new here with a question about risk - Page 3

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by ima-06

sapphire:

1. i like your postscript note about the lack of sarcasm in your posts. i may steal it if that's okay.

2. she didn't mention castor oil. understandably the story left out a lot of details.

1. Sure. It's kind of hard though, since I do like to suggest sarcastic responses to people mentioned in threads.

2. Castor oil was just an example of something that'll be used in homebirths and then it's claimed that there were no interventions. But yeah, I totally understand the article not giving nearly enough details.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by ima-06

is there any kind of pregnancy or condition that would cause you to feel that having a UP/UC was unsafe for you or for your baby?

Yes, of course.

do you believe in "high risk," "moderate risk," and "low risk" pregnancies?

Yes.

how do you even know if you have a complication of pregnancy if you UP?

How do you know if you have a complication of living if you're not being monitored by the doctor monthly? How do women who have a complication between doctor appointments know that they have a complication of pregnancy? Are medical professionals really the only ones who can suspect a complication of pregnancy based on symptoms?

You might be interested to know that many women who choose attended births also choose unassisted or largely unassisted pregnancies. With my first (which was attended by a midwife) I had the full run of blood tests (which I would do again with a first) and I was monitored monthly, and at the end weekly, for blood pressure, and sugar and protein in the urine. Fundal height was checked, and the baby listened to with a fetoscope. Also, palpation was done to determine position. I had an initial vaginal exam from an OB, but none thereafter until labor. I had an initial ultrasound to determine EDD, but none thereafter. I was not weighed.

With my second, which was also a midwife-attended birth, I forewent most testing, including ultrasound, for which I do not believe the evidence warrants routine use (and ACOG agrees, by the way.) I no longer believe that the evidence points to urine dips being useful (and there exist care providers who are in agreement with me) and I was more comfortable paying close attention to how I felt and to my intuition, than relying on the false sense of safety in giving my care over to someone else. I found that there was a profound psychological shift and intuitive swell in myself when I did so, which to me felt like a safer and more aware situation to be in.

With my last two, which were UCs, I had my blood pressure checked twice when I felt it was warranted, and took excellent care of myself. I listened to the baby with a fetoscope myself, and determined position of the baby and placenta with the fetoscope, and by paying attention to the baby's behavior in the womb. I had that verified by midwives both times. But again, I would have declined most testing regardless of whether I'd had a care provider or not.

certainly i don't want to give birth in a hospital with an OB, but all of life is a cost-benefit analysis. the costs frankly outweigh FOR ME the risks in a hba2c scenario. i'd love to hear your thoughts and understand a different perspective.

The same is true for me (ETA, that risk/benefit is part of my equation, not that I wouldn't do a hba2c.) I feel the risk/benefit analysis for myself falls firmly in favor of UP/UC. That doesn't mean risk is eliminated; neither is it for any other choice. Each choice carries risks specific to it. For me, part of the risk of hospital birth and attended birth in general is the reaction of my body to the feeling of being observed, distracted, and inhibited, i.e. the stimulation of the neocortex which interferes with normal production and release of birth hormones. I'm especially sensitive to this, and I wanted to give my babies the most normal and therefore naturally safest birth possible. I did not want to deprive them or myself of any hormones we should be receiving at birth. I wanted their movement from my womb to outside my body to be as normal as possible. I wanted their transition to breathing to be as normal as possible. I wanted our bonding to be as normal as possible. I wanted not to hemorrhage. I wanted not to have postpartum depression. Etc. For us, our risk of not having a normal physiological birth and a normal outcome increases significantly with an observed/managed birth.

My body did not function ideally in my attended births. That created problems, which I regret. My body did function ideally in my unattended births. Some people are willing to accept dysfunction in return for what they believe is increased likelihood of survival. Given that I am a healthy woman and ideal circumstances in pregnancy and going into labor, I am not willing to accept dysfunction, because that decreases the likelihood of survival and greatly increases the likelihood of other problems.

Under different circumstances, the risk/benefit ratio would have been different, and I might have made different choices.

[momto3wantingmore]

Originally Posted by ima-06

the reason i ask this question is that i recently read elsewhere the autobiographical account of a woman who attempted an hba2c. her uterus ruptured catastrophically, the baby died, and she had a hysterectomy. to me a vba2c is a HIGH-risk attempt and much deserving of a hospital and a doctor.

For me I am not UPing but planning and hoping to UC. I have had 3 cesareans and in no way do I feel safer in the hospital then at home. This is a common misconception about VBAC that they all belong in the hospital so the all knowing OB can save lives if it comes down to it. Now with only going on what you knew about this HBA2C attempt, and not knowing the full details I can say that even IF she had been in a hospital the outcome would have very well been the same. It is sad when a catastrophic rupture happens but when it does even being at the hospital they are still probably not going to get baby out in time. So many lump all ruptures together and to me its inaccurate. Most of the time everything from a distention to full on catastrophic rupture are put together. Most of the time even in a full rupture everyone will come out ok. Is a small, very small percentage that don't. I believe IIRC that out of the .7 to .9% of women who will have a rupture only 1-2% of those rupture will be fatal to one or both. Those adds are just the same for stillbirth or any other complication that can happen to anyone. Why just because we have a scar on our uterus should we be higher risk when the numbers just don't back that up in anyway? Please don't take me wrong I do feel for any mother who has lost a child, whether they have a scar or not. I know moms who have lost children both UR moms and non-scared moms. No matter how it happens is still devistating. But I still don't see the need to lump me into a high risk group only for my scar. As long as I am having a normal, healthy pregnancy that shouldn't matter.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by ima-06

does praying to god fervently and with correct form ensure a good outcome?

Some people certainly believe that. It's not part of my belief system, but I don't know for a fact that there's not something to it. Regardless, it's no concern of mine, just as it's no concern of mine if people (being aware there are possible alternative modes of thought and choosing this one) decide that their doctor is their god. Everyone has their own journey they need to work through in this life, and death is not the worst thing that can happen, given that it's inevitable in a short time anyway. For me, the worst thing that could happen would be that I would be found to have not lived my life with integrity and doing the best I can to learn lessons I need to learn. I figure everyone else has that same challenge, and it's not for me to decide what theirs should look like or how they should best meet it.

do you mean to say that midwifery school and/or medical school provide no education about diagnosing potential complications that you don't have?

Midwives and doctors are great as consultants. If I was having headaches and severe edema and high blood pressure, for instance, I would consult with a medical professional. They don't know everything, however. It's actually shocking how much many of them don't know about normal pregnancy and birth.

my odds of dying while typing here are, let's guess, 1 in 10 million. but my odds of dying without intervention in birth are 1 in, let's say, 10,000. so even though 9,999 births (99.99%) will not result in my death (and i think i'm being generous here), the odds of dying in birth are (according to these randomly selected numbers) 1,000 times higher than dying any other day. do you see what i'm saying? do you disagree?

Yes, I do. Because the circumstances that lead to that 1/10,000 (or whatever number you want to use, it doesn't matter) don't apply equally to all people. Applying general statistics to individuals is magical thinking. If it were a lottery that my individual self and individual circumstances had nothing to do with, then yes, my chance of being chosen would depend on how many others were entered in the lottery. But childbirth is not a lottery. My chances of dying are not dependent on how many others are giving birth, and how many of them have died doing so. They are dependent solely on my individual circumstances.

But does it really matter to this argument what the statistics are? Given that we're not omniscient beings, we have to concede that there is *always* a possibility of death. And in the minds of most people that means that hospital birth is *always* the most prudent choice. Which effectively makes any argument for non-hospital alternatives moot, as far as they're concerned.

For others, it is entirely valid to come at it from a different perspective, which acknowledges that there are other important things to take into account.

i want so much to believe that people who UP/UC do so with legitimate information and hopes.

If by "legitimate" you mean information that you agree with and that ACOG endorses, you will probably be disappointed.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by ima-06

i don't happen to believe that forced-UC makes up a great deal of the statistical sample, because they must be relatively hard to document.

The fact that they're hard to document has no bearing on the actual incidence.

I have no opinion on the incidence of it myself. I know that there are closed communities (one of which was used for a statistical study on "UC", in which women of a religious community assisted each other in birth and medical care was discouraged) and I know that there is a lot of invisible abuse that occurs in our society, but I have no idea how much. There's no question, though, that there are births tagged as "UC" that were not planned in a conscientious way. We have no idea how many. That's the point -- that official statistics don't differentiate, and that matters. Further, there are accidental and even planned UCs in which a medical professional signs off as the attendant. I considered doing so myself for ease of registering the birth -- in some areas UC is considered neglectful and abusive and to admit to having had one is to invite government intrusion into your life. I didn't because my conscience got the better of me. But it does happen.

i do believe in the nearly magical powers of attending many births, and medical school is good for attending many births.

I don't believe it's magic, and I don't believe that attending many births helps one to understand birth better, especially in medical school. It can however serve well to cement myths and assumptions about birth. And I don't need someone's myths and assumptions at my birth.

A good example of that (although not an extreme one, which I am grateful for) was at my first birth. This midwife had attended over 1500 births -- wow, that's a lot! She must know more than me about how birth should happen, given that I'd attended no births at all. Obvious, right? So she, who knew so much better than me due to all her experience, dictated how and when I should move, make noises, rest, and push. She was wrong about all of it. How could this be? It could be quite easily. She was trained to think a certain way about birth, which colored what she saw attending births, and which caused her to practice in such a way that she altered the course of events in birth in a way that seemed to support her training. The reality was that my instinct and intuition knew much more than she did about what my body needed to give birth normally. And I, several months later and after much research, now intellectually know much more than she did, and more than most doctors and midwives do. Without ever having attended a birth, except for my own (and one other once as a photographer which I guess doesn't count.)

What I don't know is surgery. What I don't know is how to medicalize a birth when needed. And that's okay, because I have a brain and intuition that will help me to know when I need help. I'm not tied to my house. I can actually get in a car and go to the hospital.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by ima-06

that's so interesting to me. my one birth - and recently, natural miscarriage that felt like a birth - were not so intuitive to me. i bled quite a lot (despite having had a basically un-mucked-with birth) after my little one was born. the midwife did uterine massage with third-stage IM pitocin and methergine. the whole time i'm telling her, "i feel fine! it's going to be fine! please stop hurting me! " but i'm quite confident now that i would really not have been fine. so i guess that's where my bias comes in.

I've found that when I am looking to someone else to monitor me and make decisions, and when I am distracted by their presence and what they are doing, that I cannot go inside myself and "hear" what my body is telling me.

[cellarstella]

I'm going to stay out of argument and simply explain why I chose to consider UC.
I recommend reading this article as a basis for my (scientific, evidence based) beliefs.

My ideal birth image is me in a dark room with my family close at hand but not necessarily there in the room. I may be in the water, maybe not. Nobody else is there. Nobody is asking me questions, nobody is checking fetal heartbeat, nobody is making me second guess myself. I am fully open to my the feelings of my own body, and my own intuition telling me that the birthing process is happening as it's happened for billions of women and children before me. I feel the communication between myself and the baby as we work together to complete the birthing process. I submit myself to the awesome power that is BIRTH, experiencing a metaphorical rebirth of myself as well. The hormones flow right on time, perfectly prepared by my body and for me.

Now, I hear often enough that not every woman gets the birth she wants, and way too often about women who don't. Most of the reasons they don't have nothing to do with their inability to birth normally. Interventions, compromising with loved ones, and fear are big factors. My first birth was a homebirth and I had dreamed of a UC back then, but compromising and fear brought me to a homebirth with a last minute midwife who I didn't like. I do know that not all midwives are like her and I could probably find one I liked a lot more (and I have), but I keep going back to my original vision. When I read UC stories I feel elated and right there with the women who put their faith and trust in themselves and the birth process.

I'm not dumb. I'm not full of blind-faith. UC is not all or nothing. I will go into the birthing process with the full intent on having my dream birth, and if it doesn't happen, it doesn't. But it can't happen if I don't put my full intent into it. I only want two children. This is likely my last birth. I refuse to let fear come in between me and my dream, mine or anybody else's.

FWIW, I consider myself "low risk," but I consider many women to be low risk who get diagnosed moderate or high risk, based on my own understanding of risks and birth. If I had a previous cesarean, I would definitely go into every subsequent birth fully intending a vaginal birth, but I would also make sure of information such as where the placenta lies in relation to the scar site. Oftentimes I think women are given inappropriate risk levels to force compliance within the hospital system. I strongly believe that pregnant and laboring women are heavily disrespected in the medical system, and that even branches out into midwifery practices in some cases (as I found out the hard way). Whether or not a midwife is a "good" one is irrelevant to me at this point, though. My dream birth doesn't contain a midwife. I know that I can make the call if childbirth becomes an emergency situation and I need to transfer, and the last thing I need is an escalation of fear and stress due to "performance anxiety," something I experienced in a big way in my first birth.

In conclusion, it's a very personal decision based on knowing myself. I know that whether or not a birth attendant even opens her mouth, I will experience pressure and stress that could hurt the process. I know what my dream birth looks like. I know that I need to fully commit in order to have even a chance of getting that dream birth. And it's not just about me. When I felt those final moments of my body pushing DD out, and the way she turned her body to come out, it was as much her process as it was mine. I was amazed at how perfectly she birthed herself in coordination with my body doing what it was doing. Before the final moment, it was a struggle between us, and for no reason other than my own fear and stress in the situation. I want to communicate that way with my next child all the way through the birth, and I can't do that without being completely inwardly focused.

[trimestersdoula]

ima, you said something about believing in the safety of ultrasounds. Perhaps you haven't read everything you need to read about ultrasounds.

They aren't good tools, for the most part. Yes, they can catch things that otherwise wouldn't be caught....but how often? How many times do they miss something? They are no good for determining the weight of a baby, which many hospitals use them for. Then these women with "big babies" end up having c/s before their due date and end up with a 7 lb baby. They are also obviously not good at determining a due date....especially after the 3rd month of pregnancy or there wouldn't be so many premature babies born due to induction or c/s. Personally, unless there is a REALLY good reason to do one, I think ultrasounds do much more harm than good.

Here are just a few links I found about ultrasounds causing brain damage. I should also say that a lot of what doctors do and use in pregnancy and childbirth seems safe until years down the road when it is way too late. I believe this will be true with ultrasounds as well.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/...e19dec01.shtml

http://www.icpa4kids.org/research/pr...ultrasound.htm

Both of these links have quite a few articals in each. I am not trying to start a debate on ultrasound safety, just wanted to give you more information to read.

[Romana]

Originally Posted by ima-06

hi everyone,

i am not a UPer/UCer, but i do have a question for those of you who are:

In the interest of full disclosure, I will not be having another UC . . . I cannot imagine any conditions (except accidental, obviously) in which I would consider it again. I fully support the decision of other women to UP/UC.

is there any kind of pregnancy or condition that would cause you to feel that having a UP/UC was unsafe for you or for your baby?

Of course, and this was true also when I decided to UC the first time. I personally am not a big believer in intuition as a guide. While I feel strongly that there are times where it's absolutely crucial and should be respected, I have also experienced it not working for me or not being available when needed.

do you believe in "high risk," "moderate risk," and "low risk" pregnancies?

Insomuch as I "believe" in anything medical, I guess so. I think a better way to put it would be that I carefully evaluate all factors and ultimately make my own risk analysis based on the available evidence and data. If anyone labeled me "high risk" for the third trimester moderately elevated blood pressure I've had in both pregnancies, I'd find it ridiculous. But I did enough research to be able to confidently support my position on that matter, as well as keep detailed records of my blood pressure and monitor other symptoms that could possibly make the pregnancy or birth riskier/more complicated.

how do you even know if you have a complication of pregnancy if you UP?

I don't UP, but if I did, I would be a UPer who did basic prenatal care similar to that offered by a midwife. Heck, even with my midwife I was the one looking at the urine dipstick.

in the interest of full disclosure: i prefer unmedicated, CNM-attended births when possible, and i believe that pregnancy and birth have some inherent risk to them. i get prenatal care including ultrasounds because i want to be getting what i consider to be appropriate, evidence-based care: low-risk care for low risk, and high-risk care if i become high-risk.

I mostly agree with what you're saying here, except that (assuming low-risk pregnancy) I only consider an ultrasound to be necessary and/or appropriate in the case of a homebirth, since outcomes with and without an ultrasound are the same for hospital births. That said, since I feel the risks of a single 20 wk u/s for a normal, low-risk pregnancy are minimal, I might get one anyway.

At the very least, it certainly can't be said that it's "evidence-based" that one would have an ultrasound in a low-risk pregnancy. Even ACOG says it's unnecessary but could be performed at the "option" of the physician and/or patient.

Also, I don't think it can be said that most OBs practice evidence-based medicine when it comes to pregnancy and birth. So again, I'm not going to leave my care in the hands of my physician or midwife - I'm going to take a look at the situation myself and carefully evaluate my options. [That said, I think that just trusting your HCP is an ok way to go, as long as you understand and are willing to accept the risks of making that decision. Most people prefer to be this kind of patient, and I can understand why that might be, although I would never do it myself.]

the reason i ask this question is that i recently read elsewhere the autobiographical account of a woman who attempted an hba2c. her uterus ruptured catastrophically, the baby died, and she had a hysterectomy.

Well, of course a hba2c isn't a uba2c. So I'm not sure why you even feel this is really the place to get that woman's perspective. It may be that she was in the "trust your HCP" camp and had a very optimistic midwife who felt it would be okay. Either way, I'm very sad to hear that her baby died and she lost her uterus. Terrible outcomes like that always get me thinking, too, but I find that I have to re-orient myself and re-evaluate what risks I'm willing to take, and recognize that a few anecdotal horror stories, as awful and terrible as they may be, aren't the best evidence upon which to base my care (although my ability to accept that outcome, in the slight chance of it occurring, should and is definitely a part of the equation for me).

to me a vba2c is a HIGH-risk attempt and much deserving of a hospital and a doctor. certainly i don't want to give birth in a hospital with an OB, but all of life is a cost-benefit analysis. the costs frankly outweigh FOR ME the risks in a hba2c scenario.

Right, but that's the deal, correct? We each have to make our own risk analysis and decide what we feel is best. You might be able to get more people to agree to one scenario versus another, but at the end of the day, you make your risk analysis and decide accordingly and someone else makes a different one and decides accordingly. Are you thinking she shouldn't have been allowed to make that choice? While I personally wouldn't have made it, there are TONS of people out there who feel that homebirth is just too risky. And it's probably true that more babies die at homebirths (we could argue this night and day, but it would require wayyyyyy more time than I have . . . suffice to say that while there are studies on homebirth, after detailed analysis I'm not convinced that the rate of babies' deaths at homebirths are really the same as at a hospital), yet many women, myself included, have chosen to homebirth because in the ultimate risk analysis, that tiny incremental risk is, on balance, less threatening that the much higher risks of intervention and infection in the hospital. Or at least, that's a rough estimation of how I evaluated the risks and decided on a homebirth for my 2nd.

i'd love to hear your thoughts and understand a different perspective.

Hope you got what you came for!

[kalisage]

Originally Posted by ima-06

thanks for the info. i read your blog. i really appreciate what you wrote about situations that would have caused your plan to change instantaneously. i wish more people would include that in their stories.

I'm curious as to why... Things that could have come up, is not part of my (or this baby's) birth story. It may have been a part of the journey there, but the story remains about how the baby came into the world.

And please don't take offense (it directed in general) but my story doesn't need to include what if's to make other people "feel better"

[Intertwined]

Originally Posted by kalisage

I'm curious as to why... Things that could have come up, is not part of my (or this baby's) birth story. It may have been a part of the journey there, but the story remains about how the baby came into the world.

And please don't take offense (it directed in general) but my story doesn't need to include what if's to make other people "feel better"

And do let me be clear that I included that info on my blog because I had the most unusual birth and it's pertinent to the telling. My daughter went from complete breech to footling at the very end of active labor/transition AND I was having twins. I'd never included information on "what ifs" in my other two home birth stories.

I was simply pointing out that I chose a UC in my previous pregnancy and this time my risk-benefit analysis PLUS my intuition led me to believe I would need more help. That turned out to be VERY true and I'm glad I listened.

[sahmama_12]

Originally Posted by trimestersdoula

ima, you said something about believing in the safety of ultrasounds. Perhaps you haven't read everything you need to read about ultrasounds.

They aren't good tools, for the most part. Yes, they can catch things that otherwise wouldn't be caught....but how often? How many times do they miss something? They are no good for determining the weight of a baby, which many hospitals use them for. Then these women with "big babies" end up having c/s before their due date and end up with a 7 lb baby. They are also obviously not good at determining a due date....especially after the 3rd month of pregnancy or there wouldn't be so many premature babies born due to induction or c/s. Personally, unless there is a REALLY good reason to do one, I think ultrasounds do much more harm than good.

Here are just a few links I found about ultrasounds causing brain damage. I should also say that a lot of what doctors do and use in pregnancy and childbirth seems safe until years down the road when it is way too late. I believe this will be true with ultrasounds as well.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/...e19dec01.shtml

http://www.icpa4kids.org/research/pr...ultrasound.htm

Both of these links have quite a few articals in each. I am not trying to start a debate on ultrasound safety, just wanted to give you more information to read.

:

I'd just like to add that research actually shows that they don't know if U/S is safe and research also shows that it is no more accurate (and maybe less) than a resonably experienced hcp (fundal measurements etc.) when it comes to dates and interuterine growth restrictions etc.

[sahmama_12]

Originally Posted by trimestersdoula

ima, you said something about believing in the safety of ultrasounds. Perhaps you haven't read everything you need to read about ultrasounds.

They aren't good tools, for the most part. Yes, they can catch things that otherwise wouldn't be caught....but how often? How many times do they miss something? They are no good for determining the weight of a baby, which many hospitals use them for. Then these women with "big babies" end up having c/s before their due date and end up with a 7 lb baby. They are also obviously not good at determining a due date....especially after the 3rd month of pregnancy or there wouldn't be so many premature babies born due to induction or c/s. Personally, unless there is a REALLY good reason to do one, I think ultrasounds do much more harm than good.

Here are just a few links I found about ultrasounds causing brain damage. I should also say that a lot of what doctors do and use in pregnancy and childbirth seems safe until years down the road when it is way too late. I believe this will be true with ultrasounds as well.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/...e19dec01.shtml

http://www.icpa4kids.org/research/pr...ultrasound.htm

Both of these links have quite a few articals in each. I am not trying to start a debate on ultrasound safety, just wanted to give you more information to read.

:

I'd just like to add that they don't know how safe they are which why routine use isn't recommended and opinions (and studies) differ on how accurate they are with no clear consenus

[sapphire_chan]

Here's some other questions for you, Ima-06 (incidentally, are you Jewish? I ask because my MIL is "Ima"), what exactly would have been done in the hospital that would have changed the outcome in that uterine rupture case? What was done at your hospital vba2c that made you feel that uterine rupture was less likely?

[ima-06]

sorry, lots to answer, not sure i will be complete. yes i'm jewish; ima means mother in hebrew. i haven't had a vba2c; as you can see from my signature i only have one child, born vaginally outside a hospital. in the case of this particular vba2c, surgery could have been done much more quickly without transport time... the ultrasounds i had were early (for dating in first trimester due to long menstrual cycles), quad screen, and anatomical scan. what else did i miss?

[momto3wantingmore]

Originally Posted by ima-06

in the case of this particular vba2c, surgery could have been done much more quickly without transport time...

This is a very common misconception. Ok I will give you a for instance. Lets say mom has had 1 c/section is in labor, is planning a natural birth ex no induction, or epi. She ruptures and they prep her for a c/section. Now with a catastrophic rupture they have roughly less then 5 minutes to get baby out. Not likely going to happen even if she is in the hospital. OB's can't give general or anast. of any kind. So not only would everyone have to scrub, get mom ready and find the anas. to come and have the surgery started and baby out in roughly 5 minutes. Not only that I know several moms who were in the hospital when they had a catastrophic rupture and they still didn't get the baby out in time. I have heard of moms even telling them they knew they ruptured and begging for a c/section but because there were no signs on the "godly"EFM they didn't believe her, until she lost conciousness and then they took her back to find out she was right and in that case they could have saved her baby had they listened to her in any of the 30 minutes she was begging for them to just take him. So no being in a hospital will not and can not gaurentee that they will get to the baby in time. Most HB MW or even UCers know what to watch for and will make sure they are within 30 minutes to the hospital as that is roughly how long it would take for everyone to get ready.

[UnassistedMomma]

: And you can still call ahead and have the hospital staff prepping as you transport, so the time ends up fairly equal for how long it takes to get on the table.

[ima-06]

why do you think anesthesiologists cannot give general anesthesia to get a baby out during a crash c-section? what makes you think it takes 30 minutes to do a crash c-section in a hospital?

[dauphinette]

Because they aren't magicians. They dont stop time even in emergencies. It takes longer than 5 minutes to get that stuff together IRL.
Esp. at certain hospitals, certain times of day etc.
I live in post-Katrina N.O.
Seeing as our "health"system is kinda crappy right now I do know from experience that if I went to the closest hospital to my house right now there would only be one(yes, one) OB there, what if he was busy?
Who would do this "crash" section? An ER Doc? Yes, maybe but our ERs are waay overcrowded as it is and they cant seem to figure out who should have priority.
Maybe that doesnt count as a real example?

[meagansroses]

2. i have read a great deal of medical literature on the topic of pregnancy and childbirth. i consider myself as well read on the topic as any other non-medical/lay person is. if you have specific references you think i might benefit from, i would be open to hearing about those. i have read unassisted childbirth as well.



okay fellow lurker here and i have to comment on this!!! There is a TON of literature out there with great statistics. WHich is obviously what you want. You seem to be a fact and evidence based person not someone who swings by their intuition and heart strings..... as such--i think you should read the book "PUSHED" BY Jennifer Block. Here is a link to the amazon website so you can go order it

http://www.amazon.com/Pushed-Painful.../dp/0738210730

I am sure you will find all the EVIDENCE you need in there