Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel
Primarily, I don't see an increase in statistical chances (that are infinitesimally small to start out with) as morally or logically equivalent to a direct choice that someone in the situation WILL die. Not the same thing at all.
You are absolutely right. The numbers ARE small, but that goes either way. The risks of ERCS are NO GREATER, and in many categories actually LESS, than the risks of VBAC. This entire thought process that VBAC is oh-so-much-safer is simply NOT supported by research. I find it fascinating that people continue to vehemently insist on how much 'safer' VBAC is for baby and mom when the reality of the numbers simply does not support that.
At best, the two are comparable simply due to the very small risks associated with EITHER choice.
|Secondarily, barring truly extreme circumstances I will definitely get pregnant a third, fourth, perhaps even fifth or sixth time depending on my biological clock, so I have to consider the increased risk to future pregnancies from multiple c-sections.
THIS fact alone would likely sway me to consider VBAC if I were in your shoes. The risks to subsequent pg from multiple c-sections are actually quite disturbing, and this is very much something that a woman choosing to have a non-medically necessary section should consider in great detail.
We had twins by elective c-section knowing we wanted a third, *maybe* a fourth child somewhere down the road. I was absolutely fine with the stats on increased risk to a second pg after one c-section, and the stats for a third c-section didn't deter me either.
Had we known that we wanted five, six, or more children, my choice of elective section the first time around (although in the end, there WERE very strong indicators that a vaginal birth was unlikely at best) would not have been as much of a sure thing.
What I likely would have done would be to have the first section, again because all indications pointed to babies needing to be born, yet my cervix was not in any way even remotely favorable for induction. Then we would have made darn sure we didn't get pg again til VBAC would have at least been a consideration. As it was, VBAC less than 13 months after my first section, added to the fact that I'd have had to be induced (ruptured membranes, no cervical change whatsoever despite contracting regularly for hours, along with GBS+ status), was simply not something we even considered. Had we waited longer between pregnancies, maybe I would have considered some pit augmentation.
Although, honestly looking back, I probably wouldn't have agreed to pit at all, as my focus at that very moment was on getting THAT baby out of me safely, NOT on how I'd get some hypothetical, not-yet-conceived child somewhere in the future out of me.
But the fact that we never really even considered VBAC had a lot to do with the fact that we KNEW we'd be absolutely, 100% done having babies after number four at the very most, meaning three total sections, a number we were comfortable with.