Tell me why a C section’s better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW I tend to get quiet during birth experience stories because I had an amazing planned C, and I was so happy and thrilled with the experience that I feel bad talking about it with people who had much worse vaginal birth experiences.

I can't imagine what's "amazing" about having major surgery. Most people would choose not to do so. I wouldn't classify my vaginal birth as "amazing" but I was up and walking around the day after birth and I didn't have to stay in the hospital for 4 days to recover from surgery.

I was up and walking 7 hours after my scheduled c section. It was pretty amazing for me too! Relaxed, fast, peaceful and recovered easily. I suppose it was able to be 'amazing' because it was directly contrasted to my first baby where I needed an emergency life saving c section without adequate pain relief where my baby was immediately taken to the NICU and I was bedbound on magnesium for 24 hours.

For the vast majority of women who have them, a scheduled c section is the way to go. From everything I've read it seems the order of good experiences is:

1) Fast and uncomplicated vaginal delivery (lets say <5 hours and no pelvic floor issues)
2) Scheduled C section
3) Difficult labor
4) Difficult unsuccessful labor that ends in an emergency c

The problem is that you have no idea if you're a #1 or a #3 or a #4 until after the show is over.

<5 hours - there's your impossible (and arbitrary) standard! Anyway most women who have an uncomplicated vaginal deliveries, of any length, don't have pelvic floor issues. And some women who have a c-section do. So you can't predict what anyone's experience will be.

Sigh. Another lucky woman who doesn’t have pelvic floor injuries is dismissing their incidence and impact. Please stop, you are insulting a lot of women.
Second, you are just plain wrong. Plenty of women have pelvic floor injuries from birth.

“Giving birth makes women more vulnerable to developing a pelvic floor disorder later in life. About one third of adult women will have a pelvic floor disorder, such as prolapsed uterus or bladder control problems, and twenty percent of these women will need reconstructive surgery to fix it.”
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/link-between-childbirth-and-pelvic-floor-disorders

“Vaginal childbirth is associated with increased incidence of SUI and pelvic organ prolapse. The association of other pelvic floor disorders with vaginal birth is less well established; however, operative vaginal delivery is associated with overactive bladder symptoms.”

“Operative vaginal delivery significantly increases the odds of pelvic floor disorders; however, clinical decisions must be individualized based on the risk and benefits of this intervention compared with its alternatives.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681820/

Strictly by the numbers, the PP is not wrong that "most" women do not have pelvic floor disorders. If 2/3s of women do not, that would be "most." And 20% of the 1/3 of women who suffer pelvic floor disorders works out to about 6% of all women require surgery. That is not to dismiss the suffering, particularly of the 6%; but your odds of not experiencing extreme damage requiring surgery are actually pretty darn high.

Please, just stop. You are minimizing and dismissing suffering you have no idea about, and you’re just plain wrong.

“What’s commonly reported is that one in four women will experience a pelvic floor disorder, which, again, is urinary leakage, fecal leakage, or pelvic organ prolapse in their lifetime. That number actually is increased in women who have had children or women who are obese or women who’ve had family members that actually have that issue as well. By the time a woman is 80 years old, she has a 50% chance of having a pelvic floor disorder. So it’s very, very common. More common than things like hypertension and diabetes.”.

http://radiomd.com/gwmf/item/39806-introduction-to-pelvic-floor-disorders-and-urogynecology-for-women

[Anonymous]

There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

Thank you for saying this. I have many from my birth and am constantly stunned by these boards and how many women who dismiss the impact of them, or their incidence. They say things like, “well most women won’t have them” or “just go to PT” or “the majority of women don’t have them,” or “just have surgery.” They act like wanting to have a fulfilling sex life, a functional vagina that can hold in a tampon, a functional urethra and bladder that can not leak urine and empty it fully, a functional rectum that can empty fully and not leak gas or feces and close things off when needed, not wanting to constantly queef from any movement, wanting to be able to run and jump and play with my kids, and pelvic organs that stay in place and don’t droop out of my body and make my whole pelvis and vagina ache and hurt so I can hardly walk or stand at the end of the day are frivolous, selfish things. How dare I counter the narrative of the inherent superiority of vaginal childbirth? How dare I scare any women, lest she be informed about some of the awful conditions that could happen to her as a result of the choices she makes in the delivery room? It’s anti feminist, pure misogyny to silence other women from sharing their real, lived experiences and suffering.

[Anonymous]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30561480

A C-section doesn't guarantee you will avoid pelvic floor issues, as just pregnancy alone can cause them. But it does significantly reduce the risk!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW I tend to get quiet during birth experience stories because I had an amazing planned C, and I was so happy and thrilled with the experience that I feel bad talking about it with people who had much worse vaginal birth experiences.

I can't imagine what's "amazing" about having major surgery. Most people would choose not to do so. I wouldn't classify my vaginal birth as "amazing" but I was up and walking around the day after birth and I didn't have to stay in the hospital for 4 days to recover from surgery.

I was up and walking 7 hours after my scheduled c section. It was pretty amazing for me too! Relaxed, fast, peaceful and recovered easily. I suppose it was able to be 'amazing' because it was directly contrasted to my first baby where I needed an emergency life saving c section without adequate pain relief where my baby was immediately taken to the NICU and I was bedbound on magnesium for 24 hours.

For the vast majority of women who have them, a scheduled c section is the way to go. From everything I've read it seems the order of good experiences is:

1) Fast and uncomplicated vaginal delivery (lets say <5 hours and no pelvic floor issues)
2) Scheduled C section
3) Difficult labor
4) Difficult unsuccessful labor that ends in an emergency c

The problem is that you have no idea if you're a #1 or a #3 or a #4 until after the show is over.

<5 hours - there's your impossible (and arbitrary) standard! Anyway most women who have an uncomplicated vaginal deliveries, of any length, don't have pelvic floor issues. And some women who have a c-section do. So you can't predict what anyone's experience will be.

Sigh. Another lucky woman who doesn’t have pelvic floor injuries is dismissing their incidence and impact. Please stop, you are insulting a lot of women.
Second, you are just plain wrong. Plenty of women have pelvic floor injuries from birth.

“Giving birth makes women more vulnerable to developing a pelvic floor disorder later in life. About one third of adult women will have a pelvic floor disorder, such as prolapsed uterus or bladder control problems, and twenty percent of these women will need reconstructive surgery to fix it.”
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/link-between-childbirth-and-pelvic-floor-disorders

“Vaginal childbirth is associated with increased incidence of SUI and pelvic organ prolapse. The association of other pelvic floor disorders with vaginal birth is less well established; however, operative vaginal delivery is associated with overactive bladder symptoms.”

“Operative vaginal delivery significantly increases the odds of pelvic floor disorders; however, clinical decisions must be individualized based on the risk and benefits of this intervention compared with its alternatives.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681820/

Strictly by the numbers, the PP is not wrong that "most" women do not have pelvic floor disorders. If 2/3s of women do not, that would be "most." And 20% of the 1/3 of women who suffer pelvic floor disorders works out to about 6% of all women require surgery. That is not to dismiss the suffering, particularly of the 6%; but your odds of not experiencing extreme damage requiring surgery are actually pretty darn high.

Please, just stop. You are minimizing and dismissing suffering you have no idea about, and you’re just plain wrong.

“What’s commonly reported is that one in four women will experience a pelvic floor disorder, which, again, is urinary leakage, fecal leakage, or pelvic organ prolapse in their lifetime. That number actually is increased in women who have had children or women who are obese or women who’ve had family members that actually have that issue as well. By the time a woman is 80 years old, she has a 50% chance of having a pelvic floor disorder. So it’s very, very common. More common than things like hypertension and diabetes.”.

http://radiomd.com/gwmf/item/39806-introduction-to-pelvic-floor-disorders-and-urogynecology-for-women

Thanks for adding that - I was just going to post that obesity and family history (and pregnancy) are also risk factors for pelvic issues, not just vaginal delivery.

In fact urinary incontinence rates level out with age between the two delivery types (i.e., you're as likely to pee yourself after a certain age as a woman whose kids came out a different way). So vaginal delivery is far from the only risk factor.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25314985

And yes, the rates of pelvic floor problems are lower for women who have only had c-sections, but they are not 0%.

"When compared with vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery is associated with a reduced rate of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, but this should be weighed against the association with increased risks for fertility, future pregnancy, and long-term childhood outcomes."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29360829

[Anonymous]

Operative vaginal delivery is a MAJOR risk factor. Also family history. Ask your moms, sisters, aunts, and grandmas if you can—it’s often not discussed so you may not know until you ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Operative vaginal delivery is a MAJOR risk factor. Also family history. Ask your moms, sisters, aunts, and grandmas if you can—it’s often not discussed so you may not know until you ask.

Is there a genetic component to this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

Sure. Just like there are a lot of people invested in minimizing the risks of C-sections.

The real issue is that people minimize WOMEN'S health issues, and pregnancy/L&D are one of the most glaring examples.

OP, in your case, you're doing what's safest for the baby and for you. That's what's better about a C-section for you. Many of the planning benefits you can get with induction, and no one knows exactly how things will go in either case. But for you, this option is safest. It's great that you have it! I hope all goes well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

Sure. Just like there are a lot of people invested in minimizing the risks of C-sections.

The real issue is that people minimize WOMEN'S health issues, and pregnancy/L&D are one of the most glaring examples.

OP, in your case, you're doing what's safest for the baby and for you. That's what's better about a C-section for you. Many of the planning benefits you can get with induction, and no one knows exactly how things will go in either case. But for you, this option is safest. It's great that you have it! I hope all goes well.

The bolded is inaccurate for DCUM, and in my experience, inaccurate for outside of DCUM too. I heard far more about risks associated with C-sections than with vaginal birth. When I scheduled mine, I had people freely tell me about all the awful things that would happen to me (none of which occurred). People asked me why I wouldn't "just try." You see it on DCUM threads. I have seen posters with severe vaginal birth injuries told to stop posting. I had one woman tell me I didn't have a birth, I just had a surgery.

[Anonymous]

I had an traumatic first "natural" birth, and then a scheduled C for the second child. It was lovely. I knew the time, I was prepared mentally for the birth. It was fairly simple, since it was planned. I was grocery shopping in a week. I really wish I would have done this for the first birth, instead of buying into the Ina May Gaskin stuff I was so head over heels about.
Good luck, however you decide to deliver!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Operative vaginal delivery is a MAJOR risk factor. Also family history. Ask your moms, sisters, aunts, and grandmas if you can—it’s often not discussed so you may not know until you ask.

Is there a genetic component to this?

Yes, it’s the tissue quality. Lots of women with connective tissue disorders like Ehlers Danlos get prolapse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

Sure. Just like there are a lot of people invested in minimizing the risks of C-sections.

The real issue is that people minimize WOMEN'S health issues, and pregnancy/L&D are one of the most glaring examples.

OP, in your case, you're doing what's safest for the baby and for you. That's what's better about a C-section for you. Many of the planning benefits you can get with induction, and no one knows exactly how things will go in either case. But for you, this option is safest. It's great that you have it! I hope all goes well.

The bolded is inaccurate for DCUM, and in my experience, inaccurate for outside of DCUM too. I heard far more about risks associated with C-sections than with vaginal birth. When I scheduled mine, I had people freely tell me about all the awful things that would happen to me (none of which occurred). People asked me why I wouldn't "just try." You see it on DCUM threads. I have seen posters with severe vaginal birth injuries told to stop posting. I had one woman tell me I didn't have a birth, I just had a surgery.

That's awful.

And, really, who cares what is accurate for DCUM? I mean, really? C-sections are riskier than vaginal deliveries, and CDC and WHO are clear that they're performed too much. Which suggests that despite being *actually riskier*, physicians are underestimating that risk.

I still stand by my main point, which is that women's issues in general are minimized.

[Anonymous]

Re: the PP, yes women’s issues are minimized but the reality is that informed consent for vaginal birth and operative vaginal birth does not happen now the way it does for a c-section. Furthermore, women’s injuries from birth are routinely downplayed and dismissed as mere “quality of life” issues. If the WHO actually calculated the cost of birth injuries over the course of a woman’s lifetime ie bladder surgeries, prolapse surgeries, pelvic floor PT, incontinence supplies, pessaries, early admission to nursing homes for incontinence etc, I suspect the costs might bear out quite differently.

The issue is not what mode of birth should we be prioritizing and advocating for, but how can we prioritize women’s and babies’ health both in the long and short term and minimize the risks and damage childbirth can do to women’s bodies—and then make delivery decisions based on women having a solid understanding of what her risks are for all modes of birth. The issue of c section vs vaginal birth is a massive oversimplification of a complex issue that requires individualized care and informed decision making—which means disclosing full risks of all kinds of birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely a lot of people invested in minimizing vaginal birth injuries in women.

And by minimizing, I mean pretending they don't happen and shaming those who experience them.

Sure. Just like there are a lot of people invested in minimizing the risks of C-sections.

The real issue is that people minimize WOMEN'S health issues, and pregnancy/L&D are one of the most glaring examples.

OP, in your case, you're doing what's safest for the baby and for you. That's what's better about a C-section for you. Many of the planning benefits you can get with induction, and no one knows exactly how things will go in either case. But for you, this option is safest. It's great that you have it! I hope all goes well.

The bolded is inaccurate for DCUM, and in my experience, inaccurate for outside of DCUM too. I heard far more about risks associated with C-sections than with vaginal birth. When I scheduled mine, I had people freely tell me about all the awful things that would happen to me (none of which occurred). People asked me why I wouldn't "just try." You see it on DCUM threads. I have seen posters with severe vaginal birth injuries told to stop posting. I had one woman tell me I didn't have a birth, I just had a surgery.

That's awful.

And, really, who cares what is accurate for DCUM? I mean, really? C-sections are riskier than vaginal deliveries, and CDC and WHO are clear that they're performed too much. Which suggests that despite being *actually riskier*, physicians are underestimating that risk.

I still stand by my main point, which is that women's issues in general are minimized.

Links to CDC saying so (cs being riskier)?