C-section TRIPLES risk of maternal death - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 07:41 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 25,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
It most certainly IS an interesting comparison to see how women's fears of these complications are summarily dismissed as being 'rare', thus not worth the worry, but the RARE chance of mom dying from c-section? Nope, we better play that risk up, magnify it beyond all reasonable proportion, and go with how horridly risky c-sections are because of this RARE event.
Where are you reading this?

Quote:
When women stop expecting a perfect outcome from vaginal birth every single time, they'll stop suing docs for things that are out of their control, and maybe at that point docs won't be so darn eager to cut first, ask questions later. It's a sad predicament we've gotten into, and one I don't see an out for any time soon.
Perhaps by continuing to spread the information that midwifery can be a really excellent "alternative" to using a surgeon to attend women's births might help ease the predicament....and bypassing the medical model would be a very helpful place to start? Perhaps if we didn't listen to scare tactics about the riskiness of vaginal birth but instead focused on the fact that birth w/o medication (in most circumstances) is inherently safe and biologically normal, and not something to fear...

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 07:49 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgia
Where are you reading this?
It's what the entire thread is about.

The big, bold 'CSection TRIPLES risk...blah blah blah'.

First, this isn't new information.

Second, the risks taken on without a second thought during NATURAL delivery are certainly comparable in numbers of deaths...only for the babies, not the moms. Apparently those risks aren't as alarming for whatever reason, but the TRIPLES THE RISK stuff is big, bad, these people having sections must be crazy kind of stuff.

Interesting. To me at least.
wifeandmom is offline  
#33 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 08:46 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Remember when ACOG got all hot and bothered about the Pang study that supposedly showed homebirth as twice as likely to result in infant death as hospital birth?

Wouldn't it be something if they took as seriously the known fact that scheduled c-section is at least twice as likely to result in maternal death as vaginal birth?

If I had a dollar for every OB who thinks that elective c-secs are sent from heaven...
cottonwood is offline  
#34 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 11:09 PM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
So because vaginal birth is 'normal', we should ignore the risks associated with it?
Of course a vaginal birth is normal. The way the medical profession distorts vaginal birth in a medical settin makes it unnatural and dangerous.

A cesarian birth is preferable to the vaginal birth in a medical setting, because of how obstetricians have made a normal vaginal birth so treacherous.

As for the risks associated with a vaginal birth, let me quote a doctor who said, "There are risks associated with walking across the street!" I told him that I take a calculated risk and at least look both ways before I cross the street, not blindfolded!
member234098 is offline  
#35 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 11:11 PM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds
If I had a dollar for every OB who thinks that elective c-secs are sent from heaven...
A cesarian birth was described by an ob/gyn friend of mine as "delivering from above", almost celestial, heavenly!
member234098 is offline  
#36 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 11:14 PM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilie
If it is safer for babies to be born by c/s why dont we all just have c/s?
When I had my first baby 26 years ago at home, a doctor in the local medical center told the parent class just that. He personally had an extremely high ceasarian rate of delivery. He said quite simply that there is no reason to not deliver a baby surgically.
member234098 is offline  
#37 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 01:20 AM
 
Emilie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: going thru divorce land
Posts: 7,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ugh.
Emilie is offline  
#38 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 05:49 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilie
Ugh.
Ugh what?

Are you standing by your assertation made earlier that:

Quote:
C-Section is not a preferable way to give birth. No matter what the stats say...imo.
No matter what the stats say? No matter what, c-section isn't preferable? Ever? I asked it before, and this is the only 'response' from you that I see, so I am truly curious now given this response of 'Ugh'.
wifeandmom is offline  
#39 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 06:21 PM
 
momz3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
I always find it interesting when people make a huge deal out of risk of death for mom during c-section, but the exact same risk of death for baby during VBAC (just as an example) is 'small' and 'not a big deal'.

Either way, the study looked at 65 maternal deaths, quite a small sample size and something that easily could have affected the overall results.

Every other major study on maternal death that I've seen regarding the topic ended up looking something like this:

1 in 10,000 women die as a result of vaginal birth
1 in 5000 women die as a result of scheduled c-section
1 in 2500 women die as a result of emergency section

If you compare vaginal birth to emergency section, that is a FOUR FOLD increase, even more than the findings of this particular study.

If you compare vaginal birth to scheduled section, it is a TWO FOLD risk. Considering this study found no difference between the two groups of c-sections, I'd be interested in reading more of the study results since every other published study to date has found a significant difference (assuming they actually broke down the numbers into emergency vs. non-emergency/scheduled).

Either way, there is absolutely no debate the mom is more likely to die from a section vs. a vaginal delivery. I've never seen it suggested otherwise.

Of course, BABY is more likely to die as a result of a VBAC attempt (current stats put those chances at 1 in 2000) than mom is from an emergency section, much less a scheduled section, but I sure do see all the time how the risk of death to baby from a VBAC is 'small', 'very unlikely', even dare I say it 'RARE'.

How is 1 in 2000 risk to baby during VBAC any different than 1 in 2500 for mom during emergency section? It's so interesting how when it's something the mom WANTS, the risks are suddenly 'acceptable', 'unlikely', and 'rare'. Or at least it's interesting to me.

100% agree. Good post!

Kylin 10/14/2002

Aja 8/13/2004

Evie 3/11/2010

2 angels in Heaven (Alexis & Bryson)

Currently NTNP for baby #4 dust.gif

momz3 is offline  
#40 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 06:36 PM
 
MsElle07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom

Second, the risks taken on without a second thought during NATURAL delivery are certainly comparable in numbers of deaths...only for the babies, not the moms. Apparently those risks aren't as alarming for whatever reason
Actually, those are the risks only as birth exists in the American hospital setting. Other countries with different standards of care (particularly European countries, where the majority of deliveries are attended by midwives) have much better neonatal outcomes. The US has among the WORST outcomes in the world (among industrialized nations) for babies and mothers.

The problem is not with vaginal birth. The problem is with the way American doctors handle it.
MsElle07 is offline  
#41 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 06:49 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsElle07

The problem is not with vaginal birth. The problem is with the way American doctors handle it.
Yup, and when American women stop suing for imperfect outcomes during vaginal birth, perhaps things will change. The current birth climate is not something that just happened for no reason at all.
wifeandmom is offline  
#42 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 06:57 PM
 
velcromom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: N. Ca Sierra Nevada
Posts: 4,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride
My doctors have never once mentioned any risk involved in a c-section. Having surgery has consistently been presented to me as the "safe" option. If I brought up any kind of concerns about the risks of surgery, they were completely dismissed. I know I'm not alone.

Yep, exactly my experience.

First emergency c/s, "only safe way to get that baby out" later found other caregivers have other options in my situation. They really meant, "only safe way we know of to get that baby out": I wasn't the only one not fully informed.

second scheduled c/s, "perfectly safe, no concerns for mom or baby's health, don't worry about thinking your due date is later than we say it is, we have no concerns about your baby's lungs not being fully developed" They really meant: "I have a holiday vacation to take and no way is a Christmas due date messing that up. There's a great NICU here, I don't worry about early babies."


And if the risk of maternal death is responded to with more alarm than the risk of infant death, biologically and sociologically it makes sense. That may sound harsh and of course in no way diminishes our desire for healthy babies... but from a purely practical standpoint, it is sensible for many reasons to pursue that course which gives the mother the least risk of death.
velcromom is offline  
#43 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 07:14 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by velcromom

First emergency c/s, "only safe way to get that baby out" later found other caregivers have other options in my situation. They really meant, "only safe way we know of to get that baby out": I wasn't the only one not fully informed.
See, I just don't understand how what they told you WASN'T true though. If they truly didn't know HOW to get that baby out any other way safely except through emergency section, what are they supposed to tell you?

Going back to the breech example, cause it's an easy one. If they tell mom 'Section is the safest way to get baby out.', that is very likely true and accurate for their hospital considering how rare it is for an OB to have ANY experience delivering breech babies vaginally, and without an experienced provider, there simply is NOTHING out there to support vaginal delivery over section.

So if they truly didn't know of any other ways to get your baby out safely, was there time to find another hospital/provider for you to deliver at/with that DID know of these 'other' ways besides doing a section?




Quote:
And if the risk of maternal death is responded to with more alarm than the risk of infant death, biologically and sociologically it makes sense. That may sound harsh and of course in no way diminishes our desire for healthy babies... but from a purely practical standpoint, it is sensible for many reasons to pursue that course which gives the mother the least risk of death.
Yeah, I can see where this is true, but in my heart of hearts, I could not look at myself in the mirror knowing I chose to put the greater risk on my unborn child to get the risk off of ME should the worst case scenerio happen.
wifeandmom is offline  
#44 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 07:36 PM
 
velcromom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: N. Ca Sierra Nevada
Posts: 4,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Of course what they told me was true. Hm, how fluid that term becomes at times. It was true for them. Only because they were not skilled enough to do anything different. How can I rest easy with that now, telling myself it's all they knew how to do, when they should have known better but didn't. I'm not saying they lied. I'm saying there was a lack of information that led to an unnecessary surgery. That's not a trivial thing.




I feel a bit differently about the maternal risk.. I could not look myself in the mirror NOW if I knew I'd risk leaving my living children and husband without a mother and wife in order to have one more child. I'd hate it and probably lose my mind if anything were to happen to any of my kids but I am here for a reason and for me, wanting another baby is not a valid point to make a choice with greater risks if there is a less risky way. I explain my thoughts but understand I absolutely understand choosing the other path. I have nearly lost a child once already and I understand the fear of it. I have no judgement of a mom who takes the path less risky for her baby.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
Yup, and when American women stop suing for imperfect outcomes during vaginal birth, perhaps things will change. The current birth climate is not something that just happened for no reason at all.

The current birth climate prevails and rejection of evidence based practice continues because women sue doctors when there are imperfect outcomes? How does it make sense to purposefully choose a course of action more likely to create complications as a method of avoiding lawsuits?


is there no possibility that lack of evidence based care leads to more imperfect outcomes and hence the lawsuits


which came first the chicken or the egg?

And anyhow, why do women believe that their care providers can deliver a perfect outcome...

do they reach that belief independently?
by being informed? does being told, "no worries, it'll be fine" qualify as being informed now?
by attending childbirth class and being a good patient?
where does this belief come from then?


I need someone to connect the dots from lawsuits to policy based care that is not supported by research but continues anyhow.

Then connect a few more and convince me that if lawsuits ended we could all get evidence based care.
velcromom is offline  
#45 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 07:56 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,596
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
See, I just don't understand how what they told you WASN'T true though. If they truly didn't know HOW to get that baby out any other way safely except through emergency section, what are they supposed to tell you?
Okay - maybe it was true. So, what you're telling me is that it's acceptable to not know how to provide a service that a client (or patient) is there for? It's okay to tell someone that everything will be just fine, but not bother to tell them that you're going to cut them open over their protests, because you never learned how to handle a variation? What do OBs think we see them for? Some of us used to believe it was because they were "experts" in delivering babies. That's what they tell us. They don't tell us that means "I'm an expert in hitting the panic button and cutting women open if something unusual happens". They sure as heck don't tell us "there are practitioners who could assist in the delivery of this baby, but I'm not as well trained as they are".

If OBs want to put themselves up on pedestals by telling women that "everything will be okay" and "this is the safe way to do it" (not "safer", not "comparatively safe" - SAFE) and all the rest...well, I guess that having women pissed off when it turns out that you can't make those guarantees is just the way it works.

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  
#46 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 08:23 PM
 
MsElle07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
Yup, and when American women stop suing for imperfect outcomes during vaginal birth, perhaps things will change. The current birth climate is not something that just happened for no reason at all.
So which is, vaginal birth is inherently more risky? Or the problem lies with litigious women?
MsElle07 is offline  
#47 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 08:31 PM
 
ericswifey27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
subbing

Mama to my spirited J, and L, my homebirth: baby especially DTaP, MMR (family vax injuries)
ericswifey27 is offline  
#48 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 09:06 PM
 
Lkg4dmcrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
Yup, and when American women stop suing for imperfect outcomes during vaginal birth, perhaps things will change. The current birth climate is not something that just happened for no reason at all.
I disagree- the problem is not American women suing- the problem is doctors not policing their own very well. I will search for a specific article that explains this very well. But in essence, the idea that doctors are being sued for imperfect outcomes is actually more hype than reality. The idea that OBs are leaving the profession because of medical malpractice insurance premiums being too high is also a problem of perception not based in reality. It really goes back to bad doctors not being kicked out of the profession but continuing to practice, making mistakes, and making every OBs insurance premium high. The fact is most professions don't police their own very well, not just doctors so this is not just a knock on doctors. But when one doctor is allowed to make mistake after mistake but gets to continue to practice, his insurance premium will go up and up and up. The insurance company will be paying out plenty over time for his mistakes. His colleagues' premiums will also go up.

In this article it tells the story of an actual OB that people used as an example of having to leave his particular state because of medical malpractice rates being so high. He had a scathing record of unjustifiable mistakes. We would never question why his insurance premium was so high, we would instead question why he was allowed to practice medicine at all. Some doctors are just bad and deserve to be kicked out of the profession. But until the medical profession recognizes this, we will always have to resort to lawsuits. It is unfair to blame women for suing if their doctor really deserve to be sued! But then again it is easier to simply tow the party line and say American women are suing- those poor doctors deserve a break- no wonder they are doing what they are doing.

Off to find my article...
Lkg4dmcrc is offline  
#49 of 51 Old 09-03-2006, 09:23 PM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
See, I just don't understand how what they told you WASN'T true though. If they truly didn't know HOW to get that baby out any other way safely except through emergency section, what are they supposed to tell you?
Not to mention the fact that most doctors create the emergency situation necessitating the surgery in the first place.
As someone on these boards once quoted Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, the medical heretic, "Obstetricians and firemen are similar in that they both save lives; only firemen usually do not start the fire".
Quote:
The current birth climate is not something that just happened for no reason at all.
This statement blames the victims.
member234098 is offline  
#50 of 51 Old 09-04-2006, 01:40 AM
 
wannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,691
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilie
I agree with Storm Bride.

C-Section is not a preferable way to give birth. No matter what the stats say...imo.
I would disagree with that. Whatever is safer is preferable to me.

It may be more pleasant to give birth vaginally, but if c-section were actually to be safer than vaginal birth for mother and baby, then yes, it would be preferable. I'm thinking of a rare situation like a footling breech, or a totally deformed pelvis for example.

And yes, you do still need to take into account the future effects on the mother and child of the c-section. But occasionally they are preferable/safer.
wannabe is offline  
#51 of 51 Old 09-04-2006, 01:41 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 25,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Please remember that MDC is The Natural Family Living Community, which includes the advocacy of natural birth and a belief in the mother's inherent wisdom.

Please keep posts from pointed personal criticism or to discuss other threads, forums, or members

If you see a post that concerns you, please report it by clicking on the red triangular button in the lower lefthand corner of the post in question.

Please remember that we each have our own comfort level surrounding birth and our bodies, and I ask that everyone be respectful.

Thread reopened

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

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


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