Birth is NOT normal - Page 4

[artekah]

Poogles0213: Fair enough.

I would not want that start in life for my baby. I think it is introducing trauma to your child unnecessarily--cold room, bright lights, being yanked away from you and cord cut immediately, fluid still in their little lungs--the image just makes me sad. The 1% (maybe more) risk of the baby being cut by a scalpel, that alone makes me cringe. All the c-section mamas I know IRL, even planned c-sections went through that because they believed they had no other choice. It's just not ideal for the baby, compared to being born normally. So I don't get your idea that it is just fine for the baby...

But I know that some people are happy with their c-section experiences. I hope you choose your hospital, surgeon and birth team very carefully to ensure you hold your baby immediately and breastfeeding is supported. Doulas are awesome for that.

A planned c-section before you go into labor (although bad for the baby if it's not done cooking) is indeed the safest choice if you are dead-set on a c-section.

I don't think I am able to think of surgery without medical indication as anything but "unnecessary"--it's elective. By it's very definition it's medically unnecessary. This cannot be compared to home birth or any other birth choices--it's unnecessary surgery, period. You may consider it "necessary" because it is your personal preference, but that still doesn't make it necessary, sorry...

Anyway. You sound like you are confident and know how to advocate for what you need and want, which puts you ahead of the curve already. I do really hope you and future baby have the best possible outcome!

[artekah]

Originally Posted by Poogles0213 

If you were suddenly in an area or time where the prevailing message was that formula was much better for babies, and moms could choose to breastfeed, but it was "irrational" and "riskier", would that irritate you or rub you the wrong way?

How about when pro-circ people talk about all the reasons baby boys should be circed? That not circing is putting them at risk for more UTI's or STD's or what-have-you? Does that irritate you or rub you the wrong way (or maybe even piss you right off )?

Would you then assume it must be because they have a point, and you must just not be confident enough in your own choices? I would assume not. Just because something irritates someone or rubs them the wrong way does not mean it is because they are insecure in their decisions.

Oh, and I just wanted to respond to this part quickly before I leave you alone. The difference here is that when people spout off about how great formula/circumcision/(fill in the blank) is, I am irritated with them not for being arrogant or whatever, although that's a little annoying, I admit.

I'm irritated with them for being completely ignorant of the subject they feel so strongly about, I mean, they know next to nothing, yet still thinking they are able to hold an engaging debate with others who have actually researched ad nauseum. Yet they are completely dismissive of actual facts and information presented to them. There's no point--it's like banging your head against a wall sometimes.  It's annoying when people say "circ just looks nicer!" because it's so painfully evident that they're blithering idiots who aren't remotely interested in real information. I'm irritated with those people for their smug, willful, ignorance.

If someone is actually arguing with "facts," (i.e. the circ/UTI thing) it's easy enough to tell them when they're quite simply wrong. For example, if someone says "breastfed babies fail to thrive if you don't introduce rice cereal at 8 weeks," I can come up with tons of research to completely debunk their "facts" on a moment's notice. Same thing if someone is saying ignorant things about circ. They're not necessarily willfully ignorant, they just don't have all the facts. No, I don't get irritated by those people, because it's possible to just fill in their missing facts and make the world a slightly better place because now they aren't spreading that particular misinformation anymore.

Not the same thing here. The difference in this case is that all these women who are arguing the benefits of natural childbirth, and/or the risks of unnecessary medical intervention, actually have something intelligent to say, whether they're coming to the correct conclusion or not, they are talking about information and facts...even our "opinions" are still somewhat educated opinions, you have to acknowledge that much. I actually took the time to type out many paragraphs listing the known risks of c-sections. I'm not just coming from an ignorant, purely emotional stance. If I said something like "I had me a dream about a C-section and it scared me good! C-sections is the devil!" or even something true but that could be conceived as hooey, like "The baby's spirit is disrupted by medical birth and the trauma of interventions lives in the mother's body forever," I mean, yeah, I can see how that would be very annoying. But that is not the case.

I think all the women here who have questioned you or doubted you about this actually have valid things to say. And you have not really responded to those concerns at all, except to say that you're aware, you've weighed the facts in your mind and simply come to a different conclusion. As I said, fair enough. But I don't think that others presenting information is anything to get irritated about. If we are wrong about something, (like maybe the risk of dying from a c-section is NOT actually higher than from vaginal birth, and we just have our facts wrong?) you are free to jump in and provide the missing information. The fact that you just feel irritated by what we're saying yet you're not disputing our actual information, makes me believe you may not be coming at this whole thing from a logic-based place.

Yet you claim you are. So I guess I'm just confused. And maybe I shouldn't say anymore because it doesn't make any difference, your mind is made up, and it really is none of my business. I know with every word I type I am risking making you even more irritated. But, just so you understand, that's why I don't think you have good reason to be so irritated.

ETA: And, I still respect your decisions for your own future birth.

Edited by artekah - 8/31/12 at 2:14pm

[trimommy2009]

Originally Posted by Poogles0213 

No, you misunderstand - the controlled environment is what lowers the risks that I am concerned about; I would NOT choose an option that I thought was riskier to my baby. Recovery is not too much of a consideration, honestly - to me it would be worth it and a most likely nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

I have absolutely no research studies to backup my own observation that recovery from a c-section is far more then an inconvenience, except my own personal experience.  I realize that there are many stories of painful vaginal birth recoveries as well, however I would like to state that my unplanned c-section resulted in the doctor cutting my bladder causing me to pee blood for weeks post surgery and he leftover placenta debris which caused a raging infection throughout my whole body that landed me in the hospital for 3 days of antibiotics and a possible other surgery for blood clots.  The OB that delivered my 1st was considered one of the best in the state and even he stated that it occurs about 10 to 15% of the time post c-section. I'm not at all surprised by the previous posters statistic of increasing the maternal death rate at 246% higher.  

Another thing to keep in mind when you state you would "NOT choose an option that you thought was riskier to your baby", it has been reported over and over that babies are twice as likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care, and more likely to have breathing problems requiring oxygen when born by c-section.  I would say that is more of a risk then an inconvenience.  

[mama24-7]

Originally Posted by Poogles0213 
<snip> I would NOT choose an option that I thought was riskier to my baby. <snip>

You said you would not choose an option that you thought was riskier to your baby.  Are you saying you think vaginally delivery, the way we've been being born for the majority of the time humans have existed, is riskier to your child?  How do you suppose, then, we've made it this far?

Maybe if you spent a day or a week living with me & my allergic kids, you'd think vaginal delivery was safer.  Or if you spent a day or a week living w/ a child who has asthma.  Or spent a day or a week w/ a child w/ another immune issue?  All of these things are more likely to happen w/ a c-section, whether that c-section happens because it was to save the child's life (like a woman I know who had an undiagnosed vaginal cyst that was blocking her child from coming through the birth canal), the mother's life (same story), or because someone chooses it (the doctor who wants to deliver the baby before he goes on vacation ((which happened to a friend)) or the mother who wants to control the uncontrollable).

Yeah, I'm a little annoyed by all this.  As I said, my children's issues (as well as my own, which created my children's issues) are directly related to my being born via surgery (but again, it's not the only reason).  It is upsetting to me to think of someone choosing this option when I live every day w/ the consequences of my mother having a c-section.    

All the best to you, 

Sus

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by mama24-7 

Yeah, I'm a little annoyed by all this.  As I said, my children's issues (as well as my own, which created my children's issues) are directly related to my being born via surgery (but again, it's not the only reason).  It is upsetting to me to think of someone choosing this option when I live every day w/ the consequences of my mother having a c-section.      

Just curious, how are you certain that your children's allergies are directly a result of being born by c section. There really is no way of knowing if their health issues would be the same or not if they had been born vaginally since its impossible to turn back time.

Please don't think I'm trying to doubt you - just an honest question.

[Poogles0213]

Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama 

The maternal death rate is 246% higher for women during a csection than during a vaginal delivery.

What are the risks associated with vaginal delivery that concern you?

Was that figure arrived at by comparing the maternal death rate of low-risk vaginal deliveries compared to the maternal death rate of planned, purely elective, pre-labor CS? When you look at the death rate for all CS, you're including all the women who were getting the CS because they were seriously ill (e.g. infection), those that have been laboring for hours and are now in a state of exhaustion (as is the uterus, making the risks of hemorrhage higher), and other high-risk situations (like Placenta accreta) that make maternal death more likely, even (or sometimes, especially) if the CS hadn't taken place. My reading and investigation has shown that the maternal mortality and morbidity between these two groups are not significantly different, with the CS rate being slightly higher, such as is shown in this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17296957 (Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS; Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System.)

Risks of vaginal delivery that concern me (please note, I am not claiming CS eliminates all these risks, but they do at least reduce the risk):

For me: trauma from instrumental delivery, tearing/episiotomy, vaginal/rectal trauma, pelvic floor trauma, tailbone trauma, incontinence, fistula, loss of vaginal tone, pelvic organ prolapse, uterine rupture, hemorrhage due to placental abruption, exhaustion and hemorrhage due to prolonged labor, sexual dysfunction, emergency CS (which has much higher risks than an elective, pre-labor CS)

For baby: cord prolapse, dystocia, trauma from instrumental delivery, brachial plexus injury, brain bleeds, skull/facial trauma from being squeezed through the birth canal, complications from true knots in the cord, complications of tight nuchal cords, infection, asphyxia, HIE, cerebral palsy, encephalopathy, stillbirth

I may have left some out, but I think that covers most of it.

[Poogles0213]

Originally Posted by artekah 

I would not want that start in life for my baby. I think it is introducing trauma to your child unnecessarily--cold room, bright lights, being yanked away from you and cord cut immediately,

That's fine, and I hope you have/will have the start you want for your baby. These things are not "traumatic" in my opinion, and so I do not worry about them.

fluid still in their little lungs--the image just makes me sad. The 1% (maybe more) risk of the baby being cut by a scalpel, that alone makes me cringe.

Babies born vaginally can still have fluid in the lungs, though I realize this is more likely in CS babies. It is easily dealt with and is very unlikely to cause any long-term harm or damage. Babies can also have injuries from instrumental vaginal deliveries (cuts, bruises, scrapes), as well as unassisted (not instrumental) vaginal delivery (head/facial bruising and swelling, brain bleeds).

It's just not ideal for the baby, compared to being born normally. So I don't get your idea that it is just fine for the baby...

I disagree, the preponderance of evidence shows that, overall, planned, pre-labor CS involves less risk to the baby. You will likely never agree. I feel it would be futile to list studies or sources, because we will likely go round and round, with neither of us changing our minds, and probably just getting frustrated in the process. Plus, I already feel bad that I've inadvertently hijacked the OP's thread, and I'm trying to not leave too many people's questions or concerns dangling while trying not to drag this on forever in someone else's thread

I don't think I am able to think of surgery without medical indication as anything but "unnecessary"--it's elective. By it's very definition it's medically unnecessary. This cannot be compared to home birth or any other birth choices--it's unnecessary surgery, period. You may consider it "necessary" because it is your personal preference, but that still doesn't make it necessary, sorry...

I am not claiming it is "necessary" - I was simply requesting that you re-consider repeatedly throwing the word "unnecessary" into the conversation, because it serves no purpose, other than, possibly, trying to invoke guilt or shame for a decision. The same way a HB or UC is never "necessary" but simply a choice in birth, I would likewise not continue to refer to someone's HB or UC as "unnecessary" - it's just not needed.

[Poogles0213]

Originally Posted by artekah 

[...] I'm irritated with them for being completely ignorant of the subject they feel so strongly about, I mean, they know next to nothing[...]

[...] I'm irritated with those people for their smug, willful, ignorance.[...]

[...] I mean, yeah, I can see how that would be very annoying.[...]

My point was simply that just because someone is irritated about someone else's stance or argument on something does not mean it must be because the other party has a point, and they must just not be confident enough in their own choices. That was all. And, apparently, you agree.

I think all the women here who have questioned you or doubted you about this actually have valid things to say. And you have not really responded to those concerns at all, except to say that you're aware, you've weighed the facts in your mind and simply come to a different conclusion. As I said, fair enough. But I don't think that others presenting information is anything to get irritated about. If we are wrong about something, (like maybe the risk of dying from a c-section is NOT actually higher than from vaginal birth, and we just have our facts wrong?) you are free to jump in and provide the missing information. The fact that you just feel irritated by what we're saying yet you're not disputing our actual information, makes me believe you may not be coming at this whole thing from a logic-based place.

As I just mentioned, I don't want to turn this thread into a huge back-and-forth discussion complete with sources and references, because it's not my thread. Further, my original intent on this thread was to simply question some assumptions people were making in regards to why a person would choose to avoid an unmedicated delivery - and it's those types of assumptions that irritate me, not others simply presenting factual information about risks etc. I've always searched out information for and against almost any decision or stance I take - which, btw, is how I decided against a HB or UC after having wanted them.

[Poogles0213]

Originally Posted by trimommy2009 

[...]my unplanned c-section resulted in the doctor cutting my bladder causing me to pee blood for weeks post surgery and he leftover placenta debris which caused a raging infection throughout my whole body that landed me in the hospital for 3 days of antibiotics and a possible other surgery for blood clots.[...]

I am sorry that you had complications in your unplanned CS. The rates of complications (especially like those you experienced) are significantly lower in a planned, pre-labor CS.

Another thing to keep in mind when you state you would "NOT choose an option that you thought was riskier to your baby", it has been reported over and over that babies are twice as likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care, and more likely to have breathing problems requiring oxygen when born by c-section.  I would say that is more of a risk then an inconvenience.  

Those higher admission rates are usually for those (usually minor) breathing problems that resolve quickly with treatment and without long-term damage, especially when the planned CS is done after 39 weeks gestation (which mine most certainly would, unless I went into labor before that). The preponderance of evidence shows that, overall, planned pre-labor CS is safer for babies, even with the increase in breathing problems; I know you do not agree.

[Poogles0213]

Originally Posted by mama24-7 

You said you would not choose an option that you thought was riskier to your baby.  Are you saying you think vaginally delivery, the way we've been being born for the majority of the time humans have existed, is riskier to your child?  How do you suppose, then, we've made it this far?

Yes, I do think vaginal delivery is riskier for baby than a planned, pre-labor CS. We've "made it this far" because evolution and nature only care about enough women and babies surviving to ensure the survival of the species, which is not the same as being without serious risk of death. You can have quite a high mortality rate and still have a thriving species (ever read about birth for spotted hyenas? Massive death rate for first-time moms, but the species is still able to continue on).

Maybe if you spent a day or a week living with me & my allergic kids, you'd think vaginal delivery was safer.  Or if you spent a day or a week living w/ a child who has asthma.  Or spent a day or a week w/ a child w/ another immune issue?  All of these things are more likely to happen w/ a c-section, whether that c-section happens because it was to save the child's life (like a woman I know who had an undiagnosed vaginal cyst that was blocking her child from coming through the birth canal), the mother's life (same story), or because someone chooses it (the doctor who wants to deliver the baby before he goes on vacation ((which happened to a friend)) or the mother who wants to control the uncontrollable).

All of the evidence I've seen put forth for a link between allergies (or asthma) and CS has been weak at best. I do not believe a link exists (though, obviously, I am open to changing my mind if more conclusive evidence were to come out - and it would certainly cause me to re-assess my choice in light of that information).

[mama24-7]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton 


Just curious, how are you certain that your children's allergies are directly a result of being born by c section. There really is no way of knowing if their health issues would be the same or not if they had been born vaginally since its impossible to turn back time.
Please don't think I'm trying to doubt you - just an honest question.

I don't think you're doubting me at all - but thanks for clarifying!  

My determination of the above is from 8.5 years of researching food allergies, what contributes to them, what makes a healthy gut & person, what can heal them, etc.  

My children were born vaginally - I was born via c-section.  C-section babies do not get their mother's flora on the way out; they get other flora (I'm thinking that which is prominent in the OR, but can't recall so I won't say).  My start did not include the bacteria that is necessary to develop a healthy gut.  Therefore, my gut hasn't developed properly (in addition to not getting what it needed after that).  I have leaky gut/candida overgrowth & probably more.  I've passed that onto my children.  This has resulted in a number of things, including for my youngest, severe food allergies/sensitivities so extreme that at three years old, I'm his main source of nutrition (he nurses - yes, it is very tough).  My strategies so far to help him have failed.  I'm just grateful for the two of us that he nurses; he'd be much sicker than he is otherwise.  

Is what I said what you thought I'd say?  Or did you think it'd be something else?  

Sus

Edited by mama24-7 - 9/1/12 at 7:01pm

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by Poogles0213 

I am not claiming it is "necessary" - I was simply requesting that you re-consider repeatedly throwing the word "unnecessary" into the conversation, because it serves no purpose, other than, possibly, trying to invoke guilt or shame for a decision. The same way a HB or UC is never "necessary" but simply a choice in birth, I would likewise not continue to refer to someone's HB or UC as "unnecessary" - it's just not needed.

Just FYI, my first labour was 1 hour and 24 mins, my second was 61 minutes.  Because of where i live in relation to the hospital HB is the best option for me and planning a HB is actually NECESSARY.  I won't make it to hospital on time and it would be fairly foolhardy of me to think i will.

So HB is the necessary option for me.  Either i consent to have my baby forced to be born on a day it didn't pick itself (and add all of the risks associated with that the the risks already inherent in any birth) or i choose to have my baby in the car en route to hospital.  The baby i'm carrying now is due in mid-January.  I am yet to meet ANY medical staff who think my planning another HB in this instance isn't necessary, the obstetrician thoroughly agreed that HB is our safest option.

I am lucky to have an excellent HB midwife who lives 15mins away, and who should manage to reach me even in mid-January (i'm in the UK, she's a qualified UK midwife) in time.  It is interesting that you think everyone having a homebirth is making a social and not medical decision.  The medical facts actually support my "choice" - it is the safest way for ME to get my babies born, because i have such fast and unpredictable labours.  I am very grateful i planned a HB for my first ("unnecessary" because i'd never laboured and didn't know i would do so fast) because even WITH midwives on call they were so relaxed about it all (telling me literally until her head was crowning that i wasn't in "real" labour yet) she was almost born unassisted into a toilet.  That experience prompted me to find better care, in the shape of my current midwife who delivered my 2nd with me in 2010.

[mama24-7]

Originally Posted by Poogles0213 
Yes, I do think vaginal delivery is riskier for baby than a planned, pre-labor CS. We've "made it this far" because evolution and nature only care about enough women and babies surviving to ensure the survival of the species, which is not the same as being without serious risk of death. You can have quite a high mortality rate and still have a thriving species (ever read about birth for spotted hyenas? Massive death rate for first-time moms, but the species is still able to continue on).

All of the evidence I've seen put forth for a link between allergies (or asthma) and CS has been weak at best. I do not believe a link exists (though, obviously, I am open to changing my mind if more conclusive evidence were to come out - and it would certainly cause me to re-assess my choice in light of that information).

I am quite stumped by those (not specifically you) who look to studies for things like this.  To me, it's like those who don't breastfeed (whether as a choice or due to one/some/multiple obstacles) & say that the studies don't convince them.  Why do you/anyone need studies?  Why isn't the way we're designed to do it enough?  

I don't want/need answers to these questions, they're just ones that come to mind w/ all of this.  I think but don't know that it may be related to the lack of personal responsibility most people take for their choices/actions/lives.  If you can look to a study & decide that you are going to do something/not do something based on a study, then you are putting the choice outside yourself.  If you rely on what you have to make your decisions, then you are taking responsibility for what you do.

Not criticizing anyone.  These are just my thoughts.

Originally Posted by GoBecGo 
Just FYI, my first labour was 1 hour and 24 mins, my second was 61 minutes.  Because of where i live in relation to the hospital HB is the best option for me and planning a HB is actually NECESSARY.  I won't make it to hospital on time and it would be fairly foolhardy of me to think i will.

So HB is the necessary option for me.  Either i consent to have my baby forced to be born on a day it didn't pick itself (and add all of the risks associated with that the the risks already inherent in any birth) or i choose to have my baby in the car en route to hospital.  The baby i'm carrying now is due in mid-January.  I am yet to meet ANY medical staff who think my planning another HB in this instance isn't necessary, the obstetrician thoroughly agreed that HB is our safest option.

I am lucky to have an excellent HB midwife who lives 15mins away, and who should manage to reach me even in mid-January (i'm in the UK, she's a qualified UK midwife) in time.  It is interesting that you think everyone having a homebirth is making a social and not medical decision.  The medical facts actually support my "choice" - it is the safest way for ME to get my babies born, because i have such fast and unpredictable labours.  I am very grateful i planned a HB for my first ("unnecessary" because i'd never laboured and didn't know i would do so fast) because even WITH midwives on call they were so relaxed about it all (telling me literally until her head was crowning that i wasn't in "real" labour yet) she was almost born unassisted into a toilet.  That experience prompted me to find better care, in the shape of my current midwife who delivered my 2nd with me in 2010.

I think the above story goes under the category of you don't know what you don't know.  I'm guessing that poogles has never heard of a person like you before.  Therefore, she's always assumed that having a birth at home was a choice, when in reality, it is not a choice for everyone.  Again, not criticizing, just observing.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation now.  This is all too close to home for me right now.  Each day is a struggle & to have someone say they don't believe that c-section contributed to my current struggle, well, it's too hard for me to deal with.  

All the best to everyone. 

Sus

[Poogles0213]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo 

So HB is the necessary option for me.  Either i consent to have my baby forced to be born on a day it didn't pick itself (and add all of the risks associated with that the the risks already inherent in any birth) or i choose to have my baby in the car en route to hospital.  The baby i'm carrying now is due in mid-January.  I am yet to meet ANY medical staff who think my planning another HB in this instance isn't necessary, the obstetrician thoroughly agreed that HB is our safest option.

Well, I could play Devil's advocate and say that HB is not the only option available to you (elective CS, elective induction, staying near the hospital around term) and thus, not "necessary", in the same way many want to tell me my CS is not "necessary" (ie not needed to save you or your baby's life). That's the point though - I would not pass the judgement of whether or not it is necessary, and only ask that others consider doing the same   Also, I feel the UK system is much, much better set up to accommodate HB, and thus, makes it safer.

Originally Posted by mama24-7 

I think the above story goes under the category of you don't know what you don't know.  I'm guessing that poogles has never heard of a person like you before.  Therefore, she's always assumed that having a birth at home was a choice, when in reality, it is not a choice for everyone.  Again, not criticizing, just observing.

You would be guessing wrong. I have heard of many moms who give birth very quickly. How they deal with it varies - some HB, some schedule a CS, some schedule an induction, some stay at a hotel (or with family and friends) near the hospital...there is more than one choice and different women will choose different ones depending on their own values, beliefs and risk/benefit analyses.

Originally Posted by mama24-7 

I am quite stumped by those (not specifically you) who look to studies for things like this.  To me, it's like those who don't breastfeed (whether as a choice or due to one/some/multiple obstacles) & say that the studies don't convince them.  Why do you/anyone need studies?  Why isn't the way we're designed to do it enough?  

I don't want/need answers to these questions, they're just ones that come to mind w/ all of this.  I think but don't know that it may be related to the lack of personal responsibility most people take for their choices/actions/lives.  If you can look to a study & decide that you are going to do something/not do something based on a study, then you are putting the choice outside yourself.  If you rely on what you have to make your decisions, then you are taking responsibility for what you do.

Not criticizing anyone.  These are just my thoughts.

I look to studies for these things (and all things that can be studied scientifically), because I believe that the scientific method is the best way humans have for understanding our world and our actions/choices.

I am an atheist, so I don't believe we were "designed" to do anything - and evolution is rarely perfect, so I wouldn't expect things to go well just because that's the way evolution "designed" things either.

Our minds are very good at fooling us into seeing connections that aren't there, or missing connections that aren't obvious - that's why we need science to help us filter out all the "noise" and see what is actually happening, not just what we think is happening. I also believe that using data and studies is part of "rely(ing) on what you have to make your decisions" and in no way impedes my ability to then take "responsibility" for the choices I make based on that.

Also, by the way, I rarely ever look at a singular study to make decisions - that's not how science works. You have to look at the whole body of evidence, analyze where the strength and weight of the evidence lies, and then make your choice based on all the data currently available to you.

Edited by Poogles0213 - 9/3/12 at 1:29pm

[Buzzbuzz]

"I think it is introducing trauma to your child unnecessarily--cold room, bright lights, being yanked away from you and cord cut immediately, fluid still in their little lungs--the image just makes me sad."

What makes you think vaginal birth is a gentle process to the baby? 

In fact normal vaginal birth is sufficiently traumatic as to cause brain bleeds in a significant number of babies:

"A brain development study in newborns revealed intracranial hemorrhages or bleeding in and around the brain, affects 26 percent of babies born vaginally, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill." 

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan07/neonates013007.html

And this, of course, does not take into account that chances of the trauma of oxgyen deprivation (head entrapment, shoulder dystocia, cord prolapse) would be virtually negligable in a c-section by maternal request.

[GoBecGo]

But is there a difference between the trauma a human infant has evolved some abilities to deal with and the trauma it has not?  26% of vaginally born babies do NOT sustain long lasting brain damage after all.

If you had to choose for your baby, either a brain bleed which has no long-term measurable impact or a permanent scar on their face from the surgeon's scalpel, which would you pick?  Or a brain bleed as delineated above OR 4 days in SCBU with wet collapsing lungs being intubated and resuscitated periodically.  Or a brain bleed as stated OR 4 days in SCBU just unable to be held and nursed by you as much as they need?  

I agree that evolution is far from perfect, and that its aim is only to continue the life form we are or might have to become to survive.  But i also have to acknowledge that my newborn babies ARE the result of the evolutionary process, and are set up to be optimally able to cope with what the normal process might throw up.  Sure, there are risks, and they could be avoided if i elected surgery.  But the baby is helpless in the face of the surgical risks in a way that they are NOT in the face of the inherent risks.

[mamaharrison]

Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz 

"I think it is introducing trauma to your child unnecessarily--cold room, bright lights, being yanked away from you and cord cut immediately, fluid still in their little lungs--the image just makes me sad."

What makes you think vaginal birth is a gentle process to the baby? 

In fact normal vaginal birth is sufficiently traumatic as to cause brain bleeds in a significant number of babies:

"A brain development study in newborns revealed intracranial hemorrhages or bleeding in and around the brain, affects 26 percent of babies born vaginally, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill." 

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan07/neonates013007.html

And this, of course, does not take into account that chances of the trauma of oxgyen deprivation (head entrapment, shoulder dystocia, cord prolapse) would be virtually negligable in a c-section by maternal request.

If you go on to read the article based on the study it states,

“Obviously, the vast majority of the 26 percent of us who were born vaginally and had these types of bleeds are doing just fine. Our brains probably evolved to handle vaginal birth without major difficulty.”

and

"These findings suggest intracranial hemorrhage is a fairly common consequence of a normal vaginal delivery, the authors said. “I would say that bleeds during vaginal birth are very common and have been happening for a very long time,” Gilmore said. “This not something prospective mothers need to be concerned about.”

So, just because it 'osunds' bad doesn't make it so. This study actually proves the point you may have been trying to disprove. Also, the three things you list--head entrapment, cord prolapse, and shoulder dystocia--do actually occur in cesarean sections, too and cause damage in those scenarios as well. A surgeon can easily miscalculate the size of the baby or position and make the incision too small leading to these issues during the extraction which can lead to pulling the baby and severe traumatic injury. Elective cesareans without medical necessity are not safer than normal vaginal birth. period. and never will be.

[Buzzbuzz]

My point is that any process that causes some 25% of individuals to suffer brain bleeds (even though those bleeds resolve without noticeable harm) can hardly be described as "gentle".

[mamaharrison]

Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz 

My point is that any process that causes some 25% of individuals to suffer brain bleeds (even though those bleeds resolve without noticeable harm) can hardly be described as "gentle".

That just isn't true. As a licensed Massage Therapist, I can inflict great bodily harm on people without alerting them to it with any kind of pain during the process. I mean, gentle is a subjective term anyway and only the person experiencing the process could really identify whether they felt it was gentle or not. Traumatic is also subjective, this is why we should just allow everyone their won experience without trying to impose our own paradigms on them--for some women vaginal birth is a gentle choice, for some it would be horrific {history of sexual abuse as an example} and for some women cesarean would be a gentle choice while for others it would be very traumatic. Why the need to label either method?? It is for each mama and baby combo to decide for themselves.

[CI Mama]

I totally agree. Some births are traumatic and some are not. That's a separate issue from some births being vaginal and some being c-section.

I would just add that the birth can be very different for mama than it is for baby. I consider my daughter's birth traumatic for me. As far as I can tell, it was far less traumatic for her, though she may tell me otherwise someday.