Mothering Forum banner

What did they do before c-sections?

18K views 103 replies 40 participants last post by  Drummer's Wife 
#1 ·
A friend and I were talking today. She didn't progress with her first child and had a c-section. THe dr told her that her pelvis is too small. And she asked me what would they have done before c-sections. Would she have just died. I don't know the answer to that.

What about breech babies? Why do dr's not want to deliver breech babies? Even my midwife goes to the hospital for a section for breeches. If I were to have another baby I wouldn't want to have a c-section just because the baby is breech.

So what did they used to do? Anyone know?
 
#53 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mom2seven
And antibiotics. At one time 'childbed fever' was a large source of maternal mortality.
And childbed fever, puerperal fever, was an iatrogenically caused disease; it was caused by doctors with a g-d complex so strong that they truly believed they did not have to wash their hands. Doctors would walk directly from the morgue, where they worked on dead diseased bodies, to the maternity ward, without any attention to antisepsis.

When this was pointed out to them by one of their own, Dr. Ignaz Schemmelweis, they put him in a mental institution.

Doctors told the women that the disease was all in their head (sound familiar?)

Later, Dr. Lister, in another country, discovered the same thing.
 
#54 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFence
Cord around the neck can be deadly.
It can be deadly if the mother is already fully medicated and the baby is getting lots of the suppressive medication already in its system through the cord.

I have read old medical books in which doctors state that the placenta is a "bloody sieve" which filters out all medications and drugs from the mother. Medical science has learned too well in the last century that this is not true from its own errors as prenatal x-rays, thalidomide, DES, bendectin, rhogam, and limiting maternal weight gain.
 
#56 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFence
Cord around the neck can be deadly. Many mothers have lost their children to cord injuries. Its not a myth.
Also once you go past 42 weeks the risk of your babyhaving health problems increases as well, as does stillbirth. There is a reason why the cut off is 42 weeks for OBs and most midwives, even lay ones, its not just a number they just pulled out their behinds. I know far too many people who have lost babies after 42 weeks to think its a myth.
Cord around the neck is not a cord injury. Prolapse is a better example of cord injury.
 
#58 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Synchro246
Although, I did have a prof. of A&P who insisted that before chairs and things of that kind humans had much better movement and posture, which would have at least a little to do with positioning.
This is something that interests me quite a lot. I've had three c-sections. The first two were both for breech babies. The third was because my OB & FP were hesitant about a VBA2C, and then I went "overdue", so I got sliced up again. DS2 (my third baby) was vertex right up to the end.

I know it's purely anecdotal, but it does interest me that my pregnancy with ds2 was the first one during which I did not sit in a chair at work all day. I was home with dd, and moved around much more during the day.
 
#60 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCVeg

*Most* women will not grow babies too big for their pelvises (providing they're not lying flat on their backs, immobilized); *most* breech babies can be born vaginally without problems (or rather, they could be if birth professionals still learned how to deliver breech babies); twins and even triplets *can* be born vaginally! And a baby whose due date is at an inconvenient time for mom or doctor can almost certainly be born vaginally. Childbirth is not without risk and c-sections save some lives...but c-sections have risks, too, and also cost some lives.
Slightly Off Topic
I'm not making judgement either way, but wanted to bring up a conversation I saw in a previous thread. There were questions about whether with the amazing frequency of c-sections in the USA, the amount of babies that are "too big" to pass through the pelvis will increase in the next century because the genes will be more likely to be passed on than in previous centuries where mom or baby would just have died. IMO, it seems too small of numbers to begin with to have any impact, but I haven't researched it.
 
#61 ·
The whole 'too big' thing is a myth. Babies were smaller 50 years ago at birth, but mothers often smoked and were told to diet and limit their weight gain to 15 lbs. In the early decades of the 1900's, the average baby was LARGER than they are today. A good example would be my own grandfather, born in 1925 at 13 lbs. No, his mother was not a diabetic.
 
#63 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by miriam
Actually, a cord around the neck can PREVENT a very long cord from prolapsing.

Maybe it is a good thing - the umbilical cord around the neck; it must be since it happens so often.
Ouch. Lets hope you never have to deal with this trauma. I was lucky to be alive, really.

I knew a kid who was not so lucky, growing up. Suppossedly he was partially brain damamged because of the cord around his neck.
 
#64 ·
such touchy issues here. esp for those of us who have "had" to have a c-s. yeah, that's subjective. in my case, i believe that *something* would have gone wrong, and either my baby or I would have been hurt. but i believe that, not because some OB told me that. I believe it because my baby, after 39 weeks of being in the correct position, decided to turn breech. we tried the webster technique, we tried the accupuncture technique, we tried pelvic tilts and all of it... we even got the baby to turn about 3/4 of the way... but as soon as he got there, he turned right back, and after that, didnt budge. he knew something was up, and he knew what to do to protect us. since he was 11 lbs, even my mw all said they wouldnt have tried if he was theirs. who knows for sure, but really? i trust my baby. i really believe that he did what he did for a reason, and i really believe that if we hadnt had the option of a c-s, something very bad could very possibly have happened. i guess my point is simply that yes, c-s are done far too often, but thank goodness they can be done, and can be done well.

it's really challenging to want to be here, having had a c-s, because every time i come here, i read at least one thing that makes me feel like crud for having "had" to have a c-s. if there's any chance that reading MY post makes one woman NOT feel that way, well, then maybe that's why i'm rambeling on... anyhow. hugs to all mommas who have had a c-s-- for any reason.

and, to anyone who feels the need to constantly say in harsh or not harsh terms, that c-s almost never really "have" to be done... just please remember... every time you say that, you might encourage a woman to do things to avoid one... but every time you say that, you most certainly bring tears to the eyes of at least one woman who has "had" to have one.

just some food for thought.
xoxox
 
#65 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by moosemommy
such touchy issues here. esp for those of us who have "had" to have a c-s. yeah, that's subjective. in my case, i believe that *something* would have gone wrong, and either my baby or I would have been hurt. but i believe that, not because some OB told me that. I believe it because my baby, after 39 weeks of being in the correct position, decided to turn breech. we tried the webster technique, we tried the accupuncture technique, we tried pelvic tilts and all of it... we even got the baby to turn about 3/4 of the way... but as soon as he got there, he turned right back, and after that, didnt budge. he knew something was up, and he knew what to do to protect us. since he was 11 lbs, even my mw all said they wouldnt have tried if he was theirs. who knows for sure, but really? i trust my baby. i really believe that he did what he did for a reason, and i really believe that if we hadnt had the option of a c-s, something very bad could very possibly have happened. i guess my point is simply that yes, c-s are done far too often, but thank goodness they can be done, and can be done well.

it's really challenging to want to be here, having had a c-s, because every time i come here, i read at least one thing that makes me feel like crud for having "had" to have a c-s. if there's any chance that reading MY post makes one woman NOT feel that way, well, then maybe that's why i'm rambeling on... anyhow. hugs to all mommas who have had a c-s-- for any reason.

and, to anyone who feels the need to constantly say in harsh or not harsh terms, that c-s almost never really "have" to be done... just please remember... every time you say that, you might encourage a woman to do things to avoid one... but every time you say that, you most certainly bring tears to the eyes of at least one woman who has "had" to have one.

just some food for thought.
xoxox
Well said, and I think maybe we need to remember that we don't have to justify our reasoning..... We know the desicion we had to make.
 
#66 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Leilalu
I knew a kid who was not so lucky, growing up. Suppossedly he was partially brain damamged because of the cord around his neck.
And supposedly some kids wouldn't have cerebral palsy if a cesarean was done or was done more quickly. Too bad an increased cesarean rate does not correlate with a decrease in cerebral palsy rate.
My guess is that they don't know why the kid you knew was brain damaged, but since humans like to "know" things they clung to the one thing that seemed abnormal.
 
#67 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Leilalu
Ouch. Lets hope you never have to deal with this trauma. I was lucky to be alive, really.

I knew a kid who was not so lucky, growing up. Suppossedly he was partially brain damamged because of the cord around his neck.
OUCH! All of my homeborn children did have their respective cords around their respective necks. There are fine, thank you. Mostly because there was no oxygen depriving medication in my blood and therefore none in my baby's system.

The cause of much brain damage in newborns in yester years was because there was a rule in most places that the nurse had to impede the birth of a baby until the doctor arrived. This was accomplished by holding the mother's legs together and/or holding a towel to the perineum.

I attended school with many children who had minimum brain damage from this protocol. This happened alot.

Of course the baby was ready to breathe; just because the doctor was not there, the baby's first breath was delayed and brain damage occurred.

My point is that not all brain damage is from the lack of caesareans or a tightly wrapped cord around the neck; often brain damage is from too much maternal anesthesia or injudicious hospital routines, that is, from iatrogenesis.

Anoter procedure that was done to women with small pelvic outlets was a crippling procedure called a symphisiotomy which broke the pubic arch to allow the baby to be born. Many women never healed properly from this iatrogenic, crippling procedure.
 
#68 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by moosemommy
and, to anyone who feels the need to constantly say in harsh or not harsh terms, that c-s almost never really "have" to be done... just please remember... every time you say that, you might encourage a woman to do things to avoid one... but every time you say that, you most certainly bring tears to the eyes of at least one woman who has "had" to have one.
:

I had an eclamptic seizure during my homebirth. If I hadn't had an emergency surgical birth, my baby and I would be dead.

I think the c-section rate in our country is too high. I'm outraged and upset when I hear of mothers choosing c-sections for convenience and even moreso when I hear of doctors doing it. I'm outraged when I hear of mothers wanting to do VBAC and no one will work with them.

However, a c-section saved my life. C-sections aren't the problem - lazy OBs and overuse is the problem.
 
#70 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by miriam
OUCH! All of my homeborn children did have their respective cords around their respective necks. There are fine, thank you. Mostly because there was no oxygen depriving medication in my blood and therefore none in my baby's system.

The cause of much brain damage in newborns in yester years was because there was a rule in most places that the nurse had to impede the birth of a baby until the doctor arrived. This was accomplished by holding the mother's legs together and/or holding a towel to the perineum.

I attended school with many children who had minimum brain damage from this protocol. This happened alot.

Of course the baby was ready to breathe; just because the doctor was not there, the baby's first breath was delayed and brain damage occurred.

My point is that not all brain damage is from the lack of caesareans or a tightly wrapped cord around the neck; often brain damage is from too much maternal anesthesia or injudicious hospital routines, that is, from iatrogenesis.

Anoter procedure that was done to women with small pelvic outlets was a crippling procedure called a symphisiotomy which broke the pubic arch to allow the baby to be born. Many women never healed properly from this iatrogenic, crippling procedure.

I don't see what in my post you are reffering to when you say ouch....

I was making reffernce to my birth, and it was a unique situation.
No one is saying cesareans are nessecary for every cord/neck birth. I am also glad your babies are just fine and no intervention was needed for them.
 
#71 ·
Quote:
OUCH! All of my homeborn children did have their respective cords around their respective necks. There are fine, thank you. Mostly because there was no oxygen depriving medication in my blood and therefore none in my baby's system.

The cause of much brain damage in newborns in yester years was because there was a rule in most places that the nurse had to impede the birth of a baby until the doctor arrived. This was accomplished by holding the mother's legs together and/or holding a towel to the perineum.

I attended school with many children who had minimum brain damage from this protocol. This happened alot.

Of course the baby was ready to breathe; just because the doctor was not there, the baby's first breath was delayed and brain damage occurred.

My point is that not all brain damage is from the lack of caesareans or a tightly wrapped cord around the neck; often brain damage is from too much maternal anesthesia or injudicious hospital routines, that is, from iatrogenesis.

Anoter procedure that was done to women with small pelvic outlets was a crippling procedure called a symphisiotomy which broke the pubic arch to allow the baby to be born. Many women never healed properly from this iatrogenic, crippling procedure.
Miriam, I get that you are for non intervention births...I am too, but I don't get what any of this has to do with the serious and real problems that can occur from nuchal cords. Sure most nuchal cords present no problems but there are varying levels. Tight nuchal cords can cause compressions in the cord and prevent oxygen and blood from flowing to the baby which can result in asphyxia and hypovolemic shock. This can happen whether the mama has any drugs or not.

My labor was intervention free, no iv, nothing and nobody would have thought his double nuchal cord was a good thing. I will say that I am really glad that I did not have any fetal monitoring because I am pretty sure that if I did red flags would have gone up and I could just see myself ending up with a c-section and it wouldn't have been necessary.

~Erin
 
#72 ·
The thread is about what was done before c-secs were so common. I can tell you I do know of many women who had high forceps deliveries and many difficult deliveries accomplished with alot of intervention.

Women did die, babies died from difficult labors and deliveries.

My point is that a difficult delivery is accomplished with a skilled attendant using the necessary tools if necessary. Yet, 95% of the time, nothing really is needed. Forceps, vaccuum extractors, anesthesia are all of the modern medical age since about 1850 when surgical techniques were begun to be perfected. The 1940s saw the advent of antibiotics and blood transfusions which came about the same time as universal hospitalization for childbirth.
 
#73 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by miriam
The thread is about what was done before c-secs were so common. I can tell you I do know of many women who had high forceps deliveries and many difficult deliveries accomplished with alot of intervention.

Women did die, babies died from difficult labors and deliveries.

My point is that a difficult delivery is accomplished with a skilled attendant using the necessary tools if necessary. Yet, 95% of the time, nothing really is needed. Forceps, vaccuum extractors, anesthesia are all of the modern medical age since about 1850 when surgical techniques were begun to be perfected. The 1940s saw the advent of antibiotics and blood transfusions which came about the same time as universal hospitalization for childbirth.
Where are you getitg your statistics? To say that 95 % of women don't need intervention in order to have healthy babies and not die themselves...well, where are you getting this number? Just curious. How does one possibly calcutlate all the births in the world and deicde this number?

I too am all for non-interventive birthing, I just happen to see the other side of things as well, having had two surgical births.
 
#76 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Synchro246
The world health organization says that 90% of deliveries can happen normally at home and have good outcomes. I don't know if they mean that the remaining 10% require surgery or just medical care of some kind.
I honestly thought this was very common knowledge.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top