Tori Spelling C/Section - Page 2

[liseux]

"OBs tend to see these mamas as having more to lose, or at least, more to press charges over and they go with the procedure that will provide them with the best legal defense in case of accident." wombatclay

I agree

As a mom who lost a baby it really stands out to me that famous people never seem to ever lose babies or have sick babies. I applaud the ones who do it naturally, because it does seem like their medical care is extreme.

[Synchro246]

Originally Posted by MommyDOK

I thought Gwynth had vb?

All I can hope is that some day, one of these "famous" moms want to vbac and they make a big deal about it and then the press will cover the dilemma of vbac and the dangers of c/s etc.

Imagine someone famous as the spokesperson for ICAN!

I sorta pictured Angelina J. When she had her section I imagined her to be very disappointed. Her plan was very different. Right now she doesn't want any more biological children (isn't that common after an unwanted cesarean?)

Originally Posted by JBaxter

I know some mommas can but not all. I CAN ... but my 5ft 11 in SIL couldnt deliver her 8lb6oz baby and I was there duing her labor along with her DH who is a RN. I know csections are over done but if it gives me a healthy baby they can cut me. Im sure we "judge" because we done know the facts. Its easy to armchair quarterback

Fetal positioning has A LOT to do with it. An 8lb 6oz baby can be presenting in such a way to have a HUMONGOUS head circumference.

[veganbaby]

Originally Posted by ericswifey27

My 5' 21/2" sister had her 10 pound plus babe at home by HBAC. Tons of mamas have had way bigger babies vaginally. While many doctors would like you to think otherwise, almost all mamas can birth whatever size baby they are given.

I agree, nature wouldn't put someone there, if that someone wouldn't be able to come out.

[wombatclay]

I agree, nature wouldn't put someone there, if that someone wouldn't be able to come out.

While mamas are certainly capable of birthing all sorts of babes, and our bodies are amazing and powerful in ways that modern western medicine has more or less worked against for generations now...please don't discount the very real "negative" side of birth. Nature doesn't "care" about a specific mama and babe...nature only "cares" that the majority of mamas have babes.

Birth as a natural process is glorious and powerful, but it can be dangerous and deadly to both mama and babe. There is a reason traditional and historical societies compared childbirth to war and developed support systems for women facing this event. Conditions like obstetric fistula are rare but not unheard of (WHO puts the annual number between 50,000 and 100,000) and it seems that a c/s rate of around 10% worldwide is actually a fair number in terms of the percentage of women who really wont deliver a live babe or survive birth themselves without that type of extreme intervention.

Just becuse our own culture has come to glorify intervention and uses technology beyond any reasonable bounds, it doesn't follow that all interventions are unnecessary.

[veganbaby]

Originally Posted by wombatclay

While mamas are certainly capable of birthing all sorts of babes, and our bodies are amazing and powerful in ways that modern western medicine has more or less worked against for generations now...please don't discount the very real "negative" side of birth. Nature doesn't "care" about a specific mama and babe...nature only "cares" that the majority of mamas have babes.

Birth as a natural process is glorious and powerful, but it can be dangerous and deadly to both mama and babe. There is a reason traditional and historical societies compared childbirth to war and developed support systems for women facing this event. Conditions like obstetric fistula are rare but not unheard of (WHO puts the annual number between 50,000 and 100,000) and it seems that a c/s rate of around 10% worldwide is actually a fair number in terms of the percentage of women who really wont deliver a live babe or survive birth themselves without that type of extreme intervention.

Just becuse our own culture has come to glorify intervention and uses technology beyond any reasonable bounds, it doesn't follow that all interventions are unnecessary.

Yes I agree, but I thought that it would be understood without me having to saying in most circumstances. We all are here for support and this does not need to be turned into a debate . Let's keep it that way.
Peace.

[Beachykeen]

I just was wondering where everyone gets off being so judgemental? Deliver your babies however you like... what business is it of yours how other people deliver theirs. I agree that someone wanting a cesarean just to avoid the "inconvenience" of labor is not the ideal situation. I have just been reading all of the negative posts about women having cesareans because of the size of the baby. I go in for my cesarean on Monday, because my baby is measuring really big. I don't feel guilty for it, nor do I feel like I am less of a mother because I am wanting to avoid possible complications or massive tearing trying to deliver a big baby.

[accountclosed6]

Tori Spelling had her son at Cedars-Sinai in LA, which has a DREADFUL reputation for natural (and vaginal) birth. It has one of the highest (if not the highest) cesarean rates in CA, and the docs there put you on a 12 hour clock once your water breaks, rather than the standard (but still ridiculous) 24 hour clock. I just attended a birth there that ended in cesarean, due totally to the care providers convenience and bullying (and that stupid 12 hour clock). I am really jaded about Cedars- just because the celebrities birth there doesn't mean it's the best!

But I wish Tori all the best with her son- I love his name!

[Synchro246]

Originally Posted by Beachykeen

I go in for my cesarean on Monday, because my baby is measuring really big. I don't feel guilty for it, nor do I feel like I am less of a mother because I am wanting to avoid possible complications or massive tearing trying to deliver a big baby.

I am all for a woman choosing a cesarean if she wants one and is fully informed of the risks and benefits. Her body her choice. Her HCP's responisbility to inform her of her choices.

I am not judging your choice here, but the actions of your care provider. I do not pretend to know your history or anything about your health and decision other than what you posted.
A doctor would not be backed up by scienctific research to offer a cesarean under the guise of it being medically indicated soley for a baby that "measures large". Ultrasound measurements at term are considered to be plus or minus two pounds. Tearing as as much to do with the way the delivery is managed (or not) as it has to do with fetal size.

I think much of the judgement you see on this thread seems directed at the people having the cesareans, but it's more so directed to the health care providers who are notorious for practicing medicine in such a way that results in a cesarean rate like that in LA. Many people just don't mind buffering statements when it comes to celebs so it seems directed at them.

[WinterBaby]

Originally Posted by Beachykeen

I just was wondering where everyone gets off being so judgemental? Deliver your babies however you like... what business is it of yours how other people deliver theirs. I agree that someone wanting a cesarean just to avoid the "inconvenience" of labor is not the ideal situation. I have just been reading all of the negative posts about women having cesareans because of the size of the baby. I go in for my cesarean on Monday, because my baby is measuring really big. I don't feel guilty for it, nor do I feel like I am less of a mother because I am wanting to avoid possible complications or massive tearing trying to deliver a big baby.

I actually believe that women should have access to cesarean births for no reason whatsoever but their preference, and it's no reflection on the quality of their motherhood. But I hate that women feel unneccessarily pressured into c-sections by their doctors. Doctors need to step back so women can deliver their babies how they like! Both of my babies were 10lbs at birth, and if I'd been pressured into cesareans for delivery, I'd have missed out on an experience I personally treasure, and it would've made me angry and feeling "what if". I wasn't pressured by my care providers though and labored for both. Both births had the most common complication of "prolonged labor," but my uterus (and all my girly bits,) were left intact. However, if I'd had qualms about the idea of it, and went seeking a c-section to feel more comfortable, I fully feel I should have had informed access to one simply because I wanted it, lol.

And - Congratulations on your impending birth!

[Beachykeen]

Well, I appreciate the posts following mine. I just got the impression from most of what I was reading that the judgements being made were unfair. Thanks, and congrats to all of you who are expecting.

[jrojala]

Ani Defranco had a homebirth this year or was it last... whatever, she "had herself a homebirth"

[danotoyou2]

Originally Posted by Beachykeen

I just was wondering where everyone gets off being so judgemental? Deliver your babies however you like... what business is it of yours how other people deliver theirs. I agree that someone wanting a cesarean just to avoid the "inconvenience" of labor is not the ideal situation. I have just been reading all of the negative posts about women having cesareans because of the size of the baby. I go in for my cesarean on Monday, because my baby is measuring really big. I don't feel guilty for it, nor do I feel like I am less of a mother because I am wanting to avoid possible complications or massive tearing trying to deliver a big baby.

You asked a question, I'll answer.

The reason that I'm so judgemental of women having unnecessary c-sections (that is, before even TRYING to labor and push that baby out without intervention), is because it's just flat more dangerous for the baby.

The reason that I can bad-mouth celebrities who do this, is that it sets a bad example for the rest of society.

The reason that I criticize women who have ECS is because the baby is 4 times more likely to die, than one born by vaginal birth.

It's not just about convenience. And it's not just about wanting to birth a healthy baby. If more women did the research and found out the risks of ECS, there would be fewer who would allow it... because no mother wants to inadvertantly allow a situation where the child has a higher mortality rate.

[Beachykeen]

Like I said before, do all the research you want and deliver your child however you see fit. In your research, and by the way I have done mine too, you should know that trying to deliver a baby that is too large can cause more stress to the child than having a cesarean.

Again, it is still no business of anyone's except the parents and the doctor when making a decision on how to deliver their baby.

You know what they say about opinions.....

[grumpyshoegirl]

Originally Posted by Beachykeen

Again, it is still no business of anyone's except the parents and the doctor when making a decision on how to deliver their baby.

Well, no, it's NOT anyone else's business....

Unless they make it everyone else's business. Celebrities are in the public eye. Everything they do is subject to public scrutiny, from their weight to their hair color to what they name their dogs. I'm not saying that's right, but people commenting on a celebrity's elective (as in, no medical reason) cesarean is really not much different from people commenting on any other aspect of the celebrity's life.

And that holds true for anything any of us non-celebrities choose to make public. If we decide to tell people about something that may be controversial, it may be rude or judgmental if people comment on it, but it's not all that surprising.

This site is dedicated to natural family living. People tend to be less pro-cesarean (especially pro-elective cesarean) than on other forums. As a VBAC hopeful myself, I appreciate that this perspective exists, since most of the mainstream sites are full of the "it's no big deal get over it" viewpoint, and my cesarean was a big deal to me.

[pampered_mom]

Originally Posted by Beachykeen

Like I said before, do all the research you want and deliver your child however you see fit. In your research, and by the way I have done mine too, you should know that trying to deliver a baby that is too large can cause more stress to the child than having a cesarean.

Where have you read that? In all of the research that I've done on primary cesarean for "big babies" (often termed "suspected fetal macrosomia"), unless the mom has GD there really is NO benefit to inducing or opting for the cesarean vs. waiting things out ala "expectant management".

[Beachykeen]

http://womenshealth.about.com/od/pre...anCsection.htm

http://www.post-gazette.com/healthsc...21hbirths4.asp

http://www.gynob.com/delivery.htm

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/mar06/rti032906.htm

Also, emergency cesareans are more dangerous than planned. So yes, I suppose that I could attempt to deliver vaginally, and up the risk if I end up with a cesarean anyway, and risk my baby having broken bones if I do succeed, or proceed with my planned delivery.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I do however agree with the more natural approach for raising children, so maybe we should just focus on where we all do see eye to eye. Does anyone know if there is a forum about more natural choices for baby products i.e. baby wash, lotion, etc.? I just know that I won't be using "Johnson's" I refuse to put animal by-products on my child, so I use Arbonne. They don't have powder though, and I want some suggestions.

[grumpyshoegirl]

Beachykeen,

There are a number of forums on MDC dedicated to all aspects of natural family living. The VBAC forum is specifically for VBAC planning and support. You can discuss baby products on the "Life with a Babe" forum. Look a little further and you'll find specific, dedicated forums for EVERY aspect of natural family living-- breastfeeding, babywearing, cosleeping, nutrition, health care, you name it. The moderator stickies at the top of each page give you more information on what kinds of posts are appropriate in each forum.

Hope that helps.

[danotoyou2]

Some studies I found on PubMed.

4000 g = 8.82 lbs
4500 g = 9.92 lbs
5000 g = 11.02 lbs

**************************

Mode of delivery and the survival of macrosomic infants in the United States, 1995-1999.

* Boulet SL,
* Salihu HM,
* Alexander GR.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

BACKGROUND: Although increases in perinatal mortality risk associated with fetal macrosomia are well documented, the optimal route of delivery for fetuses with suspected macrosomia remains controversial. The objective of this investigation was to assess the risk of neonatal death among macrosomic infants delivered vaginally compared with those delivered by cesarean section. METHODS: Data were derived from the U.S. 1995-1999 Linked Live Birth-Infant Death Cohort files and term (37-44 wk), single live births to United States resident mothers selected. A proportional hazards model was used to analyze the risk of neonatal death associated with cesarean delivery among 3 categories of macrosomic infants (infants weighing 4,000-4,499 g; 4,500-4,999 g; and 5,000+ g). RESULTS: After controlling for maternal characteristics and complications, the adjusted hazard ratio for neonatal death associated with cesarean delivery among the 3 categories of macrosomic infants was 1.40, 1.30, and 0.85. CONCLUSIONS: Although cesarean delivery may reduce the risk of death for the heaviest infants (5,000+ g), the relative benefit of this intervention for macrosomic infants weighing 4,000-4,999 g remains debatable. Thus, policies in support of prophylactic cesarean delivery for suspected fetal macrosomia may need to be reevaluated.

PMID: 17150065 [PubMed - in process]


Secular trends in cesarean delivery rates among macrosomic deliveries in the United States, 1989 to 2002.

* Boulet SL,
* Alexander GR,
* Salihu HM.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-0022, USA.

OBJECTIVES: We describe national trends in cesarean delivery rates among macrosomic infants during 1989 to 2000 and evaluate the maternal characteristics and risk factors for macrosomic infants delivered by cesarean section as compared to macrosomic infants delivered vaginally. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed US 1989 to 2000 Natality files, selecting term (37 to 44 week) single live births to U.S. resident mothers. We compare macrosomic infants (4000 to 4499, 4500 to 4999 and 5000+ g infants) to a normosomic (3000 to 3999 g) control group. RESULTS: The proportion of cesarean deliveries among 5000+ g infants increased significantly over the time period. The adjusted odds ratio of cesarean delivery increased for all macrosomic categories over the 12-year period, as compared to normal birth weight infants. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of cesarean delivery among macrosomic infants continue to increase despite a lack of evidence of the benefits of cesarean delivery within this population. Further exploration of the rationale for this trend is warranted and should include the development of an optimal delivery strategy for such patients.

PMID: 16079908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

A scoring system for detection of macrosomia and prediction of shoulder dystocia: a disappointment.

* Chauhan SP,
* Lynn NN,
* Sanderson M,
* Humphries J,
* Cole JH,
* Scardo JA.

Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Aurora Health Care, West Allis, Wisconsin 53227, USA. [e-mail]

OBJECTIVE: To develop a scoring system for the detection of a macrosomic fetus (birth weight (BW) >or= 4000 g) and predict shoulder dystocia among large for gestational age fetuses. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively identified all singletons with accurate gestational age (GA) that were large for GA (abdominal circumference (AC) or estimated fetal weight (EFW) >or= 90% for GA) at >or=37 weeks with delivery within three weeks. The scoring system was: 2 points for biparietal diameter, head circumference, AC, or femur length >or=90% for GA, or if the amniotic fluid index (AFI) was >or=24 cm; for biometric parameters <90% or with AFI <24 cm, 0 points. The predictive values for detection of shoulder dystocia were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 225 cohorts that met the inclusion criteria the rate of macrosomia was 39% and among vaginal deliveries (n = 120) shoulder dystocia occurred in 12% (15/120; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7-20%). The sensitivity of EFW >or=4500 g to identify a newborn with shoulder dystocia was 0% (95% CI 0-21%), positive predictive values 0% (95% CI 0-46%), and likelihood ratio of 0. For a macrosomia score >6, the corresponding values were 20% (4-48%), 25% (5-57%) and 2.3. CONCLUSION: Though the scoring system can identify macrosomia, it offers no advantage over EFW. The scoring system and EFW are poor predictors of shoulder dystocia.

PMID: 17127493 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Neth Naneth]

Originally Posted by ericswifey27

almost all mamas can birth whatever size baby they are given.

Almost is right.

"nature wouldn't put someone there, if that someone wouldn't be able to come out."

I wish that was true.

[Ambrose]

Originally Posted by wombatclay

While mamas are certainly capable of birthing all sorts of babes, and our bodies are amazing and powerful in ways that modern western medicine has more or less worked against for generations now...please don't discount the very real "negative" side of birth. Nature doesn't "care" about a specific mama and babe...nature only "cares" that the majority of mamas have babes.

Birth as a natural process is glorious and powerful, but it can be dangerous and deadly to both mama and babe. There is a reason traditional and historical societies compared childbirth to war and developed support systems for women facing this event. Conditions like obstetric fistula are rare but not unheard of (WHO puts the annual number between 50,000 and 100,000) and it seems that a c/s rate of around 10% worldwide is actually a fair number in terms of the percentage of women who really wont deliver a live babe or survive birth themselves without that type of extreme intervention.

Just becuse our own culture has come to glorify intervention and uses technology beyond any reasonable bounds, it doesn't follow that all interventions are unnecessary.

: yes, : nods head sadly:

Originally Posted by veganbaby

Yes I agree, but I thought that it would be understood without me having to saying in most circumstances. We all are here for support and this does not need to be turned into a debate . Let's keep it that way.
Peace.

You are right, in that giving birth is a very powerful thing. But yes, there are also other very sad aspects of it. Miscarriage, stillbirth, and infant death are not as few and far between as most people think. I really just wanted to say that- by no means am I trying to NOT be peaceful- just unfortunately truthful.

I agree- lets keep this whole thread PEACEFUL and remember that VBAC is empowering and deserves nothing but support.

As for the OP and tori Spelling- I do think she looks like she is in labor.