Did you have a c-section? What were the reasons?

[Anonymous]

Rolls eyes at all the offended people. OP asked a question no need to get all up in arms about it. OMG how dare someone seek to understand something better!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you blaming patients for something that's pretty much beyond their control? Blame doctors. Blame hospitals. Insurance. Because when they come to you, in deep labor or pregnancy, and say "do this or your baby might die," what the hell do you think 99.999% of mothers are going to do? You got problems with the c-section rate? I do. But that's something beyond the control of the patient, and the 100% truly elective c-section is pretty much a rhinoceros. Real, but super uncommon.

NP here: I'm your rhinoceros. I elected a c-section with no medical reason, unless you want to count my severe aversion to vaginal birth as some kind of mental health issue. I note that not only am I the first maternal choice c-section on this 11-page post -- other than the lady living abroad, which I think is an unusual circumstance -- but also the only one I've met in person: we're pretty rare. However, fully half of my Mamistad meet-up group for first-time moms had c-sections; about half of those were for breech babies and the other half for failure to progress. FWIW, I had a great birth experience, short hospital stay, and exclusively breastfed with no issues.

I hope this helps OP with whatever her question is. I don't understand the hand-wringing about the c-section rate in the abstract, and wish the conversation was about the harm caused by unnecessary c-sections (whatever you think that harm is) because a percentage by itself is meaningless. It's like saying the percentage of homeowners is too high -- too high for what? We should be talking about effects, not rates.

I think the people concerned about unnecessary c-sections are well aware of the negative effects. Hence the fear.

You misunderstand me. The c-section rate is showing no signs of decreasing, but if you're worried about some specific effect of c-sections then there may be other ways to address that effect. So for example, let's say you can show that c-sections decrease breastfeeding success. It may be that the so-called "natural" c-section, and allowing the baby to remain with mom during closing and in the recovery room, and having the nurse help the baby latch while still in the OR, all increase breastfeeding success. Making those practices standard could boost breastfeeding even if the c-section rate continues to rise. But those changes don't get serious attention if the focus is on the c-section rate by itself, and the fact a c-section happened is the only thing people measure or discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you blaming patients for something that's pretty much beyond their control? Blame doctors. Blame hospitals. Insurance. Because when they come to you, in deep labor or pregnancy, and say "do this or your baby might die," what the hell do you think 99.999% of mothers are going to do? You got problems with the c-section rate? I do. But that's something beyond the control of the patient, and the 100% truly elective c-section is pretty much a rhinoceros. Real, but super uncommon.

NP here: I'm your rhinoceros. I elected a c-section with no medical reason, unless you want to count my severe aversion to vaginal birth as some kind of mental health issue. I note that not only am I the first maternal choice c-section on this 11-page post -- other than the lady living abroad, which I think is an unusual circumstance -- but also the only one I've met in person: we're pretty rare. However, fully half of my Mamistad meet-up group for first-time moms had c-sections; about half of those were for breech babies and the other half for failure to progress. FWIW, I had a great birth experience, short hospital stay, and exclusively breastfed with no issues.

I hope this helps OP with whatever her question is. I don't understand the hand-wringing about the c-section rate in the abstract, and wish the conversation was about the harm caused by unnecessary c-sections (whatever you think that harm is) because a percentage by itself is meaningless. It's like saying the percentage of homeowners is too high -- too high for what? We should be talking about effects, not rates.

I think the people concerned about unnecessary c-sections are well aware of the negative effects. Hence the fear.

You misunderstand me. The c-section rate is showing no signs of decreasing, but if you're worried about some specific effect of c-sections then there may be other ways to address that effect. So for example, let's say you can show that c-sections decrease breastfeeding success. It may be that the so-called "natural" c-section, and allowing the baby to remain with mom during closing and in the recovery room, and having the nurse help the baby latch while still in the OR, all increase breastfeeding success. Making those practices standard could boost breastfeeding even if the c-section rate continues to rise. But those changes don't get serious attention if the focus is on the c-section rate by itself, and the fact a c-section happened is the only thing people measure or discuss.

Then I think you miss the point. Personally, I was afraid of c-sections prior to having one because it's major surgery. The surgery was awful, my recovery was worse, but at least the worst didn't happen - I didn't suffer a surgery related complication, didn't hemorrhage, and didn't die. Because that's the big problem with major surgery - for the most part you don't know who's going to experience major complications, and there's no simple workaround.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you blaming patients for something that's pretty much beyond their control? Blame doctors. Blame hospitals. Insurance. Because when they come to you, in deep labor or pregnancy, and say "do this or your baby might die," what the hell do you think 99.999% of mothers are going to do? You got problems with the c-section rate? I do. But that's something beyond the control of the patient, and the 100% truly elective c-section is pretty much a rhinoceros. Real, but super uncommon.

NP here: I'm your rhinoceros. I elected a c-section with no medical reason, unless you want to count my severe aversion to vaginal birth as some kind of mental health issue. I note that not only am I the first maternal choice c-section on this 11-page post -- other than the lady living abroad, which I think is an unusual circumstance -- but also the only one I've met in person: we're pretty rare. However, fully half of my Mamistad meet-up group for first-time moms had c-sections; about half of those were for breech babies and the other half for failure to progress. FWIW, I had a great birth experience, short hospital stay, and exclusively breastfed with no issues.

I hope this helps OP with whatever her question is. I don't understand the hand-wringing about the c-section rate in the abstract, and wish the conversation was about the harm caused by unnecessary c-sections (whatever you think that harm is) because a percentage by itself is meaningless. It's like saying the percentage of homeowners is too high -- too high for what? We should be talking about effects, not rates.

I think the people concerned about unnecessary c-sections are well aware of the negative effects. Hence the fear.

You misunderstand me. The c-section rate is showing no signs of decreasing, but if you're worried about some specific effect of c-sections then there may be other ways to address that effect. So for example, let's say you can show that c-sections decrease breastfeeding success. It may be that the so-called "natural" c-section, and allowing the baby to remain with mom during closing and in the recovery room, and having the nurse help the baby latch while still in the OR, all increase breastfeeding success. Making those practices standard could boost breastfeeding even if the c-section rate continues to rise. But those changes don't get serious attention if the focus is on the c-section rate by itself, and the fact a c-section happened is the only thing people measure or discuss.

Then I think you miss the point. Personally, I was afraid of c-sections prior to having one because it's major surgery. The surgery was awful, my recovery was worse, but at least the worst didn't happen - I didn't suffer a surgery related complication, didn't hemorrhage, and didn't die. Because that's the big problem with major surgery - for the most part you don't know who's going to experience major complications, and there's no simple workaround.

Ok, then you would want people to talk about the rate of complications, what can be done to mitigate complications, how the complications compare to complications from vaginal birth, etc. I'm not pushing c-sections, but I'm strongly in favor of making them better (and less scary) for the increasing number of people who have them. That's my only point: that simply saying "n% is too many" is not helpful.

I'm sorry you had a bad c-section experience.

[Anonymous]

I elected for one because C-section babies are so much cuter. They aren't all squished and I had no desire to go through labor, medicated or otherwise. I had an awesome experience and I recommend it to everyone. These people with tears and stitches and everything sound awful. Recovery was great and I looked great and had a beautiful, smooth-skinned, non-squished baby, it was perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I elected for one because C-section babies are so much cuter. They aren't all squished and I had no desire to go through labor, medicated or otherwise. I had an awesome experience and I recommend it to everyone. These people with tears and stitches and everything sound awful. Recovery was great and I looked great and had a beautiful, smooth-skinned, non-squished baby, it was perfect.

I'm going to assume that this is a troll.

But here's a link to something that seems relevant anyway: pictures of babies born by C-section, within 20 seconds of their birth:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2015/01/01/christian_berthelot_cesar_takes_a_look_at_the_first_few_seconds_of_life.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I elected for one because C-section babies are so much cuter. They aren't all squished and I had no desire to go through labor, medicated or otherwise. I had an awesome experience and I recommend it to everyone. These people with tears and stitches and everything sound awful. Recovery was great and I looked great and had a beautiful, smooth-skinned, non-squished baby, it was perfect.

I'm going to assume that this is a troll.

But here's a link to something that seems relevant anyway: pictures of babies born by C-section, within 20 seconds of their birth:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2015/01/01/christian_berthelot_cesar_takes_a_look_at_the_first_few_seconds_of_life.html

Both ghoulish and gorgeous. Amazingly beautiful. Thanks for posting.

[Anonymous]

You don't know what kind of major complications may come from a vaginal birth, either. One of the reasons I chose c-section (I am the woman who was living overseas) was that nearly all of the risks were to me, and were predictable.

[Anonymous]

My son was born by c-section. He was breech and I thought there would be time for him to turn. However my water broke at 34 weeks, and considering my son was IUGR (I was getting weekly sonograms to monitor), the goal became to get him out as soon as possible so the NICU doctors could care for him. I knew c-section was a good possibility so I mentally prepared myself for both situations. My experience was overall positive...I knew my doctor, my recovery was pretty good, my scar is minimal. Hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

Was in labor 18 plus hours withy first, he was not even in the birth canal and had a cone head
Decided on a c section.
Second kid, 10 days late went right into a c section

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you blaming patients for something that's pretty much beyond their control? Blame doctors. Blame hospitals. Insurance. Because when they come to you, in deep labor or pregnancy, and say "do this or your baby might die," what the hell do you think 99.999% of mothers are going to do? You got problems with the c-section rate? I do. But that's something beyond the control of the patient, and the 100% truly elective c-section is pretty much a rhinoceros. Real, but super uncommon.

NP here: I'm your rhinoceros. I elected a c-section with no medical reason, unless you want to count my severe aversion to vaginal birth as some kind of mental health issue. I note that not only am I the first maternal choice c-section on this 11-page post -- other than the lady living abroad, which I think is an unusual circumstance -- but also the only one I've met in person: we're pretty rare. However, fully half of my Mamistad meet-up group for first-time moms had c-sections; about half of those were for breech babies and the other half for failure to progress. FWIW, I had a great birth experience, short hospital stay, and exclusively breastfed with no issues.

I hope this helps OP with whatever her question is. I don't understand the hand-wringing about the c-section rate in the abstract, and wish the conversation was about the harm caused by unnecessary c-sections (whatever you think that harm is) because a percentage by itself is meaningless. It's like saying the percentage of homeowners is too high -- too high for what? We should be talking about effects, not rates.

I think the people concerned about unnecessary c-sections are well aware of the negative effects. Hence the fear.

You misunderstand me. The c-section rate is showing no signs of decreasing, but if you're worried about some specific effect of c-sections then there may be other ways to address that effect. So for example, let's say you can show that c-sections decrease breastfeeding success. It may be that the so-called "natural" c-section, and allowing the baby to remain with mom during closing and in the recovery room, and having the nurse help the baby latch while still in the OR, all increase breastfeeding success. Making those practices standard could boost breastfeeding even if the c-section rate continues to rise. But those changes don't get serious attention if the focus is on the c-section rate by itself, and the fact a c-section happened is the only thing people measure or discuss.

Then I think you miss the point. Personally, I was afraid of c-sections prior to having one because it's major surgery. The surgery was awful, my recovery was worse, but at least the worst didn't happen - I didn't suffer a surgery related complication, didn't hemorrhage, and didn't die. Because that's the big problem with major surgery - for the most part you don't know who's going to experience major complications, and there's no simple workaround.

NP here. The same can be said for vaginal birth, and that's why I, personally, was afraid of having one. I preferred the risk profile of the c section - the risks being largely to me, and everything being completely in the hands of the doctors and not influenced by whatever anxiety I have about the process. I have wanted a c section ever since I knew how babies are born, and I felt lucky to have a medical indication (twins). That is not to say that there aren't too many unnecessary c sections today, performed on women who prefer a vaginal birth. But a c section should be an option if a woman wants one. And don't tell me they should pay out of pocket - insurance pays for plenty of surgeries (back, knee, etc.) that aren't necessary.

[Anonymous]

Someone upthread posted about the alternative to c-section, and some may be interested in my story:

I was induced at 37 weeks for HBP, went from 1-10 in 2 hours with killer back spasms, got an epidural and then they discovered he was LOP. The epidural worked great, I couldn't feel a thing, or push effectively. I pushed for 3 hours, the attending offered a c-section at that point, saying that most women are finished at that point and cannot push much more. I begged for some more time and DS was born 2 hours later after more pushing. He was blue, floppy and not breathing. The attending laid him on my chest, calmly reached forward and pressed the NICU button on the wall, and the NICU team was there within seconds. They intubated and revived him, after a few minutes.

He's fine now, but has asthma and a near-constant cough/cold, possibly unrelated. Should I have gone for the c-section? I don't know, but I do wonder sometimes if it would have been better for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone upthread posted about the alternative to c-section, and some may be interested in my story:

I was induced at 37 weeks for HBP, went from 1-10 in 2 hours with killer back spasms, got an epidural and then they discovered he was LOP. The epidural worked great, I couldn't feel a thing, or push effectively. I pushed for 3 hours, the attending offered a c-section at that point, saying that most women are finished at that point and cannot push much more. I begged for some more time and DS was born 2 hours later after more pushing. He was blue, floppy and not breathing. The attending laid him on my chest, calmly reached forward and pressed the NICU button on the wall, and the NICU team was there within seconds. They intubated and revived him, after a few minutes.

He's fine now, but has asthma and a near-constant cough/cold, possibly unrelated. Should I have gone for the c-section? I don't know, but I do wonder sometimes if it would have been better for him.

Selfish. Absolutely, totally selfish. Congratulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone upthread posted about the alternative to c-section, and some may be interested in my story:

I was induced at 37 weeks for HBP, went from 1-10 in 2 hours with killer back spasms, got an epidural and then they discovered he was LOP. The epidural worked great, I couldn't feel a thing, or push effectively. I pushed for 3 hours, the attending offered a c-section at that point, saying that most women are finished at that point and cannot push much more. I begged for some more time and DS was born 2 hours later after more pushing. He was blue, floppy and not breathing. The attending laid him on my chest, calmly reached forward and pressed the NICU button on the wall, and the NICU team was there within seconds. They intubated and revived him, after a few minutes.

He's fine now, but has asthma and a near-constant cough/cold, possibly unrelated. Should I have gone for the c-section? I don't know, but I do wonder sometimes if it would have been better for him.

Selfish. Absolutely, totally selfish. Congratulations.

+1. Of course her son would have been better off with a c section at the time the doctors suggested it. No question about it.

[Anonymous]

I would have given anything -- except my left leg -- for a c-section.

I'm 43 years old, had a large-ish non-descending baby in too much fluid. After almost 29 hours of labor -- including 4.25 hours of pushing -- my baby's heart rate dipped, and still no c-section. Somehow, I got him out with one or two more pushes after I heard the trouble on the monitor.

I go to a large practice in Virginia, and I had an OB on call in DC because we thought we would need to deliver there at one point.

NONE of these doctors were willing to entertain the thought of a c-section, and in fact all have expressed that they are under significant industry pressure to get c- rates down. So I find it hard to believe that women are truly being bullied into c's for the convenience or lucre of doctors.

I ended up with femoral nerve damage in my left leg, leaving me unable to walk unassisted (for 2-6-12 months??) or to carry my baby safely. due to prolonged pushing in the lithotomy position.

The condition is considered a "relic" of an earlier era -- the era before c-sections.