C-section TRIPLES risk of maternal death - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 12:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
Hayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
New study in France. CNN reports.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/31...eut/index.html
Hayes is offline  
#2 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 12:49 PM
 
bobandjess99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Northern IN
Posts: 5,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
uummm...i think you made a typo, LOL!
It says it triples MATERNAL death risk. Not infant.

CPST
bobandjess99 is offline  
#3 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 01:28 PM
 
amygoforth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"many developed countries have seen a dramatic rise in the number of Caesareans performed each year as more women elect to avoid a vaginal delivery."

Ugh! I hate this type of language!!!



Yes, more women are choosing c-section, but only because they have been made to believe c's are so safe and routine! Not to mention that more/most OB's recommend them at the drop of a hat! The above sentence rests all the blame on the woman and nothing on the medical community that fails to educate and support birth as a natual process. Geez, I'm so mad!
amygoforth is offline  
#4 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 04:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
Hayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
yep, I did mess up and now I can't change the title! Triples risk of MATERNAL DEATH. Sorry!
Hayes is offline  
#5 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 05:14 PM
 
boscopup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Click on "Edit post", then click the "Go Advanced" button, and you'll have the option to edit the title.

And yes, it's scary that OBs are using C-sections to cover themselves when it increases the risk of maternal death so much. :

Mama to Tornado Boy (6/04), The Brute (11/06), and Mischief (05/09)... expecting in February '15
boscopup is online now  
#6 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 06:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
Hayes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for the editing help.

Unfortunately, I feel this study will fall away again as so much does. It has always been blatantly obvious that the vast majority of doctors do not practice EVIDENCE BASED care.
Hayes is offline  
#7 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 10:14 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayes
Thanks for the editing help.

Unfortunately, I feel this study will fall away again as so much does. It has always been blatantly obvious that the vast majority of doctors do not practice EVIDENCE BASED care.
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.
wifeandmom is offline  
#8 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 10:18 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hmmm, after re-reading exactly what it said regarding scheduled vs. emergency procedures, I'm not sure they are really saying the risk is the SAME between the two groups, only that BOTH groups have a higher risk than vaginal birthers. That much we already knew based on study after study already available.

Here's what the article says:

Quote:
The risk of death after childbirth was increased whether or not the Caesarean was performed before the onset of labor or during labor.
So I suppose one would have to look at the actual results to see what they found in terms of risk between each category.

Anybody know if these results are published somewhere with public access?
wifeandmom is offline  
#9 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 10:34 PM
 
doctorjen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
wifeandmom - I don't think anyone on this thread is talking about VBACs.

We know that the risk of maternal death for cesarean birth is higher than that for vaginal birth. The problem is, the cesarean rate continues to rise and many women are led to believe they are safer than vaginal births.
doctorjen is offline  
#10 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 10:40 PM
 
caned & able's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bridgeport, ME
Posts: 999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Depending on the criteria used for deciding which type of birth poses the greater risk and is therefore more dangerous, I had read in years gone from older textbooks that a cesarean is 26 times more dangerous than a vaginal delivery, assuming all risk factors are taken into account.

The problem with the CNN report in the OP is that if the old information is accurate it now appears that the cesarean has become less risky than it had been in the past and that is perhaps true. Surgical technique has improved over the decades with better anesthetics, antiseptics, post-surgical care and maternal health, so the surgical birth has improved its outcome.

My own personal opinion is that the surgery has improved in its outcome because so many healthy women have had the surgery unnecessarily as opposed to the past when only women with complicated labors/pregnancies/otherwise health compromised had a cesarean section.

Obstetricians have been told by their trade organization since 1983 that there is NEVER a reason NOT to do a cesarean section.
caned & able is offline  
#11 of 51 Old 09-01-2006, 11:55 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 26,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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'.
Could it be partly, at least, because vaginal birth is what is normal for our species?

And, thanks doctorjen for pointing out this thread is not about VBAC

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
#12 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 01:07 AM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
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'.
If I die of uterine rupture during a VBAC attempt, my cesareans are what killed me...specifically, the unnecessary "crash" section that labelled me "high risk" for the rest of my reproductive life. So, VBAC risk is part of c-section risk, imo. Any mom or baby who dies due to rupture or placental placement issues in a VBAC attempt is a c-section fatality. Of course, the doctors don't like to look at it that way.

As for this:
Quote:
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
You obviously haven't talked to the same doctors that I've talked to. 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.

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  
#13 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 01:19 AM
 
Emilie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: going thru divorce land
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree with Storm Bride.

C-Section is not a preferable way to give birth. No matter what the stats say...imo.
Emilie is offline  
#14 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 03:56 AM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride

You obviously haven't talked to the same doctors that I've talked to. 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.
That is appalling. Truly, it is.

I'm all for choice, no matter if I happen to agree with a particular choice or not is beside the point, however to know that the very providers we count on as women to inform us of the risks vs. benefits for ANY medical decision are not being upfront and truthful about ALL of the risks is truly unacceptable.

It is ridiculous to think that WE are the ones who have to do the research, be able to find, read, and comprehend the statistics, and know exactly which questions to ask and of whom to ask these questions in order to make the best medical choices for ourselves and our children. Isn't that what we pay professionals for?

I have had the same experience in other areas of health care where you get half truths at best and if I was not the type to investigate what I am told on my own, I would be none the wiser. It's very sad really. And it happens in all areas of medicine, not just childbirth.

It just baffles me that a competent physician would actually tell a woman that a c-section carries NO risks, as he/she is the one that is liable for saying such an incredibly ignorant thing to begin with.
wifeandmom is offline  
#15 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 04:00 AM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgia
Could it be partly, at least, because vaginal birth is what is normal for our species?

And, thanks doctorjen for pointing out this thread is not about VBAC
So because vaginal birth is 'normal', we should ignore the risks associated with it? That makes no sense to me.

It's not about VBAC. Take any other complication that is 'rare' during vaginal birth, and you'll hear just that 'It is RARE that your baby will die from x,y,z complication during delivery, so you should not spend time obsessing over that happening.' Insert any complication in there you wish from shoulder distocia to placental abruption to fetal distress...ANY of the very RARE complications that can lead to baby dying during vaginal birth.

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.

Just seems strange to me. That's all.
wifeandmom is offline  
#16 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 04:05 AM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilie

C-Section is not a preferable way to give birth. No matter what the stats say...imo.
Ever? : C-section is 'not a preferable way to give birth, no matter what the stats say'...in ALL cases? Really?

Surely you mean in MOST cases it is not preferable. I am actually going to just ASSUME this is what you mean, as I would find it amazingly ignorant to come in contact with anyone reasonably educated on childbirth who truly felt like c-section was NEVER the preferable way to give birth.

Sometimes, it's the only way the baby is going to come out alive. Sometimes, it's the MOST LIKELY way the baby is going to come out alive based upon available research and statistics to date.

And you can bet your bottom dollar I'm going the safest route statistically proven through research to birth my babies, regardless of whether or not it's the 'normal' way or not.
wifeandmom is offline  
#17 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 04:13 AM
 
BookGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Gryffindor Tower at Hogwarts
Posts: 6,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilie

C-Section is not a preferable way to give birth. No matter what the stats say...imo.
I wouldn't make such a broad generalization. Of course it's not a preferable way to give birth for most women but sometimes it is the best choice for a woman under the circumstances. I know a mother who had a c-section because she had a spinal injury and giving birth vaginally wasn't an option for her.

Normal is just a setting on your dryer.
BookGoddess is offline  
#18 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 04:14 AM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride
If I die or uterine rupture during a VBAC attempt, my cesareans are what killed me...specifically, the unnecessary "crash" section that labelled me "high risk" for the rest of my reproductive life. So, VBAC risk is part of c-section risk, imo. Any mom or baby who dies due to rupture or placental placement issues in a VBAC attempt is a c-section fatality. Of course, the doctors don't like to look at it that way.
.
If you were to rupture PRIOR to labor, I would agree that your previous c-sections were most likely the ultimate cause.

However, the problem with attributing a maternal VBAC rupture death to a prior c-section is that there simply is no way to prove that you would have died had you NOT attempted a VBAC and instead gone with a scheduled section instead. I believe the maternal death rates between ERCS and VBAC are virtually identical for mom.

Almost all OTHER complications are greater for mom with attempted VBAC, a chart of stats that I believe I posted last week from the NEJM study from 2 years ago.
wifeandmom is offline  
#19 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 04:22 AM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Depending on the criteria used for deciding which type of birth poses the greater risk and is therefore more dangerous, I had read in years gone from older textbooks that a cesarean is 26 times more dangerous than a vaginal delivery, assuming all risk factors are taken into account.

The problem with the CNN report in the OP is that if the old information is accurate it now appears that the cesarean has become less risky than it had been in the past and that is perhaps true. Surgical technique has improved over the decades with better anesthetics, antiseptics, post-surgical care and maternal health, so the surgical birth has improved its outcome.

My own personal opinion is that the surgery has improved in its outcome because so many healthy women have had the surgery unnecessarily as opposed to the past when only women with complicated labors/pregnancies/otherwise health compromised had a cesarean section.

You are most likely correct with the hypothesis that healthier women having surgery are obviously going to have better outcomes vs. the 'old days' when mom and/or baby were basically dead or headed that way fast before they'd even consider doing a section. Obviously when you wait that long to intervene, the ultimate outcome isn't going to be as positive as if you'd intervened much earlier (although it seems intervening is getting ridiculously early and often for no apparent reason sometimes).

I would also think that the numbers have evened out a lot between the two delivery methods because of the way 'normal' vaginal birth is handled routinely in hospitals today. Many of the very things done today to make things 'safer' have actually increased the risks of complications during vaginal birth, making the intervention laden typical hospital vaginal birth not that much safer overall than a routine scheduled section.

Quote:
Obstetricians have been told by their trade organization since 1983 that there is NEVER a reason NOT to do a cesarean section.
I know for a fact that this is not true. If a woman's platelet count is too low, a c-section cannot be performed because the woman will bleed to death on the table. It is contraindicated, and it can become quite a nightmare if baby is still alive inside mom, but in great distress, because cutting mom open is simply not an option.

In general though, the fact is, docs aren't getting sued for performing sections. They are getting sued, and losing cases that should have never made it past an attorney's desk in lots of instances, for NOT doing a section 'soon enough' to prevent any harm whatsoever to baby.

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.
wifeandmom is offline  
#20 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 04:27 AM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BookGoddess
I know a mother who had a c-section because she had a spinal injury and giving birth vaginally wasn't an option for her.
Apparently she should have tried harder or something. :

Or maybe she shouldn't be getting pg to begin with if she can't give birth the 'normal' way.

It really, really irritates me to see such sweeping statements that are just ignorant.
wifeandmom is offline  
#21 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 04:33 AM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorjen
wifeandmom - I don't think anyone on this thread is talking about VBACs.

We know that the risk of maternal death for cesarean birth is higher than that for vaginal birth. The problem is, the cesarean rate continues to rise and many women are led to believe they are safer than vaginal births.
Do you see a lot of women being led to believe that c-section is safer for MOM? It has always been impressed upon me that c-sections are most assuredly more dangerous for MOM, it's risk to BABY that is a lot more gray when comparing the two, especially in certain situations.

I've just truly never seen anything online or heard of any woman IRL that honestly thought a c-section was safer for MOM. Ever. Safer for baby? Sure, I can see where people would come to that conclusion, cause there ARE times when it's safer to do a section than to attempt vaginal delivery.

But I'm baffled at the safer for mom thing and how anyone could read anything currently available and come to that conclusion.

As for the thread not being about VBAC, it was a comparison of risk, how virtually the same risk level (and heck, baby dying from VBAC is MORE likely than mom dying from section if you want to get technical) is 'rare' for one case and 'oh my God let's all freak out now' for another case...depending of course on which delivery method we are talking about.
wifeandmom is offline  
#22 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 10:30 AM
 
MsElle07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
Do you see a lot of women being led to believe that c-section is safer for MOM? It has always been impressed upon me that c-sections are most assuredly more dangerous for MOM, it's risk to BABY that is a lot more gray when comparing the two, especially in certain situations.
Yes, I've actually seen birth shows where obstetricians say that the birth is safer/better for mom because sections don't lead to pelvic floor damage and prolapses in the way vaginal births do.

I would say at least half my friends who've had kids have had sections, some emergency, some scheduled, and none were led to believe (by their doctor) that the C-section was riskier for them.
MsElle07 is offline  
#23 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 10:37 AM
 
MsElle07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom

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.
Many complications can be prevented by not birthing according to the medical model's standard of care. Shoulder dystocia is far MORE rare (and easier to fix) in women who are not medicated and have the ability to utilize the McRoberts position or to try the Gaskin Maneuver... both are very hard to accomplish with an epidural and continuous EFM, as is the norm in hospital settings.

Other rare complications, like cord prolapse, are far MORE rare in an unhindered birth where a care provider does not artifically rupture membranes, and the baby's head is allowed to engage deeply in the pelvis.

VBACs are made more risky by the medical model's desire to make sure babies don't get too big, and induction leads to greater risks of uterine rupture.

If you're after good research, I highly recommend "Obstetrical Myths vs. Research Realities" and "The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth" by Henci Goer.
MsElle07 is offline  
#24 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 12:14 PM
 
doctorjen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, I have seen women be told outright that cesarean was safer for them. In fact, I have rarely seen an accurate description of risks explained to a woman, ever. Especially the progressive risks of more than one cesarean birth.

Also, I agree with StormBride. Uterine rupture during a VBAC attempt is almost always due to the presence of a uterine scar. Seems odd to say the reason for rupture is failure to have a repeat cesarean. The uterus is designed to contract and push out the baby, when it ruptures performing it's normal function it is due to the scar. Women without previous uterine surgery rarely have a uterine rupture. If you have no scar and labor normally, uterine rupture is very, very rare. The rate of uterine rupture without labor in a woman with a previous uterine scar is not zero, either. The only fatal uterine rupture I've seen in my relatively short career happened at 24 weeks without labor for no explainable reason. The best way to reduce mortality and morbidity from VBAC is to make darn sure the primary cesarean is actually warranted.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not anti-cesarean, I just believe that women cannot make decisions without an accurate understanding of their situation.
doctorjen is offline  
#25 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 12:49 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorjen
Yes, I have seen women be told outright that cesarean was safer for them. In fact, I have rarely seen an accurate description of risks explained to a woman, ever. Especially the progressive risks of more than one cesarean birth.
That is sad really. *Especially* not explaining how each subsequent pg carries certain risks that simply are not the case should mom deliver vaginally. As I've said many times before, I'm all for choice, but it's difficult to make good choices with incorrect information, regardless of which side the information is slanted towards.

Quote:
The best way to reduce mortality and morbidity from VBAC is to make darn sure the primary cesarean is actually warranted.
This is SO true. I cannot tell you how many times DH comes home to tell me about yet another 'shift change' c-section. In teaching hospitals, or at least in the ones DH works in, if a resident is there for ALL of mom's labor, but gets off before she actually delivers, the resident doesn't get to 'count' that as a delivery towards their overall numbers needed for residency completion.

So, what do they do? Of course most don't want to hang out their entire shift doing all the work with a woman, only to have someone else come in at shift change and get to take credit for the delivery. All of a sudden, a c-section is 'necessary'. How ridiculous is that?

He always wanted to sit down with actual data and figure the rates of section within 2 hours of shift change, but he didn't figure the OB dept would be very interested in listening, esp considering that's not his area to begin with.

Quote:
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not anti-cesarean, I just believe that women cannot make decisions without an accurate understanding of their situation.
I completely agree. When I had my first c-section, it was only after MANY and REPEATED discussions with FOUR separate perinatologists. It was a bit ridiculous to be honest, but I can assure you I could list every single risk associated with delivering twins vaginally vs. by scheduled section, I could tell you what my Bishop score was, what that meant for any attempt at induction, I could tell you from a statistical standpoint what the possible complications were of having my babies either way. I knew what research was out there at the time. It was truly an exhaustive process convincing them that I truly DID understand the risks.

I don't think women should be subjected to what I went through to make their own choices, but I certainly cannot say that I didn't have ALL of the facts, something that every woman should be able to say.
wifeandmom is offline  
#26 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 03:31 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
If you were to rupture PRIOR to labor, I would agree that your previous c-sections were most likely the ultimate cause.

However, the problem with attributing a maternal VBAC rupture death to a prior c-section is that there simply is no way to prove that you would have died had you NOT attempted a VBAC and instead gone with a scheduled section instead. I believe the maternal death rates between ERCS and VBAC are virtually identical for mom.

Almost all OTHER complications are greater for mom with attempted VBAC, a chart of stats that I believe I posted last week from the NEJM study from 2 years ago.
My point is that if my risk of death is elevated, however slightly, by my previous cesareans, and if that risk catches up with me when I have subsequent babies...it was the primary section that killed me. Doctors want it both ways. They want to tout the safety of c-sections, and want to claim that their goal is a "healthy mom", while simultaneously not allowing VBACs because of the danger. If my uterus is the ticking time bomb that they want to treat it as, then I'm not a healthy mom. They neatly sidestep that one by getting to define "healthy" and disregarding anything that doesn't fit their "c-section are wonderful" mindset.

There wouldn't be an issue about having a VBAC if my doctors hadn't forced me into a primary section. People can call me irresponsible if I ever VBA3C, or they can say I killed myself and/or my baby if I do rupture - but the bottom line is - my doctors put that scar on my uterus without my consent. I'm the one who let them bully me the last two times - yes. But, they put that first scar on my uterus over my protests, and if it ever does end the life of me and/or my baby, it was the doctors who killed me and/or my baby.

I'm not talking about whether a VBAC attempt or a RCS (I'm not going to address the ridiculousness of calling it "elective" when women are left with no options) is safer for me and my baby. I'm talking about the fact that the damage done to my uterus was done in the first place. That is, imo, the single biggest issue in the entire "VBAC vs. RCS" debate - the real issue isn't which choice the mom makes - it's the fact that she's in that position in the first place. Women and doctors can debate the increased risks that come with a primary section until we collapse from exhaustion. We can debate what what those risks are and how serious they are, and what decisions should be made with a subsequent baby. The bottom line is that none of these issues would arise if damage wasn't casually being done to women's uteruses every day in the first place.

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  
#27 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 03:43 PM
 
Canadianmommax3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BookGoddess
I wouldn't make such a broad generalization. Of course it's not a preferable way to give birth for most women but sometimes it is the best choice for a woman under the circumstances. I know a mother who had a c-section because she had a spinal injury and giving birth vaginally wasn't an option for her.
i agree.
I had a c-section because i had placenta previa so it was preferable for me to give birth that way.
Canadianmommax3 is offline  
#28 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 03:45 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
Do you see a lot of women being led to believe that c-section is safer for MOM? It has always been impressed upon me that c-sections are most assuredly more dangerous for MOM, it's risk to BABY that is a lot more gray when comparing the two, especially in certain situations.
I didn't choose an elective primary section. My second and third were "elective" (if your OB saying "show up for surgery tomorrow or I'm dropping you as a client" when you're 41w,4d and have been having prodomal labour for over a week is elective), because of my "high risk" status. The only risk factor I've ever had was prevous sections (and maybe age). I've never had any problem with fetal development, placental placement, blood sugar, blood pressure, etc., etc. - NOTHING. My only risk factor is that I've been cut open. I was told, more than once, and in so many words, that I should have the section, because my doctors wanted to see a "healthy mom" (not possible with a section in my case, but apparently deliberately sending a depressed woman home with newborn is okay). I realize that my situation isn't quite what you're talking about, as I wasn't talked into a primary, but the safety of c-section has been rammed down my throat repeatedly.

Quote:
I've just truly never seen anything online or heard of any woman IRL that honestly thought a c-section was safer for MOM. Ever. Safer for baby? Sure, I can see where people would come to that conclusion, cause there ARE times when it's safer to do a section than to attempt vaginal delivery.
I don't think c-sections are safer for me. But, my doctors apparently do, so it doesn't matter how I feel about it. And, I have been told, irl, that c-sections are safer (only by women who haven't had one, though...not sure what that's about). This belief is out there, and if my experiences are anything to go by, it's being deliberately fostered by the medical community.

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  
#29 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 05:05 PM
 
Emilie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: going thru divorce land
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If it is safer for babies to be born by c/s why dont we all just have c/s?

That just does not make sense to me no matter the stats.

I feel that the medical model of birth is what hinders the health of mothers and children during labor and delivery.
Emilie is offline  
#30 of 51 Old 09-02-2006, 05:09 PM
 
laohaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,369
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?
LOL, the way the numbers are going (C/S rate around 40%), that may just about happen.

Homeschooling mama to 6 year old DD.

laohaire is offline  
Reply

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