births but on my last baby I had to plan for an elective section at 38 weeks due to the position - baby was transverse. In that time I did alot of reasearch on caesarean sections and spoke about the implications and risks with quite a few members of staff at my hospital.

I ended up not needing a section as baby turned just in time!

From my reading and discussions with medical professionals - consultant and midwives alike - I cannot find any evidence to support elective caesareans for non-medically indicated reasons. In fact, there is evidence which shows that babies who experience labour before a caesarean have less problems with lung maturity and breathing than those who have elective sections.

There are several factors contributing to Ireland's high caesarean rate (27%) - loss of skill to deliver "malpositioned" babies vaginally (breech/unstable lie), litigation fears, staffing and time constraints (Active Management of Labour gives women a set amount of time to birth) and the heavy reliance of interventions which have been proven to increase risk of intolerence of labour in the baby or mother (distress) like oxytocin. I would strongly feel that as it is recognised internationally that caesarean rates should be 10-15%, that the evidence does not support elective or routine use of caesarean section.

The risks of Caesarean over vaginal birth include:

increased risk of fertility problems in future pregnancies
Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in future pregnancies
increased risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies
increased risk of placenta accreta in future pregnancies
increased risk of blood clots
increased risk of pph
increased risk of infection

For me, the lack of post natal care and the fact that it is a major surgery would deter me from a caesarean unless medically indicated. I shared an 8 bed ward with 3 women who had caesareans last year and each one relied on myself and other mothers to help them. The care from post natal staff just wasn't there - especially at night.

Grawns · 03-03-2011 3:55pm

GoerGirl wrote: »

The risks of Caesarean over vaginal birth include:

increased risk of fertility problems in future pregnancies - False although a large family is out of the question due to the actual increased risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy
Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in future pregnancies - False - totally made up
increased risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies -True but very rare
increased risk of placenta accreta in future pregnancies- True but very rare
increased risk of blood clots - True but very rare and is carefully monitored for
increased risk of pph -False more common in vaginal deliveries
increased risk of infection -False unless you can prove otherwise

QUOTE]

The actual dangers associated with ceasarian sections are well documented. What this discussion needs now is someone who suffered a 4th degree laceration on vaginal birth to tell their story. Maybe they hypnotized themselves that it didn't happen.

Hannibal Smith · 03-03-2011 4:11pm

Grawns wrote: »

GoerGirl wrote: »

The risks of Caesarean over vaginal birth include:

increased risk of fertility problems in future pregnancies - False although a large family is out of the question due to the actual increased risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy
Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in future pregnancies - False - totally made up
increased risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies -True but very rare
increased risk of placenta accreta in future pregnancies- True but very rare
increased risk of blood clots - True but very rare and is carefully monitored for
increased risk of pph -False more common in vaginal deliveries
increased risk of infection -False unless you can prove otherwise

The actual dangers associated with ceasarian sections are well documented. What this discussion needs now is someone who suffered a 4th degree laceration on vaginal birth to tell their story. Maybe they hypnotized themselves that it didn't happen.

I shared a ward with a girl who had an episiotomy and the girl could barely walk. The toilet wasn't that far away and she struggled to get there and back and screamed while she was in there. I had a section and was up and about unaided the next day. The only reason why I needed assistance getting to and from the toilet was on morning 1 when I had all the attachments and catheter. Both the girl in the hospital, and a number of friends have said they would rather a section over an episiotomy any day.

Likewise however, I know I was lucky and I know that either I was stitched back well, or have a high pain threshold or whatever. I know there are women who have suffered horrendously after a c-section. But the risks and after effects of episiotomies make equally uncomfortable reading and can pose health problems not only reproductively but in your general health if the cut isn't done right.

GoerGirl · 03-03-2011 4:16pm

Grawns wrote: »

GoerGirl wrote: »

The risks of Caesarean over vaginal birth include:

increased risk of fertility problems in future pregnancies - False although a large family is out of the question due to the actual increased risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy
Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in future pregnancies - False - totally made up
increased risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies -True but very rare
increased risk of placenta accreta in future pregnancies- True but very rare
increased risk of blood clots - True but very rare and is carefully monitored for
increased risk of pph -False more common in vaginal deliveries
increased risk of infection -False unless you can prove otherwise

QUOTE]

The actual dangers associated with ceasarian sections are well documented. What this discussion needs now is someone who suffered a 4th degree laceration on vaginal birth to tell their story. Maybe they hypnotized themselves that it didn't happen.

Sorry? Really don't understand what you are implying at in your reply to me.

Yes, the risks associated to caesarean sections are well documented - but that was questioned in several places - hence the information provided in my reply.

I do understand why some women choose a caesarean over a vaginal birth after an emotionally or physically traumatic previous experience;
My best friend is one of them. The risks remain the same regardless though.

Unfortunately, many women don't have all the information when making decisions - caesareans are sold to women as routine, harmless procedures rather than the life-saving surgeries they were designed to be.

Squiggler · 03-03-2011 4:23pm

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

But the risks and after effects of episiotomies make equally uncomfortable reading and can pose health problems not only reproductively but in your general health if the cut isn't done right.

Episiotomies are a medical intervention that is not necessary and is now generally regarded as being WORSE for the mother than if she was allowed to tear naturally. In my opinion it's a barbaric practice, right up there with trepanning.

There have been studies done that show that these so called clean cuts take longer to heal, tend to result in a higher incidence of severe tears and cause greater scarring than unassisted tears.

Cesarean or (natural) birth

Comments