Spin-off - Discussing the merit of vaginal birth and elective cesarean - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 27 Old 07-16-2013, 08:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
demeter888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

[Moderator note: This thread is a spin-off of a topic originally brought up in the Home Birth Forum.  Because it deals with both topics of risk during vaginal birth and the merits of elective cesarean, I split the thread and am hosting this portion here in the Birth and Beyond Forum.] 

 

For me it all comes down to knowing what to expect and trying to stay in control when things don't go as expected.

I had a very supportive midwife and somewhat pro-natural birth hospital with my first birth.  It still ended up very medicalized, despite being vaginal. You need to prepare for this, no matter what. If I could start over I would have scheduled a c-section. I don't know of anyone who regrets scheduling one electively after fully informing themselves and as long as I carry to 39 weeks it's such a relief to know what to expect.

 

Now that I know the risks of vaginal birth (people talk all day about the risks of medicalized births but never of the vaginal traumas) and how my mother and I handle birth, I have decided to schedule an elective c-section for my next birth.  It is quite different from an emergency c-section. The idea of going through a vaginal birth in a hospital scares me because there is such a high chance I would not be in control.  The vast majority of women in hospital do not end up having a truly natural birth.  If the c-section option was not available, I would be very tempted to do a home birth (if it weren't for the experience I had with my first birth).  But I personally can't face that level of pain and further damage to my body again.  But maybe you can; lots of women do it.  But I am not a

 

Whatever your choice is, I strongly feel you should have a midwife or Ob with privileges to the nearest decent hospital and continue your prenatal care as if you were going to birth in a hospital; meanwhile you can keep a separate support team to help you stay informed about your home birth arrangement/attempt, should you determine that's what is best. I think home births can be much more satisfying and safe than attempting a low risk vaginal birth in hospital.  

demeter888 is offline  
#2 of 27 Old 07-16-2013, 07:06 PM
 
Sheepdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Demeter888 brings up some good points but neglects any info on the baby. A scheduled c/s puts baby at 3x the risk of dying, means a different gut flora and potential life long lung issues. It also at 39 weeks or 42 weeks gives you a premature baby. Perhaps by minutes but who knows. Leilah McCracken wrote about her non-induced children 46 and 48 week gestation 11-12# v. Her up until then seemingly "full term" 9# 42 week babies.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with the hospital. You don't say what but certainly sounds like a 4th degree tear. Those suck! I will point out there is little data on recurrence but you are right that they are much more frequent in the hospital. However, even with hospital management the recurrence rate is generally 5% whereas the c/s has a 100% chance of major surgery, and breastmilk containing pain meds.
Either way, Birthing From Within classes are geared towards exploring birth fears etc.... Past and present and help immensely with maternal satisfaction but please when we talk about fully informed let's keep in mind that any non labor c/s at any gestational age means that baby will have some degree of prematurity and puts future pregnancies at higher risk.
applejuice likes this.
Sheepdoc is offline  
#3 of 27 Old 07-17-2013, 07:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
demeter888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepdoc View Post

Demeter888 brings up some good points but neglects any info on the baby. A scheduled c/s puts baby at 3x the risk of dying, means a different gut flora and potential life long lung issues. It also at 39 weeks or 42 weeks gives you a premature baby. Perhaps by minutes but who knows. Leilah McCracken wrote about her non-induced children 46 and 48 week gestation 11-12# v. Her up until then seemingly "full term" 9# 42 week babies.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with the hospital. You don't say what but certainly sounds like a 4th degree tear. Those suck! I will point out there is little data on recurrence but you are right that they are much more frequent in the hospital. However, even with hospital management the recurrence rate is generally 5% whereas the c/s has a 100% chance of major surgery, and breastmilk containing pain meds.
Either way, Birthing From Within classes are geared towards exploring birth fears etc.... Past and present and help immensely with maternal satisfaction but please when we talk about fully informed let's keep in mind that any non labor c/s at any gestational age means that baby will have some degree of prematurity and puts future pregnancies at higher risk.

 

I have many studies that demonstrate the safety of scheduled c-section being superior to that of vaginal delivery.  If you want to have this debate, I'll be happy to have it in an appropriate thread.

 

OP, should you want data on home birth, I believe there are very few studies.  Here are some studies about c-sections:

 

 

summary:
"An elective pre-labour Caesarean section in a nulliparous
woman at term has a lower risk of life-threatening neonatal
morbidity than spontaneous labour with an anticipated vaginal delivery. However, the increased risk of life-threatening
neonatal morbidity in the spontaneous labour group was
associated with an operative vaginal delivery or emergency
intrapartum Caesarean section and not a spontaneous vaginal delivery. Further research is needed to better identify
women with an increased likelihood of an operative vaginal
delivery or intrapartum Caesarean section, as this may assist
pregnancy caregivers in decision-making about childbirth."
 
"...cesarean was consistently associated with reduced odds of birth trauma across all birth weight subgroups whether or not fetal distress was present"
 
 
"...overall, the frequency of significant fetal injury is significantly greater with vaginal delivery, especially operative vaginal delivery, than with cesarian section, at 39 weeks."
 
"...demonstrates the need to include, assess, and balance the risk of psychological outcomes in different birth plans"
 
"survey of obstetricians in London, in which 31% of female doctors said they would choose a planned cesarean in an uncomplicated pregnancy, compared with 8% of male doctors"
 
"Having only vaginal childbirths was associated with a significantly increased  risk of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery later in life compared with only having cesarean deliveries. ...each successive vaginal delivery increases the risk for prolapse and incontinence; it was not just the first delivery that had the most impact"
 
 
On reviewing the available evidence, it appears that there are sufficient grounds to assume that vaginal delivery (or even the attempt at vaginal delivery) can cause damage to the pudendal nerve, the caudal aspects of the levator ani muscle, fascial pelvic organ supports and the external and internal anal sphincter. Risk factors for such damage have been defined and variously include operative vaginal delivery, a long second stage, and macrosomia. It is much less clear, however, whether such trauma is clinically relevant, and how important it is in the aetiology of pelvic floor morbidity later in life.
 
 
"The occurrence of UI and anal incontinence during the postpartum period is related to the presence of incontinence in pregnancy, and vaginal delivery increases the risk of persistent incontinence."
 
 
The risk of urinary incontinence is higher among women who have had cesarean sections than among nulliparous women and is even higher among women who have had vaginal deliveries.
 
"women who choose a planned cesarean have a lower death rate"
demeter888 is offline  
#4 of 27 Old 07-18-2013, 06:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
demeter888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Sheepdoc,  I posted a way off topic post in response to your claims that c-section is 3X more likely to die.  The point I wanted to make is that this is absolutely not true, and out of laziness I cited a bunch of studies.  But as Identitycrisisma says, the point is that the OP has expressed no interest in a c-section, so I think we should both agree to discuss that another time.  FYI, I did not have severe tearing; Imy decision to "cbav" is not an emotional one like it would have been initially.

 

bthuntamerc:

I am very well aware of the risks of c-section as they pertain to having more children and VBAC, as well as how it can affect initial letdown.  Please feel free to PM me more to discuss your own experience.  .  I plan to have no more than one more child after this so risks are pretty minimal; but let's see how it goes.  My hospital of choice is extremely pro breast and progressive with birthing tubs and everything.  My biggest fear is that I will be judged for choosing a c-section, not for trying to breastfeed or bond with the baby, which I will do!  There is a lot of stigma against women who make my choice.  I know it will be a vastly different experience and the bonding and hormones will also take longer.  All things I'm willing to face.

 

Back to the OP: Even if I was in my little bathroom, just sounds like a safe, good place to do something as personal as giving birth.  My least painful contraction was had in my bathtub.  I am so glad there are a variety of women here to share their experiences with you and if I haven't offered anything useful I am sure many others will!

demeter888 is offline  
#5 of 27 Old 07-23-2013, 01:49 PM
 
Good Enough Mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepdoc View Post

A scheduled c/s puts baby at 3x the risk of dying, means a different gut flora and potential life long lung issues.

 

Sheepdoc, could you cite your sources? The '3x the risk of dying' in particular completely contradicts what I've read. Thanks.

Good Enough Mum is offline  
#6 of 27 Old 07-23-2013, 10:01 PM
 
phathui5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I'm not SheepDoc, but:

 

Quote:
A recent U.S. population-based study of neonatal and infant mortality by mode of delivery among women with “no indicated risk,” however, showed that neonatal mortality was increased more than two-fold after birth by cesarean, even after excluding infants with congenital anomalies and presumed intrapartum hypoxic events (Apgar score < 4) and adjusting for demographic and medical covariates 2.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475575/

applejuice likes this.

Midwife (CPM, LDM) and homeschooling mama to:
13yo ds   10yo dd  8yo ds and 6yo ds and 1yo ds  
phathui5 is offline  
#7 of 27 Old 07-24-2013, 05:21 AM
 
ummlily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

from that study. It doesn't appear to be very conclusive

"Available data are subject to a number of limitations, and do not provide conclusive evidence regarding the safety of planned elective cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery"

"Potentially increased risks of neonatal mortality with ECD at term may be counterbalanced by risks of fetal demise in ongoing pregnancies. Patients and physicians considering ECD should carefully review competing risks and benefits; further research is needed to inform these discussions."
 

ummlily is offline  
#8 of 27 Old 07-25-2013, 04:53 PM
 
Sheepdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Enough Mum View Post

Sheepdoc, could you cite your sources? The '3x the risk of dying' in particular completely contradicts what I've read. Thanks.
[/quote
CDC.
Voices.yahoo.com/CDC-says-ceserean-triples-neonatal-death-risk-3877056.html?cat=25
applejuice likes this.
Sheepdoc is offline  
#9 of 27 Old 07-25-2013, 04:58 PM
 
Sheepdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"balancing" concerns over fetal demise in "post" date pregnancies v. Known increased fetal death with ceserean is different than choosing a ceserean before 42 weeks. And its funny how few studies back up ACOG on post-date issues but they'll take one as gospel but studies about delayed cord clamping or bed rest require so many more studies before they'll make a policy change.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ummlily View Post

from that study. It doesn't appear to be very conclusive
"Available data are subject to a number of limitations, and do not provide conclusive evidence regarding the safety of planned elective cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery"
"Potentially increased risks of neonatal mortality with ECD at term may be counterbalanced by risks of fetal demise in ongoing pregnancies. Patients and physicians considering ECD should carefully review competing risks and benefits; further research is needed to inform these discussions."

 
IdentityCrisisMama likes this.
Sheepdoc is offline  
#10 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
 
demeter888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by phathui5 View Post
 

I'm not SheepDoc, but:

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475575/

 

SInce this is being brought up again, I am simply going to respond to it because there should at least be a balance in views.  Your quote from this article doesn't really include the full scope of what it is saying, so I will post a bit of that here:

 

"some data suggest an association between ECD and increased neonatal respiratory morbidity and lacerations, and possibly decreased central and peripheral nervous system injury. Potentially increased risks of neonatal mortality with ECD at term may be counterbalanced by risks of fetal demise in ongoing pregnancies."

 

The actual study you are referencing is older, and there are other conflicting studies and much more recent data.  

 

Below are some direct and more current studies that indicate a lower neonatal mortality rate in c-section (which my own doctor agrees with). The quotes are an opionated summary not from the publishers.

 

summary:
"An elective pre-labour Caesarean section in a nulliparous
woman at term has a lower risk of life-threatening neonatal
morbidity than spontaneous labour with an anticipated vaginal delivery. However, the increased risk of life-threatening
neonatal morbidity in the spontaneous labour group was
associated with an operative vaginal delivery or emergency
intrapartum Caesarean section and not a spontaneous vaginal delivery. Further research is needed to better identify
women with an increased likelihood of an operative vaginal
delivery or intrapartum Caesarean section, as this may assist
pregnancy caregivers in decision-making about childbirth."
 
"...cesarean was consistently associated with reduced odds of birth trauma across all birth weight subgroups whether or not fetal distress was present"
 
 
"...overall, the frequency of significant fetal injury is significantly greater with vaginal delivery, especially operative vaginal delivery, than with cesarian section, at 39 weeks."
 
demeter888 is offline  
#11 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 11:09 AM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,712
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)

This is an interesting topic. Having planned two home births, I really know little about the choice for elective cesarean. I do know some mothers who had a risk factor for vaginal birth who chose elective c-section but I don't personally know anyone who chose that birthing option for issues of control, pain management or other reasons a woman may choose to birth that way.  

 

As someone who planned to birth at home, I tend to start my research on a topic from a fairly mainstream source like the ACOG and from there verge off, digging deeper and etc. until I find the information that feels relevant to me, my values and my situation.  

 

If I were deciding whether I wanted to have an elective c-section, I'd probably start with the ACOG, which states: 

Quote:
Washington, DC -- The nation’s largest ob-gyn organization recommends that pregnant women plan for vaginal birth unless there is a medical reason for a cesarean. 

 

Obviously what the ACOG says isn't gospel for anyone who chose a HB, but I would start there and then move forward. 

 

Here is a chart that would appeal to how I think: 

 

Table 2. Outcome Variables With Moderate Quality Evidence Regarding Delivery Route for Term Singleton Gestation With Vertex Presentation
Favor Planned
Vaginal Delivery
Favor Planned
Cesarean Delivery
Maternal length of stay Maternal hemorrhage
Neonatal respiratory morbidity  
Subsequent placenta previa or accreta  
Subsequent uterine rupture  
Data from NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on cesarean delivery on maternal request. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2006;23:1–29.

 

One of the things I think are so interesting about this discussion, Demeter, is that you have 10 studies that appear to show that c-section the benefits of cesarean but the ACOG is still coming out in opposition to elective c-section. In a way, you have a unique perspective of being able to relate to going against the grain but from a different end of the spectrum of child birth choices. 

 

I am posting mainly to give this thread some direction of it's own since it is a spin-off and may read a bit confusing to our members just joining us.  I will be honest and say that I have not had the time to read all of your links. I've been around this forum long enough to know that a page full of links doesn't always give a clear picture. And, I also don't have enough basic knowledge of cesarean to know all the factors to consider when reading the studies you linked. 

 

 

Heck!  As a HB mama, I don't even feel all that qualified to read the studies of HB and question the outcomes. 

 

For me, (getting more philosophical) I think birth choices are really very emotional. I feel that being truly objective is difficult and perhaps not even desirable. I vote that we let ourselves make some emotional choices about where and how we give birth. To me, it very much is the beginning of the journey to parenthood. I think balancing our objective side with our emotional side is a good way to start.  

 

I chose HB twice. Once with no access to the internet and the hot mess it creates when it comes to reading about a subject like this. I was advised by child development teachers, midwives (both home and hospital), friends and what I could find in books. The second time I had the world wide web. Oh, my gosh!  I had more doubts about the choice to HB for my second in part because of the massive amount of information I had access to. I still chose HB even though I did feel it was not the safest choice when looking at infant morbidity and mortality. 

 

I am saying this to you to get back to the ACOG, what they say about elective c-section and your choice about how you want to birth. I'm saying that I get going against the grain. I get that there are studies that say all sorts of things. Some seem good, some seem like the researchers were trying to prove a point. Some I have used (I'm sure) to confirm what I wanted to believe. Some seemed so biased that I just couldn't give them much credit - no matter what their conclusion. 

 

But, for me anyway, I didn't choose from an objective standpoint. I am me. I had to consider the factors that mattered to me. And, I, personally, never could have even tried for objectivity. 

 

I'm rambling at this point and I want to be clear that I'm talking about myself and trying to relate to the choice to birth by elective cesarean. I really can and as a HB mama, I can relate to choosing something that is unconventional (<3%) that isn't supported by the major medical associations. 

 

I'm interested to hear what others have to say on the subject. 


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#12 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 01:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
demeter888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepdoc View Post

I
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Enough Mum View Post

Sheepdoc, could you cite your sources? The '3x the risk of dying' in particular completely contradicts what I've read. Thanks.
[/quote
CDC.
Voices.yahoo.com/CDC-says-ceserean-triples-neonatal-death-risk-3877056.html?cat=25

My mom used to work for the CDC and I am extremely cautious of believing reports they put out because of how politically driven it is.   Especially this CDC report. It is simply wrong. There is at least one counter to the report with a very sound case as to why the report is flawed here:

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-c-section-increase-the-rate-of-neonatal-death/

demeter888 is offline  
#13 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 02:17 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,712
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
nm.

Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#14 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 02:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
demeter888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

One of the things I think are so interesting about this discussion, Demeter, is that you have 10 studies that appear to show that c-section the benefits of cesarean but the ACOG is still coming out in opposition to elective c-section. In a way, you have a unique perspective of being able to relate to going against the grain but from a different end of the spectrum of child birth choices. 

 

I am posting mainly to give this thread some direction of it's own since it is a spin-off and may read a bit confusing to our members just joining us.  I will be honest and say that I have not had the time to read all of your links. I've been around this forum long enough to know that a page full of links doesn't always give a clear picture. And, I also don't have enough basic knowledge of cesarean to know all the factors to consider when reading the studies you linked. 

 

.  

I am saying this to you to get back to the ACOG, what they say about elective c-section and your choice about how you want to birth. I'm saying that I get going against the grain. I get that there are studies that say all sorts of things. Some seem good, some seem like the researchers were trying to prove a point. Some I have used (I'm sure) to confirm what I wanted to believe. Some seemed so biased that I just couldn't give them much credit - no matter what their conclusion. 

 

 

Identitycrisismama:

 

I saw the ACOG chart and am familiar with their opinion on elective c-sections.  But there is a reason informed doctors are willing to not only perform these themselves, but would choose maternal request for themselves as well.  

 

I have delved further into understanding the political, financial, and ideological motivations of ACOG and many other sources of these opinions and concluded that it's best if I TRY to understand the data myself.  That's what I love about this forum; so many women willing to think for themselves!  My conclusion is never final but you are right; there is slight emotional bias because it affects me.  I am willing to whole-heartedly consider all data, and took time this afternoon to continue learning.  

 

Although the data is still incomplete and more studies should be done, the odds of a widely published study supporting the facts are just hard to come by because the public does not want to hear that.  It raises a deeply ideological question about nature and science.

 

My conclusion, and my obsetrician's conclusion, is that elective c-section at 39 weeks gestation is the safest option in the hospital I am going to and with his expertise and based on his 20+ years in practice.  However, I had to do a lot of arm-twisting for him to admit it because he is also a proponent of natural birth.  I wanted to be sure my choice was understood and respected and we had a long discussion about the data vs. doctors personal biases.

 

Just to clarify:  My reason for wanting c-section are many, but it comes down to avoiding further nerve damage, avoiding the possibility of an emergency epesiotomy, avoiding increased urinary and fecal incontinence, avoiding the risks of vaginal birth trauma (which are very highly under-discussed imo), and, yes, avoiding the feelings of trauma I went through the last time.  I am 35 and overweight and there is no question, aside from all of this, that a planned cesarean is far safer for me.  My own mother, who assisted the HB of two of my cousins at home and attempted HB herself, has said she would definitely do an elective c-section if she had to go through it again today.  I just wish I had not listened to everyone but her during my last pregnancy.

 

As I said before, if I am going to choose a hospital birth, for me personally it should be an outright medicalized birth.  Otherwise I'd stay home too!

 

ETA: I mean perineal and related nerve damage; I know c-section can carry it's own risks for nerve damage (particularly when it's an  emergency)

demeter888 is offline  
#15 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 02:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
demeter888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama View Post

Keeping in mind that the author of that article is equally biased. 

 

Everyone is biased but the facts are clear; the study is inherently flawed.  It's too bad.  I wish I had more time to put more together on this.

demeter888 is offline  
#16 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 02:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
demeter888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pinellas County, FL
Posts: 334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This topic raises a question for me that I would love to know other's answers to:

 

What if it could be proven that elective cesarean was definitely safer than vaginal birth in most cases?

 

That doesn't mean it wouldn't still carry the risks and issues it already has, but simply that it is safer over all and in most situations.

 

How would you feel about it? What would it say of your beliefs about science, medicine, nature, God, Etc?  

 

And, what kind of birth would you want, given that information?

 

Mod:  It's kind of a spinoff on the topic, I am fine with it being placed in a new thread too!

 

 

FWIW, My personal feelings about it would have been that I would have still wanted to try a vaginal birth with my first child.  

 

There is an unquestionable and special bond that I have no doubt was helped by my giving birth as I did.  But I experienced a difficult labor, and now I would swing the opposite way.

demeter888 is offline  
#17 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 03:21 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,712
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by demeter888 View Post

What if it could be proven that elective cesarean was definitely safer than vaginal birth in most cases?

Obviously the answer to this question would very from mother to mother but I don't think I would opt for elective cesarean even if a really good study (studies) could prove it safer than vaginal birth.

 

For one, this would worry a great deal about the equality aspect here. So long as health care is a privilege in in the world, I would not support a situation where I worried a more basic approach to health care was not practiced (or only practiced by the poor).  

 

Also, something I often think about when we discuss NFL issues is that science (of which I am a fan!) still is only what we know now. One does not need to be all that well informed to know that science sometimes makes mistakes and, more often/more importantly, science only knows what it knows. One of the more interesting things I learned about childbirth was that (and this was 10+ years ago so maybe this has changed) scientists/doctors/midwives still don't know exactly what triggers birth. The "what we don't know" has informed some of my choices because my guess is that this is the tip of the iceberg.  

 

Then there is the fact that I don't think we always use the measure of what is safest when we make decisions about our kids or our health. I think it's a little disingenuous to bring that out for birth but not discuss it for other aspects of life. I mean, what if it could be proven that eating only some weird concoction of pureed foods out of a feeding tube was safer than eating foods from our rich cultural traditions?  To me, birth is sort of like that.  


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#18 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 04:07 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,712
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by demeter888 View Post

Now that I know the risks of vaginal birth (people talk all day about the risks of medicalized births but never of the vaginal traumas)  

I keep coming back to this comment and want to be sure you know that we have an entire forum dedicated to dealing with issues as a result of birth trauma. It can be found by clicking on the link below: 

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/f/502/healing-birth-trauma


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#19 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 04:41 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,712
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by demeter888 View Post

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(10)01037-9/abstract

"Having only vaginal childbirths was associated with a significantly increased  risk of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery later in life compared with only having cesarean deliveries. ...each successive vaginal delivery increases the risk for prolapse and incontinence; it was not just the first delivery that had the most impact"
 

I wanted to look into some of these and picked this one at random to read. I'm only getting the abstract in the link, which doesn't contain the quote your used here, or does it and I'm blind? Oh, no, it's there but I'd still like to read one of the whole article. Do you have a link to the source of this quote or the full study? 

 

And, reading through your other links can I just say, "anal incontinence". That sounds TERRIBLE and I may consider a cesarean if I experienced that after vaginal child birth. 


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#20 of 27 Old 07-26-2013, 06:47 PM
 
cileag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm a labor and delivery nurse in a busy urban setting---basically, I've seen it all.  I don't object to elective cesareans in individual circumstances---I've known and supported patients who have chosen a C/S after a stillbirth, or a 3rd or 4th degree tear, or a broken pelvis, or due to a history of sexual abuse or trauma.  I do have some hesitations opening it up to anybody, mainly due to the effect it can have on later pregnancies and children.  Overall, I feel the same way about elective cesareans as I do about out of hospital birth---it is a safe and reasonable choice.  It can go terribly wrong, but typically that's only in a small percentage of the population and can usually be handled effectively by a competent team.

IdentityCrisisMama likes this.

Mama to P. born at home 10/09, and W. born in the hospital 2/13

cileag is offline  
#21 of 27 Old 08-24-2013, 06:03 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,451
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by demeter888 View Post

This topic raises a question for me that I would love to know other's answers to:

What if it could be proven that elective cesarean was definitely safer than vaginal birth in most cases?

That doesn't mean it wouldn't still carry the risks and issues it already has, but simply that it is safer over all and in most situations.

How would you feel about it? What would it say of your beliefs about science, medicine, nature, God, Etc?  

And, what kind of birth would you want, given that information?

Mod:  It's kind of a spinoff on the topic, I am fine with it being placed in a new thread too!


FWIW, My personal feelings about it would have been that I would have still wanted to try a vaginal birth with my first child.  

There is an unquestionable and special bond that I have no doubt was helped by my giving birth as I did.  But I experienced a difficult labor, and now I would swing the opposite way.

I would not want an elective c-section. To me, this is not different, logically, than asking would you want your food in pill form if it could come that way. Or asking if any other normal human activity could be altered by humans, would I choose the altered choice. Most likely not. I predict that much like Breastfeeding fell out of favor & doctors were pushing artificial feeding for a long time but are now recognizing the importance of BF, doctors will continue to push (in some cases) & not support normal birth until there's a tipping point & then the realization will come that there are consequences to surgical birth & except in extreme circumstances, it needs to be abandoned. We as a society are getting sicker & sicker, in part because of artificial feeding & surgical birth (the colonization of the gut is different & the knowledge of the importance of gut bacteria is in its infancy so I wouldn't expect any studies to include anything on it).

Sus

Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#22 of 27 Old 08-24-2013, 07:42 AM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Only sherpdoc and mama24 have brought up infant health regarding vaginal or elective cesearean, is that not a very important factor in the options?

And why 39 wks? Why not 42 if chosing surgery?

I had a not good first vaginal birth experience but I never considered an elective, especially after informing myself better the next time, and better support. I had to deal with the trauma and not let it hinder the next birth. Most of it came down to infant health, and unless I knew for sure we'd have no more children, I didn't want future pregnancy risks associated with a csec.
applejuice likes this.
hippy mum is offline  
#23 of 27 Old 08-24-2013, 10:49 AM
 
AlexisT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 2,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

We don't have good data on longterm outcomes. There are way too many confounders. True CDMR is rare--too many women having CS have either maternal or fetal indicators. Or a problem developed during labor. Researchers try to take out as many known ones as they can, but we can't be entirely sure that some of the effects we see are from the surgery itself, or an underlying issue.  A lot of what we think we know is hypothesized, like the gut flora issues--we don't have solid evidence yet. It is much easier to trace things like increased incidence of accreta following surgery. 

 

Risks do start rising in late term. It's small, but it's there. I don't know that there's any benefit to waiting to 42 over 39 when surgery is planned--also, the later you wait, the more you run the risk of spontaneous labor, and unplanned CS has worse outcomes than planned. You're trying to balance time for baby vs not laboring. 

 

Personally, I think it's very much a question of individual calculus. For ME, I know CS is the better option. It's not that I can never deliver safely vaginally--it's that the odds stack up against it. It was possible that I would go into labor at 37-38 weeks with good blood pressure and it would all be fine. But unless that happened, I wasn't willing to consider pushing my luck. (As it happened, I went to 39 weeks with pregnancy #2 with no sign of impending labor and my BP starting to rise--I now have the benefit of hindsight that my instincts were correct.) 

 

Yes, it's surgery; yes, there are potential risks in future pregnancies. But these aren't trump cards; they're risks to be weighed against alternatives. 


DD 01/2007, DS 09/2011

AlexisT is offline  
#24 of 27 Old 08-24-2013, 06:53 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,451
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisT View Post

We don't have good data on longterm outcomes. There are way too many confounders. True CDMR is rare--too many women having CS have either maternal or fetal indicators. Or a problem developed during labor. Researchers try to take out as many known ones as they can, but we can't be entirely sure that some of the effects we see are from the surgery itself, or an underlying issue.  A lot of what we think we know is hypothesized, like the gut flora issues--we don't have solid evidence yet. It is much easier to trace things like increased incidence of accreta following surgery. 

 

Talking about the studies, I have to wonder when a study says that a elective c-section at x weeks is less risky than spontaneous vaginal delivery, are they talking about spontaneous vaginal delivery under the medical model in a hospital w/ a woman confined to a bed, not allowed to eat/drink as she deems necessary, pushing in the legs-in-the-air oh-so-fun way, pit, epi, etc. or a normal birth?  Hmmm. 

 

And, no, we don't have solid evidence on the gut flora, microbiota of the body.  Why do we need solid evidence that the normal way to birth would result in the normal (provided the mother has normal, healthy bacteria/microbes) gut flora?  I only know of a study or two (and I can't cite them because I didn't record them) of the differences in gut flora of normal vs. surgically born babies.  It actually may be more than that because I recall reading about this in reference to probiotics.  Anyway, why are studies needed to confirm what is normal?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexisT View Post
Yes, it's surgery; yes, there are potential risks in future pregnancies. But these aren't trump cards; they're risks to be weighed against alternatives. 

My hope is that some day we will look to what is the true source of the problem & fix that rather than dealing w/ the symptoms & the methods of managing them.  

 

Sus

applejuice and hippy mum like this.

Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#25 of 27 Old 08-27-2013, 08:08 AM
 
hippy mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here are three that I found on gut flora and delivery. There were more that came up on searching.   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110651/ , http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/201/6/898.full and http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/9/1796S.long I'm sure there are more, and no we don't know the long term, because it appears they haven't gotten to long term yet, only short term.  

 

Mamma24-7-I've often wondered the same thing, are they using the medicated births or non medicated in the studies.  It's sometimes hard to find a breakdown.  Being induced is not spontaneous delivery :)

 

Alexis-That's true, on the waiting.  If needed a cesarean due to health risk, and vaginal birth is not an option, I'd probably go with at least 38wks, pending prior labor history.  My bp went high with #1, not #2.  At 39wks, which seems late for bp to rise up, pending how quickly it was rising and if I didn't need to take meds for it, I may opt for a non medicated induction.  I can see my mw wanting to do a membrane sweep or have me try some herbs to get labor going if baby's heart rate was okay.  I've met women with high bp who couldn't go past 37wks though, and they had to keep taking bp med for a few weeks after delivery.    

hippy mum is offline  
#26 of 27 Old 08-27-2013, 08:27 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,451
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippy mum View Post
Mamma24-7-I've often wondered the same thing, are they using the medicated births or non medicated in the studies.  It's sometimes hard to find a breakdown.  Being induced is not spontaneous delivery :)

If they are using medicated birth vs normal birth, I'd probably agree that planned c-section would be safer, at least in the short term!  But, I'm not going to try to figure it out because I don't need studies to prove stuff: we evolved to birth vaginally & that's not going to change. And, we didn't evolve to have everyone make it out alive, unfortunately.  Yes, I'm glad there are life saving measures available, usually.  That doesn't mean there aren't risks & that there's a way to eliminate all of them. Life doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

 

Sus


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
#27 of 27 Old 08-27-2013, 08:36 AM
 
AlexisT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 2,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Depends which study and purpose.

 

In some cases, you only want to measure CS vs vaginal, regardless of interventions: this would certainly be appropriate if you were looking at outcomes after a complication. It's also dicey to exclude inductions in general; in some cases, that's a specific thing you want to measure (say, primary elective vs SVD). But we have other studies measuring things like epidural vs not, and we can account for those risks, which are less than surgery or not, as a rule. (Especially since with surgery, you are also getting anesthesia, prophylactic pit and abx, and so on!) 

 

THe current push is for RCS to be performed at 39 weeks unless there is a specific medical reason to perform it earlier. When I had my 2nd, controlled hypertension was not considered a reason but a few months later, ACOG issued new guidance suggesting early term deliveries for medicated hypertension. I had a CS for #1, so most induction methods were off the table, and with a history of HTN they are very cautious about inductions (labor can cause BP to spike). 


DD 01/2007, DS 09/2011

AlexisT is offline  
Reply

Tags
Natural Childbirth The Bradley Way Revised Edition , Ina Mays Guide To Childbirth

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off