Tori Spelling C/Section - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
1  2
VBAC > Tori Spelling C/Section
jrojala's Avatar jrojala 03:58 PM 03-24-2007
Ani Defranco had a homebirth this year or was it last... whatever, she "had herself a homebirth"

danotoyou2's Avatar danotoyou2 05:57 PM 03-24-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachykeen View Post
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's Avatar Beachykeen 09:31 PM 03-24-2007
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's Avatar grumpyshoegirl 11:40 PM 03-24-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachykeen View Post
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's Avatar pampered_mom 12:14 AM 03-25-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachykeen View Post
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's Avatar Beachykeen 01:12 AM 03-25-2007
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's Avatar grumpyshoegirl 01:40 AM 03-25-2007
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's Avatar danotoyou2 02:16 AM 03-25-2007
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 **********, **********, 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. [email protected]

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's Avatar Neth Naneth 02:44 AM 03-25-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericswifey27 View Post
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's Avatar Ambrose 03:03 AM 03-25-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombatclay View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by veganbaby View Post
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.
Beachykeen's Avatar Beachykeen 10:41 AM 03-25-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpyshoegirl View Post
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.

Thanks! I'll check that out. It's just that I am new to this site and am still having some technical difficulties when trying to navigate around.

veganbaby's Avatar veganbaby 02:51 PM 03-25-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neth Naneth View Post
Almost is right.

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

I wish that was true.
Yes, I'm sorry if my statement came out to be judgemental. It's not at all. After all, here I am trying for a VBAC in May. I am merely trying to be positive for my impending birth. It's one of my affirmations.
pampered_mom's Avatar pampered_mom 06:39 PM 03-27-2007
danotoyou2 - Don't forget the American Association of Family Practice Physicians study done in 2001 that found expectant management the best route.

It's also wise to consider possible complications a baby may experience from a planned cesarean, chiefly lung disorders/respitory distress.

We could also look at the 2000 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Article.

In one discussion of the ACOG Guidelines on suspected fetal macrosomia it was noted that:
Quote:
While the risk of birth trauma with vaginal delivery is higher with increased birth weight, cesarean delivery reduces, but does not eliminate, this risk. In addition, randomized clinical trial results have not shown the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic cesarean delivery when any specific estimated fetal weight is unknown.
In the ACOG's actual guidelines there is actually only one that says prophylactic cesarean delivery may be warranted and that one is a third level guideline based "primarily on consensus and expert opinion", which of course begs the question, "Which experts and whose consensus?". One also has to wonder why we care what a professional organization whose primary concern is to protect the interests of their members (aka the doctors) has to say about the issue as their guidlines are anything but unbiased.

There are numerous studies out there on the many risk factors to babies associated with cesarean section, but my time is limited. A search on Google Scholar will make quick work of that for interested parties.

One parting thought, though, if vaginal birth is so very dangerous and cesarean section is preferred, why is it that with 1 in 3 babies born by cesarean section in the US that we are ranked second last in the developing world on infant mortatlity?

And you're right, beachykeen, we can agree to disagree, but this is a VBAC forum and not a cesarean forum so generally speaking the folks you'll find here will be most supportive of vaginal birth.
misseks's Avatar misseks 07:23 PM 03-27-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachykeen View Post
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.
Hm. I'm feeling abit snippy and snyde at this moment...so let me say that I do judge mamas who 'schedule' their births to fit into their 'busy lives'.

I was at a coffee shop last year with my new born (VBAC) and my almost two year old where we overheard two women, one with a toddler and pg, and one on her first pregnancy discussing how to convince their docs to give them c/s so they could go to Mexico. I was fuming and furious and disgusted and I wanted to say something, but knew it would be 'judgemental' and that I would probably blush and die of embarrassment for sticking my nose in where it didn't belong.

But! How can one find time to be a mother if one can't even find time to give birth? Argh! It seems so ludicrous to me. And un-thought-full. And selfish.
misseks's Avatar misseks 07:23 PM 03-27-2007
oops, subbing.
Baby Makes 4's Avatar Baby Makes 4 07:36 PM 03-27-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganbaby View Post
I agree, nature wouldn't put someone there, if that someone wouldn't be able to come out.
I agree in most cases but my poor SIL pushed for over 3 hours in every possible position and could not get her daughter to come through her pelvis. A c-section saved both of their lives.

I am a homebirther myself but you can cut my legs off if it'll get my baby out safely.
applejuice's Avatar applejuice 07:48 PM 03-27-2007
Quote:
It's also wise to consider possible complications a baby may experience from a planned cesarean, chiefly lung disorders/respitory distress.
Many of you have heard about the Kennedy Assassination on November 22, 1963...did any of you know that Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy had an elective caesarean section (her fourth) just three months earlier in August, 1963 and the premature baby boy soon died of RDS or hyaline membrane disease. Doctors know this. They have known this for a very long time. They keep making the same mistakes over and over again. How stupid is that?

I always felt bad for Mrs. Kennedy. Two babies and a husband lost within four years. So sad.

However, Ethel Kennedy, wife of Robert Kennedy, had all ten (eleven?) of her children by caesarean and they all did live. Shen was pregnant with her last when Robert was shot in June, 1968.

Someone here on MDC once posted that homebirth was the choice of the elite and privileged class. I really beg to differ. When my mom had me at home in 1954, the neighbors asked my mom and Father why they could not afford a hospital birth.

Quote:
I'm feeling abit snippy and snyde at this moment...so let me say that I do judge mamas who 'schedule' their births ...
Many states allow extra time for disability and family leave if the mother has a caesarean section, so it costs all of us more money in the form of disability insurance. Caesareans cost more and since they are covered by health insurance, yes, it is the business of all who pay for maternity coverage insurance.
danotoyou2's Avatar danotoyou2 09:01 PM 03-27-2007
Pampered Monkey: Thanks for the reminder on the OTHER reasons that c-sections are harmful to babies.

When I read the "research" that Beachykeen posted, I wanted to address the particular subject of macrosomic babies and the optimal delivery method. It was funny, because in deciding to look these up, I only had about 10 minutes before I had to be off the computer and doing something else. I never debated the possibility that perhaps c-sections ARE preferable to vaginal birth in very large babies; I knew the research would back me up.

It amazes me that while I can be so confident of vaginal birth, others can shrug it aside and listen to some OB who obviously has other agendas. Don't they actually do research, or have they just never learned how? Do people consider about.com to be RESEARCH? <sigh>

The world amazes me.

Okay, I guess before I go off sounding all snyde (maybe there's a pattern today), here's what you do...

Go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed and search to your heart's content. It'll come back with a list of studies that match your keywords.

Do use caution when automatically trusting a study's conclusion. I try to find one or two back-up studies before I'll trust what they say, because some studies are done by those with their business or orginazations best interests at heart.
misseks's Avatar misseks 09:52 PM 03-27-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by danotoyou2 View Post

Don't they actually do research, or have they just never learned how? Do people consider about.com to be RESEARCH? <sigh>

The world amazes me.

Okay, I guess before I go off sounding all snyde (maybe there's a pattern today), here's what you do...

Go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed and search to your heart's content. It'll come back with a list of studies that match your keywords.

Do use caution when automatically trusting a study's conclusion. I try to find one or two back-up studies before I'll trust what they say, because some studies are done by those with their business or orginazations best interests at heart.

Yes! Thank you! Who paid for the study? Are there errors in the study? Are the test groups 'equal'?

Wasn't it just last year that the College of Obstetricianns and Gynecologists re-negged their stand on breech births, based on the fact that the study had erronously recorded women with other risk factors?

As an example - I read in a crummy daily paper in my neighbourhood the other day that kids who go todaycare before they are school-aged are more likely to cause disturbances when they reach grade school. So, the paper concluded that daycare causes this (or so the reader is left to believe!) Yikes! How about the fact that maybe most kids who are in daycare have two working parents which usually equals less parent time equals acting out?! Or kids is subsidized daycare often have a more stressful homelife due to their one available parent having to work and being emotionally stretched = kids acting out...? Or any other socio economic combination that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual daycare!?

Question, think, decide, research, think again!
misseks's Avatar misseks 09:58 PM 03-27-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by danotoyou2 View Post
Some studies I found on PubMed.

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

**************************
I have to agree that these are more scientific, non-biased, non-pandering studies, as opposed to just anecdotal and pop-media type articles.

Thank you for finding them. I do remember my midwife saying that the head circumference of a baby who is 6 lbs is the same as a baby who is 10 lbs. But below and above ethat there are some differences.

Also, I like how the studies talk about shoulder dystocia (sorry, sp?) as opposed to head circumference, b/c most babies' heads are squishy, and their heads are not the issue!
Emma's_Mommy's Avatar Emma's_Mommy 11:06 AM 03-28-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by misseks View Post

As an example - I read in a crummy daily paper in my neighbourhood the other day that kids who go todaycare before they are school-aged are more likely to cause disturbances when they reach grade school. So, the paper concluded that daycare causes this (or so the reader is left to believe!) Yikes! How about the fact that maybe most kids who are in daycare have two working parents which usually equals less parent time equals acting out?! Or kids is subsidized daycare often have a more stressful homelife due to their one available parent having to work and being emotionally stretched = kids acting out...? Or any other socio economic combination that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual daycare!?

Question, think, decide, research, think again!

i read this in the paper the other day as well.....the study concluded that children that went to a daycare CENTER, as opposed to an in home daycare with less that 10 children, were more likley to have behivioral problems and to act out....if you're gonna quote it at least get it right please!
pampered_mom's Avatar pampered_mom 05:20 PM 03-28-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by danotoyou2 View Post
It amazes me that while I can be so confident of vaginal birth, others can shrug it aside and listen to some OB who obviously has other agendas. Don't they actually do research, or have they just never learned how? Do people consider about.com to be RESEARCH? <sigh>
I think in many cases there are folks who do consider the sources like about.com to be research, but I think that has more to do with a lack of knowledge on what resources are out there than on an unwillingness to do so. Plus, it's much easier to read the article of someone who has reviewed the research and can give you a summary than wading through the study itself so I have a feeling that has something to do with it as well.

Given enough time around here or even over on the ICAN list will help switch the sources over as well! :0)


Quote:
Originally Posted by danotoyou2 View Post
Go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed and search to your heart's content. It'll come back with a list of studies that match your keywords.
You can also go to scholar.google.com to search. Sometimes I've found it helps me locate items a little bit quicker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danotoyou2 View Post
Do use caution when automatically trusting a study's conclusion. I try to find one or two back-up studies before I'll trust what they say, because some studies are done by those with their business or orginazations best interests at heart.
Ain't that the truth? And did we mention reading Marsden Wagner's book "Born in America" yet? Absolutely a must read!
veganbaby's Avatar veganbaby 12:43 PM 03-29-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Makes 4 View Post
I agree in most cases but my poor SIL pushed for over 3 hours in every possible position and could not get her daughter to come through her pelvis. A c-section saved both of their lives.

I am a homebirther myself but you can cut my legs off if it'll get my baby out safely.
Yes, in my later posts I did say in most cases. I realize that C sectioos can be life saving.
turtlewomyn's Avatar turtlewomyn 03:39 PM 03-29-2007
[QUOTE=Beachykeen;7646920]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.

QUOTE]

Actually, new research just came out that unless your baby is more than 5000g (11 pounds or more) they are at an increased risk of death during scheduled c-section than a vaginal birth.

Birth. 2006 Dec;33(4):278- 83. 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]


I was talked into a c-section for a nine and a half pound baby, even though ACOG recommends against it. I regret this all the time. I plan to really do my research for next time so that I can make better informed choices.
misseks's Avatar misseks 05:34 PM 03-29-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emma's_Mommy View Post
i read this in the paper the other day as well.....the study concluded that children that went to a daycare CENTER, as opposed to an in home daycare with less that 10 children, were more likley to have behivioral problems and to act out....if you're gonna quote it at least get it right please!
Oh, sorry my bad! admittedly, I just glanced! although, where you are and where I am, the story may have been written differently - probably not the same newspaper. I didn't mean to imply that I was "quoting" just referring to, as an anecdote.
pampered_mom's Avatar pampered_mom 07:52 PM 03-29-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlewomyn View Post
Actually, new research just came out that unless your baby is more than 5000g (11 pounds or more) they are at an increased risk of death during scheduled c-section than a vaginal birth.
:snip:
I was talked into a c-section for a nine and a half pound baby, even though ACOG recommends against it. I regret this all the time. I plan to really do my research for next time so that I can make better informed choices.
Wow! Thanks turtlewomyn for posting that study! I'll have to bookmark that one.

I too was talked into a c/s for my ds for very similar reasons and regret that to this day. :sigh: When you know better, you do better.
grumpyshoegirl's Avatar grumpyshoegirl 09:50 PM 03-29-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by danotoyou2 View Post
It amazes me that while I can be so confident of vaginal birth, others can shrug it aside and listen to some OB who obviously has other agendas. Don't they actually do research, or have they just never learned how? Do people consider about.com to be RESEARCH? <sigh>
I thought I was the only one who didn't consider those links to be real research. Isn't research published in peer-reviewed journals with control groups? An article that a mainstream magazine does, listing the advantages of a cesarean, isn't going to be a source of unbiased research.

Our species gives birth vaginally for a reason. Yes, things go wrong, and when they do, I'm glad we have surgery. But I think it should be reserved for true emergencies and conditions such as a transverse lie and placenta previa, which are known to be dangerous without a cesarean.
Beachykeen's Avatar Beachykeen 09:12 PM 04-01-2007
Thanks for everyone's concern. We are both home and doing great. A perfect big baby boy. I can see that overall I am not "welcome" here even after I have said agree to disagree, so thanks to those who have wished me well, and I wish everyone well with their pregnancies and births.
mainesax's Avatar mainesax 09:56 PM 04-01-2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by pampered_mom View Post
And did we mention reading Marsden Wagner's book "Born in America" yet? Absolutely a must read!

This is by far the BEST book I've ever read. Very interesting point of view, considering the author is an insider on both sides of the issue!
1  2

Up