Anonymous wrote:23:09 - I'm talking about the best thing for OP's baby, not making a sweeping generalization for all babies. Her OB has told her that she has a slim chance of a successful VBAC. Thus, laboring until there's a medical need for an emergency C is obviously more risky for HER baby as opposed to a scheduled C (no stress to the baby in a scheduled C). That's all. Weighing the odds of VBAC vs repeat C for the OP is obviously centered on what's best for the OP (not the baby), perhaps THAT is the next question OP should ask her OB (which route is best for the baby).
2309 here - still havent' gotten the hang of using my newly minted username. This conversation always gets barbed so I appreciate us talking nicely

. But I still don't agree that anything you're putting out there resembles evidence that this is best for the baby in OP's situation. ACOG has determined that a VBAC is very safe. Unless OP had some specific condition that contra-indicated a VBAC, there's no reason to conclude what you are concluding. Just because one provider, who by his own account does not do a lot of VBACs, gave OP his opinion that she has a low success rate, doesn't mean that it's inherently risky for her child.
I think there are so many people who seem anti-C at all costs that when you come on these boards saying "don't rule out a VBAC" that gets lumped in with the former. There's a reasonable middle ground being overlooked, which is that c-sections are necessary and life-saving, but overused. And I think it's absolutely true that some doctors are so conservative with when they offer them and when they "allow" a VBAC that it has swung too far in the opposite direction.
OP, have you visited the I can website? Lots of help for you there.
http://www.ican-online.org/vbac/home