DMV low C-section rates?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, do you really think you know all the downsides of vaginal deliveries the way you know about the downsides of C sections? Do you really have any clue about vaginal
Birth injuries like pelvic organ prolapse, levator ani avulsion, fistula, anal incontinence, torn anal sphincter, etc? Do you really know about stress incontinence, or flatal incontinence or vaginal laxity? Do you really know about how women with prolapse can frequently experience air trapped in the vagina (aka queefing) just from moving around, can’t often have IUDs due to the fact that they get dislodged, can’t often retain or wear tampons, and more? Or about how women can experience PTSD from long labors and difficult
Births? I’m going to guess not. Because hardly anyone ever talks about this stuff. But there’s a reason urogynecologists and colorectal surgeons and pelvic floor PTs are in business.

I don’t think I know every possible complication of either c-section or vaginal delivery. I certainly know all of the common ones of both, and every one you mentioned (though I am sure you know c-section does not prevent prolapse, since that is primarily caused by carrying the baby, not delivery).

I also think, again, OP knows more about her own circumstances and what she wants for her delivery than we do, so we should take her at her word and answer her pretty straightforward request for information rather than telling her her birth preference is uninformed…

Prolapse is most Often caused by vaginal Birth. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, do you really think you know all the downsides of vaginal deliveries the way you know about the downsides of C sections? Do you really have any clue about vaginal
Birth injuries like pelvic organ prolapse, levator ani avulsion, fistula, anal incontinence, torn anal sphincter, etc? Do you really know about stress incontinence, or flatal incontinence or vaginal laxity? Do you really know about how women with prolapse can frequently experience air trapped in the vagina (aka queefing) just from moving around, can’t often have IUDs due to the fact that they get dislodged, can’t often retain or wear tampons, and more? Or about how women can experience PTSD from long labors and difficult
Births? I’m going to guess not. Because hardly anyone ever talks about this stuff. But there’s a reason urogynecologists and colorectal surgeons and pelvic floor PTs are in business.

I don’t think I know every possible complication of either c-section or vaginal delivery. I certainly know all of the common ones of both, and every one you mentioned (though I am sure you know c-section does not prevent prolapse, since that is primarily caused by carrying the baby, not delivery).

I also think, again, OP knows more about her own circumstances and what she wants for her delivery than we do, so we should take her at her word and answer her pretty straightforward request for information rather than telling her her birth preference is uninformed…

Prolapse is most Often caused by vaginal Birth. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

But maybe UPenn does, anonymous internet poster?

https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/womens-health/2015/october/five-myths-about-childbirth-and-uterine-prolapse

If you are an Ivy League physician please post your credentials so you can let help us evaluate various source material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, do you really think you know all the downsides of vaginal deliveries the way you know about the downsides of C sections? Do you really have any clue about vaginal
Birth injuries like pelvic organ prolapse, levator ani avulsion, fistula, anal incontinence, torn anal sphincter, etc? Do you really know about stress incontinence, or flatal incontinence or vaginal laxity? Do you really know about how women with prolapse can frequently experience air trapped in the vagina (aka queefing) just from moving around, can’t often have IUDs due to the fact that they get dislodged, can’t often retain or wear tampons, and more? Or about how women can experience PTSD from long labors and difficult
Births? I’m going to guess not. Because hardly anyone ever talks about this stuff. But there’s a reason urogynecologists and colorectal surgeons and pelvic floor PTs are in business.

I don’t think I know every possible complication of either c-section or vaginal delivery. I certainly know all of the common ones of both, and every one you mentioned (though I am sure you know c-section does not prevent prolapse, since that is primarily caused by carrying the baby, not delivery).

I also think, again, OP knows more about her own circumstances and what she wants for her delivery than we do, so we should take her at her word and answer her pretty straightforward request for information rather than telling her her birth preference is uninformed…

I
Prolapse is most Often caused by vaginal Birth. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

But maybe UPenn does, anonymous internet poster?

https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/womens-health/2015/october/five-myths-about-childbirth-and-uterine-prolapse

If you are an Ivy League physician please post your credentials so you can let help us evaluate various source material.

Nice try but she’s not saying what you think she is and that article is 7 years

“Compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery was associated with significantly lower hazard for stress urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and pelvic organ prolapse, while operative vaginal delivery was associated with significantly higher hazard of anal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.” - this JAMA 2018 study

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2718794

[Anonymous]

Myth 2: C-sections prevent pelvic floor disorders
Having a C-section doesn’t protect you from prolapse or urinary incontinence. You’re at the mercy of many other factors as well.
“It’s the carrying of the baby, your genetics and bad luck at play,” says Dr. Levin. That’s because genes can determine muscle and tissue strength. Women born with weaker tissues are at greater risk for prolapse, reports the American Urogynecologic Society.
Dr. Levin warns women not to “make any quick judgments about how functional your pelvic floor muscles are until you’ve had plenty of time to recover after pregnancy.”

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Myth 2: C-sections prevent pelvic floor disorders
Having a C-section doesn’t protect you from prolapse or urinary incontinence. You’re at the mercy of many other factors as well.
“It’s the carrying of the baby, your genetics and bad luck at play,” says Dr. Levin. That’s because genes can determine muscle and tissue strength. Women born with weaker tissues are at greater risk for prolapse, reports the American Urogynecologic Society.
Dr. Levin warns women not to “make any quick judgments about how functional your pelvic floor muscles are until you’ve had plenty of time to recover after pregnancy.”

The fact that you are just restating the article instead of reading more recent evidence just shows how ignorant you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend and her DH really felt bullied into a C-section at Sibley on their first birth. They did a home birth on the 2nd baby -- 2 pounds larger and a much happier experience.

Your friend is an irresponsible idiot.

NP and you are truly the idiot. You might wish to check your bias at the door if you want to be a productive contribution to this board and probably society as a whole.

OP- you're better off focusing on a midwife or OB practice that has low c-section rates and low interventions.

Home birth is irresponsible. It’s people’s choice to have one, but the infant mortality rates of home birth in the US and the fact that in an emergent medical situation you will not have access to the full scope of medical care and services you may need (forceps, vacuum, C section, blood in the event of you hemorrhaging, imaging, etc) should be a reason to avoid it. Is an uncomplicated homebirth likely to be a better experience for mom? Sure. But making the quality of your experience in one day the focus of your decision making (rather than the bigger goal of having a healthy child for the rest of your life and your child’s life) is a mistake. You have no idea if your birth will be complicated or not until is is over. And while there are things you can do to stack the deck in your favor to have an uncomplicated birth, at the end of the day it is a huge roll of the dice as all sorts of problems can come up from out of the blue during delivery, which you often cannot anticipate. And that have nothing to do with if you did prenatal yoga, ate well, and exercised.

Also, midwives have low C section rates because they cannot perform them. They also don’t do vacuum or forceps births. This can mean they use more creative techniques to get babies out vaginally, but it can also mean they do crazy things (like purple push for HOURS!) that can damage women and their pelvic floors permanently for the goal of getting the baby out the vagina. Your vagina is going to be with you the rest of your life - if you injure it or your rectum during birth, it is often not easily fixed and can mean incontinence (flatal, urinary, fecal), severe tears, difficult recovery, chronic pain, dissatisfying sex, inability to wear tampons, pelvic organ prolapse, and a bunch of other stuff. Not to say these things don’t sometimes happen with C sections, but with a scheduled C section if you don’t go into labor you will absolutely not risk tearing your vagina or pelvic floor muscles.

So who else do we get to start brow beating? Fat moms? Moms who sneak smokes? Unvaccinated pregnant women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The WHO target rate of 15 percent is made up. It is not evidence based. And it has been debunked thoroughly. Countries who have this rate have high levels of maternal and infant mortality. Please stop furthering this tired, incorrect, and outdated statistic like gospel. It’s damaging and irresponsible.

What is your evidence for this assertion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend and her DH really felt bullied into a C-section at Sibley on their first birth. They did a home birth on the 2nd baby -- 2 pounds larger and a much happier experience.

Your friend is an irresponsible idiot.

NP and you are truly the idiot. You might wish to check your bias at the door if you want to be a productive contribution to this board and probably society as a whole.

OP- you're better off focusing on a midwife or OB practice that has low c-section rates and low interventions.

I agree it was dumb to risk a homebirth VBAC, but why is zero responsibility being laid at the feet of the hospital birth system? Obviously something bad is happening to these women to drive them to make such risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midwives have lower c section rates. I am with a midwife now despite being a VBAC.

Also don’t forget that a major reason for this is because the midwives won’t take on medicinally complicated cases that are more likely to result in a c section. With my first, I was super committed to a “natural birth” and started off with a very well known midwife practice in the DMV. They suddenly transferred to me to the OBs at 34 weeks once some potential complications started to come up. In the end, I did end up as on of the “unplanned” c sections for the OBs in the end after an awful, grueling induction.

It's true. I was with a midwife when the induction failed and I ended up with the c section anyway. Supposedly less than 2% chance because I had a prior vaginal birth. Nothing is a guarantee. On the other hand, your midwife is not going to ambush you at 38 weeks asking when you want to schedule your c section, which sometimes happens to OB patients, especially someone like me (a VBAC).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WHO target rate of 15 percent is made up. It is not evidence based. And it has been debunked thoroughly. Countries who have this rate have high levels of maternal and infant mortality. Please stop furthering this tired, incorrect, and outdated statistic like gospel. It’s damaging and irresponsible.

What is your evidence for this assertion?

https://www.skepticalob.com/2018/05/the-whos-

Marsden Wagner made the number up in 1985. Gawande and the insufferable Neel Shah who is a midwife wannabe and total vaginal birth nut determined an optimal rate is 19 percent or higher. Doh.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WHO target rate of 15 percent is made up. It is not evidence based. And it has been debunked thoroughly. Countries who have this rate have high levels of maternal and infant mortality. Please stop furthering this tired, incorrect, and outdated statistic like gospel. It’s damaging and irresponsible.

What is your evidence for this assertion?

https://www.skepticalob.com/2018/05/the-whos-

Marsden Wagner made the number up in 1985. Gawande and the insufferable Neel Shah who is a midwife wannabe and total vaginal birth nut determined an optimal rate is 19 percent or higher. Doh.

Interesting, but it has a fatal design error: what about taking into account complications to future pregnancies? It is safer for that particular baby to be born via c section, not safer for baby #2 and certainly not safer for mom to be collecting multiple c sections.