or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › c-section safer?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

c-section safer? - Page 5

post #81 of 105
That's a good point. Even Landon's study showed that the neonatal death rate was 1/2000 (0.05%) with ERCS. I thought I remembered reading that MacDorman's study went 1 month past birth. It appears to me that Landon's study just looked at babies that died right away (or never left the hospital). I'm just wondering if MacDorman's study included babies that may have died after leaving the hospital the 1st time (e.g a baby who went home and died at 3 weeks old). I'm not sure! I still believe there are too many other complications related to c-sections that would certainly not make them "safer" but I am now curious about the risk of death.
post #82 of 105
i wish there was more info too. interesting about macdorman and outcomes up to 1 month... i am being lazy in not looking this up, but there are different measures of mortality that can be used: neonatal mortality, perinatal mortality, intrapartum mortality (that one's during labor), but they each measure different time frames. but i don't know the definitions off the top of my head, and i'm too tired to look them up (you know it's bad when you're too tired to google something)
i am kind of wishing that i'd at least blogged about my vbac research while i did it. it was such a neat journey for me, and i put a lot of time and effort into it, it would be nice to have a record of that, both for myself and for anyone who was interested in what i read and how it changed my feelings about the kind of birth i wanted with DD2. and you know, i said the same thing to myself while i was researching vaccines... and i didn't, and i'm kicking myself for that too. but instead i subject poor mothering.com members to my half-baked, semi-coherent ramblings, because i never hashed them out in writing for myself. perhaps my siggy should just contain a pre-emptive apology.
post #83 of 105
majormajor: Thanks for the laugh. I feel the same way. I did so much digging and research over the last few years, but now I remember my conclusions, and almost none of what I used to get there! It's very frustrating.
post #84 of 105
i blame the kids and my lack of a good night's sleep (co-sleeping!).

i know, we can all put content advisories in our siggies. something like WARNING: the ideas contained above are the product of a mind so tired it has been known to hallucinate.

actually i think that really might have to go into my siggy. just as soon as i finish playing doo-dop (she's a puppet) for my 3 year old.
post #85 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewberry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
I used to haunt the OB forums (had to stop because it was bad for my blood pressure, yk?), and I recall a time when they were discussing how great it would be to work at a 100% c-section hospital. Several of them treated the idea as a "died and gone to heaven" kind of scenario. They definitely like the convenience.
It's not legal to have a 100% C-Section hospital. So I think that person (on the OB Forums) is full of crap! LOL

EDIT: My BF had 4 c-sections, ALL 4 were medically necessary without a doubt.


I know this is an ANCIENT thread, but I just had to respond to this for posterity-- it is absolutely NOT illegal to have a 100% C/S hospital (in the US).  Aside from the fact that it would be just as difficult to proscribe a 100% C/S rate as to proscribe all homebirths (unassisted), I have actually come across more than a couple of hospitals with a 100% C/S rate.  Granted, we are generally talking about hospitals with special circumstances and a tiny number of overall births, but they do exist.  For example, scroll down to the bottom of this page and you'll see two:

 

http://www.cesareanrates.com/florida-cesarean-rates/

 

Just sayin'.  I have no idea why (except that it sounds outrageous) someone would think it's illegal.

 

Furthermore, there are hospitals with much larger numbers of births that have de facto ~75% C/S rates-- they are also on that page, just listed closer to 50-60% (they'd undoubtedly be at closer to 75% if not for people showing up pushing).  Oh, and this page...

 

http://www.cesareanrates.com/texas-cesarean-rates/

 

...has several more hospitals with 50%+ rates and a hospital with over 200 births and a 100% C/S rate.  So, there ya go.

post #86 of 105
Q

Edited by member234098 - 5/23/12 at 5:39pm
post #87 of 105

C-sections are more dangerous for both mother and baby, yet they have become so trivialized by our society. It is major surgery and a whole host of things can go wrong. I have a dear friend who had her 3rd c-section and after a lot of complications ended up losing part of her bowel and still has trouble eating lots of things. It is major surgery!

Here is a great list about the dangers of unneeded c-sections. http://yourpregnantback.com/2012/05/whats-so-bad-about-a-c-section.html

post #88 of 105
Q

Edited by member234098 - 5/23/12 at 5:39pm
post #89 of 105

Actually, I don't mind that kind of doctor being in obstetrics!  I say leave surgery to the surgeons, and have MWs attend normal births.

post #90 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by buko View Post

Actually, I don't mind that kind of doctor being in obstetrics!  I say leave surgery to the surgeons, and have MWs attend normal births.

 

I agree that the world would be a better place if there were more trained, competent midwives in it, and if there were fewer barriers to women choosing a midwife for their prenatal and birth care.

 

But there will always be women for whom a hospital birth with an OB is the only reasonable choice, and we deserve competent care, too. I don't think it's outrageous to expect OBs to understand and support natural birth, as well as being versed in procedures such as c-section, and I think that OBs should be held to high standards of quality, compassionate care for women.

post #91 of 105

In regards to how doctors are paid and financial incentives to surgery - it should get a great big fat "It Depends."
 

Some doctors are on salary.  I delivered both my kids at teaching hospitals, using OBs and MWs who worked in clinics at those hospitals.  The doctors were on salary and were scheduled for a certain number of days per week seeing patients in clinic, and a certain number of shifts on L&D.  Same for MWs.  When you came in to deliver, whoever was on shift delivered your baby.  This is a pretty good system, because it removes many incentives for the doctor to manipulate the method and timing of delivery - how and when you deliver affected neither their pay nor their hours (although the OB and the nursing team did stay over the end of their shifts to see me through when DS was born).  Their c-section rates were still higher on weekdays, because scheduled c-sections and inductions all took place then.

 

The Boston Globe (sadly paywalled) did an article about c-section rates in MA hospitals last year, in which they discussed hospital staffing models and their relationship to c-section rates.  The staffing model I've described is correlated with lower rates of surgical delivery.  There are plenty of doctors in private practice, with admissions privileges at hospitals with different models, and without hospitalists.  Those staffing models are associated with higher c-section rates, for purely practical reasons.  If you have multiple OBs and dedicated anesthesiology on the L&D floor all the time, you can call a section with very little notice.  That means you can afford to do a certain amount of waiting and seeing.  If there's no hospitalist, and nurses have to page the patient's OB to come in for delivery, they have to be aware of the potential for surgery from a much earlier point - they should page the moment they have the slightest indication of trouble, since it can take the OB 30-60 minutes to get there.  And then the OB is much more likely to go ahead and push for surgery, since his or her schedule is already in shambles, and they only get paid if they do something. 

 

Unfortunately, the salaried staffing model is expensive, and only practical where there's a high patient load. 

 

Doctors/Hospitals may be able to bill more for surgical delivery, but that doesn't mean that they *make* more.  C-sections are far more expensive than vaginal deliveries - they involve more professionals (doctors, nurses, and a pediatric team), more equipment, more supplies, more drugs, more janitorial services.  At the end of the day, vaginal delivery, even with all the waiting around, is probably more profitable.  There are always more L&D rooms then there are operating rooms. 

 

Additionally, it's totally unsurprising to me that hospital stays associated with c-sections are longer than those associated with vaginal delivery.  Hospitals are legally required to let you stay twice as long after a c/s as they are after a vaginal delivery. 

 

C-section is correlated with higher risks, but I wonder how many of those risks are related to confounding factors.  I'd love to see a breakdown of indications for c-section, and the outcomes of those sections.  My suspicion is that c/s performed on maternal request, or for indications without implications for maternal health (like breech positioning) have outcomes that are pretty similar to uncomplicated vaginal delivery in the long-term (after the first month or so).  The short-term, of course, is going to look very different.

 

I've had one complicated (instrumental) vaginal delivery and one medically indicated c-section.  I preferred the c-section, frankly.  It was a lot easier for me to deal with the scar on my belly than it was to deal with labial and perineal tearing, both physically and psychologically.  I think most people (me included) would prefer uncomplicated vaginal delivery, but sometimes there comes a point when you realize that it's not going to go that way and you need to redo your math.  When DS was born, I was really grateful to the OB who "let" me push for five hours, with a failed epidural and a mounting fever.  After DD's birth, I realized that some things about DS's arrival were really dumb and dangerous.  I should probably have had a c-section.  In the end, everything turned out fine (after the first month or so), but there were some significant risks to both of us, which I would not choose to run again.  I wish I hadn't been so unreasonably frightened of surgery.

 

Overall, I think we women and babies would benefit from more frank, accurate, unemotional discussions of c-section.  We largely can't make our decisions about how we deliver on the basis of statistics, we have to consider our own situations, and we won't necessarily even know what those situations are going to be until we're in them.

post #92 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post
 

 

Overall, I think we women and babies would benefit from more frank, accurate, unemotional discussions of c-section.  We largely can't make our decisions about how we deliver on the basis of statistics, we have to consider our own situations, and we won't necessarily even know what those situations are going to be until we're in them.

MeepyCat, I love your whole post, but especially this. C-sections arise out of so many different individual situations. Let's find models of care that can help all women have better births, even when really difficult decisions are inevitable and trauma is unavoidable.

post #93 of 105
Q

Edited by member234098 - 5/23/12 at 5:39pm
post #94 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

Why doesn't a woman who wants a home birth with a midwife deserve competent care?  Who is putting those barriers up?  

 

I had my children at home, 1970s.  My mother had her children at home, 1950s.  Why should any one tell a woman where to deliver and what is safer for her?

 

Miriam, I think I am not expressing myself clearly, or maybe you are not understanding my meaning.

 

I believe ALL women deserve competent care. I believe that home birth with a midwife is the best care choice for many women, but not for all. I believe that many barriers exist the prevent women from choosing a home birth or their best model of care. There are financial barriers, insurance hurdles, legal obstacles. Women can be limited because of their geographic location or their socioeconomic class or the maternity leave policies of their workplace. There is racism and homophobia and prejudice against women with disabilities. I'd like to see us work to remove those barriers.

 

Why should any one tell a woman where to deliver and what is safer for her? No one should. All women should have access to quality care, and should have the tools to assess for themselves what the best care is for them. I'm not arguing anything different.

 

I'm just trying to say that some women will birth in hospitals under the care of OBs, and some women who want to have home births or work with a midwife will be transferred because of complications. Those women shouldn't be thrown to the dogs. Good care should exist everywhere, and OBs and hospitals should be held to high standards. In my opinion, doing so doesn't undermine homebirth or midwifery in any way.

post #95 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by CI Mama View Post

 

Miriam, I think I am not expressing myself clearly, or maybe you are not understanding my meaning.

 

I believe ALL women deserve competent care. I believe that home birth with a midwife is the best care choice for many women, but not for all. I believe that many barriers exist the prevent women from choosing a home birth or their best model of care. There are financial barriers, insurance hurdles, legal obstacles. Women can be limited because of their geographic location or their socioeconomic class or the maternity leave policies of their workplace. There is racism and homophobia and prejudice against women with disabilities. I'd like to see us work to remove those barriers.

 

Why should any one tell a woman where to deliver and what is safer for her? No one should. All women should have access to quality care, and should have the tools to assess for themselves what the best care is for them. I'm not arguing anything different.

 

I'm just trying to say that some women will birth in hospitals under the care of OBs, and some women who want to have home births or work with a midwife will be transferred because of complications. Those women shouldn't be thrown to the dogs. Good care should exist everywhere, and OBs and hospitals should be held to high standards. In my opinion, doing so doesn't undermine homebirth or midwifery in any way.


yeahthat.gif  CI Mama has the wise.

post #96 of 105
Q

Edited by member234098 - 5/23/12 at 5:40pm
post #97 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by CI Mama View Post

 

I agree that the world would be a better place if there were more trained, competent midwives in it, and if there were fewer barriers to women choosing a midwife for their prenatal and birth care.

 

But there will always be women for whom a hospital birth with an OB is the only reasonable choice, and we deserve competent care, too. I don't think it's outrageous to expect OBs to understand and support natural birth, as well as being versed in procedures such as c-section, and I think that OBs should be held to high standards of quality, compassionate care for women.


True, I was being a bit glib.

post #98 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

(?) Have no idea what that means; it would be nice if people did not use vinaculars that are understood between them. This impedes communication.

 

Being in the homebirth movement since I was born, over 60 years, I can tell you that when I was born, neighbors wondered if my parents were poor and could not afford a hospital delivery.  That has changed. Why?  Now women cannot afford a homebirth because their insurance will not cover it. Many parents choose a job based on the maternity benefits. 

Actually, I think this represents a very narrow point of view.  I know of several families who have insurance and have birthed in hospital and are struggling to repay the hospital bills, myself included.  And families without insurance struggle even more.  Homebirths are expensive, as are hospital births, and the financial differences depend upon individual situations.  I don't know if I've heard of anyone choosing a position based on maternity benefits, but rather, overall health benefits seem to be a deciding factor.

 

Hospitals are institutions; as such they are run for the convenience of the people who work there.  Delivering mothers who think they are #1 in a hospital setting are kidding themselves.

 

 

The birth framework has not always been the way the birthing population sees it now. Ask yourself why how things got this complicated and who benefits from this complicated system and confusion.  Mothers certainly do NOT benefit from the changes I have seen in maternity care.  Why could a woman deliver in a hospital in 1960 and stay for seven days for under $100?  Many owomen looked forward to being waited on in bed and the rest they were afforded.  Insurance did not cover maternity benefits then since it was not considered the result of an accident.  This was the days of the babyboom, so the maternity wards and nurseries werefull.  Now hospitals do more than 50% surgical deliveries and push mothers out within 48-72 hours, and charge upwards of $15,000-$30,000 at least.

The financial changes you describe don't just apply to hospital stays for births, you know.  Once upon a time, doctors made home visits and expenses were generally affordable.  The changes in costs for hospital delivery & care reflect a growing trend in expenses for medical care in general and aren't just about women and birth.  They are about insurance companies and a growing profit margin.  So I'm not sure what that has to do exactly with the subject at hand.  If you want to rail against costs, take a look at the people who can't afford dialysis or cancer care as well. 

 

When you say most women would prefer the hospital model, you do know that hospital delivery is quite a recent development in human history and it is controversial as to whether this is an improvement.  Preferring a hospital delivery is more of a cultural development, not improvement in health and outcome.  I worked hard with consumer groups in the 1970s and 1980s to put ABCs and L&Ds in maternity wards only to see them never used and closed since doctors risked all of their patients out of them; doctors simply are not comfortable working in them. OBs/Surgeons are not trained that way.  In that same medical center, the head of OB/GYN said that there is NEVER a reason NOT to to a caesarean section. That was 1979. Things have not changed and have become worse.

I didn't see where anyone said "most women.. prefer the hospital model."  I also thought that most hospitals have separate L & D facilities. 

 

When I had my children I had a midwife; she came to my home each time with just her hands, experience and a few items she could use at home - I never needed a stitch, yet had I been in a hospital with a posterior, deflexed head with asynclitism, I would have had my baby and subsequent children surgically.  In the state I delivered, a midwife could legally practice if she had passed a state test, but that test had not been proctored for over thirty years - why? Would the state medical association have something to do with that?   Obviously there was a need for midwives - especially in the rural areas. There were many lay midwives in practice in the rural areas.  Every once in a while there was legal action against one of them for something that OBs would line up around the block at any courthouse and defend one of their own, but would toss a midwife to the wolves.  

Aren't you fortunate to have had a choice about where you birthed?  I'm happy your births went well, and you had a choice of where to deliver. 

I needed and wanted to deliver in a hospital facility, for multiple reasons, and I know how extremely fortunate we were to be able to find and afford a good obstetrician.  I also realize that it's truly a sad state of affairs that not everyone has a choice of health care providers or the ability to birth at home. 

Also, I really resent upthread when you stated that "many" women have cesareans as a matter of "convenience."  I don't know where these people are, but I've never met anyone who actually wanted a cesarean.  I've met quite a few who felt they were medically necessary, and a few who felt as though they were coerced into having one, but no volunteers for convenience Frankly, that sort of statement is condescending and a little bit tacky. 

In my fantasy world, I'd really like to see people advocating for choice and supporting the choices other women make, or supporting medically necessary procedures, or simply listening and not judging.  The safety of c-section, as was brought up in the original post, is something that happens on a person-by-person basis.  I think when we categorize it as safe for everyone or not safe for everyone, there's an element of judgey-ness brought into it-- what may be true for one woman isn't necessarily so for another, and that's why this is such a difficult conversation to have, you know?

post #99 of 105

h


Edited by member234098 - 5/23/12 at 5:41pm
post #100 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam View Post

I know that there are plenty of L&Ds.  My point is that if a hospital has an L&D, it is rarely used.  

 

Miriam, this statement confuses me greatly.  The only hospitals I know of that do not have L&D units are those that don't do obstetrics at all (which is, I admit, a growing number, but those hospitals transfer laboring patients, the only deliveries they do are precipitous ones in the ED).  Those units are in constant use, and all laboring patients are sent there.  So I can only think that you mean something by L&D that the rest of us don't.  Could you please explain?

 

Homebirth is not necessarily cost effective - it's cheaper, in monetary terms, if you consider *only* the cost of the delivery, and if the delivery goes smoothly.  If things don't go well, the costs mount exponentially and instantaneously.  Furthermore, home is an environment in which there is no chance of pain relief, which many women want, and which they should be able to get.

 

It's hard to have this conversation when you insist that women who want ceseareans, or who schedule them in advance, are deceived, misled, or frivolous, without considering the possibility that they're educated, informed, and doing the best they can to deal with the challenges of their lives.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › c-section safer?