Why Are People Against Elective C-Sections?? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 03:43 PM
 
Romana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anne1006 View Post
I think that if someone wants and elective procedure, then they should pay for it. If there isn't a medical need for it, then it should be out of pocket and not driving up insurance premiums. My premiums won't pay for my homebirth, and I don't want to pay for someone who is too posh to push. If our medical standards and practices went along more with current research, there would be far fewer interventions and elective procedures, and our insurance would be better off. Though the hospital pocket books probably wouldn't be.....
No, no, no, no, no! The answer is not to reduce the available choices! The answer is not to make non-medically necessary elective c/s something that is only available for the rich! I absolutely abhor this kind of approach.

What, some jerk male OB a low-income woman on WIC/medicare gets is going to give her a fair shot at getting her "non-medically-necessary elective c/s" covered because she previously had an extremely traumatic vaginal experienece (rape, birth trauma, whatever)? Probably the same crappy OB who caused the trauma in the first place??

The answer is not to reduce choice by financial prohibitions. That can only hurt those unable to afford the procedure and does nothing about the type of non-medically necessary elective c/s that gets media coverage.
Romana is offline  
#62 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 03:44 PM
 
Romana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPie View Post
Oh for crying in the night. We all know "elective" doesn't mean only "because I don't feel like having a vag. birth." "Elective" also covers every situation in which the mother has any time and warning at all beforehand and makes a DECISION (with her practitioner) that c-birth will be best for her and the baby. The medical profession themselves are the ones who have classified that as "elective," meaning "the opposite of emergency." So ANY non-emergency c-section is "elective" by this definition, and to slam all mothers who have to make that choice as semi-intelligent, not possibly REALLY informed, and undeserving of medical coverage, is just kneejerk and unthinking.
I thought this was clarified earlier in the posts. I for one have specifically been calling the kind of c/s under discussion "non-medically indicated elective c/s" in order to keep that point obvious.
Romana is offline  
#63 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 03:45 PM
 
holly6737's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I am pro informed birth choices, including elective c sections.
Me too. If a woman is fully aware of the risks and the benefits, and is not swayed by her practitioner one way or the other, I would support that woman's right over her own body and her right to choose an elective c-section.

Her body, Her birth. It cuts both ways.

CNM mama.

holly6737 is offline  
#64 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 03:48 PM
 
Incubator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Palm Beach, Florida and Texas
Posts: 898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekimballs View Post
It's ridiculous to say that no semi-intelligent person can choose an elective section (because of the published risks) unless you're also going to say that no semi-intelligent person could ever have a vaginal breech (where the published risks show that it is riskier than a c-section) or a UP/UC (where the published risks show that no prenatal care is associated with a worse outcome).
Okay okay, wait a minute, here I have problems... Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that a vaginal breech may be riskier for the BABY, but is, in fact, safer for the mother and safer for future babies than a cesarean... And that's not counting how safe the vaginal breech birth might be if the person CATCHING the baby actually has plenty of experience catching them. Were I giving breech birth in a hospital I'd be terrified of the expertise of the CP too, but I'd be insane to deliver a breech vaginally with just ANY care provider... I may as well ask my midwife to do the C-sec, it would probably be just as safe as asking an OB to catch a breech baby.

ETA: I didn't even mention the last part about prenatal care, where the statistics may be skewed by homeless, low income, or drug-addicted mothers who do not seek prenatal care as opposed to generally healthy informed mothers who decline prenatal care...
Incubator is offline  
#65 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 03:55 PM
 
barefootpoetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire_chan View Post
Every one done makes doing c-sections for any stupid reason that much more acceptable. And makes people who want natural births have to fight that much more to not get interventions--after all, what's the big deal with an induction? it'll still be a "natural" birth! :

Not all birth choices are treated equally. Every woman doesn't have a chance to choose the birth she wants. Homebirth, VBAC, etc.
YES and YES. It really chaps my @ss that I have to search high and low for a HB MW who will do a HBAC and pay her out of my own pocket, but if I wanted a RECS, the docs at the local hossy would be more than happy to do it for me.

The more "unnatural" births there are, the more unheard-of a true natural birth is, and the more difficult it will be to obtain in a hospital setting. That leads to first-time moms like me (er, like I WAS) getting railroaded into yet more C-sections because the staff either doesn't know or won't allow them to labor naturally.

I'm all for freedom of choice, but not when it affects MY choice too.
barefootpoetry is offline  
#66 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 03:57 PM
 
MaterPrimaePuellae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaLaLaLa View Post
I had an elective c-section for my second child. I was VERY much informed of the risks and possible complications, and pressured by my Ob/Gyn NOT to have one. After explaining myself and signing a bunch of waivers, I was in business.

In my particular case, things worked out better for everyone involved. My first birth was traumatic. My dd tore through my body to the extent that moments after she was born she was handed to my dh and I was rushed off to have emergency repair surgery under general anesthesia. I didn't hold her. I didn't breastfeed her. Dh gave her a bottle. I don't remember anything from the first day or so, and I was on a great deal of medication (morphine, I think). Our nursing relationship (either as a result of this or a totally separate issue) was never really strong. I couldn't stand without assistance for two weeks. My body wasn't right for months afterward.

Before I became pregnant again, I made certain that my doctors would perform a c-section. If they had said no, I probably would not have had my ds.

Ds's birth: I knew exactly when it would occur, which eliminated any stress of childcare for dd. My parents live a couple of hours away and there was nobody else I felt confident watching dd if I were to go into labor in the middle of the night or something. A childhood friend of mine is a labor and delivery nurse at the hospital, and she specifically planned to be there to work with me. After ds was born, he was brought to me to touch and examine before visiting with dh for a few minutes as I had my tubes tied (since my abdomen was already going to be open and all, it made more sense to us than scheduling a separate surgery) and was sewn up. Ten minutes after ds was born, we were cuddled in bed together, breastfeeding. The next day I was up and showering, a feat it took me two weeks to accomplish after my first birth.

In terms of recovery time, things were better for me. In terms of stress, things were better for all involved. After having dd, dh and my mom really thought I might die, as the blood loss and the doctors' reactions were so dramatic. In terms of medical costs, I would imagine things were similar, as my first birth ended in emergency surgery, as opposed to planned surgery the second time around, plus I avoided an additional surgery by having a tubal ligation at the same time as the c-section.

An elective c-section is by no means right for everyone, and I made the decision the first time around that it was not right for me. But for my second pregnancy.... I wouldn't have had it any other way.

Wow-- I am so sorry for your first birth experience!! What a nightmare. I don't think I would even categorize your c-section as "elective." I don't know exactly what happened with your first birth, but it seems to me like the c-section was medically indicated.

Bethany

Aspiring to 1 Thessalonians 4:11.Wife to Dh, 2004. Mother to DD 3/07.
So thankful for our healthy baby boy, born Easter morning, 2010!
MaterPrimaePuellae is offline  
#67 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 04:02 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPie View Post
So ANY non-emergency c-section is "elective" by this definition, and to slam all mothers who have to make that choice as semi-intelligent, not possibly REALLY informed, and undeserving of medical coverage, is just kneejerk and unthinking.
I don't see anyone here doing that. I see lots and lots of disclaimers to that effect.

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#68 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 04:09 PM
 
hanno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekimballs View Post

It's ridiculous to say that no semi-intelligent person can choose an elective section (because of the published risks) unless you're also going to say that no semi-intelligent person could ever have a vaginal breech (where the published risks show that it is riskier than a c-section) or a UP/UC (where the published risks show that no prenatal care is associated with a worse outcome).

just want to point out that UP does not mean NO prenatal care
hanno is offline  
#69 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 04:33 PM
 
thekimballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 5,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incubator View Post
Okay okay, wait a minute, here I have problems... Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that a vaginal breech may be riskier for the BABY, but is, in fact, safer for the mother and safer for future babies than a cesarean...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanno View Post
just want to point out that UP does not mean NO prenatal care
This is exactly what I am talking about. When you apply aggregated statistical risk to a vaginal breech or to a UP, you totally disregard the fact that there are individual factors involved--that caregivers are very different, that some women may want to assume (or reject) individual risk in favor of baby's risk, that UPs are radically different depending on the woman in question, and a hundred other issues.

We MUST do the same thing for "elective" sections. Making a flat statement like no semi-intelligent woman would ever choose a section or that a woman who chooses a section is ipso facto "not informed" because of exactly those same types of aggregated risk statistics dismisses ALL those individual factors, and also dismisses the preferences and emotional involvement of the mother.
thekimballs is offline  
#70 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 05:41 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekimballs View Post

We MUST do the same thing for "elective" sections. Making a flat statement like no semi-intelligent woman would ever choose a section or that a woman who chooses a section is ipso facto "not informed" because of exactly those same types of aggregated risk statistics dismisses ALL those individual factors, and also dismisses the preferences and emotional involvement of the mother.
Yup! Lots of factors play in. I have a section coming up in March, non emergency & elective. I consider myself VERY educated.

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#71 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 05:56 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
Yup! Lots of factors play in. I have a section coming up in March, non emergency & elective. I consider myself VERY educated.
As has been added by disclaimer, posters here are not talking about medically indicated sections, which yours most certainly is Marie

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#72 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 05:58 PM
 
CNutty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the mean streets of Brooklyn
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am not personally agienst fully informed woman having elective c-sections, but 2 questions come to mind...

1. If this woman was trying to avoid labor at all, they potentually could take place WAY to early for the baby, and cause health problems. I guess this could be solved if the woman was willing to go into labor first, and then have the section, but I doubt that is the way it happens.

2. If all woman have this option, then couldnt it become a slippery slope leading to all sorts of people being able to demand whatever kind of elective surgury they wanted? Like say a Doc thought that some other treatment besides surgury was the best option for someone who say had a gullblatter problem, could that person just demand removal and trump the Docs opinion?
CNutty is offline  
#73 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 06:01 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNutty View Post

2. If all woman have this option, then couldnt it become a slippery slope leading to all sorts of people being able to demand whatever kind of elective surgury they wanted? Like say a Doc thought that some other treatment besides surgury was the best option for someone who say had a gullblatter problem, could that person just demand removal and trump the Docs opinion?
I do actually think all sorts of surgery should be readily available. The patients preference should always win in the end, right or wrong....and they should be willing to take FULL responsability for it. Medical, legal, emotional, etc.

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#74 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 06:04 PM
 
CNutty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the mean streets of Brooklyn
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
I do actually think all sorts of surgery should be readily available. The patients preference should always win in the end, right or wrong....and they should be willing to take FULL responsability for it. Medical, legal, emotional, etc.
I agree with you, but I dont see this happening, I see legal fees and law suits going through the roof...as if they already arent
CNutty is offline  
#75 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 06:13 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNutty View Post
I agree with you, but I dont see this happening, I see legal fees and law suits going through the roof...as if they already arent
Yes, and it is a huge irritance to me. Very unfortunate. I won't LISTEN to the MD, but I will BLAME them for everything...come on! :

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#76 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 06:31 PM
 
ktbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Multi-quote reply coming up here; what a good thread! First, OT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire_chan View Post
OB who trained in Brazil (90% c-section rate) who's now a malpractice lawyer in the U.S.?
Holy ... what now? 90%? What the hell is going on in Brazil?
I need to find me some sociological studies about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1006baby View Post
How can the people (doctors and hospitals) who are financially incented to encourage c-sections be responsible for ensuring informed consent for an elective c-section?
Such an important point. The money really is the bottom line in a great many cases of dodgy informed consent. But, that isn't going to change until the dominant model of prenatal care changes. And the dominant model of the doctor-patient relationship, and the medicalization of our society, and the blind trust many health care consumers put into their doctors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anne1006 View Post
My premiums won't pay for my homebirth, and I don't want to pay for someone who is too posh to push. If our medical standards and practices went along more with current research, there would be far fewer interventions and elective procedures, and our insurance would be better off. Though the hospital pocket books probably wouldn't be.....
The first sentence ... should be your dddddc. And I agree with you, I don't want to pay for that either, but that's sadly how the health insurance system (scam?) works.
The second point of your post - if insurance companies based their coverage decisions on hard research and fact ... ... I'm trying to count in my head how many major corporations would have to declare bankruptcy ...
I wish it worked that way, too, but I don't know why the belief so stubbornly persists that insurance companies are in the business of keeping us healthy. They are not. They are in the business of making money, which often correlates to keeping us - wait for it - sick! If they were concerned with our health and well-being, they wouldn't make nearly as much money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thekimballs View Post
This assumption that no woman who is truly informed can possibly choose X is very, very dangerous. How would you like it if an MD used that type of logic against you? Or if the courts assumed that type of logic when granting court orders for medical treatment? It's the polar opposite of individual empowerment; it's enslavement to statistical risk.
Nicely put, Joanna. I'd like to add that having all the information doesn't really equate to making the best decision based on the available information. And the feeling of empowerment is quite subjective, as you point out. Some women feel very empowered by wearing pants, or driving a car. Some men feel empowered by hurting women. Some people feel empowered by spending money, or by NOT spending money. Here at MDC we tend to focus on the "empowering" aspects of vaginal birth, but not all women who give birth vaginally feel empowered by it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romana9+2 View Post
The answer is not to reduce the available choices! The answer is not to make non-medically necessary elective c/s something that is only available for the rich! I absolutely abhor this kind of approach.

The answer is not to reduce choice by financial prohibitions. That can only hurt those unable to afford the procedure and does nothing about the type of non-medically necessary elective c/s that gets media coverage.
I agree with this 100%. Either cover it all, or don't cover any of it. Picking and choosing only gives advantage to some at the expense of others; usually to the wealthy at the expense of the not wealthy.

And, finally ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by holly6737 View Post
Me too. If a woman is fully aware of the risks and the benefits, and is not swayed by her practitioner one way or the other, I would support that woman's right over her own body and her right to choose an elective c-section.

Her body, Her birth. It cuts both ways.
Yup, yup. Though the salient point is obviously "...is not swayed by her practitioner ...", and you should remember that a lot of times, the swaying is subtle, and not admitted to or acknowledged by the woman.

Haha, "cuts".

Holly, I always find myself agreeing with you in posts outside the vaccinations forum.
ktbug is offline  
#77 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 08:03 PM
 
Ironica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
She is informed. We have had the discussion. She can talk circles around me with her medical knowledge and stats about various risks, she is not just some ignorant woman under the spell of her OB because she chooses differently than I would. That is my point here.
She's a medical malpractice lawyer... of COURSE she can talk circles around anyone who isn't with medical knowledge and stats about various risks. That's her job. If she sucked at it, she'd be something else. ;-)

Her job is also one that exposes her repeatedly to all the things that go WRONG. Yes, she can tell you about this risk and that risk and it all adds up to make vaginal birth seem VERY dangerous. But when you take it piece by piece, the various risks are infinitesimal compared to risks we assume every day. And how much does she talk about the risks of surgical birth? One thing she may not have mentioned is that, when someone dies on the operating table or in recovery (which happens more often with c-sections than vaginal births), there's much less likely to be a lawsuit... because the risks of surgery are much better understood and acknowledged. When someone dies after surgery, the doctors can explain it in a way that removes their culpability (often because it truly is a normal risk of surgery... which there are MORE of than normal risks of vaginal birth). So, from her professional perspective, c-section is "safer", because it's less likely to cause a lawsuit. Also, since it's less likely to cause a lawsuit, the arguments about how much more DANGEROUS vaginal delivery is are very well-established. There's tons of case law, statements, and decisions she can read and learn that lesson from. There's a lot less available to argue the other side, since a lawsuit is less likely to happen after a surgical birth.

There may be certain things about HER situation that truly make c-section safer for her, I suppose. But she doesn't have a perspective that allows her to weigh the information in an unbiased manner. My FIL is a personal injury attorney, and I see how that colors his perspective of everyday life. He sees all kinds of ways people could trip or slip or fall as so HUGELY dangerous, while ignoring other very real risks, such as routine kitchen hazards. He's not *wrong* that a cord strung across a pathway could cause someone to trip and fall and hurt themselves, but his perspective of the *relative* danger is skewed by his years of practice arguing that THIS type of hazard is far bigger.
Ironica is offline  
#78 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 08:19 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
Yup! Lots of factors play in. I have a section coming up in March, non emergency & elective. I consider myself VERY educated.
I don't consider your planned c-section to be elective. Having a c-section because you've been told by a doctor and a midwife that there will be strong possibility of you dying as a result of vaginal childbirth is not arbitrarily deciding to have a c-section with no thought.
sapphire_chan is offline  
#79 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 08:22 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktbug View Post
Holy ... what now? 90%? What the hell is going on in Brazil?
I need to find me some sociological studies about this.
Sorry, it's actually just some private clinics in Brazil that have that rate. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...993857,00.html However an OB who trained at one of those clinics would still have a seriously distorted view of birth.
sapphire_chan is offline  
#80 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 08:24 PM
 
groovynaturemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
statistically speaking we (the US) could potentially see c-section rates soar to 50% of all births in our lifetime if we continue at the rate we're going. i believe it is 30 something % at this time. despite our ever climbing c/s rate, we still have the 2nd highest infant mortality rate in the developed world... if nearly 1/3 of our babies are delivered in this manner, then why the high mortality rate? why is our infant death rate higher in this country than in a country where 70% of all births are midwife attended, and the c/s rates are waaaaay lower?

with that known, and being informed about the risks of elective c/s as well as the potential for them to drive up healthcare costs, it almost seems (IMO) irresponsible to have one unless it is medically indicated or an emergency. a c/s really should only be offered if there is a true medical need. this too posh to push stuff is just over my head
groovynaturemama is offline  
#81 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 08:32 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire_chan View Post
I don't consider your planned c-section to be elective. Having a c-section because you've been told by a doctor and a midwife that there will be strong possibility of you dying as a result of vaginal childbirth is not arbitrarily deciding to have a c-section with no thought.
I don't consider it elective either, but that's all the terminology I have to work with, unfortunately. We recently discussed this in another thread. It's basically a medically indicated non emergency section. But I don't *want* it by any means. (But am ok with it. )

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#82 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 09:44 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Holy ... what now? 90%? What the hell is going on in Brazil?
I need to find me some sociological studies about this.
The Brazilian doctors have told the Brazilian women for decades that a natural vaginal birth will ruin their lovemaking abilities for the rest of their life, so Brazilian women are "demanding" caesareans whenever possible.

There are doctors who say this in the US and people who think this way in this country, so do not laugh. Ignorance is not bliss.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#83 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 09:52 PM
 
Robinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekimballs View Post
risks) unless you're also going to say that no semi-intelligent person could ever have a vaginal breech (where the published risks show that it is riskier than a c-section)
sorry, OT, but this is my pet subject so couldn't let this pass without correction. Published research does NOT show it's riskier than c/s. The most current large-scale research is the 2 year follow up to the Term Breech Trial, which negated it's own original findings. Criticism of the TBT before the 2 year follow up already pointed out that once you adjusted for the analysis errors in the TBT the 2 groups were equal in outcomes for the babies, and significantly better for the mamas in the vaginal group. And then the TBT's own 2 year follow up showed that at 2 years old, the vaginal group babies were actually in slightly (statistically insignificant difference) better health than the c/s babies.
Robinna is offline  
#84 of 201 Old 01-10-2008, 09:58 PM
 
ktbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
The Brazilian doctors have told the Brazilian women for decades that a natural vaginal birth will ruin their lovemaking abilities for the rest of their life, so Brazilian women are "demanding" caesareans whenever possible.

There are doctors who say this in the US and people who think this way in this country, so do not laugh. Ignorance is not bliss.
Oh, I was NOT laughing. Trust me.

I know women IRL who really think that, and when I try to talk to them about ... well, about birth ... they tell me they don't want to get into it with me. And to be honest, I've never been the proselytizing sort. I'm no good at converting people, which is a lot of the reason why I firmly believe that birth choices are personal and valid across the board, no matter how much research (or lack thereof) went into it. What others choose is not the best choice for me, but it's none of my business if they want to do all the research and still make what I would consider for myself to be a 'bad' decision.

And I definitely make the distinction between medically indicated, medically necessary, and arbitrary patient choice. rzmbm, it's well established that when we're talking about "too posh to push", we're not talking about you.

Be that as it may ... I know many women in real life with whom it is just not up for discussion ... same way it would just not be up for discussion if they tried to tell me to circ, or vax, or ff by choice. They came to their decisions on their own, some after doing lots and lots of research and reading, and they certainly aren't going to change their minds by talking to me.

I'm afraid the mindset/fear you alluded to above, applejuice, is behind a lot of the "too posh to push" decisionmaking process. Between the fear of becoming "loose" and the fear of the pain of childbirth (even with an epi!), yeah, no statistic I can quote about baby safety or mama recovery time or breastfeeding relationship jeopardy is going to hold sway over the spectre of a vagina that is no longer sexually desirable.
ktbug is offline  
#85 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 12:02 AM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
I don't consider it elective either, but that's all the terminology I have to work with, unfortunately. We recently discussed this in another thread. It's basically a medically indicated non emergency section. But I don't *want* it by any means. (But am ok with it. )
Sorry to continue this off topic side discussion, but I'm wondering, your insurance will cover this right? They aren't trying to claim that just because it's "elective" it's optional?
sapphire_chan is offline  
#86 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 12:23 AM
 
Mindi22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,041
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsBlack View Post
I am pro choice, and I very much DO think this is a feminist issue. That said--I have to also say that a very large part of this feminist issue is that women now have been raised in such a highly medicalized environment that many who presumably 'choose' such things as elective csec are NOT making an informed choice--they have no idea of, or belief in, the normalcy and perfection of their own bodies and birthing capacities--and how every bit of the way that birth is designed, is FOR THEIR OWN AND CHILDREN'S HIGHEST WELLBEING. THAT to me is a feminist issue worth fighting for.

Our range of choices have been under a state of seige for quite some time, and simply 'knowing all the risks of csec' is STILL not making an informed choice. The ripoff to women (and our children and partners) being perpetrated through this so-called 'informed consent' is quite insidious, devious and pervasive. You see, the problem is, women today (in general, and present company obviously excluded) is that we are never taught how perfectly suited natural birth is to the short term and long term wellbeing of mother and baby both (and for the family in general).

Knowing 'the risks' of csec is only 1/2--or maybe only 1/4--of the picture. True Informed Consent (under the law) means not only being told the benefits and risks of a particular procedure. It also includes being told the benefits and risks of OTHER OPTIONS, including the option of doing nothing. Women who are informed of the risks of csec (which I believe, as also true with epidural and various other common obstetrical interventions, are presented in a 'harmless' and quite watered-down way), are NOT being told why natural birth is best for all concerned in the vast majority of cases. Most docs do not even know the full range of benefits to natural birth, physically, emotionally, psychologically for mom and baby. The best we get from seemingly 'natural minded' obs is that they are willing to support the mom's wish for a certain 'experience' (so long as all goes well in the doc's mind). They do not acknowledge, and certainly do not promote, the facts which show that natural birth is hands down the very safest, healthiest way for babies to be born/women to give birth, in both the short and long term (for MOST women/babies, with exceptions, obviously).

So, to my way of thinking, this whole 'elective csec' is one of the most horrific of subversions handed to women in this technologically--and still very much patriarchally--oriented era. Separating out those women who do have good reason to choose csec (as with story of a pp), all others who--for no real health reason--seem to 'freely choose' elective csec, are being coerced by a deep and dangerous deception! There is simply no other way to put it.
They are NOT making truly informed choices--and the majority are not even aware of what Informed Consent under the law is and they surely do not know the myriad and deep benefits they are choosing against, by choosing csec.

They are women who have had their femininity stolen from them from the get-go, in the sense that they have been conditioned to believe that having a womanly body is something that can freely be 'bypassed' via patriarchal technologies, INSTEAD of being raised in an atmosphere that celebrates and honors woman's body and reality fully as a sacred and very much necessary element of this dualistic plane we inhabit. They are women who have been taught to believe they can 'bypass' their womanly body via technology, and not pay a price for that, now and on into their own and their children's lives--physically, emotionally, psychologically.

Yes, this is a feminist issue allright! It is very much a feminist issue.
Where's my standing ovation smiley when I need it? Very well put, MsBlack!

What I'm seeing ignored by the folks that have said a woman's body, a woman's right is the baby. A c-section is NOT gentle on the baby, it is NOT safer for the baby, unless medically indicated (where a vaginal birth could mean baby death, etc), there's nothing about section that is better for baby!

While I personally wonder at the thought process of the woman that says that they can't handle the pain of labor, so they are going to get section.... hmmm... a few hours of pain vs. several weeks of recovery from major abdominal surgery? How is that anywhere near logical???? A woman might decide for whatever reason that a section is better for her. I'm not going to argue with that decision, but I can tell you that the vast majority of MD's sure as heck don't inform women about the risks to the baby of a section.

I'm scheduled to have a section in about 2 weeks for a complete previa that hasn't moved since week 20 of this pregnancy. Am I happy about it? God no! Am I looking forward to it? Nope! Am I worried about baby? Yep! Am I grateful that there are docs that know what they are doing in this situation so that both baby and I can survive? Most assuredly!
Mindi22 is offline  
#87 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 03:58 AM
 
erin_brycesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by starling&diesel View Post
Therefore, everyone has an interest in keeping the costs reasonable.
Perhaps that's why we aren't so keen on them here? And why you have to have a good reason to have one?
As just shown by the pp, that is not the case (everyone having an interest in keeping costs reasonable) but it should be. She thinks it doesn't matter because she has universal healthcare. That is the prevailing attitude that I see as well and the same with the current government run health care system in America that I am already a part of.
erin_brycesmom is offline  
#88 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 04:02 AM
 
erin_brycesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If I understand correctly the medical term "elective" c-section just means the time is elective and has nothing to do with the reasons. The lay person definition for elective c-section is non-medically indicated which is what we are talking about here.

I know some here were on another board when we had a few very informed people at various times (including one lawyer) proclaim the glories of elective c-section. After 300+ page threads, seems like the person changes their mind every time because while they were very informed on the risks of c-sections and typical hospital births, what they weren't truly informed on was normal birth.
erin_brycesmom is offline  
#89 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 04:50 AM
 
Kidzaplenty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Writing my Happily Ever After
Posts: 16,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Interesting thread. I have nothing new to add, but I am personally against elective c/s. Meaning ones that have no medical indication and are solely for convenience of Dr or Mom. If truly medically indicated, that is a whole other story.

Any misspellings or grammatical errors in the above statement are intentional;
they are placed there for the amusement of those who like to point them out.
Kidzaplenty is offline  
#90 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 09:35 AM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapphire_chan View Post
Sorry to continue this off topic side discussion, but I'm wondering, your insurance will cover this right? They aren't trying to claim that just because it's "elective" it's optional?
Yes, my insurance is paying for it...as well they should. If they didn't I'd have to wait for labor, risk my life, fly to the ER and have medical debt out my tushy...not cool! Kind'a why "pay for your own ELECTIVE c/s" freaks me out...who's to make that call. Many here think I shouldn't be having one, as they have as much as said so - good thing they don't work for Cigna, hu?

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm 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