|
|
Post by alisa on Dec 11, 2008 3:31:43 GMT -5
It's been talked about in the news recently that 30% of women are electing to have a caesarian now for the reason that they're 'scared of natural birth', which I think is absolutely idiotic. I mean, show me one woman who welcomes natural birth with open arms? We're all scared of it!! But natural birth stimulates the release of certain hormones that cement the mother/baby bond. This hormone is not released when the baby is cut out of you.
Of course there are factors which make natural birth impossible. My own birth was one of them. I was too big to fit through my Thai mother's pelvis!
I'm wondering if anyone else here, particularly with an asian mother, can say the same? I find it interesting because, although I'm VERY against racism and abhor those who say races can't mix, it's almost physiological evidence that races shouldn't mix. Particularly if it was a time where the medical help available to us now wasn't around. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on Dec 11, 2008 5:13:42 GMT -5
According to my dad who is an obstetrician, the asian-mother/Caucasian-father couple have a slightly increased rate of cesarean delivery. Although, more people across the general population also experience difficult births due ironically to medical progress.
Modern medicine has allowed us to preserve a lot of lineages that would of otherwise have died out through natural selection, eg in the past a women with small pelvis would of died in childbirth thereby not being able to pass on that genetic trait, as would women who suffer from gestational diabetes. Which is also one of the reasons behind the rise of cesareans.
The other reason is elective cesareans, which get a lot of bad press due to the perceived convenience of it all and added risk and recovery time. I've asked my dad about this and his opinion is it's unlikely to endanger the woman or child and they are entitled to the choice. I guess I share the same view. I try not to make any judgment on women's decision after all it's her body and women get scrutinized far too much by society, so when it comes to my friends I support them in whatever method they feel is right for them.
I've had friends who really wanted to give birth naturally but have been unable to due to medical complications. They were disappointed, but didn't suffer any ill effects and it didn't seem to interfere with their bond with the newborn.
I guess most woman are afraid at their first childbirth. Let's face it the female anatomy is poorly designed, things can go wrong, prolapse, bladder damage etc. Thanks a lot mother nature! (shakes fist).
Hmmm, I think I went a bit off topic but good luck with the pregnancy Alisa, I hope it all goes well. Can't wait to see pics of the baby.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Dec 11, 2008 12:07:37 GMT -5
One must also remember the culture in which we live.
The med mal lawsuit viewed as a lottery ticket.
These days, if any HINT of maternal/fetal distress is detected, a section pretty much happens before you know it.
I'm sure Indy's dad in an honest moment will admit to this.
Heck, they don't even train OB's with forceps anymore.
I think the differences between the section and natural birth are inconsequential.
The moment of birth is intense, unforgettable (I should know x2), but what happens for the next 18+ years is far more important.
|
|
|
|
Post by alphamikefoxtrot on Dec 11, 2008 14:06:11 GMT -5
I was born caesarian because of my ginormous melon head.
|
|
|
|
Post by alphamikefoxtrot on Dec 11, 2008 18:57:22 GMT -5
^
Maybe they don't want to wreck their hoohas pushing out 8-10 pounds of crotch fruit.
|
|
|
|
Post by catgirl on Dec 12, 2008 18:52:11 GMT -5
As a medical student I constantly hear that cezarian births are not at all good for the child, or the mother in the long run. It should only be performed in critical situations, like mum with small pelvis (if her mum had problems earlier, or if the woman is under 1,52 m etc). The mum might develop a weaker uterus in time. The child might have some lung problems, get a weaker immune system and many other things. I think there are many articles out there about it, so just google it  |
|
quiapo
Junior Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by quiapo on Dec 12, 2008 20:50:07 GMT -5
There is a risk benefit ratio to consider: the birth of twins, difficult positions (breech), fetal distress.
Caesarean section has its own morbidity, but the situation of the mother/baby may reach a point where the risks justify the procedure.
Normal childbirth has its own morbidity as well, and one sees examples of normal delvieries gone wrong, Cerbral palsy, Erbs palsy, mental retardation etsc, death.
And as Cj and Mj's Dad points our above, the penalties of making the wrong decision are fraught with financial and moral penalties. In Australia, I believe there is now difficulty in recruiting obstetricians to taining schemes, and in the regin where I live there are only 2 practicing private obstetricians to cater for aa population of 500,000 people. The emphasis is now on midwife delivery.
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on Dec 12, 2008 23:23:53 GMT -5
One must also remember the culture in which we live. The med mal lawsuit viewed as a lottery ticket. These days, if any HINT of maternal/fetal distress is detected, a section pretty much happens before you know it. I'm sure Indy's dad in an honest moment will admit to this. Heck, they don't even train OB's with forceps anymore. I think the differences between the section and natural birth are inconsequential. The moment of birth is intense, unforgettable (I should know x2), but what happens for the next 18+ years is far more important. This is very true, although maybe more so in America than here in Australia. Even so, the cost of medical insurance in Australia is astronomical turning even more doctors away from specializing in Obstetrics. My dad is an old school doctor, it surprises him that many registrars have never learned to use forceps. Unfortunately in order to fill the shortage of obstetricians and gynecologists in country hospitals there have been cases of hospitals hiring grossly under qualified doctors resulting in some women becoming permanently mutilated. In order to give women better health care the government should be spending more money encouraging the best medical graduates to go into maternity wards as well as the best midwives. |
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Dec 15, 2008 12:26:22 GMT -5
As a medical student I constantly hear that cezarian births are not at all good for the child, or the mother in the long run. It should only be performed in critical situations, like mum with small pelvis (if her mum had problems earlier, or if the woman is under 1,52 m etc). The mum might develop a weaker uterus in time. The child might have some lung problems, get a weaker immune system and many other things. I think there are many articles out there about it, so just google it I'm not sure I agree with you, and neither do most of the OB's I have lunch with in the hospital cafeteria. As was previously stated, any form of childbirth comes with what we refer to as M&M, morbidity and mortality. Luckily, these days the numbers are very good. Natural childbirth has risks, some as simple (but life changing) as incontinence, fistula, infection, etc. C-section carries the usual suspects associated with post-surgical risk. The bottom line is, we seem to focus WAAAAAY too much on HOW the baby is born, rather than as I previously stated, how the baby is cared for for the next 18+ years. Focus people! As a surgeon, I have to mention the midwifery. I am a big believer in being able to manage your own complications. In other words, if you are not the expert, the final authority, the person considered the expert, the one called to the witness stand when the poop hits the fan.......why are you doing what you are doing? I understand in situations where demand dictates that you have no choice. If an OB is unavailable, then it is what it is. But if you CHOOSE the "natural" option.....well, best of luck to you. But the bottom line is, if you can't handle ANY and EVERY situation that arises in a medical procedure, IMO you should not be PERFORMING that procedure. Manage your own mess/complications. And a midwife is gonna punt to the experts when the poop hits the fan. So why not go to the experts in the first place? But hey, babies have been born for many years before the advent of modern medicine. Understood. I have been involved on both sides of the drape for deliveries of varying complexity, and my personal experience with the birth of our 2 children was that an epidural is "god's" gift to maternity! |
|
|
|
Post by nemesisgalofdoom on Dec 15, 2008 12:37:41 GMT -5
I'm just glad that Ceasarian was not necessary in my case  |
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 15, 2008 13:16:05 GMT -5
Heh my mother once told me squeezing out my head was like squeezing a basketball through a pingpong hole. But I came out naturally didn't I?... eventually ne ways (although she vowed never to get pregnant ever again  ). Just push! Slack lazy women these days, sheez  |
|
|
|
Post by catgirl on Dec 16, 2008 18:47:10 GMT -5
Well, I just heard it from some European gynechologists I think the matter has it pros and cons. Some hospitals are very critical about doing uneccessarily cesarian sections, while others offer this as an option for women who have problems with the thought of a natural birth. A person I knows mother had cesarian sections on all 3 of her kids. The last one was born some months too early (cant remember how much, but something near the borderline) and developed some physical complications later in life. But if a natural birth goes wrong, Im sure the doctors at the hospital can help? And there is the magical epidural! I was born at home, assisted by a midwife my mum had a bad experience with giving birth at the hospital so). And I know there are many people critisizing this! People think its dangerous, and what if something goes wrong? I read an article about home births in a medical journal, and it said that very few women had to be rushed off to hospital after trying the home delivery. Cant remember the exact number, but it was something like 2-3 out of hundreds. Also doctors and midwives dont really know what the normal time for a birth should be because it varies alot among women. Something from wikipedia about this: "Risks for the Mother Statistics from the 1990s suggest that less than one woman in 2,500 who has a Caesarean section will die, compared to a rate of one in 10,000 for a vaginal delivery.[13] However the mortality rate for both continues to drop steadily. In 2000, the mortality rate for caesareans in the United States were 20 per 1,000,000.[14] The UK National Health Service gives the risk of death for the mother as three times that of a vaginal birth.[15] However, it is misleading to directly compare the mortality rates of vaginal and caesarean deliveries. Women with severe medical disease often require a caesarean section which can distort the mortality figures. A study published in the 13 February 2007 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that women that have planned Caesareans had an overall rate of severe morbidity of 27.3 per 1000 deliveries compared to an overall rate of severe morbidity of 9.0 per 1000 planned vaginal deliveries. The planned Caesarean group had increased risks of cardiac arrest, wound haematoma, hysterectomy (alt PPH - Post Pregnancy Hysterectomy), major puerperal infection, anaesthetic complications, venous thromboembolism, and haemorrhage requiring hysterectomy over those suffered by the planned vaginal delivery group. [16] A Caesarean section is a major operation, with all that it entails, including the risk of post-operative adhesions. Incisional hernias (which may require surgical correction) and wound infections can occur.[14] If a Caesarean is performed under emergency situations, the risk of the surgery may be increased due to a number of factors. The patient's stomach may not be empty, increasing the anaesthesia risk.[17] Other risks include severe blood loss (which may require a blood transfusion) and post spinal headaches.[14] Even long after the caesarean has happened, there are still risks that need to be considered. These can include ongoing pelvic pain, bowel blockage, and future infertility.[18] Pain at the incision can be intense, interfering with functioning, and may require more visits to the hospital., and full recovery of mobility can take several weeks or more.[18] A prior Caesarean section increases the risk of uterine rupture during subsequent labour. A study published in the June 2006 issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology found that women who had multiple Caesarean sections were more likely to have problems with later pregnancies, and recommended that women who want larger families should not seek Caesarean section as an elective. The risk of placenta accreta, a potentially life-threatening condition, is only 0.13% after two Caesarean sections but increases to 2.13% after four and then to 6.74% after six or more surgeries. Along with this is a similar rise in the risk of emergency hysterectomies at delivery. The findings were based on outcomes from 30,132 caesarean deliveries.[19] (see also review by WebMD.com) A study published in the February 2007 issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology found that women who had just one previous caesarean section were more likely to have problems with their second birth. Women who delivered their first child by Caesarean delivery had increased risks for malpresentation, placenta previa, antepartum hemorrhage, placenta accreta, prolonged labor, uterine rupture, preterm birth, low birth weight, and stillbirth in their second delivery.[20] [edit] Risks for the Child The risk to the baby of contracting diabetes is increased significantly by being delivered by Caesarean section. The risk of developing diabetes is 20% greater for children born by Caesarean section compared to those born naturally. [21] Babies born by caesarean are more likely to have breathing problems. [18] Recent studies have shown that babies born by caesarean section have a 50% increased risk of developing asthma later in life when compared to babies born vaginally.[22] For the baby, complications can also include neonatal depression due to anesthesia and fetal injury due to the uterine incision and extraction. [14] Babies born by caesarean section are more likely to have difficulty beginning breast feeding. [18] Not only do babies born by caesarean take long to begin breast feeding, but they also are less likely to be exclusively breast fed. " |
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Dec 17, 2008 11:30:43 GMT -5
Common sense usually prevails.
Most docs and women ready to deliver prefer vaginal delivery.
If complications arise, you do what has to be done.
Risks and complications exist after both delivery methods, and are well documented and understood.
The elective C is a different matter, and in my opinion is something that should be decided in consultation by the interested and involved parties.
Opinions are like bungholes......
|
|
quiapo
Junior Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by quiapo on Dec 17, 2008 15:50:24 GMT -5
Elective C is controversial here in Australia.Generally the gownernment does not favour it because of expense ( we have a nationalized health system). No one has mentioned the buzz that comes with a natural childbirth, and the bonding tht occurs with all parties. It has been decades since I delivered a baby (it was as a medical student) but I can remember the joy and bonding between all parties present. However Caesarean C is cetainly a preferred option when there are certain risks to the mother and child. I suppose there are places on earth where Caesarean section has greater risks, such as in some 3rd world countries. As I mentioned earlier; it is a risk-benefit analysis.
|
|
). Just push! Slack lazy women these days, sheez 
