Just Wondering

[bmcneal]

Maybe this is the wrong place for this thread, but it seemed like the best place.

There are some hospitals that refuse to do VBACs. One of the reasons I have heard to explain is because they don't have the equipment for an emergency, if something goes wrong. But what I'm confused about is, what kind of emergencies are VBAC specific, that they would need different/special equipment on hand, that aren't/couldn't be an issue with someone who is having a vaginal birth with no prior c-section? Someone told me it was because they couldn't do emergency c-section, if it came to needing that. But what about someone who hasn't had a c-section, that might need an emergency c-section? Do they not have the equipment for that either? Wouldn't it be the same situation either way? Both people needing emergency c-section would need the same thing(s), right?

[womenswisdom]

Yes, you are correct. There is no difference between a cesarean done for uterine rupture and one done for any other emergent reason, which is why this reason for banning vbacs is bull. If you subscribe to the belief that the hospital shouldn't "offer" vbacs because of lack of immediately available cesarean, they they really shouldn't be offering birth services at all, since there are several complications which would require an emergent cesarean that occur more frequently than uterine rupture and are not associated with vbacs.

[ameliajade]

I agree. In reality, it sounds more like those hospitals don't want to deal with the "liability" that many Dr's claim a VBAC to be. It's complete nonsense in my opinion, but unfortunately, it happens.