DMV low C-section rates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who choose home birth are making the a selfish choice, they are putting their own desire and fantasies above the health of their babies. There is zero reason in America in 2022 for you to risk your life and your child's life by delivering at home.

https://people.com/parents/kara-keough-bosworth-son-died-final-moments-daughter-gma-interview/

I get that a couple posters had home births, but again… op specifically asked about hospitals.

I'm responding to the other posters on this thread. This kind of anti-science anti-medicine crap is why we have a raging pandemic. Pure selfishness.

You’re a mouth breathing, smoothed brained nutter. Who cares what other woman are doing. Get out of her vaginia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate how every thread where someone asks for information to support a birth choice they’re making freely (not being coerced uninformed into) gets derailed by one extremely anti-vaginal birth poster. The OP is entitled to the information she asks for even if you think vaginal birth is the devil and we should all have mandatory c-sections.

Wanting people to be informed of the risks of vaginal birth instead of just hearing about the risks of C sections is not anti vaginal birth. It’s pro consumer, pro woman, and pro choice. Hiding the realities of vaginal delivery and promoting it to women as the best way to birth (a practice that has origins in the belief that women need to experience the pains of birth due to original sin) is masochistic, and Antiwoman. It’s also what, ironically, underpins a lot of the ideology of midwifery, which is a profession that badly needs to embrace evidence and science instead of having large contingents of its practitioners be largely unqualified (CPMs, CMs) with little more than HS education and a bit of training.

This is ridiculous. The “risks” of vaginal childbirth is the risk of CHILDBIRTH. That’s literally how we are biologically created to reproduce. I think home births are ridiculous, but I think promoting that the human body does what it is supposed to do is sane. You should question what’s wrong with you that you think vaginal birth is somehow antiquated.

[Anonymous]

To all the posters sharing issues w/ vaginal birth complications….maybe that’s how it is supposed to be? I mean, I don’t understand how all of a sudden natural birth has to many complications for us as as a species. Have babies gotten to large, has something changed in our bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters sharing issues w/ vaginal birth complications….maybe that’s how it is supposed to be? I mean, I don’t understand how all of a sudden natural birth has to many complications for us as as a species. Have babies gotten to large, has something changed in our bodies.

I say this gently, but: this is not sudden. Childbirth was the #1 cause of death for women for a very long time. This is why the "interventions are evil" crowd seem idealistic to me; childbirth is incredibly dangerous. It always has been. It has to do with bipedalism, not any recent change in our bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters sharing issues w/ vaginal birth complications….maybe that’s how it is supposed to be? I mean, I don’t understand how all of a sudden natural birth has to many complications for us as as a species. Have babies gotten to large, has something changed in our bodies.

I say this gently, but: this is not sudden. Childbirth was the #1 cause of death for women for a very long time. This is why the "interventions are evil" crowd seem idealistic to me; childbirth is incredibly dangerous. It always has been. It has to do with bipedalism, not any recent change in our bodies.

Yes. Also, there are many many (life-saving and wonderful!) interventions now that are allowing women to pass on their genes when they may not have been "fit" for childbirth in prehistoric eras when cruel Mother Nature decided the outcome. So not everyone has good birthin' hips nowadays. I say this as a mom who had to be induced for complications and whose baby got stuck during pushing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters sharing issues w/ vaginal birth complications….maybe that’s how it is supposed to be? I mean, I don’t understand how all of a sudden natural birth has to many complications for us as as a species. Have babies gotten to large, has something changed in our bodies.

I say this gently, but: this is not sudden. Childbirth was the #1 cause of death for women for a very long time. This is why the "interventions are evil" crowd seem idealistic to me; childbirth is incredibly dangerous. It always has been. It has to do with bipedalism, not any recent change in our bodies.

Then it’s great that we have lots of interventional methods, but for pelvic floor issues,prolapsing, tears, if these things have always been as such, doesn’t; it make more sense to focus on preventative measures that don’t include major surgery (c-section). Either that, or we need to completely overhaul woman’s health so that all of these secondary issues are covered by insurance, more studies for treatments, increased maternity leave, etc. I don’t think intervention is but the idea that intervention is the norm also seems like a skewed approach to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters sharing issues w/ vaginal birth complications….maybe that’s how it is supposed to be? I mean, I don’t understand how all of a sudden natural birth has to many complications for us as as a species. Have babies gotten to large, has something changed in our bodies.

I say this gently, but: this is not sudden. Childbirth was the #1 cause of death for women for a very long time. This is why the "interventions are evil" crowd seem idealistic to me; childbirth is incredibly dangerous. It always has been. It has to do with bipedalism, not any recent change in our bodies.

Then it’s great that we have lots of interventional methods, but for pelvic floor issues,prolapsing, tears, if these things have always been as such, doesn’t; it make more sense to focus on preventative measures that don’t include major surgery (c-section). Either that, or we need to completely overhaul woman’s health so that all of these secondary issues are covered by insurance, more studies for treatments, increased maternity leave, etc. I don’t think intervention is but the idea that intervention is the norm also seems like a skewed approach to me.

The peer reviewed research says c-section should not be used to avoid prolapse but there not what that particular poster is selling. Using an intervention that raises the mothers risk of death seven fold to avoid prolapse seems extreme to me, but that’s also because I view the situation not only as the mother of the child I’m carrying, but also the mother of the child at home. I owe it to her to get her mother back home to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters sharing issues w/ vaginal birth complications….maybe that’s how it is supposed to be? I mean, I don’t understand how all of a sudden natural birth has to many complications for us as as a species. Have babies gotten to large, has something changed in our bodies.

I say this gently, but: this is not sudden. Childbirth was the #1 cause of death for women for a very long time. This is why the "interventions are evil" crowd seem idealistic to me; childbirth is incredibly dangerous. It always has been. It has to do with bipedalism, not any recent change in our bodies.

Then it’s great that we have lots of interventional methods, but for pelvic floor issues,prolapsing, tears, if these things have always been as such, doesn’t; it make more sense to focus on preventative measures that don’t include major surgery (c-section). Either that, or we need to completely overhaul woman’s health so that all of these secondary issues are covered by insurance, more studies for treatments, increased maternity leave, etc. I don’t think intervention is but the idea that intervention is the norm also seems like a skewed approach to me.

The peer reviewed research says c-section should not be used to avoid prolapse but there not what that particular poster is selling. Using an intervention that raises the mothers risk of death seven fold to avoid prolapse seems extreme to me, but that’s also because I view the situation not only as the mother of the child I’m carrying, but also the mother of the child at home. I owe it to her to get her mother back home to her.

Ok I would love to see citations for these claims. 7 fold risk of death? According to who - ICAN? MANA? Smdh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters sharing issues w/ vaginal birth complications….maybe that’s how it is supposed to be? I mean, I don’t understand how all of a sudden natural birth has to many complications for us as as a species. Have babies gotten to large, has something changed in our bodies.

I say this gently, but: this is not sudden. Childbirth was the #1 cause of death for women for a very long time. This is why the "interventions are evil" crowd seem idealistic to me; childbirth is incredibly dangerous. It always has been. It has to do with bipedalism, not any recent change in our bodies.

Then it’s great that we have lots of interventional methods, but for pelvic floor issues,prolapsing, tears, if these things have always been as such, doesn’t; it make more sense to focus on preventative measures that don’t include major surgery (c-section). Either that, or we need to completely overhaul woman’s health so that all of these secondary issues are covered by insurance, more studies for treatments, increased maternity leave, etc. I don’t think intervention is but the idea that intervention is the norm also seems like a skewed approach to me.

The peer reviewed research says c-section should not be used to avoid prolapse but there not what that particular poster is selling. Using an intervention that raises the mothers risk of death seven fold to avoid prolapse seems extreme to me, but that’s also because I view the situation not only as the mother of the child I’m carrying, but also the mother of the child at home. I owe it to her to get her mother back home to her.

Really, according to who? Research done by men who dismiss prolapse as just a quality of life issue? The connection between POP and vaginal birth is well established.

“Through physical exams and questionnaires to assess symptoms of pelvic floor disorders, Handa and her colleagues discovered that the primary factor that affects the risk of prolapse is a single vaginal delivery—with chances dramatically increased with the use of forceps or vacuum.”

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/to-prevent-pelvic-organ-prolapse

There are over 300,000 prolapse surgeries performed in the US every year! And more than 3.3 million women living with prolapse. Why shouldn’t women be educated about this and their individual risk factors and given a choice for how they want to deliver? Mother Nature is a cruel B and just because vaginal childbirth is natural does not mean we should not explore alternatives that do not permanently injure a larger percentage of those who experience it. I mean, cancer is natural as well but you still treat it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters sharing issues w/ vaginal birth complications….maybe that’s how it is supposed to be? I mean, I don’t understand how all of a sudden natural birth has to many complications for us as as a species. Have babies gotten to large, has something changed in our bodies.

I say this gently, but: this is not sudden. Childbirth was the #1 cause of death for women for a very long time. This is why the "interventions are evil" crowd seem idealistic to me; childbirth is incredibly dangerous. It always has been. It has to do with bipedalism, not any recent change in our bodies.

Then it’s great that we have lots of interventional methods, but for pelvic floor issues,prolapsing, tears, if these things have always been as such, doesn’t; it make more sense to focus on preventative measures that don’t include major surgery (c-section). Either that, or we need to completely overhaul woman’s health so that all of these secondary issues are covered by insurance, more studies for treatments, increased maternity leave, etc. I don’t think intervention is but the idea that intervention is the norm also seems like a skewed approach to me.

The peer reviewed research says c-section should not be used to avoid prolapse but there not what that particular poster is selling. Using an intervention that raises the mothers risk of death seven fold to avoid prolapse seems extreme to me, but that’s also because I view the situation not only as the mother of the child I’m carrying, but also the mother of the child at home. I owe it to her to get her mother back home to her.

Really, according to who? Research done by men who dismiss prolapse as just a quality of life issue? The connection between POP and vaginal birth is well established.

“Through physical exams and questionnaires to assess symptoms of pelvic floor disorders, Handa and her colleagues discovered that the primary factor that affects the risk of prolapse is a single vaginal delivery—with chances dramatically increased with the use of forceps or vacuum.”

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/to-prevent-pelvic-organ-prolapse

There are over 300,000 prolapse surgeries performed in the US every year! And more than 3.3 million women living with prolapse. Why shouldn’t women be educated about this and their individual risk factors and given a choice for how they want to deliver? Mother Nature is a cruel B and just because vaginal childbirth is natural does not mean we should not explore alternatives that do not permanently injure a larger percentage of those who experience it. I mean, cancer is natural as well but you still treat it.

No one isn’t educated about this— prolapse isn’t a secret and most women around here at least are educated about pelvic floor injury. The reason people don’t rush to have a c-section to prevent it is that 1. It doesn’t always prevent ir, as your research will show you and 2. Most of us would rather be alive to care for our babies even if that means needing pelvic floor PT

And before you dismiss the increased maternal mortality figures remember that not everyone posting here is white.

[Anonymous]

Actually pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor injuries are rarely, if ever, discussed in childbirth preparation courses and books. It is a dirty secret of women’s health and only in the last few years is it getting more attention. Many gynecologists also don’t even routinely look for it or know how to appropriately assess for prolapse (hint: in a standing position, not lithotomy).

I’m still waiting for your citation how dangerous C sections are. Also, are you talking scheduled C section or emergent C section done when the plan was for vaginal deliver and the mom is in labor. Those are two very different scenarios and comparing the mortality rates is like mixing apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor injuries are rarely, if ever, discussed in childbirth preparation courses and books. It is a dirty secret of women’s health and only in the last few years is it getting more attention. Many gynecologists also don’t even routinely look for it or know how to appropriately assess for prolapse (hint: in a standing position, not lithotomy).

I’m still waiting for your citation how dangerous C sections are. Also, are you talking scheduled C section or emergent C section done when the plan was for vaginal deliver and the mom is in labor. Those are two very different scenarios and comparing the mortality rates is like mixing apples and oranges.

Use PubMed, no one has to do your research for you. You can move your goalposts all you want for emergent vs schedule, the dead women are the ones who had c-sections. Especially the WOC.

I’m sorry your doctor didn’t discuss prolapse with you. It was on the list of complications on the informed consent form for both vaginal and c-section delivery, which I insisted my doctor review point by point (and suggest everyone else should too).

[Anonymous]

NP. I've seen a lot of back and forth about CS vs vaginal birth on this board not just this thread. I'm not sure it's the correct debate. At the end of the day, vaginal delivery is the safest option for 97% women. They may have prolapse or pelvic floor dysfunction after, but of a mild version that time and PT will help. On the other hand, the 3% will suffer such severe pelvic floor injury that the risks of a CS may have been preferable. A very small segment of the population will need prolapse repair and those are the women with the severe injuries. I wish there were an algorithm to predict exactly who will fall into this unfortunate category, but there isn't. We can't CS 97 healthy women to save 3 women. I do wish though that people like the Pp wouldn't be so haughty and condescending. Just because you had a healthy normal vaginal delivery doesn't mean that everyone will. The suffering of these women with severe injuries is very real and it's not acceptable to talk about it because it makes you seem ungrateful for your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor injuries are rarely, if ever, discussed in childbirth preparation courses and books. It is a dirty secret of women’s health and only in the last few years is it getting more attention. Many gynecologists also don’t even routinely look for it or know how to appropriately assess for prolapse (hint: in a standing position, not lithotomy).

I’m still waiting for your citation how dangerous C sections are. Also, are you talking scheduled C section or emergent C section done when the plan was for vaginal deliver and the mom is in labor. Those are two very different scenarios and comparing the mortality rates is like mixing apples and oranges.

This is correct. I was lucky and only needed mild pelvic floor PT after vaginal birth (with 4+ hour pushing time) but I would never ever put my pelvic floor health at risk again. I'm one-and-done with kids but if I had a second I would insist on elective C.

[Anonymous]

GW attire to pressure me into a C-section. My levels were normal, no issues with the baby hit the dilation was taking “longer” time. Multiple times I had to verbally advocate my body and baby are not in distress therefor can labour for however long I need to without pressure of the staff wanting the bed for another “bill” patient. Had a natural vaginal birth. Do not let the hospital dictate your rights as a human.