I think the problem with anecdotal stories about good/bad experiences either way is that (to my knowledge) there is no reliable criteria for predicting whether for a non-breech baby a vaginal birth vs. c-section will cause more trauma to the woman. I had a super easy recovery from my unplanned c-section and would go that route again in a heartbeat. But I am not aware that could have predicted the easy recovery up front.

Which is not to say denying the choice is not misogynistic. But in a world in which a choice is available, would more (most?) women opt for an elective c-section for a first baby?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked for a C-section for multiple reasons. Scheduling family to come in from out of town, size of baby, my crippling fear of vaginal birth, concern that I would push for hours and end up with a section anyways.

It was a wonderful experience. Calm, planned, enjoyable.
Worst day of recovery was day 2 after adrenaline wore off and I had to get up to walk.
Never took more than Tylenol.
Loved it and would do again in a heartbeat.

How did you get insurance to pay for it?

It wasn’t an issue. My dr asked me about my preferences for birth. We talked thru options. Dr supported the section. Might be noteworthy that I purposely sought out a dr that I knew was section-friendly, if you want to call it that. I paid the $150 copay or whatever it was at the time. My son’s circumcision copay was almost double that, funnily enough.

I was able to play music of my choice during the section. Nurses and anesthesiologist chatted with me about their upcoming vacations. It was legitimately a pleasant experience.

There’s no prize for suffering.

Anonymous wrote:Its healthier for the baby to be born vaginally, partly due to the bacteria in the vaginal canal and other factors, including lungs and breathing. It's healthier for the mother to have a natural birth. C-Section are wonderful life saving interventions when needed.

See my previous post. So healthier for me to be incontinent and having my entire pelvic function destroyed? Stop the generalizations - millions of women end up with life altering birth injuries from vaginal delivery and end up incontinent and with prolapses as old women requiring millions of dollars in corrective surgery.

Also, if we are talking stats a scheduled C is safest for baby. It confers risk to mom. So don’t give me the NCB arguments - they don’t hold up to the actual science, long term health costs, or evidence base of today.

My babies were breech.

Off to surgery I rolled.

No regrets, the baby has to get out somehow.

And they had such perfectly round heads, they didn't need that hat.

Hospitals have to report elective C-section to Leapfrog, US news and world report, and CMS (Medicare and Medicaid services) and other quality programs.
The reason they have to report this data is b/c it has been shown in the literature that elective births are better when mither and baby do t have any complications to vaginal delivery. Google PC- 01

I have had 2 C sections (one unplanned due to stalled labor, second one planned due to breach baby). One kid has asthma, eczema, and seasonal allergies. Other kid has none of the above. So from my personal study of 2 male children, C section didn’t impact health.

Anonymous wrote:Someone told me that her son has health issues because he was delivered by c-section. I had literally never heard this before, but she said it is common knowledge that babies born by c-section are missing some health benefits that vaginal deliveries impart. Is this true?

No. There are people who think the baby misses out on vaginal bacteria by skipping the birth canal, and that this leads to allergies. However, the evidence is against it on several fronts.

Vaginal childbirth is not perfectly tailored to optimize individual health: like all evolution, it's the "just barely good enough to continue the population" solution. On a population level it works but in any individual case it can suck.

Its healthier for the baby to be born vaginally, partly due to the bacteria in the vaginal canal and other factors, including lungs and breathing. It's healthier for the mother to have a natural birth. C-Section are wonderful life saving interventions when needed.

I had no trouble with insurance paying for my maternal choice c-section. There's all this conventional wisdom around them being expensive, but think about how many hours you spend in L&D at the hospital for a vaginal delivery (which can still end in c-section) to say nothing of birth complications. Insurance is happy to pay for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked for a C-section for multiple reasons. Scheduling family to come in from out of town, size of baby, my crippling fear of vaginal birth, concern that I would push for hours and end up with a section anyways.

It was a wonderful experience. Calm, planned, enjoyable.
Worst day of recovery was day 2 after adrenaline wore off and I had to get up to walk.
Never took more than Tylenol.
Loved it and would do again in a heartbeat.

How did you get insurance to pay for it?

Not PP, but if the doc says you need a c, you have one. This is not a procedure that requires pre authorization.

Anonymous wrote:Someone told me that her son has health issues because he was delivered by c-section. I had literally never heard this before, but she said it is common knowledge that babies born by c-section are missing some health benefits that vaginal deliveries impart. Is this true?

This is NOT true. There are many reasons a baby can have health issues, c sections are not one of them.

Anonymous wrote:I asked for a C-section for multiple reasons. Scheduling family to come in from out of town, size of baby, my crippling fear of vaginal birth, concern that I would push for hours and end up with a section anyways.

It was a wonderful experience. Calm, planned, enjoyable.
Worst day of recovery was day 2 after adrenaline wore off and I had to get up to walk.
Never took more than Tylenol.
Loved it and would do again in a heartbeat.

How did you get insurance to pay for it?

Someone told me that her son has health issues because he was delivered by c-section. I had literally never heard this before, but she said it is common knowledge that babies born by c-section are missing some health benefits that vaginal deliveries impart. Is this true?

Having a vaginal birth destroyed my pelvic floor, made me anally incontinent for 6 months, damaged my sexual function permanently, and gave me tons of scar tissue and prolapses of my uterus, rectum, and vagina, which impact my urinary and anal
Function (SUI and obstructed defecation). So you PPs can STFU about how much better vaginal is. It was not for me. Destroyed my quality of life, health, marriage, and mental health. But do go on about a micro biome. My scheduled C section was amazing by comparison and I have absolutely zero ill effects or long term consequences from it.

I had two scheduled c’a and they were very easy. My one vaginal birth was awful and I almost died due to post-delivery hemorrhage. My sisters between them had 9 vaginal births, mostly unmediated. Mostly uneventful but one had a fourth degree tear. So I don’t know how representative that is, but that’s 10 vaginal births, no deaths but two not great outcomes. And we all wet our pants when we sneeze.

I don’t think the lack of choice is infantalizing as much as an insurance thing. If you paid out of pocket, I think you could get a c on demand pretty easily. There are lots of cases where insurance forces you to do the cheaper thing until you’ve proven that it’s dangerous to you specifically.