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?
Mama to DD (12.2005), DS1 (01.2009), DS2 (04.28.2013) with DH 04.10.13!!
Fledgling midwife on hiatus, Wife to B, mama to C (c/s 12/04) and S (12/07), m/c (3/12) and expecting another bean 6/13 .
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.
|33 members and 19,348 guests|
|bananabee , cheeki , Deborah , emmy526 , greenemami , hillymum , Janeen0225 , japonica , katelove , Katherine73 , Kelleybug , Lydia08 , mckittre , MeanVeggie , Michele123 , Mirzam , mkmb129 , moominmamma , MountainMamaGC , NaturallyKait , NCIS4Ever2001 , rachieface , RollerCoasterMama , shantimama , Shmootzi , Skippy918 , sniffmommy , Springshowers , sren , TheChainedAngel , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|