What did they do before c-sections? - Page 3

[erin_brycesmom]

Well, I find it VERY hard to believe that the death rate from human birth would be one in three. The human species as it is today has been around for, what, 1.5 million years. This is LONG before the use of complicated techniques to get babies out.

The main cause of death back then was not anything preventable by c-sections. It was a different time. Sure c-sections could hae saved some lives but now they are also taking some lives. My point though is that the death rates can be deceiving. The great decrease in maternal death is not directly related to OB technology.

[Synchro246]

Good point- like nutrition and disease prevention.

[crazy_eights]

And antibiotics. At one time 'childbed fever' was a large source of maternal mortality.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

And antibiotics. At one time 'childbed fever' was a large source of maternal mortality.

Childbed fever was a hygiene thing. Talk about iatrogenic death... yeesh. Once they caught on to handwashing between patients and it became hospital protocol the instances of childbed fever more or less disappeared.

[CrunchyMamaToBe]

Originally Posted by USAmma

In the old days death from childbirth was very high-- I think 1 in 3?

Haven't y'all read the "Benchmarks in Midwifery" chapter in Ina May's Guide to Childbirth? She talks about midwives practicing before the advent of modern technology, before doctors got involved with birth, and finds examples of midwives whose mortality stats were nearly modern. Deaths measured in number of cases per 1000. Even a midwife who delivered a few women and their babies with placenta previa safely. In the 1600s if I am remembering correctly!

[chumani]

My great grandmother was a midwife in rural southern Utah for almost 40 years (1920's-1960's). She caught over 500 babies, never lost a mother and only 2 babies stillborn, pretty good stats. She was sent to the East for 6 weeks of training in an eastern hospital and then sent home to catch babies at home in the middle of Utah wilderness. My family has her little black book that she kept track of all her moms and babies in and what she was paid with (if at all).

Vaginal birth after 4 cesareans is not unheard of, I have a friend that had 4 c-sections, 1st for breech, 2nd for twins, last 2 repeat, with her 5th labor went too fast and babe was born footling breech in the ambulance. Baby was beautiful with 9/10 apgars.

The safety of breech birth has more to do with Caregiver Competence than anything else.

Have a great day!
Sarah

[gentlebirthmothr]

Originally Posted by NYCVeg

Yes, of course babies and moms died in childbirth before there were c-sections. A transverse baby, for instance, simply cannot be born vaginally. Many of those deaths were due to things like infection, though--antibiotics, much as they're abused now, did a lot to improve fetal and maternal mortality rates.

Citing individual cases of babies who would have/might have died, however, is not compelling evidence to me in the face of c/s rate that's around 30% (and up to 70% in some hospitals/areas). The vast majority of those c-sections are NOT saving women/babies who otherwise would have died. They are, however, making doctors lives more convenient, making lots of money for hospitals, and convincing more and more women that vaginal birth is just too scary/painful/inconvenient for them to go through.

*Most* women will not grow babies too big for their pelvises (providing they're not lying flat on their backs, immobilized); *most* breech babies can be born vaginally without problems (or rather, they could be if birth professionals still learned how to deliver breech babies); twins and even triplets *can* be born vaginally! And a baby whose due date is at an inconvenient time for mom or doctor can almost certainly be born vaginally. Childbirth is not without risk and c-sections save some lives...but c-sections have risks, too, and also cost some lives.

Originally Posted by erin_brycesmom

The main cause of death back then was not anything preventable by c-sections. It was a different time. Sure c-sections could hae saved some lives but now they are also taking some lives. My point though is that the death rates can be deceiving. The great decrease in maternal death is not directly related to OB technology.

Amanda and erin_brycesmom,



:

[OnTheFence]

Originally Posted by littleteapot

I'm not judging, I'm asking... because that's confusing to me. Cord around the neck isn't deadly, so I couldn't figure out why it meant you would have died. Although lots of women mistakenly do believe that it is deadly because they think of fetal necks the same way as adult necks.
(For the record, I'm not speaking out of ignorance or lack of experience either. I was in hard labour for 44 hours as well)

Cord around the neck can be deadly. Many mothers have lost their children to cord injuries. Its not a myth.
Also once you go past 42 weeks the risk of your babyhaving health problems increases as well, as does stillbirth. There is a reason why the cut off is 42 weeks for OBs and most midwives, even lay ones, its not just a number they just pulled out their behinds. I know far too many people who have lost babies after 42 weeks to think its a myth.

[LadyMarmalade]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

Not all vertex babies were born alive either, and not all mothers survived childbirth. C/S can and do save lives in some situations. The problem is that medical interventions are overused today.

Exactly!

My mother gave birth vaginally to two breech babies - her first and her last. One in the seventies and one in the eighties. No problems whatsoever. She said it was much, much easier than giving first to a vertex. She found out the first time that the baby was breech at 37 weeks, had an xray (eek) and her specialist didn't even mention induction. Her water broke naturally just past 40 weeks - labour was about 8 hours, I think. Baby released mec all over attending doctor due to the pressure of having legs squeezed up next to abdomen. Dad said it was a surreal site - a spray of meconium coming out of mum's vagina.

We also prepared for a breech vaginal but jnr turned just before labour started (I distincly remember the clunk of his head hitting my pelvic bone and the immediate pressure - I went to the toilet to find my mucus plug sitting neatly on my underpants). My doctor was against me having a c-section 'just because' he was breech. But she also refuses to prescribe antibiotics unless you're in serious danger ... and suggests 'alternative' remedies rather than OTC pills (which is why we chose her and love her so much).

[erin_brycesmom]

I do have to agree with ONtheFence that cord injuries are real and serious. And that the risks increase after 42 weeks...not that it isn't ok to go past 42 weeks but definitely something to start being concerned about.

Just some more anecdote....My mom, my grandma's, my dh's mom ALL had their first borns breech presenting. All were given TOL and all but my mom delivered vaginally no problems. My mom fully dilated but the baby never decsended through the birth canal. She had a c-section. I have no idea if something else could have been done (that wasn't) to get the baby moving down. I know that her doc wasn't scalpel happy and my mom wanted a vaginal birth.

I don't know if breech is somehow hereditary but both of my babies were breech far along in labor but thankfully I was able to get them to turn before labor started....it probably helped that I was very late with both of them.

[member234098]

Originally Posted by Hayes

Sometimes mothers still die in childbirth.

Yes.

Nowadays, The doctor simply writes something else on the death certificate as a cause of death; it usually blames the victim.

The bottom line is that the only real improvements in partuition management are antibiotics and blood transfusions.

Any other medical "advance" as universal hospitalization of laboring women, routine intravenous fluids, routine episiotomies, routine amniotomy, routine monitering (internal/external), ultrasound, fetal diagnosis, blood tests, forceps, vacuum extraction, epidurals, routine catheterizations, escalating rise in surgical births, et cetera, are of questionable value.

[member234098]

Originally Posted by chumani

The safety of breech birth has more to do with Caregiver Competence than anything else.

Outstanding statement!

[member234098]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

And antibiotics. At one time 'childbed fever' was a large source of maternal mortality.

And childbed fever, puerperal fever, was an iatrogenically caused disease; it was caused by doctors with a g-d complex so strong that they truly believed they did not have to wash their hands. Doctors would walk directly from the morgue, where they worked on dead diseased bodies, to the maternity ward, without any attention to antisepsis.

When this was pointed out to them by one of their own, Dr. Ignaz Schemmelweis, they put him in a mental institution.

Doctors told the women that the disease was all in their head (sound familiar?)

Later, Dr. Lister, in another country, discovered the same thing.

[member234098]

Originally Posted by OnTheFence

Cord around the neck can be deadly.

It can be deadly if the mother is already fully medicated and the baby is getting lots of the suppressive medication already in its system through the cord.

I have read old medical books in which doctors state that the placenta is a "bloody sieve" which filters out all medications and drugs from the mother. Medical science has learned too well in the last century that this is not true from its own errors as prenatal x-rays, thalidomide, DES, bendectin, rhogam, and limiting maternal weight gain.

[gentlebirthmothr]

Miriam,

Thank you for your wonderful replies to thread.

[Synchro246]

Originally Posted by OnTheFence

Cord around the neck can be deadly. Many mothers have lost their children to cord injuries. Its not a myth.
Also once you go past 42 weeks the risk of your babyhaving health problems increases as well, as does stillbirth. There is a reason why the cut off is 42 weeks for OBs and most midwives, even lay ones, its not just a number they just pulled out their behinds. I know far too many people who have lost babies after 42 weeks to think its a myth.

Cord around the neck is not a cord injury. Prolapse is a better example of cord injury.

[member234098]

Actually, a cord around the neck can PREVENT a very long cord from prolapsing.

Maybe it is a good thing - the umbilical cord around the neck; it must be since it happens so often.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Synchro246

Although, I did have a prof. of A&P who insisted that before chairs and things of that kind humans had much better movement and posture, which would have at least a little to do with positioning.

This is something that interests me quite a lot. I've had three c-sections. The first two were both for breech babies. The third was because my OB & FP were hesitant about a VBA2C, and then I went "overdue", so I got sliced up again. DS2 (my third baby) was vertex right up to the end.

I know it's purely anecdotal, but it does interest me that my pregnancy with ds2 was the first one during which I did not sit in a chair at work all day. I was home with dd, and moved around much more during the day.

[erin_brycesmom]

Maybe it is a good thing - the umbilical cord around the neck

yikes! I don't think it is a good thing in most cases. I know I sure didn't think it was "good" when my baby's first apgar was a 4 because of the cord being wrapped tightly around his neck twice.

[pumpkinsmama]

Slightly Off Topic

Originally Posted by NYCVeg

*Most* women will not grow babies too big for their pelvises (providing they're not lying flat on their backs, immobilized); *most* breech babies can be born vaginally without problems (or rather, they could be if birth professionals still learned how to deliver breech babies); twins and even triplets *can* be born vaginally! And a baby whose due date is at an inconvenient time for mom or doctor can almost certainly be born vaginally. Childbirth is not without risk and c-sections save some lives...but c-sections have risks, too, and also cost some lives.

Slightly Off Topic
I'm not making judgement either way, but wanted to bring up a conversation I saw in a previous thread. There were questions about whether with the amazing frequency of c-sections in the USA, the amount of babies that are "too big" to pass through the pelvis will increase in the next century because the genes will be more likely to be passed on than in previous centuries where mom or baby would just have died. IMO, it seems too small of numbers to begin with to have any impact, but I haven't researched it.