This question is very important in the faithful Catholic community, because the only remedy for being advised not to have more children is NFP until menopause. So avoiding csections, especially primary sections, is a major focus of young married women, because doctors are so unsupportive of VBAC and multiple sections.

Women's bodies were made to bear children, but they were not necessarily made to be cut open many times. That being said, OBs tend to be very simplistic about their comments after a couple of sections: "don't have any more kids, you could die.". Because most women don't have many children, and don't have moral issues with sterilization and artificial contraception, this line is just tossed out there a lot.

But for women who actually would like many children and who cannot consent to sterilization/artificial contraception, they need better, more specific answers, and as OP said, the info is just not out there. Just a lot of fear, dismissiveness, paranoia, lack of caring, and derision.

So in my huge extended family, there have been countless warnings of "don't have any more, you could die.". None of those relatives had any ill effects from their multiple sections.

So to any woman who is told "you can't have any more, you'll die," please don't just accept it as gospel truth. Now, you may face some specific risks, but you deserve more complete information. Please make sure to be your own best advocate and get all the info about your own, unique body! Women deserve that kind of personalized care, instead of fear-mongering.

My friend had 6
She started out young so that helped. But it was already dangerous when she had her 5th. I was not happy, but her doctor encouraged her because he did not know of anyone who had had a patient who had 5 c-sections.
He was even happy when she had her 6th. That time she ended up in icu and had to have an emergency c-section.

I guess it is completely different for every person. You must look at the cut, healing time, health record and age

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember reading an article about how you can measure the size of the scar right before birth and it can indicate the likelihood of rupture. I think it was more of a standard practice in europe.

I've heard this as well-- apparently you can do an ultrasound to measure the thickness of the scar, as is apparenly standard practice in Europe. I was concerned about my own possibility of rupture when attempting a VBAC and it was recommended to me by an OB that if I was particularly concerned, I could ask for a perientologist (?) to check my scar toward the end of my pregnancy (when it was very stretched out, but before I was likely to give birth).

It's weird to me that given the relative safety of VBACs over Csections that this isn't a standard test that is rec'd and that can be used by women who are learning toward making a decision (to VBAC or have a repeat C) in either direction.

I had my third section this year in May and had this ultrasound done a week before the birth. The doctor discovered that my scar was perilously thin. The section was performed at 37 weeks instead of 38. Baby weighed more than 7 lbs. My European OB has strongly discouraged me from having any more children.

Thanks all for sharing your stories. As pp suggested, I tried to find scientific generalizations on NIH but again, it's mostly information on our national c-section rate and the various pros and cons of VBAC. Maybe the "evidence" doesn't exist.

This is a MYOB situation anyway. We have a family member who's had 3 and her md told her not to have a 3rd child at all. now the husband is planning their 4th. I am sure there's another reason her md (and this is a second MD to tell her this) does not want her to have more kids. I was hoping to find some c-section evidence to help her out. I do not know the other problem and...it's not my business!

My cousin had 6. After the 4th, her doctor warned her to stop b/c her body couldn't handle it. So he told her she had to find another OB.

She almost died with her 5th b/c she lost too much blood.

And then she went on, I heard, to have a 6th kid. (I had to cut her out b/c she was way too loony at that point.)

Anonymous wrote:Ethel Kennedy had the last five of her eleven children by csection, back in the day of vertical incisions.

Several mothers of large families in my area have their last three, four, five children by csection because their OBs insist they are too old to give birth vaginally.

My mother's friend had her first csection for her 11th child last spring. The OB perforated her uterus, her bowel, and her bladder and sewed her back up. After several days of agony and strange symptoms too graphic to say here, someone finally listened to her and investigated, but by then she was suffering from sepsis and was extremely ill. She had to have a hysterectomy and reconstructive surgery, and she will never be completely well.

Her OB brushed off her complaints as someone who "didn't know what csection recovery was like" and whose body was "just worn out by having too many kids." She was only in her mid-40s and was the picture of health.

Bottom line: it depends on the woman, the skill of the surgeon, and the manner of surgery. But most OBs are petrified of multiple csections.

ONLY mid-forties! Yikes. It's very risky to have babies in your mid-forties. To say nothing of having ELEVEN children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

New poster. I had three, also with super easy recoveries. I'm strong and fit and left the hospital a day early after the second and third c-sections. I wanted to be home with my children (I had my mother come and help out, but I walked up the stairs as soon as I got home).

My mother had 5 in 9 years. The first four were horizontal, the last was vertical. My folks discussed a sixth child.

I've had three c-sections, all with easy recoveries. During my second, the ob commented on my "paper-thin" uteris. Never came up again during my third pregnancy, or the delivery therein.

Anonymous wrote:I remember reading an article about how you can measure the size of the scar right before birth and it can indicate the likelihood of rupture. I think it was more of a standard practice in europe.

I've heard this as well-- apparently you can do an ultrasound to measure the thickness of the scar, as is apparenly standard practice in Europe. I was concerned about my own possibility of rupture when attempting a VBAC and it was recommended to me by an OB that if I was particularly concerned, I could ask for a perientologist (?) to check my scar toward the end of my pregnancy (when it was very stretched out, but before I was likely to give birth).

It's weird to me that given the relative safety of VBACs over Csections that this isn't a standard test that is rec'd and that can be used by women who are learning toward making a decision (to VBAC or have a repeat C) in either direction.

I remember reading an article about how you can measure the size of the scar right before birth and it can indicate the likelihood of rupture. I think it was more of a standard practice in europe.

I don't think they can check...they only know when they open you up, as in your case. I'm sure if they could actually physically check, then the would do so on vbac candidates. This is percisely why I'm glad I was able to vbac on #2 and #3, or else I would never risk it after more than one section due to the thinning of the uterus and the fact that you never know if that had happend to you.

Also, FWIW, a uterine rupture can happen well before labor, so having a multiple sections is a concern for ANY pregnant woman, not only one who is considering vbac, clearly as illustrated by your OBs reccomendations to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:friend had very thin uterus on her 3rd. OB cleared the operating room of family while he finished the operation and she almost died. She had her tubes tied a couple of weeks later.

I had a very thin uterus on my last one, I posted above that I have had 4. A thin uterus doesn't mean you are going to die, are you sure there wasn't another issue going on?

It does not mean you are going to die, but does mean you have a greater chance of uterine rupture.

I'm a vbac poster and my OB told me that on some women that she does repeat sections on have "paper thin" uterus's. During my vbac I was paranoid the entire time that my uterus was as delicate as tissue.

Yes, this is what I meant. I was told with my 4th that I was "paper thin" but with today's technology and the knowledge that the uterus can become that thin after 3 or 4 c-sections, why can't they check to see if the thickness of the uterus is safe?

Another factor is how much recovery time you had between sections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:friend had very thin uterus on her 3rd. OB cleared the operating room of family while he finished the operation and she almost died. She had her tubes tied a couple of weeks later.

I had a very thin uterus on my last one, I posted above that I have had 4. A thin uterus doesn't mean you are going to die, are you sure there wasn't another issue going on?

It does not mean you are going to die, but does mean you have a greater chance of uterine rupture.

I'm a vbac poster and my OB told me that on some women that she does repeat sections on have "paper thin" uterus's. During my vbac I was paranoid the entire time that my uterus was as delicate as tissue.