Why Are People Against Elective C-Sections?? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 09:48 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
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?
Easy, they just need to distinguish non emergent medically indicated c-sections from arbitrary ones.

I'm just starting to grasp that "elective c-section" means "c-section decided on in advance" rather than "unnecessary c-section" (e.g. no medical reason including previous birth trauma).
sapphire_chan is offline  
#122 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 09:51 PM
 
bri276's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 6,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
BOTH of my best friends, in their mid twenties, unmarried as of yet, have told me they'd prefer a planned c-section when they have children. And their mothers are both in mainstream medicine- one pediatrician and one labor and delivery nurse (who, surprisingly, spoke up and said no, you don't want a c-section). Now, granted, things may change in time when it becomes reality. But it floored me that this view has become SO pervasive- that c-sections are safe, easier, better, cleaner, etc. One of the reasons was "I don't want to deal with incontinence"- research shows that pregnancy, not labor and delivery, is the cause of that (and it doesn't happen to all of us, anyways, I certainly don't have it and I pushed for over 3 hours). Other reasons were basically all convenience. Despite trying to sound casual about it while imparting some wisdom about risk to the baby and mother, neither seemed to CARE about the risk, viewing it as so minimal as to be ignored.

I think even above and beyond informed consent and self education is personality. Some people really don't think anything bad will ever happen to them or their babies. They don't truly understand how to assess risk (even though I know at least one of them, and probably both, have had to pass college statistics class!) It's a general attitude towards life that includes blindly trusting the doctors, choosing to believe anecdote over evidence (ie, My SIL had a c-section and she said the recovery was SO easy and her baby was fine), and simply not being concerned that there is any REAL risk to yourself or your child. As a parent of a special needs child I've seen that attitude more times than I care to remember- "oh, that would never happen to ME" After all, look at the huge percentage of OB's and OB's partner who choose elective sections!!

Really- there ARE situations where a completely elective c-section truly is appropriate. The mental health of the mother for whatever reason, or a past traumatic birth that may or may not cause complications but the mother doesn't want to risk it, or an unproven, or unlikely but possible suspected risk to the fetus (something odd seen on ultrasound but not confirmed) and probably many more than we could even imagine. I would NEVER want to take away the option completely. What I want is OBs to be held accountable for babies born pre-term or who have respiratory problems due to c-section. The same way they're accountable to any other birth trauma that they could have prevented. As an OB, I would most certainly REFUSE to perform a section on a 36 wk pregnant woman who just wanted to get it over with so she could be a bridesmaid in a wedding (yeah, it does happen). But they don't because they will never be held accountable in court. Court is sadly the only thing that seems to speak to some OBs and force them to consider whether they're responsible for their actions.

DD1 7/13/05 DD2 9/20/10
bri276 is offline  
#123 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 09:54 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 Rockies5 View Post
You have to consider the hard to pinpoint reasons some women don't want to give birth vaginally. Like recalled sexual abuse. IMO it's further abuse to make someone do something they don't want to with their "privates"! I think it is a valid reason to some to have a c because they worry about their hoo-ha getting stretched out. It's at least as valid as women who remain childless for fear of loosing their figures.
No - it's not. Because if a woman remains childless, she remains childless. There's no pregnancy, and no baby. If a woman gets pregnant and can't have a c-section (for whatever reason - maybe there's a huge state-wide power failure, or the hospitals have all been knocked out by an earthquake - whatever), she is going to have a vagina birth. Once that baby's in there, it's coming out (okay - remember reading one case of a baby that went permanently stayed in its mother's uterus - can't remember the details, but it basically fossilized or something, but that's just beyond freakishly rare - I'm guessing unique). A woman can plan to have a c-section, because of past abuse or because she wants a tight vagina or whatever, but that doesn't mean she's going to get one. What if she's not close to a hospital and goes into labour spontaneously at 37 weeks, with a section scheduled a week later, and delivers before she can get to a hospital?

Labour and vaginal birth are the naturally inevitable consequences of pregnancy, unless there is medical interference, in the form of a c-section, in that progression. If someone is so afraid of labour that they're choosing surgery to avoid it, they should really probably try to get help for that fear before becoming pregnant, if at all possible. Because, modern illusions to the contrary, we canNOT control birth - and we can't eliminate the possibility of having a vaginal birth simply by scheduling a section. Once that woman is pregnant, the possibility of labour and a vaginal birth exists, whether she schedules a section or not. Women can guarantee that they won't ever have a c-section (albeit possibly at the cost of their lives or their babies), by not ever setting foot in a hospital. We canNOT guarantee that we won't have a vaginal birth...that can happen anywhere. I mean - women actually manage to give birth at the hospital, with strangers and bright lights and unfamiliar noises...it can happen anywhere - and it will, if a section can't be or isn't performed.

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  
#124 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 09:58 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 thismama View Post
I think elective c/s should be covered and it is not the same as cosmetic surgery. Women have elective c/s for lots of deep reasons... emotional reasons, fear, etc etc.
When you get right down to it, I think some women have cosmetic surgery for deep reasons, too.

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  
#125 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 10:05 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 thismama View Post
I think elective c/s should be covered and it is not the same as cosmetic surgery. Women have elective c/s for lots of deep reasons... emotional reasons, fear, etc etc. Who am I to judge someone's reasons for such an intimate decision about her body? If you have a baby in your body, it must come out somehow. If something about your life experience leads you to not want it to come out your vagina, I support funding of options to preclude women being forced to go through unwanted vaginal birth.

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#126 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 10:34 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
When you get right down to it, I think some women have cosmetic surgery for deep reasons, too.
Yep. My butch housemate just got a breast reduction. She got it covered coz her boobs are large, ergo 'back pain' but really big boobs don't fit with her gender identity.

I think she should have been able to get it covered without the back pain bs excuse. I dont think all cosmetic surgery should be covered, but that should.

And I don't think elective c/s is cosmetic surgery.
thismama is offline  
#127 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 10:36 PM
 
ktbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 2,584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
Yep. My butch housemate just got a breast reduction. She got it covered coz her boobs are large, ergo 'back pain' but really big boobs don't fit with her gender identity.

I think she should have been able to get it covered without the back pain bs excuse. I dont think all cosmetic surgery should be covered, but that should.

And I don't think elective c/s is cosmetic surgery.
Sometimes, with some insurance companies, psychological issues are a valid medical "pass" for breast reduction.
I wish I had one of those insurance companies. *covets breast reduction*
ktbug is offline  
#128 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 10:40 PM
 
felix23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on a peaceful pond
Posts: 1,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I think elective c/s should be covered and it is not the same as cosmetic surgery. Women have elective c/s for lots of deep reasons... emotional reasons, fear, etc etc. Who am I to judge someone's reasons for such an intimate decision about her body? If you have a baby in your body, it must come out somehow. If something about your life experience leads you to not want it to come out your vagina, I support funding of options to preclude women being forced to go through unwanted vaginal birth.


Birth is such a personal experience that I can't imagine telling someone that they had to do it a certian way. All moms should be able to have the birth experience that they want, whether it be unassisted or elective c-section.

Never jump into a pile of leaves with a wet sucker. - Linus
felix23 is offline  
#129 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 10:52 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 felix23 View Post


Birth is such a personal experience that I can't imagine telling someone that they had to do it a certian way. All moms should be able to have the birth experience that they want, whether it be unassisted or elected c-section.

Yup. And to me that is the bottom line.

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#130 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:11 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post


Birth is such a personal experience that I can't imagine telling someone that they had to do it a certian way. All moms should be able to have the birth experience that they want, whether it be unassisted or elective c-section.
ITA. If we want to trend toward better (natural) birth we need to increase education and options. Not police what people can and cannot do.
thismama is offline  
#131 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:28 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
A couple of interesting finds on the issue of Brazilian women and cesareans:

1. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1122889

Contrary to anecdotal evidence that portrays Brazil as a place where women demand caesarean section, two recent articles show that providers, rather than patients, use women's alleged preference as an excuse to follow their inclinations.

2. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...4fa7b35abb0139

I also show that the majority of women surveyed in two cities in Brazil, particularly first-time mothers, do not seek to deliver by cesarean. Through an analysis of conversations between doctors and women during labor and delivery, and through women’s narratives of their delivery experiences, I also show some of the mechanisms that doctors use in order to induce so-called demand for surgical delivery and argue that they are very active participants in the ongoing construction of the culture of cesarean section in Brazil.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#132 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:29 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post
Birth is such a personal experience that I can't imagine telling someone that they had to do it a certian way. All moms should be able to have the birth experience that they want, whether it be unassisted or elective c-section.
Yes, it is personal. So personal that maybe they should pay for it themselves.

All mothers should be prepared to pay for it themselves. As a homebirth mother by choice, I have done that four times, so a mother having an elective caesarean can pay for it also.

Unnecessary medical procedures such as unnecessary caesareans are making birth and health insurance prohibitively expensive for everyone.
applejuice is offline  
#133 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:31 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do not think homebirthers should pay for it themselves either. I live in Canada where my midwifery care and my upcoming homebirth are fully covered.

Universal health care... you all should look into that.
thismama is offline  
#134 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:35 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 applejuice View Post
Yes, it is personal. So personal that maybe they should pay for it themselves.

All mothers should be prepared to pay for it themselves. As a homebirth mother by choice, I have done that four times, so a mother having an elective caesarean can pay for it also.

Unnecessary medical procedures such as unnecessary caesareans are making birth and health insurance prohibitively expensive for everyone.
No individual is responsible for the whole of birthing women.

I'm glad it's covered. I shudder to think woman will be forced to stay home because SOMEONE ELSE decided they didn't need something. *I* decide what I need. Same for everyone else.

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#135 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:43 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
I skimmed through this loooooong thread and, unless I missed it, I didn't see a reference to the groundbreaking obstetric research by Childbirth Connection's survey called Listening to Mothers. I refer to it as "groundbreaking" because most of the past research has relied on second-hand reports from physicians instead of the patients who experienced the delivery.

Get this: From http://www.childbirthconnection.org/...e.asp?ck=10372, we find . . .

"Despite some professional and mass media discourse about "maternal request" or "patient demand" cesarean when there is no medical indication, just one woman (0.08%) among 1314 survey participants who might have initiated a planned primary cesarean without medical reason did so."

So what's all of the hub-bub about "maternal request" cesareans? Here's how Childbirth Connections explains it:

"These discussions [on "maternal request" cesareans] have been based on the unwarranted assumption that a cesarean with no identified reason on a birth certificate or in hospital discharge records reflects the mother's demand for elective surgical birth. Until the new Listening to Mothers survey results, no data sources have been available to clarify decision-making processes and the understanding of women themselves about these matters.

Moreover, many women trust their caregivers and support the idea of a cesarean if they believe there is medical reason. Women's support for provider-initiated cesareans that they believe will benefit their babies and/or themselves must be distinguished from mother-initiated planned primary cesareans with no medical benefit.

The misleading focus on maternal demand also serves to draw attention away from many legal, clinical, financial and other factors that are contributing to escalating cesarean rates."

Childbirth advocates like Jennifer Block (author of "Pushed") are a little more cynical, citing a need for OB's and similar professionals to rationalize the egregiously high cesarean rate in the U.S.

My own take on it is that in our consumerist culture, we can sell anything so long as we package it as a free choice, be it sugary soda drinks or major abdominal surgery.

So......not to rain on the parade and the point of this thread, but "maternal request" cesareans are almost a non-issue and, for the most part, fodder for a purely hypothetical discussion.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#136 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:49 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
You are completely missing my point.

When half of all of the prenatal tests, procedures and caesarean sections performed are in truth medically unnecessary, the costs of maternity and health care go up, and when these costs are covered by insurance, private, group, government or otherwise, EVERYBODY pays.

This does not even take into account the cost of NICU for those poor babies who end up born too early because the u/s was off.

When I had my babies at home, I paid for it myself. And incredibly, there were still the know-it-all ninnies out there who thought they knew what was best for me and would tell me what to do anyway, even if I paid for it myself out of my pocket.
applejuice is offline  
#137 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:53 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And people pay for roads and education and health issues apparently caused by smoking, the supposed obesity epidemic etc etc on and on. Policing other people's bodies is a slippery slope.
thismama is offline  
#138 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:54 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
If pregnant women can really push doctors into "elective caesarean sections" for their own reasons, then ask yourself why other pregnant women cannot equally demand and push doctors into attending homebirths?

I really do not see the power that pregnant women have here. It appears to me that women only have a "choice" when they select the only model offered by the medical establishment underwritten by the pharmaceutical houses.

That is where the real power is.
applejuice is offline  
#139 of 201 Old 01-11-2008, 11:55 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
If pregnant women can really push doctors into "elective caesarean sections" for their own reasons, then ask yourself why other pregnant women cannot equally demand and push doctors into attending homebirths?
Not sure if you read my post above, but the reason is that you all have a crappy health care system. Or lack thereof. Homebirth should be covered.
thismama is offline  
#140 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 12:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
karina5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
I skimmed through this loooooong thread and, unless I missed it, I didn't see a reference to the groundbreaking obstetric research by Childbirth Connection's survey called Listening to Mothers. I refer to it as "groundbreaking" because most of the past research has relied on second-hand reports from physicians instead of the patients who experienced the delivery.

Get this: From http://www.childbirthconnection.org/...e.asp?ck=10372, we find . . .

"Despite some professional and mass media discourse about "maternal request" or "patient demand" cesarean when there is no medical indication, just one woman (0.08%) among 1314 survey participants who might have initiated a planned primary cesarean without medical reason did so."

So what's all of the hub-bub about "maternal request" cesareans? Here's how Childbirth Connections explains it:

"These discussions [on "maternal request" cesareans] have been based on the unwarranted assumption that a cesarean with no identified reason on a birth certificate or in hospital discharge records reflects the mother's demand for elective surgical birth. Until the new Listening to Mothers survey results, no data sources have been available to clarify decision-making processes and the understanding of women themselves about these matters.

Moreover, many women trust their caregivers and support the idea of a cesarean if they believe there is medical reason. Women's support for provider-initiated cesareans that they believe will benefit their babies and/or themselves must be distinguished from mother-initiated planned primary cesareans with no medical benefit.

The misleading focus on maternal demand also serves to draw attention away from many legal, clinical, financial and other factors that are contributing to escalating cesarean rates."

Childbirth advocates like Jennifer Block (author of "Pushed") are a little more cynical, citing a need for OB's and similar professionals to rationalize the egregiously high cesarean rate in the U.S.

My own take on it is that in our consumerist culture, we can sell anything so long as we package it as a free choice, be it sugary soda drinks or major abdominal surgery.

So......not to rain on the parade and the point of this thread, but "maternal request" cesareans are almost a non-issue and, for the most part, fodder for a purely hypothetical discussion.




So the Too Posh to Push thing is kind of an urban legend. That's kind of funny to me.
karina5 is offline  
#141 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 12:13 AM
 
felix23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on a peaceful pond
Posts: 1,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Yes, it is personal. So personal that maybe they should pay for it themselves.

All mothers should be prepared to pay for it themselves. As a homebirth mother by choice, I have done that four times, so a mother having an elective caesarean can pay for it also.

Unnecessary medical procedures such as unnecessary caesareans are making birth and health insurance prohibitively expensive for everyone.

Because only the rich deserve to have the birth experience they want? I think that homebirths should be covered too. Instead of trying to take away women's choices, I think that they should be given more choices. Poor people deserve choices too and I think that they should have the choice to pick what ever birth experience is best for them, from a homebirth to an elective c-section.

Never jump into a pile of leaves with a wet sucker. - Linus
felix23 is offline  
#142 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 12:20 AM
 
felix23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: on a peaceful pond
Posts: 1,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
No individual is responsible for the whole of birthing women.

I'm glad it's covered. I shudder to think woman will be forced to stay home because SOMEONE ELSE decided they didn't need something. *I* decide what I need. Same for everyone else.

I just need to follow you and thismama around this thread saying "yeah that".

Never jump into a pile of leaves with a wet sucker. - Linus
felix23 is offline  
#143 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 12:33 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 felix23 View Post
Because only the rich deserve to have the birth experience they want? I think that homebirths should be covered too. Instead of trying to take away women's choices, I think that they should be given more choices. Poor people deserve choices too and I think that they should have the choice to pick what ever birth experience is best for them, from a homebirth to an elective c-section.
Well, let me return the favor...:

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#144 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 12:37 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post
Because only the rich deserve to have the birth experience they want? I think that homebirths should be covered too. Instead of trying to take away women's choices, I think that they should be given more choices. Poor people deserve choices too and I think that they should have the choice to pick what ever birth experience is best for them, from a homebirth to an elective c-section.
Homebirths are rarely covered. This limits women's choices.

When my mom had her first homebirth, the neighbors asked if my Father and her were too poor to afford a hospital birth; strange kind of a question, is it not? Health insurance rarely covered a hospital birth in the early 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. Why? Pregnancy was not considered an accident, it was considered a natural state for a woman to be in. Insurance covered complications and the rare c-secs which were under 10% in those days. Maternity care was quite cheap and women stayed in the hospital for a week after the birth, getting a good rest.

I like choices also.

However, for your insinuation that only the rich have choices because they have the money, that will always be the case because of the world we live in. The rich had homebirths in the 1950s and abortions as well because they could afford it and someone would do the deed for the price they paid, legal nor not. Even if the U.S. institutes a wide-encompassing health care program for everyone in the near future, you can be sure the rich will not stand in line for their care and will get all the elective plastic surgery they desire when they want it.
applejuice is offline  
#145 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 12:42 AM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What you are doing though applejuice is crossblaming other women for a problem with the system. Homebirths should be covered. The fact that they are not is a problem of the US health care system and NOT women who have elective c sections. Your whole argument is a red herring.
thismama is offline  
#146 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 12:55 AM
 
elspethshimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
rmzbm and thismama
elspethshimon is offline  
#147 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 01:43 AM
 
readytobedone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: not dissertating
Posts: 3,682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
No - it's not. Because if a woman remains childless, she remains childless. There's no pregnancy, and no baby. If a woman gets pregnant and can't have a c-section (for whatever reason - maybe there's a huge state-wide power failure, or the hospitals have all been knocked out by an earthquake - whatever), she is going to have a vagina birth. Once that baby's in there, it's coming out (okay - remember reading one case of a baby that went permanently stayed in its mother's uterus - can't remember the details, but it basically fossilized or something, but that's just beyond freakishly rare - I'm guessing unique). A woman can plan to have a c-section, because of past abuse or because she wants a tight vagina or whatever, but that doesn't mean she's going to get one. What if she's not close to a hospital and goes into labour spontaneously at 37 weeks, with a section scheduled a week later, and delivers before she can get to a hospital?

Labour and vaginal birth are the naturally inevitable consequences of pregnancy, unless there is medical interference, in the form of a c-section, in that progression. If someone is so afraid of labour that they're choosing surgery to avoid it, they should really probably try to get help for that fear before becoming pregnant, if at all possible. Because, modern illusions to the contrary, we canNOT control birth - and we can't eliminate the possibility of having a vaginal birth simply by scheduling a section. Once that woman is pregnant, the possibility of labour and a vaginal birth exists, whether she schedules a section or not. Women can guarantee that they won't ever have a c-section (albeit possibly at the cost of their lives or their babies), by not ever setting foot in a hospital. We canNOT guarantee that we won't have a vaginal birth...that can happen anywhere. I mean - women actually manage to give birth at the hospital, with strangers and bright lights and unfamiliar noises...it can happen anywhere - and it will, if a section can't be or isn't performed.
this is really interesting....

dissertating wife of Boo, mama of one "mookie" lovin' 2 year old girl! intactlact:: CTA until 7/10 FF 1501dc
readytobedone is offline  
#148 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 01:52 AM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But death is the natural consequence of life, and yet we support people trying to stave that off...
thismama is offline  
#149 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 05:42 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 thismama View Post
But death is the natural consequence of life, and yet we support people trying to stave that off...
I wouldn't support somebody trying to make themselves immortal, though.

I'm not saying that a woman who has really deep seated issues about vaginal birth shouldn't have an elective c-section. I think there are times when the emotional/psychological issues are profound enough to practically be a medical indicator. What I'm saying is that if a woman is that afraid of labour, for whatever reason, I really think she'd serve herself better by trying some counselling or something ahead of time...because if she thinks she's got the whole labour/childbirth aspect "beat" or under control by scheduling a section, and then ends up going into premature labour under circumstances where getting to the hospital (or getting that section in the hospital - staff missing, OR occupied, etc.) is impossible, she's going to have a major problem. One of the factors that pops up over and over in childbirth trauma is the unpredictability of it - the loss of control and the feeling of betrayal. People can feel betrayed by circumstances, as well as by people - and I think a woman who thought she could avoid labour and childbirth by scheduling a section is someone who is extremely likely to face major problems with PPD and PTSD.

Scheduling a section in order to avoid labour and vaginal birth (for whatever reason - fear of labour pain, wanting to keep your vagina tight, abuse issues - it doesn't matter) is buying into the medical model - the belief that we can control birth. Most of the time, it's going to work - only a certain percentage of women are going to go into labour prematurely. But, scheduling is not a guarantee that you'll avoid labour and vaginal birth...and it is almost a guarantee that you're not going to be emotionally prepared for it if it happens.

I'll probably be scheduling a section for my next baby (although part of me will be really hoping I have a precipitous labour and push my baby out before it happens), but that doesn't guarantee that me and my baby will be okay. It doesn't even guarantee that I will have a c-section. (Of course, in my case, that's fine with me!) This is not under my control.

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  
#150 of 201 Old 01-12-2008, 08:40 AM
 
erin_brycesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread is starting to get bizarre. A few things:

1. Do you guys also think that all abortions should be covered by all health insurance? If you do, this will explain a lot.

2. Saying that homebirth not being covered is a "problem of the US health care system" isn't really accurate either. There are plenty of insurance companies that cover home births in the US.

3. Universal health care in the US will not ensure that homebirth is covered. We can have universal health care here and still not have homebirths covered....the two are very seperate things so I don't understand why it keeps getting mentioned as some kind of a solution the problem we are talking about.
erin_brycesmom 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