What did they do before c-sections? - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-08-2006, 04:43 PM
 
Leilalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice
Are you saying they except those women, as in leave them out of the statistics? ('cause that would be false.)

Or do you mean that they accept these women despite/because of knowing baby is breech?

I'm promise I'm not being snarky or part of the grammar police, just trying to understand what you mean. Thanks.
oops, sorry! I need a nap!
I meant ACCEPT

Due with number 5 in August. We do all that crunchy stuff.
.
Leilalu is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-08-2006, 08:10 PM
 
erin_brycesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
mom2seven - What I mean is who is going to go to the Farm with a known serious high risk pregnancy? Sure there are going to also be some people who start at the Farm end up risking out, but there are many women who are already aware from a previous situation that they are high risk and would know they couldn't go to the Farm to start with.

I'm sure it would skew them to some extent...but not near enough to account for the difference between 0.2% and 30%!

Storm Bride, I agree fully! I just wanted to point out that the Farm isn't exactly a true representative of all situations that may require c-section. Of course you have a much better chance of not "needing" a c-section when you are at the Farm or even anywhere out of a hospital. The c-sec rates in the US make me sick to my stomach.

I seriously considered trying to go to the Farm when ds#2 was breech at 39 weeks but thankfully diligence with my chiro for Webster paid off and he flipped.
erin_brycesmom is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 12:58 AM
 
caned & able's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bridgeport, ME
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
NO one has mentioned the 1978 study done in Northern CA done scientifically matching home for hospital mother and the outcome of the birth.

The Lewis Mehl Study that matched 1046 at home mothers with hospital bound mothers.

This one is done in 1996
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7068pr4.htm
caned & able is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:08 AM
 
crazy_eights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nisht ahir un nish aher
Posts: 6,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by caned & able
NO one has mentioned the 1978 study done in Northern CA
You mean the Mehl study? I can't find it linked anywhere, but here is a summary:
Quote:
Mehl, L., Peterson, G., Shaw, N.S., Creavy, D. (1978) "Outcomes of 1146 elective home births: a series of 1146 cases." J Repro Med.
19:281-90
Neonatal Outcomes:

* In the hospital, 3.7 times as many babies required resuscitation.
* Infection rates of newborns were 4 times higher in the hospital.
* There was 2.5 times as many cases of meconium aspiration pneumonia in the hospital group.
* There were 6 cases of neonatal lungwater syndrome in the hospital and none at home.
* There were 30 birth injuries (mostly due to forceps) in the hospital group, and none at home.
* The incidence of respiratory distress among newborns was 17 times greater in the hospital than in the home.
* While neonatal and perinatal death rates were statistically the same for both groups, Apgar scores (a measure of physical well being of the newborn) were significantly worse in the hospital.
crazy_eights is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:11 AM
 
caned & able's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bridgeport, ME
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes.

:
caned & able is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:21 AM
 
maxmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti
Posts: 2,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There was a more recent study (which of course I can't find the citation for -- somewhere in my syllabus from the last conference) that looked at planned home birth in Washington and planned hospital births and found equivalent outcomes, with decreased infant mortality for the home birth group.

mama to Max (2/02) and Sophie (10/06); wife to my fabulous girl
maxmama is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:42 AM
 
crazy_eights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nisht ahir un nish aher
Posts: 6,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmama
There was a more recent study (which of course I can't find the citation for -- somewhere in my syllabus from the last conference) that looked at planned home birth in Washington and planned hospital births and found equivalent outcomes, with decreased infant mortality for the home birth group.
I think you mean the CPM study that was written up in the BMJ. However, mortality was the same as similar groups of babies born to low-risk hospital women, but morbidity (injury) was much lower in both mother and baby.
crazy_eights is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:56 AM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin_brycesmom
I seriously considered trying to go to the Farm when ds#2 was breech at 39 weeks but thankfully diligence with my chiro for Webster paid off and he flipped.
I wish I'd known about the farm...or the Webster technique...when dd was breech at 39 weeks. I don't think my first c-section was necessary, but looking back, I'm still not sure how I could have avoided it...

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 10:36 AM
 
Synchro246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2seven
I think you mean the CPM study that was written up in the BMJ. However, mortality was the same as similar groups of babies born to low-risk hospital women, but morbidity (injury) was much lower in both mother and baby.
Wooooo Hoooo CPM2000! I heard a group of midwives in a state where midwifery is alegal/illegal went to the legislators saying "the safety of homebirth is established. . . what are you going to do about it" essentially. No more arguing that homebirth is safer(with random people), it just is. I can't believe in a free country that there are states where midwifery is still illegal. There's no excuse now. I might have to go start an activism thread.

~laura
and planning to eat it again
Synchro246 is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 05:30 AM
 
bravofrenchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hanging with the Gothic Mafia.
Posts: 1,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
After reading this thread, I got out my copy of "Ina May's Guide to Childbirth" and went to the stats page. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't directly quote. But the C-section rate for The Farm, between 1970 & 2000, is only 1.4%.

At the bottom of the page, she writes something like (again, not an exact quote): Our statistics are different from birth centers, because birth centers normally "risk out" twins, breech births, ect. Our statistics reflect every woman who received prenatal care at The Farm, regardless whether they planned a birth at The Farm with a midwife, or with a doctor at the hospital near The Farm.
bravofrenchie is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 05:45 AM
 
MamaRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FL transplanted in Asia
Posts: 4,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
What happened before C-sections? Well, how long have C-sections been around? If not a C-section, then what? Now this is a cool paper:

History of the C-section

Missionary, birth-worker, midwifery student
Mama to love.gif DD (9yr), DS luxlove.gif (3yr), & 2twins.gif UC twin DDs (5yr)

MamaRabbit is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 05:57 AM
 
Drummer's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 11,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kannon99
What happened before C-sections? Well, how long have C-sections been around? If not a C-section, then what? Now this is a cool paper:

History of the C-section
Kannon, thank you so much for that link. i found it all so interesting, especially the part about a possible section in the yr 1500 where the mother survived and went on to birth 5 more babies vaginally. Even if it's not completely accurate it does give hope to vbac'ers today.

ribboncesarean.gif cesareans happen.
Drummer's Wife is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 06:02 AM
 
MamaRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FL transplanted in Asia
Posts: 4,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It is cool. The instruments they used to use are scary looking! And even more scary... some of them are still used

Missionary, birth-worker, midwifery student
Mama to love.gif DD (9yr), DS luxlove.gif (3yr), & 2twins.gif UC twin DDs (5yr)

MamaRabbit is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 06:11 AM
 
Drummer's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 11,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree, scary! Especially the ones used for craniotomy. Just reading about it made me feel ill. I understand that it was often safer than sectioning but sheesh.

Forceps freak me out as it is, I couldn't imagine how they used them way back then.

ribboncesarean.gif cesareans happen.
Drummer's Wife is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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