Anonymous wrote:What is a necessary c-section? Who are you to tel someone how much risk they are willing to subject their baby to? Is a 5% chance of death sufficient? What about a 2% of cerebral palsy? What about a 13% chance of hypoxic brain injury?

lol jinx

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems almost irresponsible to risk a Cesarean if it's not absolutely necessary. Why don't obstetricians educate mothers?

That's just not how it works. C-sections are done because the baby appears to be in distress or labor is not progressing. An "absolutely necessary" standard would err on the side of injured/dead babies and mothers. Most women would want a c-section well before the "absolutely necessary" stage, and would take on a great deal of risk to their own health to prevent harms to the baby. Do you seriously think the mom should just keep pushing until the heart rate drops to 0?

C-sections are done for lots of reasons. If every C-section were a necessary C-section, C-section rates wouldn't vary among hospitals for low-risk patients.

Almost all c-sections aren’t “necessary” in the sense that we are SURE without it Mom or baby would have died.

So what’s the line for you? C-section if Doctor thinks there’s a 50% chance the baby will die/have a serious birth defect like oxygen deprivation to the brain without it? 70%? 90%? 99%? Would you be comfortable with a hospital where every 100th baby died/had brain damage after a c-section was considered?

What is a necessary c-section? Who are you to tel someone how much risk they are willing to subject their baby to? Is a 5% chance of death sufficient? What about a 2% of cerebral palsy? What about a 13% chance of hypoxic brain injury?

Anonymous wrote:It seems almost irresponsible to risk a Cesarean if it's not absolutely necessary. Why don't obstetricians educate mothers?

No, it doesn't. The "women shouldn't risk having C-sections that don't meet my criteria" standard is just as misogynistic as the "women should happily have possibly unnecessary C-sections because the baby is the most important!" standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems almost irresponsible to risk a Cesarean if it's not absolutely necessary. Why don't obstetricians educate mothers?

That's just not how it works. C-sections are done because the baby appears to be in distress or labor is not progressing. An "absolutely necessary" standard would err on the side of injured/dead babies and mothers. Most women would want a c-section well before the "absolutely necessary" stage, and would take on a great deal of risk to their own health to prevent harms to the baby. Do you seriously think the mom should just keep pushing until the heart rate drops to 0?

C-sections are done for lots of reasons. If every C-section were a necessary C-section, C-section rates wouldn't vary among hospitals for low-risk patients.

Anonymous wrote:It seems almost irresponsible to risk a Cesarean if it's not absolutely necessary. Why don't obstetricians educate mothers?

That's just not how it works. C-sections are done because the baby appears to be in distress or labor is not progressing. An "absolutely necessary" standard would err on the side of injured/dead babies and mothers. Most women would want a c-section well before the "absolutely necessary" stage, and would take on a great deal of risk to their own health to prevent harms to the baby. Do you seriously think the mom should just keep pushing until the heart rate drops to 0?

It seems almost irresponsible to risk a Cesarean if it's not absolutely necessary. Why don't obstetricians educate mothers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were more concerned about the known risks of being in a hospital to give birth to our baby. But I fully support each family's right to made their own choices, and you should to.

The US mortality rate for hospital birthing mothers is the absolute worst in the developed world. This sad statistic is horrific.

And it's on the rise. Why?

Because women are in worse health due to poverty and obesity; and African American women (who bear the brunt of increased maternal mortality) don't have access to ENOUGH interventions. It has f-all to do with natural childbirth. Sometimes people do mention c-sections as a cause of our maternal mortality rate, but I've never seen an analysis that shows the degree to which they contribute, and whether the deaths could be avoided. Instead, the deaths due to c-sections seem to be due to poor post-partum care, not the c-section itself. For example, this story about Kira Johnson has been making the rounds - she died because her c-section complications were not properly treated: https://www.theroot.com/kira-johnson-spoke-5-languages-raced-cars-was-daughte-1829862323

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were more concerned about the known risks of being in a hospital to give birth to our baby. But I fully support each family's right to made their own choices, and you should to.

The US mortality rate for hospital birthing mothers is the absolute worst in the developed world. This sad statistic is horrific.

And it's on the rise. Why?

More older moms. More unhealthy moms. The patient population is getting worse.

Anything to support this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were more concerned about the known risks of being in a hospital to give birth to our baby. But I fully support each family's right to made their own choices, and you should to.

The US mortality rate for hospital birthing mothers is the absolute worst in the developed world. This sad statistic is horrific.

And it's on the rise. Why?

More older moms. More unhealthy moms. The patient population is getting worse.

Anonymous wrote:We were more concerned about the known risks of being in a hospital to give birth to our baby. But I fully support each family's right to made their own choices, and you should to.

The US mortality rate for hospital birthing mothers is the absolute worst in the developed world. This sad statistic is horrific.

And it's on the rise. Why?

OP you’re one of those women who have NO life and are 100 % baby since your child came along. Get a life, job and hobbies so you can see there are more interesting and important things to worry about than how warm a bottle is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD drank cold formula straight from a pitcher in the fridge from 6 weeks on and was the best sleeper of any of my friends/family.

Same.

Excellent! No worries for you!
Everyone here fully supports each parent to determine what's best for their own baby. Discussion is a wonderful thing.

Also, it's kind of mean to say things like that ("I fully support you to determine what is best for you!") while also posting things like "cold formula shocks the tiny baby's tummy" or whatever.

Everyone here fully supports each parent to determine what's best for their own baby, even if that thing is lazy, stupid, objectively horrible, and the epitome of bad (bad! BAD!!!) mothering - for example inflicting non-body-temperature formula on tiny vulnerable babies!!!!!1`!!!!1!!1

...or so one would infer from this persistent no-cold-formula PP

LOL. You are free to shock that poor baby’s system, the one that was designed (designed!) to only accept warm, cozy things. That is your right as a mother! And I support it. I just know so, so much more. The warm, cozy milk will cure colic and the common cold! Just give it a try. So cozy! A delicious bottle of warm Similac is far, far superior to 72 degree Similac. Far, far cozier! It just makes sense! But, you are free to do whatever you want, you lazy moron!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD drank cold formula straight from a pitcher in the fridge from 6 weeks on and was the best sleeper of any of my friends/family.

Same.

Excellent! No worries for you!
Everyone here fully supports each parent to determine what's best for their own baby. Discussion is a wonderful thing.

Also, it's kind of mean to say things like that ("I fully support you to determine what is best for you!") while also posting things like "cold formula shocks the tiny baby's tummy" or whatever.

Everyone here fully supports each parent to determine what's best for their own baby, even if that thing is lazy, stupid, objectively horrible, and the epitome of bad (bad! BAD!!!) mothering - for example inflicting non-body-temperature formula on tiny vulnerable babies!!!!!1`!!!!1!!1

...or so one would infer from this persistent no-cold-formula PP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD drank cold formula straight from a pitcher in the fridge from 6 weeks on and was the best sleeper of any of my friends/family.

Same.

Excellent! No worries for you!
Everyone here fully supports each parent to determine what's best for their own baby. Discussion is a wonderful thing.

No. Some parents made stupid decisions. And some try to force heir stupid ideas on others. Let’s not pretend that all decisions are the same.

Again, you have every right to feed your children however you think is best for them. Now, repeat.

DP

Not the same thing as having the right to tell other women what they are doing is bad for their babies, without being challenged -- especially if you don't have evidence to back up your opinion.