Why so many c-sections? - Page 4

RedCatWaves · 05-29-2006, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Yes, studies show that c-sections delay the milk.

I had plenty of milk after my 3 c-secs, but I failed at breastfeeding my first 2 c-sec babies simply due to the pain factor. I just could not get through the early weeks of painful nipples and engorgement while I was dealing with so much pain from my surgical recoveries. By the 3rd baby (also c-sec), I was determined to have a successful breastfeeding relationship, even if that meant crawling through broken glass...and it was nearly that painful, but we did it, and I nursed her for 2 years. After my 4th baby, born normally, breastfeeding was still challenging with engorgement and painful nipples, but I wasn't deterred at all, because I had basically no physical recovery after my very easy vaginal delivery.

sweetpeacurli · 05-30-2006, 12:15 AM

Silent Knife : Cesarean Prevention and Vaginal Birth after Cesarean (VBAC)

That book was written in 1983. The women who wrote it were scared to death by the direction they saw things going in - the decline in midwifery, doctors pushing c-sections on women, etc. It was rather revolutionary at the time. I was young, but I remember the uproar (my mother ran la leche league group sout of our home and I remember how passionate some of the conversations were!). I remember someone saying sarcastically that before golf became more popular c-sections were relatively unheard of, but then it became more important for a doctor to make his tee time than to wait for a woman to give birth naturally.

ChocolateCurls and RedCatWaves, I admire your eloquence. You both made some marvelous points, and I couldn't agree more!

RedCatWaves · 05-30-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

I remember someone saying sarcastically that before golf became more popular c-sections were relatively unheard of, but then it became more important for a doctor to make his tee time than to wait for a woman to give birth naturally.

The golf thing was probably true back before managed care. Nowadays, with profit margins much tighter, OB's do c-secs so they can get back in the office quicker to see more paying patients. Think about how much time they have to spend with a laboring woman having an unpredicatable vaginal birth...it sometimes takes hours. Then think about a c-sec...less than an hour and they are back in the office...PLUS, they get to charge MORE for the surgery, and they have a lower risk of being sued to boot. Sweet deal...for the OB. Not so sweet for the women who now have to recover from major abdominal surgery and carry the higher risks during subsequent pregnancies, with the higher risk of future placental problems and stillbirth.

The whole thing makes me sick...and angry...

gemini · 05-30-2006, 06:55 AM

I had a c-section. I was induced for going a week past my due date, but my body didnd't fully react to the induction. Instead of waiting it out, because my water was already broken and I had been in bed for 1 1/2 days, the doctor decided to go ahead witha c-section.

My opinion: Birth has become too much of a medical procedure/big business...the HMO's and doctors tend to see pregnancy strictly as a medical condition and do not want to deal with the risks and unknowns involved when you don't "intervene" early. I think the rise in c-sections is proof of that. 29% of births are c-sections...the rate has gone way up in the past decade.

WileE-Dead · 05-30-2006, 06:56 AM

Amen RCW...well said...

gemini · 05-30-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

I had plenty of milk after my 3 c-secs, but I failed at breastfeeding my first 2 c-sec babies simply due to the pain factor.

I am breastfeeding after a c-section too. I agree, the pain is RIDICULOUS for the first 2 weeks post partum. Anyone who said "if it (breastfeeding) hurts, you're doing it wrong" was a damn liar.

*Ani* · 05-30-2006, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedCatWaves

Quote:

Yes, studies show that c-sections delay the milk.

I had plenty of milk after my 3 c-secs, but I failed at breastfeeding my first 2 c-sec babies simply due to the pain factor. I just could not get through the early weeks of painful nipples and engorgement while I was dealing with so much pain from my surgical recoveries. By the 3rd baby (also c-sec), I was determined to have a successful breastfeeding relationship, even if that meant crawling through broken glass...and it was nearly that painful, but we did it, and I nursed her for 2 years. After my 4th baby, born normally, breastfeeding was still challenging with engorgement and painful nipples, but I wasn't deterred at all, because I had basically no physical recovery after my very easy vaginal delivery.

wow, you had 3 C-sections and then one vaginal delivery. That's amazing. I would have thought that they would have discouraged you from attempting a vaginal delivery after multiple C-sections.

*Ani* · 05-30-2006, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemini

I had a c-section. I was induced for going a week past my due date, but my body didnd't fully react to the induction. Instead of waiting it out, because my water was already broken and I had been in bed for 1 1/2 days, the doctor decided to go ahead witha c-section.

My opinion: Birth has become too much of a medical procedure/big business...the HMO's and doctors tend to see pregnancy strictly as a medical condition and do not want to deal with the risks and unknowns involved when you don't "intervene" early. I think the rise in c-sections is proof of that. 29% of births are c-sections...the rate has gone way up in the past decade.

ITA

I'm just wondering if women are having more difficult labors than in the past.

I know myself and so many friends whose labor did not progress normally or progress at all.

My cervix never became more than 2.5 cm dilated after about 17 hours of labor.

I'm just wondering what's going on what that. Is is that women are not in optimal delivery shape or something else?

marielle448 · 05-30-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Ani*

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemini

I had a c-section. I was induced for going a week past my due date, but my body didnd't fully react to the induction. Instead of waiting it out, because my water was already broken and I had been in bed for 1 1/2 days, the doctor decided to go ahead witha c-section.

My opinion: Birth has become too much of a medical procedure/big business...the HMO's and doctors tend to see pregnancy strictly as a medical condition and do not want to deal with the risks and unknowns involved when you don't "intervene" early. I think the rise in c-sections is proof of that. 29% of births are c-sections...the rate has gone way up in the past decade.

ITA

I'm just wondering if women are having more difficult labors than in the past.

I know myself and so many friends whose labor did not progress normally or progress at all.

My cervix never became more than 2.5 cm dilated after about 17 hours of labor.

I'm just wondering what's going on what that. Is is that women are not in optimal delivery shape or something else?

Ani the reason more women are experiencing "failure to progress" more and more is not because they are not in shape. I was the most out of shape person EVER before both pregnancies. I had a vaginal birth for my first with a dose of stadol. This last one completely drug free.

Doctors, OB nurses and most women think of labor as a passive activity when it should be active. Yes, there's a moment to rest before labor - BEFORE labor. When your body starts to do the heavy work of contracting and preparing for birth you help it along by being in the position most likely to help usually vertical, squatting positions and bouncing on a birthing ball or sitting in a birthing chair or the toilet.

What happens when most women head to the hospital (usually WAY early into the labor especially FTMs)? They head for the bed. So the cervix doesn't have the help of gravity and the child's head to dilate ,the kiddo doesn't drop and after having spent a bunch of time during pregnancy laying with your hips and legs above the head's level the baby is malpositioned. Mom doesn't dilate thus failure to progress and the OB decides to perform a c-section.

Also there's an impatience to labor that is ridiculous these days. Internal exams are not as necessary as the medical community will have you believe. In fact they are great ways to get an infection. If a woman's water breaks you can actually wait as much as 72 HOURS before there is any need to examine another course of action. In fact, women who have had hteir water leak or break too early to deliver have been able to replace the fluids naturally - that's the way the body is designed to work. That 12 hours post water break is so arbitrary at the least and very harmful. Having those frequent internals also is disheartening to a mom who's thinking things are moving along only to find out she's not as dilated as she thought. Then she begins to stress and that fight or flight intinct kicks in. We were not meant to labor under stress and animals in wild will actually cease laboring if they sense any stress/fear/danger. The same thing happens to our bodies.

So your wonderful but annoying family member in the delivery room, an antagonistic doctor and a witchy nurse is enough to make you fail to progress as well.

marielle448 · 05-30-2006, 07:35 AM

oh and before I get the "not every labor is ideal so your theory doesn't work" let me say that an active labor makes a difference in every labor. Case in point my friend who's had to be induced for all 3 births due to Pre-E. She uses a doula and despite the pitocin, horrible meds like magnesium sulfate and constant monitoring maintains an active labor and does it drug free.

geeky · 05-30-2006, 07:50 AM

Marielle said pretty much what I was thinking. I think mindset also plays a big part. Women hear all the time (mostly from other women) how awful labor is, how you should take as many drugs as possible and feel as little as possible. A lot of OB's tell their patients "Oh this baby is big, there is no way you can deliver it" whether it's true or not, and if you mention to them that you want to do it without drugs they get this amused smirk, especially for first-time moms "Sure, you can try. We'll se how far you get once you feel the labor pains". This is basically what I got from the OB I was seeing when I was pregnant, so I started looking for another provider right away. Then the pressure to induce begins, very often even before you get to your 40 EDD. And inductions are also sold as no big deal, I don't think many women are informed that an induction increases the risk of C-section significantly (over labor that begins on its own).

So you have women that believe they can't do it without lots of intervention, a medical team that believes women can't do it without lots of intervention, limited movement which means you can't get comfortable or keep that baby moving, no food or drink which means no way to replenish your energy, an IV that throws off the natural fluid balance in your body, and an artificial timetable of how the theoretical woman is supposed to progress, that very few women actually conform to. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, I think.

Given all that, it's a wonder that ANYBODY manages to deliver vaginally.

SweetPickles · 05-30-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geeky

And inductions are also sold as no big deal, I don't think many women are informed that an induction increases the risk of C-section significantly (over labor that begins on its own)

This is exactly why I was so opposed to an induction in the first place. I honestly don't know a single woman who had an induction who didn't end up with a c-section.

Unfortunately, because my cervix wasn't doing anything, on its own or with intervention (as a result of previous cervical surgery I'm convinced), I'd have ended up with a c-section no matter what. But in the end, Zora wasn't tolerating the Pitocin anyway, so she made the decision for us.

ETA: I found the recovery to be a piece of cake. I was up and moving well within a week (probably more than I should have been--but we have a 3 story house!), started back to running around 7 weeks. But the actual procedure itself, was HORRIBLE. Sheer hell. If we have another kid, I don't mind the idea of being pregnant at all. It's another cesarean that I am NOT looking forward to.

picklesgirl · 05-30-2006, 08:05 AM

It's interesting that some of you have mentioned lack of movement as a reason why women aren't progressing as they used to. I remember as soon as I checked into the hospital the nurse had me in bed and was putting and internal monitor on Max's head. So I was in bed for pretty much the 23 hrs that I labored.

I remember asking my Dr. how long they were going to let me lay there and labor while I wasn't progressing and he told me they were going to let me go all night and then decide. Now that I think of it I was begging for a c-section just a bit. This was also after being 2 weeks over due and 2 induction attempts and they never said lets just do a c-section and be done it was like the last option, so I didn't have the experences that a lot of you have. My Dr. also told me that they didn't do the epeseotimy (sp) I thought that's how all Dr.s were now but apparently i'm wrong

marielle448 · 05-30-2006, 08:07 AM

picklesgirl I sympathize. I also went 10 days overdue with each child. It's definitely a trial of patience especially those last several weeks.

SweetPickles · 05-30-2006, 08:10 AM

Me too Picklesgirl--Zora arrived 18 days late!

WavyWendy · 05-30-2006, 08:10 AM

I WISH I would have had a c-section, with DD. I was in labor for 27 hours, pushed for 2 hours - her head was HUGE - 95th percentile for head size - once I finally got her huge melon out, I tore. I had stitches upon stitches - was blown up like the Good Year Blimp from being on pitocin & an IV for 29 hours - could barely bend my knees for two weeks afterword, because it took that long for the swelling to go down. The nurse actually said that she thought my feet were going to burst from all of the swelling. And, um... the area 'down below' was unlike anyting I could have imagined - it will never be the same. It was AWFUL.
With future children, I will definitely do the C-Section.......

Wendy

gemini · 05-30-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetPickles

Quote:

Originally Posted by geeky

And inductions are also sold as no big deal, I don't think many women are informed that an induction increases the risk of C-section significantly (over labor that begins on its own)

This is exactly why I was so opposed to an induction in the first place. I honestly don't know a single woman who had an induction who didn't end up with a c-section.

Unfortunately, because my cervix wasn't doing anything, on its own or with intervention (as a result of previous cervical surgery I'm convinced), I'd have ended up with a c-section no matter what. But in the end, Zora wasn't tolerating the Pitocin anyway, so she made the decision for us.

ETA: I found the recovery to be a piece of cake. I was up and moving well within a week (probably more than I should have been--but we have a 3 story house!), started back to running around 7 weeks. But the actual procedure itself, was HORRIBLE. Sheer hell. If we have another kid, I don't mind the idea of being pregnant at all. It's another cesarean that I am NOT looking forward to.

ITA w/ geeky. The HMO I was under made it standard practice to induce if you went a week late (big mistake, IMO) and the doctor's typically said there was a "slightly" higher chance of havinga c-section. I call BS on this as well.

For the record, I stayed active right up to my delivery. I just think since it was my first pregnancy, I probably would have gone 2 weeks past my due date on my own.

Like SP, recovery for me was not bad at all for me either--the key was to get moving as soon as it was comfortable to do so..

geeky · 05-30-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WavyWendy

I WISH I would have had a c-section, with DD. I was in labor for 27 hours, pushed for 2 hours - her head was HUGE - 95th percentile for head size - once I finally got her huge melon out, I tore. I had stitches upon stitches - was blown up like the Good Year Blimp from being on pitocin & an IV for 29 hours - could barely bend my knees for two weeks afterword, because it took that long for the swelling to go down. The nurse actually said that she thought my feet were going to burst from all of the swelling. And, um... the area 'down below' was unlike anyting I could have imagined - it will never be the same. It was AWFUL.
With future children, I will definitely do the C-Section.......

Wendy

Pitocin and IV vs. C-Section should not be the only choices, though. And increasingly, they are the only choices offered.

rainshower · 05-30-2006, 09:08 AM

c-sections reduce chance of tummy flab?

HA!

i know a few women who had c-sections, 2 of them had 3 each, and all of them have pregnant belly bulge and none of them are obese either!

i think celebs are getting tummy tucks after their c-sections.

i know that women do bounce back and have flat abs after having multiple babies, but i don't think that's the rule. i think most "normal" women have at least a pooch that no amount of crunches will get rid of.

outtahere · 05-30-2006, 09:26 AM

It does seem like everyone has C-sections lately. Maybe it's the bigger babies - there seem to be lots of 8 and 9 pound babies out there, almost seems to be the norm (and maybe this is just my imagination) - it doesn't seem like it's always been this way. I was 5 or 6 pounds, which was not premature, at least not at that time. I was a few days early, though. Maybe it is because better health conditions are extending pregnancies (*I know nothing about childbirth*), I don't know. I just squirm at the thought of being cut open, and at the thought of carrying a 9 pound baby, for that matter. Some of these pregnancy threads make me never want to have a baby (not that I really want to anyway, at least at this time). The population control agencies should distribute copies of these threads to everyone - they could win some people over, definitely.