Whats with the new growing trend of being too posh to push

metrovelvet

^Yep. And they make a bomb from sections.

Kernel32

metrovelvet wrote: »

^Yep. And they make a bomb from sections.

Don't even get me started on that. Without insurance a normal delivery is around $10k, c-section and your closer to $20k. We need some socialized health care!

BostonB

metrovelvet wrote: »

It baffles me too. I dont get it. You put your baby and yourself at serious risk. If its vanity thats behind it, it makes no sense, you look a lot worse sliced open and lying in the hospital with a catheter for two days. Yeah, those staples are just stunning!

Your suggesting that C-Section is more risky. Do you have any stats to back that up. Neither is a carefree option from my experience.

girlwitcurls

BostonB wrote: »

Your suggesting that C-Section is more risky. Do you have any stats to back that up. Neither is a carefree option from my experience.

Because a c-section is a surgical procedure, it carries more risk to both the mother and the baby. The maternal death rate is less than 0.02%, but that is four times the maternal death rate associated with vaginal delivery. Complications occur in less than 10% of cases.
The mother is at risk for increased bleeding (a c-section may result in twice the blood loss of a vaginal delivery) from the two incisions, the placental attachment site, and possible damage to a uterine artery. The mother may develop infection of the incision, the urinary tract, or the tissue lining the uterus (endometritis); infections occur in approximately 7% of women after having a c-section. Less commonly, she may receive injury to the surrounding organs such as the bladder and bowel. When a general anesthesia is used, she may experience complications from the anesthesia. Very rarely, she may develop a wound hematoma at the site of either incision or other blood clots leading to pelvic thrombophlebitis (inflammation of the major vein running from the pelvis into the leg) or a pulmonary embolus (a blood clot lodging in the lung).
Undergoing a c-section may also inflict psychological distress on the mother, beyond hormonal mood swings and postpartum depression ("baby blues").

Lizzykins

I have four kids all born in a private hospital and I just cannot see my obstetrician ever having agreed to a section if I had asked. I went into labour on my first 3 weeks before his due date and on the way to the hospital was gearing myself up to an emergency section. Thank God even though the baby was in distress I went on to deliver with the aid of forceps. No bother since I had an epidural. C section seems like a nice idea at the time,maybe in the eyes of some people but from talking to women I know, the recovery period can be up to six months.

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

Because a c-section is a surgical procedure, it carries more risk to both the mother and the baby. The maternal death rate is less than 0.02%, but that is four times the maternal death rate associated with vaginal delivery. Complications occur in less than 10% of cases.....

Does those figures include C-sections those that were done when a normal delivery wasn't possible, or was done in emergency. Or are these only elective C-Sections (if thats the correct term).

girlwitcurls

the risks apply to all

you asked was a c section riskier than a normal delivery i gave you the stats

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

the risks apply to all

you asked was a c section riskier than a normal delivery i gave you the stats

I asked in the context of the thread. But (I assume) those statistic includes C-Sections in emergencies and situations where a normal delivery wasn't viable or was preferable due to some factor not included in the stats. So its not useful to include those in the stats.

Whereas what were really looking for (in the context of this thread-too proud to push) is the stats where theres no migrating medical factors that would give a C-Section preference.

girlwitcurls

BostonB wrote: »

I asked in the context of the thread. But (I assume) those statistic includes C-Sections in emergencies and situations where a normal delivery wasn't viable or was preferable due to some factor not included in the stats. So its not useful to include those in the stats.

Whereas what were really looking for (in the context of this thread-too proud to push) is the stats where theres no migrating medical factors that would give a C-Section preference.

you asked was a c section riskier than a normal birth which i think is blattently clear and i gave yiou the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of a section whether it is elective or emergency.a risk of an operation is the same in either cause which is why i made this thread why are women taking a much greater risk in sections than normal vaginal birth

ex_infantry man

BostonB wrote: »

I asked in the context of the thread. But (I assume) those statistic includes C-Sections in emergencies and situations where a normal delivery wasn't viable or was preferable due to some factor not included in the stats. So its not useful to include those in the stats.

Whereas what were really looking for (in the context of this thread-too proud to push) is the stats where theres no migrating medical factors that would give a C-Section preference.

you lose on this one i think girlwitcurls knows her **** and has given you a very professional answer to a c-section and i have to agree with her!!!!! she could also include mrsa as a risk with a c-section and thats something nobody would want to pick up

ceidefields

Obviously anyone who elects to have a C-Section for pure vanity reasons has never had major abdominal surgery in their LIVES!

The pain of walking around after having an incision is huge and lasts a really long time. The recovery is much longer and you're much more tired right at a time when you need all your strength to look after your new-born.

Plus you're left with a big scar.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but are people going around thinking that having a C-section is easier than a normal birth?

girlwitcurls

ceidefields wrote: »

Obviously anyone who elects to have a C-Section for pure vanity reasons has never had major abdominal surgery in their LIVES!

The pain of walking around after having an incision is huge and lasts a really long time. The recovery is much longer and you're much more tired right at a time when you need all your strength to look after your new-born.

Plus you're left with a big scar.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but are people going around thinking that having a C-section is easier than a normal birth?

yes thats the point cause people are thinking its easier to have a major operation than pushing!i have had a LOT of abdominal operations including an EMERGENCY csection so i am speaking from a personal and professional view!

Dee5

Girlwithcurls,

Can you tell me what complications may occur with a "normal" delivery?

girlwitcurls

dee do u mean what complictions would occur in labour to consider a section or in general?

Goldenquick

Actually I think it's more a matter of being scared of the delivery. I know before my first baby was born I was scared stiff, to the point that I sobbed my eyes out one day because I really was terrified of the birth pain, couldn't imagine a baby pushing out of that little place lol. If I had had a choice then, I would have asked for a section I promise!!

But I had the first one by normal birth, then the 2nd I had to have a section with because of complications and I knew then that I would rather have a normal birth any day of the week. Years later the scar from my section is still giving me trouble and I always tell anyone this that is thinking of having a section now when it's not needed.

silja

KtK wrote: »

I know hospitals are quicker to elect to do sections when a child is breech or with twins, because of the risk of complications (and of course legal action). But I do worry that if these types of pregnancy are no longer delivered vaginally, ever, medical staff will have no experience of how to even try them. Which would consign them to the history books. Is that necessarily a good thing?

I think a lot depends on the hospital too- I remember a few weeks ago seeing stats for c-sections per hospital in the Irish Independant, and they ranged from from 18% to 35% of births. One of the reasons I chose the hospital I did (NMH, ie Holles Street) is because they aren't too quick off the mark for c-sections. I am carrying twins, and so I know a c-section is a possibility, but I want a vaginal birth and have been told there is more than 50% chances of having one. They will even try for vaginal birth if a baby is breech, as they can get it out manually.

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

you asked was a c section riskier than a normal birth which i think is blattently clear and i gave yiou the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of a section whether it is elective or emergency.a risk of an operation is the same in either cause which is why i made this thread why are women taking a much greater risk in sections than normal vaginal birth

Obviously having surgery is riskier than not having it, IF you don't need it. Thats just common sense. But if you DO need surgery isn't it more riskier Not to have it.

If you trying to make a comparative between choosing to have a natural delivery and choosing to have C-section I think its not useful to include situations where there was no choice but to have a C-section.

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

dee do u mean what complictions would occur in labour to consider a section or in general?

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/complic.htm#complication_list

girlwitcurls

BostonB wrote: »

Obviously having surgery is riskier than not having it, IF you don't need it. Thats just common sense. But if you DO need surgery isn't it more riskier Not to have it.

If you trying to make a comparative between choosing to have a natural delivery and choosing to have C-section I think its not useful to include situations where there was no choice but to have a C-section.

i am not ruling out all sections i am saying about ELECTIVE sections.and the risks which you asked for !! obviously apply to both!

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

i am not ruling out all sections i am saying about ELECTIVE sections.and the risks which you asked for !! obviously apply to both!

Theres normal deliveries and emergency deliveries. There should be a distinction. otherwise the stats are misleading.
Should people insist on a normal delivery instead of a C-section in emergencies because according these stats their odds are better? I don't think so.

girlwitcurls

BostonB wrote: »

Theres normal deliveries and emergency deliveries. There should be a distinction. otherwise the stats are misleading.
Should people insist on a normal delivery instead of a C-section in emergencies because according these stats their odds are better? I don't think so.

i really dont think your getting the point.obviously if it is an emergency section or an elective for some medical reason then it is better than a vaginal birth however you are missing my point that risks for this operation are the same whatever the situation and i think woman opting for an elective BY CHOOSE should be made more aware of the risks.

nesf

ex_infantry man wrote: »

i think girlwitcurls knows her **** and has given you a very professional answer to a c-section and i have to agree with her!!!!!

It was cut and pasted from another site in fairness. The about.com links are still in the text... Not that she doesn't know what she's talking about or anything.

girlwitcurls

nesf wrote: »

It was cut and pasted from another site in fairness. The about.com links are still in the text... Not that she doesn't know what she's talking about or anything.

she wanted stats obviously i looked them up for her.

nesf

girlwitcurls wrote: »

she wanted stats obviously i looked them up for her.

I'm just pointing out that anyone could cut and paste answers and make it sound like they know about this stuff in order to appear more knowledgeable about a topic. It happens a lot on forums. Not that I'm saying that this is the case here or anything. You have a point about how crazy the situation is.

I still find it hard to comprehend women asking for a c-section for vanity's sake. It's just so, extreme/detached from reality.

girlwitcurls

im working in that area nd i really wanted to find out why women are asking for it (and they are!)Noone seems to have answers though just want to bite my head off.

nesf

Try http://www.rollercoaster.ie/. It bigger and busier, you might get some heated replies though. There's a lot of people on there who take things very seriously.


One point for you. Could it be that the medical staff are more nervous or faster to offer it and that women take them up on the offer automatically?

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

i really dont think your getting the point.obviously if it is an emergency section or an elective for some medical reason then it is better than a vaginal birth however you are missing my point that risks for this operation are the same whatever the situation and i think woman opting for an elective BY CHOOSE should be made more aware of the risks.

Can't agree. Those stats include the fact or truism that in a non emergency situation your risks are lower than in an emergency situation.

I'm not disputing the point that C-Section is riskier. Just that those stats are misleading. If talking about situations of "choice" where its not an emergency situation, you shouldn't include emergencies.

girlwitcurls

well medical staff (doctors not midwives!)do offer it extremely fast with complications but they also offer way too much intervention too quickly like kiwi, forceps, vacuum, episiotomy and for the after birth the manual removal. it is becoming so americanised it is ridiculise!the stats for SVDS is ever decreasing because of medical intervention. it is perfectly exceptable to have a SVD after a caesaeraen but yet some women dont even give it a thought. every woman carrying there first child is scared of childbirth but for gods sake what do they expect?i had an emergency caesarean at 36 weeks because of pre eclamsia i never want to repeat the procedure i STILL have problems with my bladder.i couldnt walk properly for weeks not to mind hold or feed my baby.the choice was out of my hands but woman are now making the choice themselves!

girlwitcurls

BostonB wrote: »

Can't agree. Those stats include the fact or truism that in a non emergency situation your risks are lower than in an emergency situation.

I'm not disputing the point that C-Section is riskier. Just that those stats are misleading. If talking about situations of "choice" where its not an emergency situation, you shouldn't include emergencies.

where in my stats are you taking that bull?????i am merely trying to make it clear to you the RISKS of an lscs.dont you get it?????whatever the reason for the section those problems mentioned in the stats can happen

themadchef

Girlwitcurls i think if youre expecting someone to come on here and say " oh yes i asked to be delivered on 12 09 05 because it was my birthday too!" you are not going to get it (unless mrs Beckham or the likes are members)

I have had 3 sections, first time round i was almost fully dilated when my baby got into serious diffiulty, 2nd time i was the one with problems, not the baby..seriously high bp, and third..well twins and he considered letting me deliver but high bp again. Ho they can call them elective beats me as they were decisions the consultants made, not mine.

I was private and i can tell you i spoke to many ladies who would have loved to have had a section not for vanity reasons (lol at that) but out of sheer fear of delivery. Not one of these ladies recieved their section, in fact one lady said the consultant almost laughed and told them to go to Hollywood.

Basically i spent months in hospital while pregnant and i did not encounter one woman who said they were doing it because "they felt like it"

Sections are not fun or easy, neither is labour.

Painting all consultants and all hospitals in this country with the same brush is not fair or accurate.

And on another point, if you carry that attitude of "you so dont need a section" with you into your job then you are going to upset many a woman who is just about to give birth........ whatever you think it's the consultants decision in the end.