Death twice as likely by caesarean

[*Belle*]

I agree we all should be informed but the way some articles are written scares some.

[Trillian]

I don't see it as scare mongering, but confronting - it makes you sit up and take notice that yes, there are very real risks to myself and my child by having this surgery. But by the same token if I was planning a homebirth and I read articles in the media about the risks to mother and child during a homebirth, that would also make me alert to the ifs, buts and maybes for that senario too. It is all relative to the situation you are in at the time. But you don't run from it, you grab it by the balls and you learn from it - you assess the risk and you make a decision as to how you will deal with it.

In all honestly I think the more articles there are about surgical birth the better. There will ALWAYS be a need for surgical birth - I am not denying that, but this practice by Obs/GP's/medical fraternity in general of unnecessary caesareans simply because they think it is the best/easiest way for them has got to stop and it has got to stop now. If you had any idea of how many lies get told to women about the risks of having a vaginal birth or even being told during a perfectly NORMAL vaginal birth that you need a c/s simply because the Ob can't be arsed to wait for nature to take it's course is APPALLING!!! It would make you sick.

ETA - *Belle* (I didn't see your post), I know that the way some articles are written does make it sound very scary and unsettling, especially when you don't have any choice in the matter, but if articles like that can convince a pg woman who was thinking about having a surgical birth to have a vaginal one because she was more scared pushing a watermelon through a grape, well that's score one for us, zero for the establishment.

[paradise lost]

I don't get why this is directed at women and not doctors. If i went to my doctor tomorrow and said "i want some insulin. I don't need it and it is harmful to me but i want it." would he give me it? NO!!

Obs are TELLING women they can't birth or shouldn't birth vaginally, and then the WOMEN and BABIES are carrying not only the risks but the BLAME too? That is totally unfair. Even if a woman doesn't want to "push a baby out of THERE" there shouldn't be a doctor in the COUNTRY who will risk her health and her baby's life in order to enable her to have unneccesary surgery.

I have a freind who just had an elective section because she almost died following post-forceps delivery complications with her #1. Did she NEED a section? NO, but when she went to talk to the ob about it he flipped through her notes, counting the blood transfusions (15) she had aloud. She came away scared stiff and opted for what he told her was the safest option, elective section. Her new baby is not so giant you'd expect her to need forceps, and she could CERTAINLY have done more than she was allowed to in her first labour to avoid needing them at all but her Ob didn't suggest that. He didn't say "if you avoid the epidural and stay upright and we don't augment you should be able to birth just fine", he said "gee you almost died, better have a section". Her baby is VERY sleepy, only waking to eat every 6 hours, i honestly don't think the baby realises it's been born. She's having feeding issues and all the normal post-op things with sections (numb tummy, burning inside etc.) which no one bothered to warn her of.

It makes me SICK that this is being put onto women's shoulders. Obs only seem to know/care about surgical birth nowadays. It's appalling.

[Trillian]

You're right Hoobley, it shouldn't ever be on the woman's shoulders, but unless the ob's of this world (both male and female - the female ones have me totally baffled by their stance sometimes, almost like they have forgotten they were born with a vagina and what it is used for) pull their collective finger out of their backsides and start going back to advocating vaginal births then it wont change, so unfortunately it HAS to come from the women. Afterall, the women are the ones that are paying their way so the more women start to question whether the c/s her ob has decided she is going to have is really necessary and make them accountable the sooner we will see change and reform.

[PenStealingPoltergeist]

I have to say that I would agree with waht someone has allready said- that most women do allready know the risks due to it being in the media spotlight all the time. I don't think the risks are that high, 1.7 in 1000 compared to 1 in a thousand. Yes it is almost double, but most people weigh up the risk and decide what is right for them.

[Trillian]

yes, the risk may be small, and there are hundreds of thousands of surgical births that happen every year all over the world without a single complication, but that's cold comfort for the women who do have complications or god forbid, lose their babies when it wasn't necessary in the first place.

[paradise lost]

I have to say that I would agree with waht someone has allready said- that most women do allready know the risks due to it being in the media spotlight all the time. I don't think the risks are that high, 1.7 in 1000 compared to 1 in a thousand. Yes it is almost double, but most people weigh up the risk and decide what is right for them.

I'm sorry i must respectfully disagree. Alot of the women i know who had "elective" c-sections were basically LIED to by their Obs to think they HAD to have a section. I know my friends section has gone into the hospital annual figures as "elective" to let the ob off the hook in explaining why he does 98% of his "emergency" c-sections between 9am and 4pm Monday to Thursday but he SCARED THE CRAP out of her to make her "elect" for this. She did not see 2 obs, one of whom told her how and why natural birth was a real and safe option, she only saw him and he didn't tell her the whole truth. She was NOT warned that sections double the risk of infant death, she was NOT told that numbness on the scar site is normal, she was NOT told that section babies who have had no labour are often very sleepy for a few weeks. She was NOT fully informed. She was scaremongered into surgery and she of ALL people should not be held accountable for the "choice" she made.

Western medicine has put the POWER into the obs hands, but the RESPONSIBILITY on the women's shoulders. They can't have it both ways, either they ARE in charge and they have to tell the TRUTH or they are NOT in charge and should not be in a position where thay can tell women how to birth, where to birth, when to birth. How is it Obs have somehow gotten the right to use selected information to terrify women into having unnecessary proceedures and yet seem to have been able to wash their hands of the responsibility for the outcomes of those surgeries?

[Trillian]

And then there are the instances where 'emergency' c/s are performed because labour was taking 'too long', only to find baby in a posterior or other unfavourable postion, thus hindering the birth process. They HAVE to lie about it and say the good old "Oh good thing we did the c/s, baby was never going to be born vaginally" or something equally as insidious because they can hardly say, "oh wow, we screwed up bigtime, had we had the patience to wait another few hours this baby would have been born vaginally"

[Schmickers]

Okay, well, to put this into perspective... you know how the risk of neonatal death if you go over 42 weeks gestation doubles? Well, it is a startlingly similar statistic. The risk of neonatal death "doubles" from 1% to 2% if your pregnancy progresses past 42 weeks. This statstic has long been used as a justifiction for inducing women who may well not have needed to be induced, in particular for women whose dates were uncertain and who might not have "really" passed the 42 week mark.

I don't think either situation is scare-mongering. It's just being aware of the risks.

[Trish]

Funny Michael, I was thinking of posting the same thing.

Trillian, you are so right about the Drs lying to cover their bums. I must have been a "lucky" one, Noah was a c section for breech presentation, I tried the ecv and begged them to "allow" me to birth him vaginally. Anyway, once on the table and opened up the Dr nicely told me that "oh, you could have birthed this baby"!! A bit bloody late then. If only it was now and not then I sure would have pushed a whole heap harder. Older, wiser and more informed.

Belle, sorry that you feel threads like this are to scare you. That simply wasn't my intention. It was hower my intention to inform women even further of the dangers that are out there. Sure, you may know of them, but what about a first time mum, who has only just joined BB and is seeking out some information ? If she see's this thread and reads it, totally absorbing the information provided and it helps her to make an informed decision and not risk her uterus, then I am a happy girl.

[BellyBelly]

Hoob you have hit the nail on the head there. A big thing the industry here is trying to curb is the blaming of women. Too old, too scared, too whatever. Doctors need to take the blame but they wont. The way women are cared for is a major problem.

My client the other day was told things like (by a private midwife before the Ob came in), 'you cant push your baby out on the floor because I dont want to stand on my head to watch it come out' - so mum got on the bed on her hands and knees and got told, 'I am not happy about delivering your baby like this' and then she was hounded to get on her back by the midwife as well as the other midwife who was about to come onto shift. Luckily this mum and her partner were the most assertive couple I had seen (ex homebirthers but this one was a VBAC) and were quite happy to say no. The Ob then went on to tell her she was 'stupid then' for not having the syntometrine at third stage. Not everyone could stand up to that treatment.

Its no wonder these babies dont come out. It makes me so mad. The more I see birth in hospital the more excited and convinced I am of my decision to homebirth in future. I can guarantee I will get a midwife I like and she's also more than qualified to catch my baby.

[*Belle*]

I think its personally up to the individual pregnant woman to decide the risks after researching and being informed. I agree some woman dont research and are not informed and just say yes when they havent been in labour. However, is it true that you cannot have a c-section now in the public system unless you have a medical reason?

In my case Julia's head got stuck in my pelvis after 36 hours of labour and me pushing when fully dialated so my c-section was emergency as her heartbeat was very low also. What would you do? continue trying to push and nothing happening and risk death of the baby or opt for the emergency c-section?

If you have a choice between a VBAC, possible rupture of the uterus and possible surgery or blood transfusion would you choose that over c-section? which is the more harmful surgery? What happens when you rupture the uterus? I would be interested in knowing the stats so I can be informed and make a decision myself this time round. Also my OB is all for VBAC for me its my choice. I just want to do research for myself.

[Trish]

Me, personly I would choose a VBAC and the "possible" rupture of my uterus over a c section. But that's just me

[MantaRay]

Isn't the risk of uterine rupture with VBAC still very low? I thought it wasn't much higher than other vaginal delivery in most cases.

[BellyBelly]

When my clients have been pushing for a long time and close to a 'cut-off' I get them in a supported squat position. My last client was fully dilated for an hour or two then given an hour to push, they were getting out the lithotomy poles when I suggested the squat and baby's head was on view right away. This happens often and usually a change of position to better facilitate pushing works well. Flat on your back/reclining is harder for you to use your stomach muscles and is more painful, and more likely to tear. So many are having epidurals that standing is even not possible for a big percent that make it to 10cms.

Rupture is a risk with an induction, caesarean or VBAC. The risk of rupture is 0.7% and that includes everyone, not just VBAC women. Consider that if you have an amnio you have about that or more risk of miscarriage, but its seen as far more acceptable and recommended by the medical profession. Yet VBAC is far less supported even though its very healthy. I've supported some awesome VBACs, not only did the mums get their VBACs but drug free too. Amazing things happen when you believe, get great support and put your heart and soul into it. Not to mention a VBAC supportive carer/place of birth.

[*Belle*]

Is it the risk of uterine rupture still low if you have more than 1 c-section? or have VBAC close together to the last c-section? What happens if you do rupture the uterus? do you have to have a hysterectomy?

ETA - BB what you wrote is very interesting thanks for that info. Its amazing that amnio is more accepted than VBAC thats horrible.

[maz]

ON a completely different token here girls

I love the fact that this is one discussion that is very personal to some yet it is being spoken about in here tackfully and respectfully manner to each other

I will keep my opinions out of this but thank you for being so open and sharing your thoughts on the matter.

[BellyBelly]

After one c/s it's 0.7% and after 2 c/s or more it increases by a measly 0.2% to 0.9%. Your scar is strong and heals well, you dont hear about people having open heart surgery and their heart popping open again after being stitched up! So why is a uterus any different?