Let's Talk About Elective Cesareans

lkeown83 (5) 12 Jan 2007 08:04 PM

First of all, congrats to all you mothers out there who've braved the wonder of child birth naturally. As for myself, I fully intended to have my first child naturally, but preeclampsia, preterm labor, and my baby presenting butt first didn't allow me many choices. I had an emergency c-section. Was it medically necessary? I wasn't in much of a position to debate the matter with the high blood pressure sending me into a delirium I couldn't shake until 2 days after the delivery. When I became pregnant with my 2nd child, I decided to have another c-section. I was no stranger to the process and there was a certain comfort in knowing I wouldn't be in L&D for countless hours focusing on a spot on the wall, wondering when the pain and agony would be over with. I'm sure there are benefits for having a child naturally, such as being able to spend time with your newborn, nurturing and nursing, making that maternal connection right away. Does he remember being carted away from mommy after being exposed to the environment of an operating room after the section? Who knows? My first born doesn't seem to be affected. We laugh and play and love just like any other mother and child. Why would a section even be placed in the same category as elective surgeries if it has such a bad connotation? Are elective surgeries unnecessary then? People chose to have an elective surgery because it often results in a better quality of life. My decision wasn't based on any Hollywood mom having her own c-section; I just considered the risks and benefits for myself and found that a c-section fit my life. The same goes for any other mom who might feel that a home birth fits her life. It's a matter of choice. Either way the child is loved whether you are able to hold the child right away, or have to wait a couple of hours. There is no research supporting a lack in maternal connection when a mother has a c-section, otherwise, mothers would forever feel a psychological disconnect with her child.

Valorie Delp (49340) 12 Jan 2007 08:19 PM

There certainly is research. . .that supports lack of maternal connection for infants delivered via c/s. Doesn't mean that the lack of connection is permanent or to put it in different words, "that you'll never bond" with your baby. . .of course you will--but research definitely supports vaginal birth as the best situation for promoting early bonding. As someone who nearly died from a c/s, I too think that women who choose to have a c/s absent of medically indicative criteria are ignorant of the serious possible complications. Doctors who consent to elective c/s use poor judgement, IMO.

Sara Denomme (1063) 13 Jan 2007 10:02 PM

lkeown83, it appears to me that your cesarean was a medically necessary one and not an elective surgery in that you had a choice and you CHOSE to deliver via c-section. ((hugs))

Sara Denomme (1063) 13 Jan 2007 10:41 PM

Laura, didn't recognize your name until after i posted a response to your comment. I tried to send you a private message but couldn't. I hope you weren't offended by my article. It certainly was NOT aimed at people that have cesareans because of medical conditions. I got the impression you were possibly offended, or felt like you had to defend your position? I hope you don't feel that way. Birth is not a competition.

Julie Gentry (5915) 14 Jan 2007 12:52 AM

I had all four of mine by Caesarian, though I tried to go naturally. It wasn't going to work. Do I feel a lack of connection? No. But I did miss out on a few things due to exhaustion with the first. I'm sure that happens with normal deliveries, too. With the second baby, 35 hours after trying, they took him via C. He was in a level one nursery and I miss out on those first precious moments then, too. Your Grief blog was very good, and there IS some grieving over what is less than perfect. But the babies were gorgeous! With #3 I had no labor and he came out looking around at everyone like a little man instead of a baby. lol. He was beautiful!

I can't imagine someone choosing to go with a C-section from the beginning when there's no medical necessity. Why would they do that electively?

Of course, there is one BIG plus to C-sections -- no episiotomy ;-).

Valorie Delp (49340) 14 Jan 2007 01:13 PM

Julie. . .I refused episiotomies after my first baby. I will say that the healing from the c/s was easier and faster than the healing from the episiotomy I had with my first one.

My SIL chose to have a c/s as soon as she found out she was pg bc she doesn't like to wait and she doesn't like the uncertainty of when they baby might come. She wanted everything all planned out. What's worse is she's a nurse!

clairesmith (5) 15 Apr 2007 02:09 AM

Your biased opinion infuriated me. You and all the other women who give birth ‘au natural’ then stick your bloody noses up at women who choose other methods. Just because you had two natural deliveries, it doesn't make you Mother Nature or even a better mother. What is more important is how you nurture, love and grow your child in to a happy, loving and respectful person throughout their lives. People like you make me angry with your opinionated ideas. What makes you right over a woman who chooses to have an elective caesarean? It is the woman’s own choice and her bodily right. You mention the dangers of having this surgery, but did you forget that there are almost as many possible complications through natural childbirth, without having to mention the nasty after effects. Please keep your narrow minded opinion to yourself or at least open your mind to others opinions. I have chosen to have an elective caesarean with my first child. This was a joint decision between my husband and me, but ultimately it was my decision. So please don't force your opinion down other people's throats as its bloody boring.

Sara Denomme (1063) 17 Apr 2007 08:30 PM

Actually, clairesmith, I have not even given an opinion here - rather, I have stated something that is quite true: Elective cesarean, when medically unnecessary, is risky to mother and child. I liken it to cosmetic surgery in that they are both typically unnessecary, but I think I explained that already. It was not my attention to attack anyone's beliefs or choices, rather to state fact. My opinon aside, it is pure TRUTH that elective cesareans carry more risk than vaginal delivery. It may be your desire to disagree with me, since you seemingly do not like my "opinions" of elective c-section. But ultimately you are disagreeing with scientific research, not me. I am not offended by your choice to have an elective cesarean, so why would you even bother to mention my two natural births? Also, the complications involved with childbirth that you mention may result in an EMERGENCY cesarean, which is a completely different subject.

For the record, I do have a biased opinon - one that I clearly did not state in this passage at all:

I am FOR giving women the information to make the safest decisions for themselves and their babies. If that includes elective cesarean, than by all means I agree with it. THIS article was not about those cases at all. I am AGAINST allowing women to make uninformed consent.

Thanks for your comment!

Pattie Hughes (7652) 18 Apr 2007 11:07 AM

Sarah is absolutely correct about the dangers of elective c sections. It is unbelievable to me that this is even allowed. C section should be reserved for emergency situations only and never be allowed when there is no clear medical indication. Doctors who routinely allow their patients to choose this route are irresponsible, in my opinion. I feel this way about all unnecessary surgical procedures. I had a c section with my fourth baby. It was medically necessary after many hours of labor. I would NEVER want to go through it again. It was horrible. Having had 3 vaginal and 1 c section, I can tell you natural labor is definitely better for mom and baby.

Valorie Delp (49340) 18 Apr 2007 07:34 PM

Clairesmith, you stated that "what counts is that a mom nurtures, loves and grows her child in to a happy, loving and respectful person throughout their lives. . . ." Women can die from c/s. Yes, they can die w/o them but we're not talking about medically indicated c/s. . .we're talking about ones that moms choose bc they are either too scared or too lazy to go through labor. Statistically, you are much more likely to die from a c/s than you are from giving birth vaginally. A dead mom, cannot nurture or love her child--I'm sure you realize this. Rather she leaves behind a family that is confused bc they thought it was a 'safe' and 'routine' procedure. Sara didn't say this, but I will say it again--doctors who will perform elective, medically unecessary procedures are irresponsible. I have to assume that women who choose them are simply uneducated on the issue bc no mother would want to risk her life and miss out on her child's future. JMHO

Valorie Delp (49340) 19 Apr 2007 03:16 AM

And actually Sara. . .if you don't mind I would change your statement. C-sections are always risky. When they are medically unecessary they are far riskier than child birth. ;-)

Sara Denomme (1063) 19 Apr 2007 12:44 PM

You're absolutely right Valerie, ALL c-sections are riskier than vaginal delivery - any day of the week, any way you slice it. I think what I meant was that if an emergency c-section is medically indicated (life or death for mom, baby or both) then yes, it would be less risky to have the section than not. That's obvious though - but since this particular article is about elective sections, I will say again that by all means there is no place for them in our society whatsoever, and I also agree that doctors who agree to them are in fact irresponsible, as are the mothers that request them. My two natural births were brought up, and I think it's fair to say that my choosing to birth naturally was my way of being a responsible parent, in my view of things. There are plenty of other articles in the Pregnancy Blog about emergency, medically indicated section and I encourage everyone to check them out! Thanks Valerie and Pattie for your helpful insight. ;)

Valorie Delp (49340) 19 Apr 2007 01:39 PM

Woops. . .I realize that my "changing your statement" got cut off. (Sorry--tech glitch on my part.) The rest of that statement is that when they are medically indicated they may be less risky than vaginal birth. . .but they are still risky. Sorry about that!

Teresa McEntire (2984) 19 Apr 2007 05:25 PM

I had my first child vaginally and my second unfortuantely had to be c-section. My third I was determined would be vaginal because it was so much easier. But after my daughter was 3 days late and 9 hours of labor and still dilated to a 1 my doctor recommended a c-section. Lucky for me I did, because my uterus was so thin at my prior incision site that my doctor said I would have probably only got 3 pushes before it burst. Since my daughter was 8 lbs 8 ozs it would have taken more than that and we would have probably died.

Sara Denomme (1063) 19 Apr 2007 07:20 PM

Teresa, you would be so inspired by my friend's story - She had FOUR cesareans before finally delivering her fifth at home! Read more here: http://www.freewebs.com/lanugo/letstalk.htm?blogentryid=1286196