NYT articles on fetal monitoring, increase in c-sections and rise in severe complication

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I gave birth to my first 20 years ago and this was a thing then. The system sucks and women pay

The entire birthing system has to punish women. Everything is done for the convenience of the medical staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gave birth to my first 20 years ago and this was a thing then. The system sucks and women pay

The system is designed to keep women alive, and if you look over the course of history, the current one does a very very very good job. They may overprescribe c-sections but it’s 10000% better than the alternative.

When you find the solution that strikes the *perfect* balance you go ahead and let us know!

No, the system is designed for the convenience of doctors and to attempt to prevent lawsuits. It is absolutely not the goal to keep mother's and babies alive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I too hated mine. Couldn’t move.

My biggest issue was the impatience of the nurses and doctor. I had super long labors. 3 of them. I mean 2 plus days in the hospital on pitocin. They threatened c section almost hourly. But in the end, when baby had finally descended, I pushed the babies out in 45 min or so. No issues pushing.

Why all the threatening about c sections??? I hear so many moms say they have c sections for failure to progress and I think they just didn’t wait long enough.

This was my labor too. I felt sort of silly hiring a doula for an induction with epidural but the single best thing she did was anticipate the rush to c section (she knew all of the doctors and their individual approaches) and help avoid one. In labor for two days. She noted a shift change was coming from the “time for a c section!” doctor who was about to make the call to the “give it time” doctor and we asked to make the decision after the shift change. Baby born after 3 pushes 90 minutes after the shift change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gave birth to my first 20 years ago and this was a thing then. The system sucks and women pay

The system is designed to keep women alive, and if you look over the course of history, the current one does a very very very good job. They may overprescribe c-sections but it’s 10000% better than the alternative.

When you find the solution that strikes the *perfect* balance you go ahead and let us know!

The problem is that in many cases, current policies aren’t evidence based. We’ve known for a while that constant fetal monitoring (not intermittent) increases the risk of C-sections without improving outcomes. The way we handle baby size is bizarre. Yes, large babies can cause delivery issues. However: ultrasound measurements do not accurately predict who will have those issues, but they do increase the chance of C-section.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gave birth to my first 20 years ago and this was a thing then. The system sucks and women pay

The system is designed to keep women alive, and if you look over the course of history, the current one does a very very very good job. They may overprescribe c-sections but it’s 10000% better than the alternative.

When you find the solution that strikes the *perfect* balance you go ahead and let us know!

The rest of the practice of medicine considers keeping the patient alive the floor. You’ve mistaken it for the ceiling.

[Anonymous]

My mom gave birth to my 11-pound brother in the early 1970s. If they had known his size, the doctor said they would have done a C-Section. My Mom started massive hemorrhaging a few days later and almost died. After the hysterectomy to save her life (which sadly my Dad had to “ok”), they did not have more children.
Be happy for the scans. I like to see the studies for birth outcomes in countries without the scans compared to the US. They can control for other factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gave birth to my first 20 years ago and this was a thing then. The system sucks and women pay

The system is designed to keep women alive, and if you look over the course of history, the current one does a very very very good job. They may overprescribe c-sections but it’s 10000% better than the alternative.

When you find the solution that strikes the *perfect* balance you go ahead and let us know!

This.
People find the smallest things to obsess and worry about.

"OMuhgEHrd! a 1% increase in risk! It's the end of the world!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gave birth to my first 20 years ago and this was a thing then. The system sucks and women pay

The system is designed to keep women alive, and if you look over the course of history, the current one does a very very very good job. They may overprescribe c-sections but it’s 10000% better than the alternative.

When you find the solution that strikes the *perfect* balance you go ahead and let us know!

This.
People find the smallest things to obsess and worry about.

"OMuhgEHrd! a 1% increase in risk! It's the end of the world!"

lol yeah, childbirth, such a small thing that barely happens to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New York Times today published two articles together:

The first states that constant fetal monitoring may result in more unnecessary c-sections but that companies are trying to sell it even harder with AI features.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/health/electronic-fetal-monitoring-c-sections.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zE8.9OGk.5ow7MgZTDhZQ&smid=url-share

The second shares that due to the rise in c-sections, there is also a rise in a complication called placenta accreta where the placenta attaches to scar tissue left by prior c-sections, increasing the risk of hemorrhaging.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/health/placenta-accreta-c-sections.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zE8.ACSL.BuFrerSj6fvf&smid=url-share

Scary!

This was being discussed 2 decades ago when I was pregnant with my kids. Nothing new.

[Anonymous]

Fetal monitoring saved my kid’s life, so I’m fine with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fetal monitoring saved my kid’s life, so I’m fine with it.

Yeah, that's what it's for. This is the problem with people's anecdotal reactions to stuff like the OP, in my opinion. The regulations that get in the way of an ideal childbirth experience (wandering around in a dimly lit room with your selected birth posse and your playlist/meditations on repeat while doctors stay out of the way and the ghost of Ina May encourages your healthy baby out on a wave of feminist empowerment) are there to prevent a worst-case outcome. For people who benefit they can see the rationale plainly. The people who weren't close to a bad outcome can only see that they were prevented from experiencing their ideal outcome.

Doctors don't care about ideal they care about alive. As they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetal monitoring saved my kid’s life, so I’m fine with it.

Yeah, that's what it's for. This is the problem with people's anecdotal reactions to stuff like the OP, in my opinion. The regulations that get in the way of an ideal childbirth experience (wandering around in a dimly lit room with your selected birth posse and your playlist/meditations on repeat while doctors stay out of the way and the ghost of Ina May encourages your healthy baby out on a wave of feminist empowerment) are there to prevent a worst-case outcome. For people who benefit they can see the rationale plainly. The people who weren't close to a bad outcome can only see that they were prevented from experiencing their ideal outcome.

Doctors don't care about ideal they care about alive. As they should.

Unfortunately the entire point of the second article is that people die from c-sections. Hence, we should minimize unnecessary ones. It is not as black and white as you would like it to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetal monitoring saved my kid’s life, so I’m fine with it.

Yeah, that's what it's for. This is the problem with people's anecdotal reactions to stuff like the OP, in my opinion. The regulations that get in the way of an ideal childbirth experience (wandering around in a dimly lit room with your selected birth posse and your playlist/meditations on repeat while doctors stay out of the way and the ghost of Ina May encourages your healthy baby out on a wave of feminist empowerment) are there to prevent a worst-case outcome. For people who benefit they can see the rationale plainly. The people who weren't close to a bad outcome can only see that they were prevented from experiencing their ideal outcome.

Doctors don't care about ideal they care about alive. As they should.

In no other area of medicine is this true. If I go in for knee replacement and have a leg amputated absolutely no one will say “yeah but your other healthy femur is all that matters”. Avoiding the worst case is literally the bare minimum expectation of medicine. It’s amazing how little you want patients to settle for when they’re only women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetal monitoring saved my kid’s life, so I’m fine with it.

Yeah, that's what it's for. This is the problem with people's anecdotal reactions to stuff like the OP, in my opinion. The regulations that get in the way of an ideal childbirth experience (wandering around in a dimly lit room with your selected birth posse and your playlist/meditations on repeat while doctors stay out of the way and the ghost of Ina May encourages your healthy baby out on a wave of feminist empowerment) are there to prevent a worst-case outcome. For people who benefit they can see the rationale plainly. The people who weren't close to a bad outcome can only see that they were prevented from experiencing their ideal outcome.

Doctors don't care about ideal they care about alive. As they should.

In no other area of medicine is this true. If I go in for knee replacement and have a leg amputated absolutely no one will say “yeah but your other healthy femur is all that matters”. Avoiding the worst case is literally the bare minimum expectation of medicine. It’s amazing how little you want patients to settle for when they’re only women.

Completely ridiculous analogy. And ignores that there are two patients in a delivery ward. And acts like avoiding death is a simple, easily achievable "bare minimum" when in fact childbirth was the leading cause of death for women for a lot of human history, so avoiding death in childbirth is a pretty big deal! But I'm sorry your leg was amputated during your C-section; you can actually sue over that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gave birth to my first 20 years ago and this was a thing then. The system sucks and women pay

The system is designed to keep women alive, and if you look over the course of history, the current one does a very very very good job. They may overprescribe c-sections but it’s 10000% better than the alternative.

When you find the solution that strikes the *perfect* balance you go ahead and let us know!

No, the system is designed for the convenience of doctors and to attempt to prevent lawsuits. It is absolutely not the goal to keep mother's and babies alive

Lawsuits happen because things ended badly. I'll take mild discomfort over a bad ending any day when they err on the side of safety and an abundance of caution.