cesarean section rate

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I am thinking ahead of time, this thread will help influence my decisions and opinion.

So anti c-section people, here's your chance to convince me.

Ugly scar?

 

[sara1981]

mostly mothers had c-section because of scars shown but im sure moms have first or more of c-sections when baby was born..

but mostly moms tried for natural birth because of baby cant come due head huge expect between weight of baby when mom carry no matters if doctor found when baby had large between 7lbs till over 10lbs in hospital records.

 

[Aleser]

There's a LOT wrong with medically un-necessary c-sections.

They cost more, take mothers longer to recover from (and, indeed, can cause significantly greater pain), and because they have to be done in hospitals, increase mother and babies risk of exposure to hospital-bourne illness, and guarantee mother and baby's exposure to antiseptic cleaning agents.

The bacteria a child is exposed to at birth tends to have a lifelong impact on their health. The germ diversity in a child's gut during extremely early life is a significant factor in determining if that child will later develop asthma, allergies, or other autoimmune diseases. When a child is born to a sterile c-section field, they are rather importantly not exposed to all of Mom's germs which can then colonize inside their body and make them healthy. Not a good thing!

I'm all for c-sections when it would prevent harm to the mother or the child. But people need to understand that sterility in early childhood, despite what lysol commercials may tell you, is NOT a positive thing, and that choosing to give birth naturally, or especially choosing to give birth at home or in a birthing center as opposed to a hospital, is a very positive thing in terms of your kids being healthy long-term. This is an idea that people have been giving consideration for a very long amount of time as countries have become more and more developed and kids got sicker and sicker, and now there's a smearing of studies backing up germ diversity in the first hours and days of life as a lifelong determiner of health.

 

[~*Kaelei*~]

I personally think all women can do it naturally, if they can do it.... I personally think that C - section is only for emergency, not to use it because you don't want to go through natural vagina birth.

I was in labor with my son for three days.... I had trouble getting him out of me and the doc was getting impatient with me, she wanted me to have C-section... but I firmly told her no, that I won't have C - section, not unless my son was in risk... I showed it to her, that I can do it... I got him out of me!!!

 

[TXgolfer]

I personally think all women can do it naturally, if they can do it.... I personally think that C - section is only for emergency, not to use it because you don't want to go through natural vagina birth.

I was in labor with my son for three days.... I had trouble getting him out of me and the doc was getting impatient with me, she wanted me to have C-section... but I firmly told her no, that I won't have C - section, not unless my son was in risk... I showed it to her, that I can do it... I got him out of me!!!

Good job....My wife's story is similar

I agree. I would think the risk would be enough to convince most rational people to put off C-sections unless necessary.

I have also heard that the vaginal birth actually aides the baby in their ability to breathe once born.......not sure if that is medically proven or not.

 

[Foxrac]

My mother almost had C-Section when I was born but in last min, I was turned and able to get out via vaginal, it was pretty scary situation because she doesn't like C-Section.

C-Section is ok for medical reason, if not then I expect that won't cover by health insurance but just your expenses.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Wirelessly posted

Interesting...

I really, really hope I never have a C-Section if I'm pregnant, due to my natural skinny body. But I don't know if I can do it without c-section, since I have my high endrance. I hardly use any pain-killer medicine, I never take a pill when I'm on my period, and I know how to deal with minor to mild-grave wounds without care, or with some care.

So, I really don't know if I can do it... but, frankly, I don't care if anyone judge me anyway. I'm positive some women have their own reasons for have a c-section.

 

[KristinaB]

I have had 2 c-sections, and the first was very necessary. The second was preplanned due to everything being so alike in both pregnancies.

My insurance company refused to approve the c-section unless I went 2 weeks past my due date and a minimum of 10 hours of labor. I went 2 weeks past and 15 hours of labor and never dilated more than 3 cm. Had my c-section and had a "humongo" baby. 12 1/2 pounds and 24 1/2 inches and she was dehydrated at birth and gained another pound before discharge. With my son, we notified the insurance company when I found out I was pregnant and they preapproved the c-section 2 weeks before due date. He was still 10 1/2 pounds and 22 1/2 inches.

For people who don't think there is pain involved with a C-Section, they haven't been there. I remember the nurse telling me after the surgery and I was in my room that she "was going to be my world's worst nightmare come 11pm". That was when I had to get up, with 24 staples, and walk to the bathroom. Not fun! When I was discharged, they told me, "don't go up any stairs, and no driving until staples are removed". We lived on the 2nd floor of a condo with no elevator. I spent 5 days on the couch with pillows behind my head and under my legs keeping me in a "V" shape until I got the staples removed, due to the pain.

 

[shel90]

I have known some people who say that they want a c-section instead of a vaginal birth because they were afraid that it would make their vaginas loose. I think that is silly because vaginas go back to their normal sizes.

As for it being medically necessary, of course, get a c-section.

I had both of my children through vaginal births and the first one, recovery only took one week and the 2nd one, about 3 weeks because I got sick with an infection. My friend who had c-sections took months to recover. She couldnt drive for 6 weeks while I could drive in a week or two. So, I dont understand those who want to have c-sections for vainity reasons.

 

[KristinaB]

I have known some people who say that they want a c-section instead of a vaginal birth because they were afraid that it would make their vaginas loose. I think that is silly because vaginas go back to their normal sizes.

As for it being medically necessary, of course, get a c-section.

I had both of my children through vaginal births and the first one, recovery only took one week and the 2nd one, about 3 weeks because I got sick with an infection. My friend who had c-sections took months to recover. She couldnt drive for 6 weeks while I could drive in a week or two. So, I dont understand those who want to have c-sections for vainity reasons.

I guess I was lucky. I was able to drive after a week when I got the staples removed. I do know that it's harder for the body to recover after the C-section and I still have a small "preggy belly flab" after 15 years. No amount of exercised has tightened it up.

I was lucky that my doctor placed the incisions low enough that if I ever wanted to wear a bikini, they wouldn't show.

 

[naisho]

There's a LOT wrong with medically un-necessary c-sections.

Aleser - natural human microbiota can be attained through other means.. Not all of it will be passed from mother's placenta to child, and certainly not all of it should necessarily be obtained in this method.

Some of the flora are picked up by means of daily activities, ingestion of certain products, others can only come from a specific source.

When the fetus passes through during birth (key word), it is exposed to on the epidermis which is mostly the vaginal organisms as well as some of the gastrointestinal kind. Not all of it will be necessarily good, either.
Later on during feeding stages, I can see that more can pass through from direct contact with mother and surroundings.

Basically all I am trying to say here is that, I don't think there is solid proof that having a vaginal vs c-section birth will grant the mandatory microbiota necessary for a baby. Some of it can be obtained post-birth and makes no difference as the child grows up. I really doubt it's a CRUCIAL aspect (as in, the child dies or is guaranteed acute illness without it) for living. It may help, surely, but unless the child is going to be used for some kind of test to see if being organism-free, I don't see it being a worthy factor over someone's personal choice.

 

[Aleser]

Basically all I am trying to say here is that, I don't think there is solid proof that having a vaginal vs c-section birth will grant the mandatory microbiota necessary for a baby. Some of it can be obtained post-birth and makes no difference as the child grows up. I really doubt it's a CRUCIAL aspect (as in, the child dies or is guaranteed acute illness without it) for living. It may help, surely, but unless the child is going to be used for some kind of test to see if being organism-free, I don't see it being a worthy factor over someone's personal choice.

Fact: the diversity of germs in a newborn's first poop is a significant determiner on if the child will go on to develop autoimmune conditions. Sure, that child will go on to get some germs other way, but there's pretty good indication that what they get, or don't get, from their mothers at birth will influence their entire lifetime of buggy diversity. Children born of c-sections have a 20%+ increased risk of developing type 1 diabetes, a life-shortening autoimmune disease which can cause multiple disabilities and requires lifetime intensive intervention. and sucks. I don't know how you can claim this demonstrated risk as insignificant.

Fact: Shit happens. Shit-bug exposure happens to babies being born vaginally. Shit-bug exposure does not happen when a child is born through a wound on the mother.

Fact: autoimmune conditions suck, and developed countries have more of them for a reason. We subject children to increasingly sterile conditions needlessly, including during birth, and act surprised when things go wrong.

There is something wrong with choosing, for no medical reason, to subject yourself to increased risk at birth, AND subject your child to a lifetime increased risk of illness. It is a crucial factor, like it or not.

 

[Miss-Delectable]

My sister and friend cannot give birth naturally so they've had c-section for all births.

Doctors in Australia prefers women not to have any more than 3 or 4 c-sections because after that, it's more risky for the mother's health.

I think it's women's decision what method to use when giving birth.

 

[Frisky Feline]

So, I dont understand those who want to have c-sections for vainity reasons.

I have not met anyone who want to have a csections for vainity reasons yet. But I ve met many women who had csections for medically necessary.

I found it interesting like why you don't understand those who want a csections. Is it because you had vaginal births with each of your kids. I had csections because it was a medically necessary. However, with the second baby, doctor gave me two opts between vaginal birth after cesarean or another csection. Doctor can't determinate for me to have vbac or cesarean. So I had a hard time deciding between vbac or cesarean for a long period of time.

so now I see others who opted to have a cesarean for vanity reasons that don't bother me because it's their body and baby, not mine. Know what I am saying? I won't be surprised if i had vaginal births then I would be in your boat wondering why anyone wants a cesarean for vanity reasons.

is it something with lack of educational or attitude? just wonder.

 

[shel90]

I have not met anyone who want to have a csections for vainity reasons yet. But I ve met many women who had csections for medically necessary.

I found it interesting like why you don't understand those who want a csections. Is it because you had vaginal births with each of your kids. I had csections because it was a medically necessary. However, with the second baby, doctor gave me two opts between vaginal birth after cesarean or another csection. Doctor can't determinate for me to have vbac or cesarean. So I had a hard time deciding between vbac or cesarean for a long period of time.

so now I see others who opted to have a cesarean for vanity reasons that don't bother me because it's their body and baby, not mine. Know what I am saying? I won't be surprised if i had vaginal births then I would be in your boat wondering why anyone wants a cesarean for vanity reasons.

is it something with lack of educational or attitude? just wonder.

C-sections for medical reasons, I totally understand.

The reasons that these people want a csection is what puzzles me because I heard that the recovery process after a c-section is much more painful. I have seen 2 of my friends go through it and they said it was so painful trying to do anything. Ouch! So, I dont understand if people dont really need it, why go for it knowing that the recovery process is more painful?

 

[naisho]

Fact: the diversity of germs in a newborn's first poop is a significant determiner on if the child will go on to develop autoimmune conditions. Sure, that child will go on to get some germs other way, but there's pretty good indication that what they get, or don't get, from their mothers at birth will influence their entire lifetime of buggy diversity. Children born of c-sections have a 20%+ increased risk of developing type 1 diabetes, a life-shortening autoimmune disease which can cause multiple disabilities and requires lifetime intensive intervention. and sucks. I don't know how you can claim this demonstrated risk as insignificant.

I had even never heard of that claim before.. Was curious, so I looked up from where this source originated from. Sure enough it was linked on wikipedia and related standard news articles. So I read the original research article.

The study itself (if you are referring to the one from Queen's University Belfast) even said itself there a plethora of other factors involved and it is not to be taken conclusively. It's not being shown to me that it is fact that the cause is from natural microbiota transfer from the mother. That is not proved.

I can demonstrate in theory how the risk isn't as imposing as you've implied.

For all we know it may be limited to Europe (since that's where the study was conducted), could be a problem with the c section procedure, or a problem with c section procedures done IN Europe, techniques done after C-S birth that differs from a vaginal birth (anti-septic techniques, chemicals involved), differences in natural flora in Europe compared to other countries of the world, differences between socioeconomic status and hospital choices, differences in procedures by year - the journal itself states that it is limited to studies done before 2007, until a conclusive study is done that pinpoints the cause, this list can continue to go on.

We, you, them, no one knows for a fact why the cause would be from C-section itself. Even the journal stated it used data given from other authors rather than conducting the study themselves, and that the reason why is unknown to the researchers (who again, are not doing any actual testing).

The explanation for the observed increase in the risk of type 1 diabetes in children born by Caesarean section is unknown,

Fact: autoimmune conditions suck, and developed countries have more of them for a reason. We subject children to increasingly sterile conditions needlessly, including during birth, and act surprised when things go wrong.

The reason for increased diabetes in first world countries is not just because of c-section alone. A plethora of factors can include lifestyle, SES, differences in medication intake, food consumption, and so on. If related to 'sterile conditions' there should be more studies demonstrating it. I would be interested if they or other peers would be to conduct a followup and see if it holds true.

There is something wrong with choosing, for no medical reason, to subject yourself to increased risk at birth, AND subject your child to a lifetime increased risk of illness. It is a crucial factor, like it or not.

Still, unless the representation is mass paranoia over the usage of c-section, nothing is conclusive that I can determine as of right now. Other than the choice alone is up to the mother, aside from major conditions displayed (for none related to the normal flora) there is no reason why I can see they can't be choosing it for personal choice. Remember that the study indicates it is a risk at developing IDDM, and is not a guarantee.

Some children will always be getting IDDM through genetic means which cannot be circumvented at all. Recall that IDDM is not life threatening and can always be treated through supplements unlike type 2, which is perceived to be an imposed problem.

 

[jillio]

Only if they are medically necessary, which is true.
But speaking of what my thread is that lots of healthy pregnant mama make opt to have a c section when they are not medically necessary.

This is true, FF. Seems every one wants everything to be for their own convenience these days. "I want to have a baby, but only when it is convenient for my time schedule." These women are in for a rude awakening after they give birth and realize that absolutely nothing is for their convenience for about 18 years. It's all about what is convenient for the child.

 

[Aleser]

IDDM is not life threatening and can always be treated through supplements unlike type 2, which is perceived to be an imposed problem.

Type 1 diabetes is distinctly life threatening. Hypos and highs and the complications CAN KILL YOU. Moreover, the complications, along with the constant intensive intervention required, and the increased likelyhood of having other conditions as a type 1, can make you pretty miserable.

While the study doesn't say "being born via c-section will make you develop t1" it does say that being born via t1 will make it more likely that you develop t1. And for those of us who hold weight in the hygiene hypothesis and it's relation to autoimmune diseases (like t1) to be likely true, it is reasonable to say that all possible steps should be taken to ensure that a baby has a normal birth exposed to mother's germs.

 

[HoboJane]

I had a c-section when I gave birth to my daughter a little over 2 months ago. It was going to be a vaginal birth but things dont always go as planned. I pushed (and pushed...and pushed) for 3 hours. They called it "failure to descend". Basically, I was worn out, and to the point where I just couldnt bring myself to push anymore, so I told the doctor that I wanted the c-section. It wasnt absolutely necessary but it is what made me happy, and I stand by any woman who goes through a difficult birth.