Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My friend and her baby almost died when her uterine scar ruptured during labor with her second child. She for sure regrets it. Horrible experience for her. Not worth the risk, IMO, and I refused to try despite a VERY pushy OB who never stopped bugging me to attempt trial of labor. I s--t you not, she was still bugging me when I was in the OR with the anesthesiologist about to give me the epidural. Crazy. Glad I skipped it; DC2 was BIG with a 91st %ile head![/quote]
Vaginal birth of a baby with a head that was above the 99th percentile here. Uneventful and fine. Just FYI, in case anyone thought that having a large head meant an automatic C-section. It does not.
No, a large head does not "mean an automatic c-section," but sorry: a large baby/large head absolutely are contraindicated for a successful VBAC. Your personal success story is irrelevant in the big picture. When things go wrong a VBAC, they go very gravely wrong. The current natural birth fad has influenced - dare I say brainwashed - too many women into thinking they're less of a woman or a mother if they don't have a vaginal birth, but there's an important other side to this issue. VBACs can be successful but they are dangerous.
*sorry for the double post; my new post was embedded in the quote for some reason.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My friend and her baby almost died when her uterine scar ruptured during labor with her second child. She for sure regrets it. Horrible experience for her. Not worth the risk, IMO, and I refused to try despite a VERY pushy OB who never stopped bugging me to attempt trial of labor. I s--t you not, she was still bugging me when I was in the OR with the anesthesiologist about to give me the epidural. Crazy. Glad I skipped it; DC2 was BIG with a 91st %ile head![/quote]
Vaginal birth of a baby with a head that was above the 99th percentile here. Uneventful and fine. Just FYI, in case anyone thought that having a large head meant an automatic C-section. It does not.
No, a large head does not "mean an automatic c-section," but sorry: a large baby/large head absolutely are contraindicated for a successful VBAC. Your personal success story is irrelevant in the big picture. When things go wrong a VBAC, they go very gravely wrong. The current natural birth fad has influenced - dare I say brainwashed - too many women into thinking they're less of a woman or a mother if they don't have a vaginal birth, but there's an important other side to this issue. VBACs can be successful but they are dangerous.
Anonymous wrote:Is there anyone on this thread whose C/S was the result of failure to dilate due to cervical scarring? Meaning, I labored, was fully effaced, baby was fully down, but cervix would not dilate without hemostat due to scarring from earlier procedure. I went from home birth to hospital to emergency C/S under general. Trying to assess if dilation might be possible in future pregnancy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op here. Heard that tears/issues down below can be just as difficult as c section recovery. Any truth to that?
I had a quick recovery from my csection. My sister was in pain for over a year from her vaginal birth (ended up having to get restitched).
Anonymous wrote:My friend and her baby almost died when her uterine scar ruptured during labor with her second child. She for sure regrets it. Horrible experience for her. Not worth the risk, IMO, and I refused to try despite a VERY pushy OB who never stopped bugging me to attempt trial of labor. I s--t you not, she was still bugging me when I was in the OR with the anesthesiologist about to give me the epidural. Crazy. Glad I skipped it; DC2 was BIG with a 91st %ile head![/quote]
Vaginal birth of a baby with a head that was above the 99th percentile here. Uneventful and fine. Just FYI, in case anyone thought that having a large head meant an automatic C-section. It does not.
Anonymous wrote:Op here. Heard that tears/issues down below can be just as difficult as c section recovery. Any truth to that?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:www.vbacfacts.com
www.ican-online.org
Biased, dangerous sources.
I haven't found them to be so. They offer evidence based cited information, including not only the risks of VBAC but the risks of multiple cesareans/placenta accreta, which is a real concern for some families who desire to have multiple children. There are risks to both choices. This is not a black and white issue. I'm going to assume by your response that you believe that those two websites advocate for VBAC all the time no matter what. That's actually not the case, they advocate for informed consent and women making their own decisions and supporting those regardless of what they are.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:www.vbacfacts.com
www.ican-online.org
Biased, dangerous sources.