At Home Births

[Fudgie]

Here's my question to all of you - is there anything wrong with having a C-section?

 

Scarring is VERY minimal these days (you can barely see it), recovery time is very short, etc. My mom had 2 of them and it wasn't a big deal at all. The only people who I have seen say C-sections are "bad" is because it's not natural that the baby isn't coming out through the vagina. But is it really that bad?

[Sanesoul]

I don't know that there is anything wrong with them, but I wanted to have the full experience of natural birth. For me, it was an essential part of life that I didn't want to miss out on. I wasn't keen on going through all that painful labor just to have surgery on top of it. There was no medical reason to have a c-section, so I didn't have one.

[Hope75]

Here's my question to all of you - is there anything wrong with having a C-section?

 

Scarring is VERY minimal these days (you can barely see it), recovery time is very short, etc. My mom had 2 of them and it wasn't a big deal at all. The only people who I have seen say C-sections are "bad" is because it's not natural that the baby isn't coming out through the vagina. But is it really that bad?

 

Just wanted to first correct my earlier quoted stats on uterine rupture:

 

0.5% chance of rupture with 1 previous c-section

1-3% chance of rupture with 2 or more previous c-sections. Sorry!

C-section is major abdominal/pelvic surgery, and thus has definite risks. Some risks to mother include but are not limited to: hemorrhage during or after surgery, infection of the surgical site, dehiscence (separation of the surgical scar), post operative blood clots in your legs (DVT) lungs (PE) or brain (CVA) any of which can be fatal, pneumonia secondary to not being able to take deep breaths secondary to pain, ileus (paralyzed bowel) related to slowed or stopped gastric motility following abdominal surgery, risk of the bowel or other major organs being nicked during surgery which can cause life threatening infections, colostomy and death, increased pain and longer recovery. In subsequent attempts or pregnancies the risk of infertility is increased following a c-section, the risk of placenta previa, plancenta acreta, and placental abruption are all increased, as well as the risk of uterine rupture, which is fairly low, as well as increased risk for premature birth, and still birth of subsequent babies.

 

link removed

 

Risks to fetus include: increased respiratory distress related to not having the normal fluid in a fetus's lungs 'wrung out' as baby is squeezed through the vaginal canal during a vaginal delivery, nicks and cuts to the baby caused during the surgery, and decreased success at breastfeeding due to longer separation of mother and baby during recovery for mother, and post operative pain.

[Fudgie]

Yeah that's what I'm thinking - it's a preference for a natural birth. And that's totally fine.

 

I was just wondering if this preference for a natural birth is what makes women bash C-sections or is there actually something medically wrong with getting a C-section done?

 

I'm just curious.

 

EDIT:

 

ohh..okay, I see now Hopeful.

 

I'm skeptical about the "liquid being wrung out" in natural birth. I've seen both C-sections and natural births happen and the doctor/nurses still need to get fluid out of the lung and a lot still comes out in natural birth.

 

My mother would have been able to hold me right after the C-section...they aren't necessarily separated. The reason why I was separated was because I was having breathing issues (not liquid related). But had I not, she would have been able to hold me right away. Instead, I was put into a special incubator for a couple hours and then, my father was the first to hold me. I nursed from mom until I was 3ish.

 

You're absolutely right on uterine rupture though. If you're looking to only have 1 kid, it may not be a big issue though but if you're looking to have more, then yeah. My mom had to have a 2nd done for my brother and sister (twins) because she fell VERY ill and was near death so that one was needed...plus there was a stillborn in there with them. They needed to come out.

[annie24]

Here's my question to all of you - is there anything wrong with having a C-section?

 

Scarring is VERY minimal these days (you can barely see it), recovery time is very short, etc. My mom had 2 of them and it wasn't a big deal at all. The only people who I have seen say C-sections are "bad" is because it's not natural that the baby isn't coming out through the vagina. But is it really that bad?

 

It is a serious surgery with anesthesia and cutting through your uterus. it's potentially a problem if you have 3 or more pregnancies. many doctors won't let you deliver naturally after a C-section, because they are afraid of the risk. Recovery time is longer than with a natural birth.

[Hope75]

Yeah that's what I'm thinking - it's a preference for a natural birth. And that's totally fine.

 

I was just wondering if this preference for a natural birth is what makes women bash C-sections or is there actually something medically wrong with getting a C-section done?

 

I'm just curious.

 

See my post above, it outlines all the risks of having major surgery (c-section.)

 

Hope that helps clear things up!

 

I don't think anyone is saying it's wrong to have a c-section, only that it has a much greater risk of complications and a longer recovery time vs. a vaginal birth.

[Fudgie]

Yeah I just saw your above post.

 

Yes, lots of women who have the vaginal birth can get up and leave pretty soon after. My mom was in the hospital for 1-2 days, I don't remember, but had she had me vaginally, I bet she would have left soon.

[Fudgie]

It is a serious surgery with anesthesia and cutting through your uterus. it's potentially a problem if you have 3 or more pregnancies. many doctors won't let you deliver naturally after a C-section, because they are afraid of the risk. Recovery time is longer than with a natural birth.

 

Yes, I suppose you're right. My mom had a local anesthetic though. I'm not sure how normal that is to have but she was awake for the whole thing (board prevented her from watching it actually happen) but as soon as I came out, my doctor held me up and was like "hey!" and she saw me. Had I not had breathing problems, then I could have been with her right away, I know that.

[newwave]

I've heard that many doctors will automatically schedule a c section for twins, even if they are in a place where they can be born natural (many twins are born natural). I worry about having a c section because of this. I strongly feel that I will have twins and since I have several risk factors for having twins (older, twins run in my family, and speculation I was a twin, I am taller than average women, etc)I fear I'll have a c section. Add in that I had the LEEP procedure several years ago for HPV, I have a tipped uterus, and that I have somewhat small hips (though probably not that small) my risks go up pretty high. Of course hard to say what will happen.

 

I am terrified of having a c section because I am terrified of surgery to begin with.

[Hope75]

I'm skeptical about the "liquid being wrung out" in natural birth. I've seen both C-sections and natural births happen and the doctor/nurses still need to get fluid out of the lung and a lot still comes out in natural birth.

 

 

Oh, studies have shown the incidence of respiratory distress related to amniotic fluid in the lungs with c-section babies is greatly increased over vaginal births. Every baby is born with some fluid and mucus in their mouth and lungs and all are routinely suctioned following birth, but that bulb suction (and even the deep sterile suctioning done later if needed) doesn't remove the fluid deep in the lungs.

 

link removed

 

Objective: Respiratory morbidity is an important complication of elective cesarean section. Our objective was to find out the incidence of respiratory distress in term neonates delivered by elective cesarean section and compare it with neonates delivered vaginally.

 

Methodology: We evaluated one thousands infants delivered by elective cesarean section and normal vaginal delivery for respiratory distress.

 

Results: Among 500 cesarean done, 27 (5.4%) neonates had respiratory distress and among 500 vaginal delivery infants, 8(1.6%) developed respiratory Distress (P

 

Conclusions: The odd ratio for neonatal respiratory distress was 3.38, almost threefold higher in cesarean section group than those delivered vaginally.

link removed

 

The consequences of elective caesarean section at term for the baby have received little attention. The incidence of respiratory distress is much higher than in vaginal delivery (0.036 v0.0053).6 Other risk factors for respiratory distress include gestational age, mode of delivery, male sex, fetal asphyxia, maternal asthma and diabetes, and type of anaesthesia given during delivery (regional or general).6–9 The development of respiratory distress leads to admission to a special care baby unit or neonatal intensive care unit, often at a distance, separation from the mother, and complications from invasive procedures including artificial ventilation.

 

 

 

 

This is also a contributing factor to why newborns are separated from their mothers following c-section births which affects breastfeeding, because they end up in the NICU on supplemental oxygen, or if it is severe enough, intubated.

link removed

 

 

An elective cesarean section increases the risk to the infant of premature birth and respiratory distress syndrome, both of which are associated with multiple complications, intensive care and burdensome financial costs. Even mature babies, the absences of labor increases the risk of breathing problems and other complications.

[OptomisticGirl]

See my post above, it outlines all the risks of having major surgery (c-section.)

 

Hope that helps clear things up!

 

I don't think anyone is saying it's wrong to have a c-section, only that it has a much greater risk of complications and a longer recovery time vs. a vaginal birth.

 

I think vaginal can be just as dangerous though. I mean yes it's how you are 'suppose' to do it but any kind of delivery has it's risks. You can bleed out, hemorage, the list goes on and on. While I would never wnat a c-section unless it was dire, I can understand why some women believe c-section is far less riskier. I had a friend who was told she could not deliver her girl vaginally because of her size (Even prengnat she weighed 110 lbs) and the friend insisted on vaginal up to the point it put stress on her and she almost died during vaginal delivery.

[Unknown1607307972]

ACtually some women PREFER c-sections over vaginal births. I know women who ACTUALLY scheduled c-sections in order to avoid having to go through with the vaginal birth. I'm not sure how they were able to do this, because most doctors won't perform those on just anyone, but for these women(for whatever reason) they were more interested in doing a C section. One of my friends who did do a C section has no scar. The only thing that was brutal was the recovery.

 

I don't want children but if I ever did I would prefer a C section.

 

The reason for this is because I have a bizare phobia, tocophobia, which is the fear of pregnancy and childbirth (yes, I have a fear of pregnancy itself too). I feel a C section would be a lot less mentally traumatic for me, even if it would be rather painful recovering.

 

If I wanted to have a baby and do it naturally, I'd still want the drugs, and medical assistance available, so home birth would be a no.

[sweetpea03]

ok, so they are both low risk, but in what area geographically, were the mothers the same age/race/nationality, etc. There are factors missing and not stated in your links. Your first link means nothing and is bias. Your second link is quoting from an unknown source and is not scholarly. Your third link is actually fine and is scholarly, in at least showing references. If you don't like c-sections and hospital births, that's fine, but to jump on doctors saying they will push a woman to deliver early because they want to go home is a very far leap to make. Actually, there really is no evidence either way that shows that a home birth is safer. "They suggest that while there is no concrete evidence to support the relationship between a fall in the perinatal mortality rate (PMR) and home births, there is also no evidence to show that hospital is safer than home for all women." Taken from your last link. It's all up in the air and they don't know why there are differences in the numbers. There is no conclusive evidence either way. Though the general website that these studies are on is bias as well, when it talks about how "the way they have approached this study in relation to their views on home birth"..since the website is upset that the people involved in the study talked about keeping in touch with the person's midwife AND doctor.

[Fudgie]

The vast majority of people do not do home births. I doubt they can look at mortality rates and home births since there is just not enough data at present time...and what about demographics? I don't see any of that being taken into account.

[sweetpea03]

There are risks with both, either c-section and natural birth. Also, most babies are given to the mother right away when a c-section occurs, they'll hand over the baby to the mother. Most risks from a c-section are very rare and they have to tell patients the risks before ever going through with it, which tends to only scare patients. I remember reading all of the risks for a c-section and it was long, but most happen in less than 1% of cases. Also, not all c-sections are done under anesthesia and can be done by being put in a twilight, a local anesthetic, or by using other ways, so you lose the complications from anesthesia.

[Circe]

I couldnt do a home birth.. I think I'd just feel "safer" in a hospital.. esp given the amount of people I've spoken to where things did go wrong .. I don't want the stress of having to move to a hospital during the birth if something goes wrong. Plus - I think it will be nice to have home as a place I come back to after the experience is over, esp if it is as terribly painful as people say..

[Mercurial Girl]

The vast majority of people do not do home births. I doubt they can look at mortality rates and home births since there is just not enough data at present time...and what about demographics? I don't see any of that being taken into account.

 

In North America... the vast majority of births in other nations are home births. This includes UK and other developed nations.

[Fudgie]

Yes I was talking about America, sorry I wasn't clear. Can't speak for other countries.

[BellaDonna]

I had an elective c-section. When I went for the consult with my doctor, before I even got pregnant, she was very clear about providing info on the risks and benefits to both delivery options. Later, as it turned out in the end, c-section was the indeed best choice for me medically too (not only because it was my initial preference) due to my son's large size and the fact that I reached my due date and he showed no signs of dropping or wanting to come out. I'm pretty sure an attempted vaginal delivery would have been a traumatic ordeal that would have led to emergency c-section, or if I managed to have him "naturally" I would definitely be cut elsewhere, he'd probably have respiratory distress from meconium, or worse shoulder dystocia. He was just under 10lbs. The first thing my doc said when she saw him was "Hi Big Boy!!!! Mom, you made the right decision!" I took one look at the big, beautiful, chubby baby and thought the same. I'm not trying to be funny when I say I really think there would be no way possible I could have delivered that child vaginally (I am usually the type of woman that thinks she can do anything, but some things just defy the laws of nature and size lol) In my case, I was so glad I was able to plan for the surgery, not go through anything physicially traumatic or painful, and have an excellent outcome.

 

There are risks with both, either c-section and natural birth. Also, most babies are given to the mother right away when a c-section occurs, they'll hand over the baby to the mother. Most risks from a c-section are very rare and they have to tell patients the risks before ever going through with it, which tends to only scare patients. I remember reading all of the risks for a c-section and it was long, but most happen in less than 1% of cases. Also, not all c-sections are done under anesthesia and can be done by being put in a twilight, a local anesthetic, or by using other ways, so you lose the complications from anesthesia.

C-sections come with risks like any surgery. Many of the risks are indeed rare but uternine rupture is more likely after repeated c-sections.

 

My doc was very clear that she advises women who have c-sections not to have more than 2 children because the risk of a uternine rupture increases with each surgery. Had I been planning to have a large family I would really want to avoid c-section. I personally would not test the limits beyond 2. I'd get my tubes tied on the table with the 2nd c-section.

 

 

As for home birth, even if I had planned a natural birth with no pain meds I would just never want a home birth.

[Hope75]

The top two links both refer to studies published in medical journals ( # 1 Canadian Medical Association Journal, the second referring to a study published in the BMJ) and are not biased, not sure why you assume that?

 

 

 

and while of course you can't assume every mother in the this study was white, 25, having a boy, BMI of 18, etc, all were medically evaluated and categorized as low risk which typically means under 35 and over 18, of a reasonably healthy weight, with no pregnancy complications. As you can read in the links provided the studies were done all over, one in North America (quoted above) one in Canada, on in GB, another in Australia. I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANY study that consisted of all participants being the exact same age, economic status, race, etc, although you will find that African Americans are a high risk population in general for both pregnancy and childbirth population so I can't say if they were risked out based on race alone.

[Hope75]

study done in British Columbia

 

link removed

 

one from Canada that shows no difference in outcomes but a much lower intervention and c-section rate in home births:

 

link removed

 

and a large study done in the U.S. and Canada with the same results as above:

 

link removed

[sweetpea03]

The top two links both refer to studies published in medical journals ( # 1 Canadian Medical Association Journal, the second referring to a study published in the BMJ) and are not biased, not sure why you assume that?

 

You gave links of websites that are opinions and not just the scholarly articles. People like to twist information on sites like those to fit what they believe..

[annie24]

^^^ Those are from Pubmed, all peer-reviewed journals.

[sweetpea03]

study done in British Columbia

 

link removed

 

one from Canada that shows no difference in outcomes but a much lower intervention and c-section rate in home births:

 

link removed

 

and a large study done in the U.S. and Canada with the same results as above:

 

link removed

 

Pubmed has some good articles...

There has been stated a mere 3% difference from your link for the rate differences of interventions for the pregnant women. I wouldn't call that a "much" lower rate as it would still be considered in the knoll and not the alternative.

[sweetpea03]

^^^ Those are from Pubmed, all peer-reviewed journals.

 

I know.. I am referring to previous links she has given me and was questioning as to why I thought they are bias... and they are. I wrote my response to her new links as well.