So what exactly is the problem with C-Sections?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are fine. I had my first for medical reasons and had a scheduled C for my second by choice.

No, not “they are fine.” They can be fine. And if you had one that you would describe as “fine,” you should be grateful for it, but aware that you got lucky.

Really? I think the majority are fine. I would never elect for one without medical necessity, but no need to fear monger.

I had two. With my first, I never went into labor and my cervix never dilated, and it was 12 days after my due date. They offered to induce labor but were clear that I was likely to end up with an emergency c-section anyway. It turned out that my baby was happily floating in an abundance of amniotic fluid so labor wouldn’t have occurred in its own.

The second was a scheduled c-section because a VBAC would’ve had a low likelihood of success. I’m grateful we made that choice because when they went in they discovered a hole in my uterus that would have made natural childbirth very dangerous.

Forgot to add - recovery was smooth both times, though my second experience was a bit easier because I knew what to expect in every aspect of the post-partum experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are fine. I had my first for medical reasons and had a scheduled C for my second by choice.

No, not “they are fine.” They can be fine. And if you had one that you would describe as “fine,” you should be grateful for it, but aware that you got lucky.

Really? I think the majority are fine. I would never elect for one without medical necessity, but no need to fear monger.

I had two. With my first, I never went into labor and my cervix never dilated, and it was 12 days after my due date. They offered to induce labor but were clear that I was likely to end up with an emergency c-section anyway. It turned out that my baby was happily floating in an abundance of amniotic fluid so labor wouldn’t have occurred in its own.

The second was a scheduled c-section because a VBAC would’ve had a low likelihood of success. I’m grateful we made that choice because when they went in they discovered a hole in my uterus that would have made natural childbirth very dangerous.

You were fine, so all C-sections are smooth with no complications, and to say otherwise is to fear-monger. Got it. So your experience = valid and mine = not valid. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are fine. I had my first for medical reasons and had a scheduled C for my second by choice.

No, not “they are fine.” They can be fine. And if you had one that you would describe as “fine,” you should be grateful for it, but aware that you got lucky.

Really? I think the majority are fine. I would never elect for one without medical necessity, but no need to fear monger.

I had two. With my first, I never went into labor and my cervix never dilated, and it was 12 days after my due date. They offered to induce labor but were clear that I was likely to end up with an emergency c-section anyway. It turned out that my baby was happily floating in an abundance of amniotic fluid so labor wouldn’t have occurred in its own.

The second was a scheduled c-section because a VBAC would’ve had a low likelihood of success. I’m grateful we made that choice because when they went in they discovered a hole in my uterus that would have made natural childbirth very dangerous.

Forgot to add - recovery was smooth both times, though my second experience was a bit easier because I knew what to expect in every aspect of the post-partum experience.

You sharing your experience is helpful, and me sharing my experience is “fear-mongering.” Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate the "c-sections are so often unnecessary" argument. Lots of things are unnecessary, including pain medication in labor, and that doesn't make them bad choices.

I had a c-section because I wanted one. No medical reason, other than labor sounding like a drag. Very happy with my decision.

DP but this is my favorite reason for someone to have a c-section. Because they, as an informed patient aware of risks and benefits and a freaking adult, want one. It’s also my favorite reason for someone to have the worlds crunchiest vaginal birth— because they want one. A woman’s preference for the care of her own body and her own child should be paramount in how we provide medical care, not second guessed and questioned and undermined and pearl clutched.

Obviously in a case of clear medical emergency that’s not true and other considerations are paramount, but as the VHC example shows the “clear medical necessity” figure is smaller than the c-section rate. And I think that’s fine if the difference is made up wholly of people like the PP who just prefer a c-section. When someone chooses laparoscopic surgery over open, or physical therapy and cortisone shots over knee replacement, we don’t shriek about how much better one is than the other. Why can we not treat birth choices that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the "c-sections are so often unnecessary" argument. Lots of things are unnecessary, including pain medication in labor, and that doesn't make them bad choices.

I had a c-section because I wanted one. No medical reason, other than labor sounding like a drag. Very happy with my decision.

DP but this is my favorite reason for someone to have a c-section. Because they, as an informed patient aware of risks and benefits and a freaking adult, want one. It’s also my favorite reason for someone to have the worlds crunchiest vaginal birth— because they want one. A woman’s preference for the care of her own body and her own child should be paramount in how we provide medical care, not second guessed and questioned and undermined and pearl clutched.

Obviously in a case of clear medical emergency that’s not true and other considerations are paramount, but as the VHC example shows the “clear medical necessity” figure is smaller than the c-section rate. And I think that’s fine if the difference is made up wholly of people like the PP who just prefer a c-section. When someone chooses laparoscopic surgery over open, or physical therapy and cortisone shots over knee replacement, we don’t shriek about how much better one is than the other. Why can we not treat birth choices that way?

I agree with everything you said, expect the part where you ask why we don’t treat birth choices that way. You got a mouse in your pocket? Who is “we”? Because as dismissive and rude as this thread has been in many ways, I don’t think one person has been like, “No woman should just get to choose C-section.” That said, to act all blasé like “oh just get a C-section” and equating it with physical therapy is actually pretty dismissive and rude to people who have had a C-section, just so you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the "c-sections are so often unnecessary" argument. Lots of things are unnecessary, including pain medication in labor, and that doesn't make them bad choices.

I had a c-section because I wanted one. No medical reason, other than labor sounding like a drag. Very happy with my decision.

DP but this is my favorite reason for someone to have a c-section. Because they, as an informed patient aware of risks and benefits and a freaking adult, want one. It’s also my favorite reason for someone to have the worlds crunchiest vaginal birth— because they want one. A woman’s preference for the care of her own body and her own child should be paramount in how we provide medical care, not second guessed and questioned and undermined and pearl clutched.

Obviously in a case of clear medical emergency that’s not true and other considerations are paramount, but as the VHC example shows the “clear medical necessity” figure is smaller than the c-section rate. And I think that’s fine if the difference is made up wholly of people like the PP who just prefer a c-section. When someone chooses laparoscopic surgery over open, or physical therapy and cortisone shots over knee replacement, we don’t shriek about how much better one is than the other. Why can we not treat birth choices that way?

I agree with everything you said, expect the part where you ask why we don’t treat birth choices that way. You got a mouse in your pocket? Who is “we”? Because as dismissive and rude as this thread has been in many ways, I don’t think one person has been like, “No woman should just get to choose C-section.” That said, to act all blasé like “oh just get a C-section” and equating it with physical therapy is actually pretty dismissive and rude to people who have had a C-section, just so you know.

You’re right, I was imprecise in my language. Why doesn’t the DCUM board approach peoples stated preferences as…stated preferences worthy of respect and the assumption that those preferences are backed up by reasonable personal preference.

I actually was equating a c-section with knee replacement, but I don’t think people go into either a c-section *or* knee replacement blasé or unaware of their less-surgical options, but someone who chooses or needs a c-section is not less deserving of respect for their choice than someone who chooses or needs a knee replacement rather than physical therapy.

[Anonymous]

C-Section are convenient for stockers to make that tee time. The cost is nearly double for the hospital revenue. This is not for the mother or child wellbeing but profit over people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:C-Section are convenient for stockers to make that tee time. The cost is nearly double for the hospital revenue. This is not for the mother or child wellbeing but profit over people.

Doctor^

[Anonymous]

In your spot OP, I’d have a scheduled C too. I agree on the major surgery…but many of us would not be alive or our kids wouldn’t be alive if it weren’t for a C-section. Those of us who’ve had difficult vaginal deliveries, with long term medical issues as a result, probably would have benefited from a c section earlier in labor too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:C-Section are convenient for stockers to make that tee time. The cost is nearly double for the hospital revenue. This is not for the mother or child wellbeing but profit over people.

Welp. I would've died if I delivered vaginally, so my doctor earned that game of golf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C-Section are convenient for stockers to make that tee time. The cost is nearly double for the hospital revenue. This is not for the mother or child wellbeing but profit over people.

Welp. I would've died if I delivered vaginally, so my doctor earned that game of golf.

Yeah my doctor wasn’t trying to make a t time when they were insisting I give an induction a good try despite developing HELLP until my baby’s heart rate started crashing. I was basically begging for a c section and they were insisting it was important to only go there as a last resort.

My c sections, after this first emergent one, were all very easy.

[Anonymous]

Look, an easy birth, easy recovery, easy csection and easy csection recovery are all based on luck and genetics (which is luck because we don’t choose our genetics).

Everything birth is really just luck of the draw. I had a shitty recovery post vaginal birth because my tear didn’t heal, I had to be cut and re-stitched at 4.5 weeks pp, and then that didn’t heal properly so I had to have really painful scar tissue removed at 5 months pp. And because my midwives refused to see me after my 6 week appt, until I called and broke down in tears demanding that something was wrong, I was in horrific 24/7 pain for months longer than I should have been.

A csection for my next (and final) birth will probably suck just as much. But I already know that vaginal birth is bad for me and that I recover poorly, and that it’s excruciatingly painful, and I’m not interested in feeling birth again. So I’ll get a spinal, or go under general, and tough it out with surgery instead. It will suck. Most things about birth and babies suck (I like little kids more, I’d love another 5yo).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C-Section are convenient for stockers to make that tee time. The cost is nearly double for the hospital revenue. This is not for the mother or child wellbeing but profit over people.

Doctor^

Yep OBs are just sitting around and playing golf in their copious free time, unlike sanctimonious DCUMers in their cushy WFH jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C-Section are convenient for stockers to make that tee time. The cost is nearly double for the hospital revenue. This is not for the mother or child wellbeing but profit over people.

Welp. I would've died if I delivered vaginally, so my doctor earned that game of golf.

+1. My doctors and nurses saved my baby’s life. They were with me during 18 hours of labor, too, so no one was golfing.

You dismissive, myopic posters really need to stop. Before you post your comment, imagine first saying it to a woman who endured an emergency C-section; and imagine next saying it to a doctor or nurse who saved a mom or baby’s life in an emergency situation.

[Anonymous]

Anecdotally a friend and I gave birth around the same time. I had a c section for a breech baby who wouldn't flip, she delivered vaginally with a vacuum assist. She had a horrible recovery and had to be rehospitalized for an infection and her poor girl had this huge nasty bruise on her head from where they'd pulled her out.

I was up and walking around the hospital within 24 hours. I breastfed just fine, and my 3 year son is almost never sick (despite going to daycare).

I'm perfectly fine having had a c section.