Horrible article in my local paper

[liliaceae]

I can't believe how one-sided and misleading this article is. It's about planned c-sections, and it makes it sound like it's a good choice with hardly any risks!
http://www.courant.com/news/health/h...,5521238.story

[annekh23]

Originally Posted by liliaceae

I can't believe how one-sided and misleading this article is. It's about planned c-sections, and it makes it sound like it's a good choice with hardly any risks!
http://www.courant.com/news/health/h...,5521238.story

I really didn't think this article was too bad at all, it's telling it how it is, communicating news about what is influencing women's choices at this point in time and what OBs and future OBs think about it. It does cover some of the risks, perhaps not as clearly as it could, but overall it did seem a fairly balanced article, quite middle of the road, it didn't seem to pass judgement in support of non medical c-sections, but simply tell us it's happening, how often and why.

A picture says a thousand words and the picture makes no attempt to present elective c-section as warm and fuzzy, it shows a busy operating room with the parents completely disconnected from the process and the baby almost dangled about.

[Robinna]

You know, I would swear I have read precisely this article before. I had to double check the date.

I do think the article is relatively well balanced, but it's a good launching pad for a letter to the editor about birth and how disturbing this trend is, since the mother quoted (the one who is a Dr.) says she's opting for c/s in order to "leave nothing to chance" as if there is no risk to major surgery - that's absurd. I think it would be worth pointing out to the editor/other readers of the paper that the risks of c/s may be more predictable in that they are *managed* but that normal, unmedicated (and I would say unmedicated instead of "natural" since that just means vaginal to so many people) birth carries far less risk than major surgery, AND that the Dr.'s skewed perception is based on the assumption that iatrogenic birth complications (those caused by medical intervention) are unavoidable.

In fact, this is probably a good time to write a letter to that paper pointing out that the trend towards voluntary c/s may actually have more to do with rejecting the medical model of managed vaginal birth. In the mdc community, rejection of the medical model tends to mean opting for ncb; but if you really look at medically managed hospital vaginal birth it's not actually so far removed from surgery anyway. So if you believe that THAT model is what's "normal" and that's what you expect of birth, opting for c/s may just seem to be no different to women who have no experience or education regarding natural physiological birth.

[meganmarie]

I'm with the OP. This article does not describe the risks and downsides to planned c-sections in any way clearly.

For moms: It doesn't mention surgical scarring (except to reference the little "bikini cut" which makes it sound cute), internal adhesions, infections, wounds opening and bleeding, future complications in abdominal organs, a longer physical recovery period, not being allowed to lift your 8-lb newborn, having to take serious painkillers. (My sis the nurse cared for a who mom rolled over and smothered her 3-day old newborn while drugged up on percoset post-c/s).

For babies: It makes a brief reference to the fact that some babies might get lung benefits from vaginal birth - which sounds very different from saying that there is a greater risk of breathing difficulties with cesearean birth! It doesn't mention other risks to babies, like the fact that some of them come out with accidental surgical cuts. Or that by planning a c-section at week 39, you may be delivering a baby weeks before its actually meant to be born, depriving baby of lung and feeding development.

Of course, I'm not saying c-sections don't save lives in medical emergencies, but to communicate the idea that they are a simple choice with minimal risk in normal pregnancies is just irresponsible. And I do think this article leaves that impression.

On the other hand, the author is careful to use the word "ravaged" TWICE in reference to the consequences of vaginal births.

The article calls the natural birth movement something from "20 years ago" - (well, it doesn't seem so out of date over here at MDC!) The author doesn't interview any advocates of normal birth, or feature any women who have made the normal birth choice as a balance.

So yeah... my take: not balanced.

[Romana]

: I agree with Megan. It does a good job of pointing out that c/s is just as safe as vaginal birth and more predictable, and if you have a scheduled c/s, you won't have a saggy vagina or incontinence, which is virtually a given if you have multiple vaginal births.

Two quotes bothered me . . . first, the one about how doctors have been refining the art of childbirth since 1940 (bothers me since at that time and during the 50s and 60s some absolutely awful things were done to laboring women . . . I hate to think of that as "refining the art").

The other one that bothered me was the information that 74% of residents would be willing to do purely elective c/s once residency is completed. I think this IS a reflection of the opinions of residents and illustrates where the future of birth is going. Residents, FTMP, really like doing c/s and prefer scheduled c/s to any other type of birth. Planned induction is 2nd. Vaginal birth with epidural is next. Unmedicated vaginal birth comes after that. The least favorite, of course, is the woman with no prenatal care who shows up in labor.

I'm not saying that 100% of OB-gyn residents feel this way, but the vast majority do (perhaps somewhere near that 75%?). Many residents are in OB because they love surgery. So this is a natural progression.

I also like Robinna's point that for many women, vaginal birth in a hospital is so medicalized and unfriendly or even traumatic that the idea of planned surgery just seems cleaner, easier, and more controlled. I would love to see hospital birth in general really transformed, but I don't imagine that's likely. What a huge culture shift it would require . . . not to mention the extreme reluctance of OBs or hospitals to change anything in that line because of liability concerns. It really is a difficult situation.

[MegBoz]

Originally Posted by Romana9+2

I would love to see hospital birth in general really transformed, but I don't imagine that's likely. What a huge culture shift it would require . . .

I too agree with you & Megan.

I also agree that a huge cultural shift is required to improve maternity care in the US. It's a daunting task... but that doesn't mean it is not worth bothering to try. What's that great quote, "Never doubt that a small group of motivated people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead, I believe.

So please, MDC mamas, join CIMS (see my sig), take the birth survey and try to speak up as much as possible.