Cesareans: Are they really a safe option?

[becca74]

From an article by Henci Goer:
***link removed by moderator***

please pm me for link, i will post a little more of the article soon, but am feeding and typing 1-handed at the mo....

Lately, prominent obstetricians, including Dr. Benson Harer, the president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have been waging a campaign intended to increase our already outrageous cesarean rate. They are trying to convince the public that cesarean section is so safe, and vaginal birth so injurious to mothers and babies, that women should not be deprived of cesareans on demand. An article in the December 4, 2000 Newsweek and Harer's appearance last summer on Good Morning America are cases in point. Without access to the obstetric research, their arguments for the benefits of c-sections seem reasonable. In my opinion, this is on a par with tobacco company spokespeople of yore claiming that cigarette smoking improved lung function.

Does Vaginal Birth Injure the Mother?

The belief that vaginal birth harms women has come largely from the observation that women tend to have weaker pelvic floors shortly after vaginal birth than women having planned cesareans. In addition, many older women experience uterine prolapse (the uterus sags into the vagina) or urinary or anal continence problems (incontinence of gas, urgency, or fecal incontinence) related to weakness or injury. This has led some obstetricians like Dr. Harer to leap to the conclusion that planned cesarean is protective.




I will reserve my opinions to let others draw their own educated interpretations....;)

[chellegoth]

I found it to be very anti OB and understood why when I read the details of who wrote it.

[Perth_Pony]

I wonder how much that lovely doctor was paid for that *ahem* "OPINION".

Anyone reading that would think that its UNNATURAL to have a vaginal birth or something. :laughing:

C/S have their place (sometimes), but some doctors love to jump on the bandwagon dont they.

IMO, its all a load of bollocks. :thumbsup:

Jjust wait to the new generation of doctors of doctors come out (like me, yay). As i would only do a C/S if it were absolutly neccesary. (or of course, i had a lunch function to go to and didnt want to be late). ;)

[natasha]

There is no 'safe' option. And I also agree with Chelle on this one, so Im not going to write anymore as there is really no point.

No offence to you Becca:hugs:

[becca74]

who read the whole article, and who read just the blurb I put up, but didnt bother reading the whole article?

[Perth_Pony]

There is no 'safe' option.

I truly believe that having a vaginal birth with an experienced midwife and no medical complications is very SAFE.

Both have their risks, but remember that vaginal births are natural and women have been doing it for thousands of years. :)

[Perth_Pony]

I read the article, but was commenting on the second paragraph of your blurb. :reindeer:

[chellegoth]

who read the whole article, and who read just the blurb I put up, but didnt bother reading the whole article?

Yes I read the whole article.

[becca74]

vaginal births are extremely safe when nature isnt meddled with, with example induction, drugs etc.....

eg, If an ob/middie recommends induction, they are setting you up for a hell-like birth experience, half the time.

vaginal birth only becomes dangerous when every man and his dog wants to interfere with what you are doing. (both midwifes and obs can be to blame when it comes to meddling, I am living breathing proof of this!)

on rare occasions, nature needs help - just like some people need glasses.....but then, if you stick glasses on a person who can already see really well, you are going to make them blind....does that make sense?

[natasha]

I truly believe that having a vaginal birth with an experienced midwife and no medical complications is very SAFE.

Both have their risks, but remember that vaginal births are natural and women have been doing it for thousands of years. :)

Ofcourse VB's are natural....:rolleyes: noone is saying they are not. Just because they are natural, it doesnt mean they are safe......we all know too well the things that can and do go wrong with Vb's...just as we do C sections. No option is 100% safe, that is all I was saying.
Yes women have been doing it for thousands of years, and thousands have died during childbirth in that time so just because it is natural, doesnt mean it is safe.
Yes we have better understanding of what can go wrong and and better trained staff to help us, but all I was saying was, in both cases, neither are 100%safe.

[Lila]

ditto nathasha....

[shed]

Interesting.

My cousin is due to give birth by caesarean in one week's time. Her partner has commented that he is glad that she doesn't have to go through the pain of labour.

If it was me I would be sh!tting bricks. I would never consider an elective caesarean. Too much cutting and stitches etc. I wouldn't want to stay in hospital that long either.

I think women should be able to choose the way they give birth, if they choose caesarean then that's what they should be allowed to do. I don't agree with it being presented as a safer option however, but people need to do their own independent research about their own birthing experiences so they can choose an option for themselves.

That's what I did.

[suemp]

im sorry but i dont agree with the article. in my situation i had 2 c/sections first for emergency and second a mixture of medical reasons and plus i didnt want a vbac by choice and i had nothing but negatives of c/sections shoved down my throat.
the only negative i heard about vb was from afew close friends and afew on this forum (like chelle) who experienced negative experiences.
all i heard was vb are natural, safest, y would you want to be cut open etc etc...
wen you "apply" for a c/section you are given a very detailed description of wat could go wrong so no i dont think the dangers of c/sections are being swept under the carpet. i believe i was full aware of wat could go wrong and never felt i was told it was an easy way out :no:

[becca74]

I think women should be able to choose the way they give birth, if they choose caesarean then that's what they should be allowed to do. I don't agree with it being presented as a safer option however, but people need to do their own independent research about their own birthing experiences so they can choose an option for themselves.
.

I totally agree...eg a woman being told her baby might be too big and therefore needs a c/section is obviously not being told the comparative risks....

alot is being swept under the carpet.

When the odds are honestly weighed up, sometimes a c/section is the safer option, but for people like myself, it was a dangerous risk for that obstetrician to make with mine and my baby's life, since I have just proven, that for me, a vb was the safest option. It's not nice to learn that a medical professional diced with my life purely for his own convenience and/or lack of education.

[Missus S]

I wonder how much that lovely doctor was paid for that *ahem* "OPINION".

The article was written by a Doula.

[SassyMummy]

I didn't read the whole article (the link has been removed, and I've only just come online...)...

However, I think there's a big difference between advertising c-secs as safe (compared to scary, painful, life-threatening VBs...:rolleyes: ), and saying that women who want c-secs should be able to have them.

I agree with the part about women who want c-secs being able to have them... but there are in no means safe. If anything, they create potential problems where there may not have been problems if the birth was totally natural (as in, no drugs/intervention etc). Not to say VB is 100% safe... but I don't think anyone should suggest that the "natural way" to do have a baby is inferior to the surgical, obviously un-natural, way. (BTW, when I say c-secs are unnatural, I don't mean to offend... but, ultimately, they ARE unnatural).

[Perth_Pony]

The article was written by a Doula.

Like i said before, i was commenting on the second paragraph of the blurb. :thumbsup: Not the arti.

[becca74]

I didn't read the whole article (the link has been removed, and I've only just come online...)...

However, I think there's a big difference between advertising c-secs as safe (compared to scary, painful, life-threatening VBs...:rolleyes: ), and saying that women who want c-secs should be able to have them.

I agree with the part about women who want c-secs being able to have them... but there are in no means safe. If anything, they create potential problems where there may not have been problems if the birth was totally natural (as in, no drugs/intervention etc). Not to say VB is 100% safe... but I don't think anyone should suggest that the "natural way" to do have a baby is inferior to the surgical, obviously un-natural, way. (BTW, when I say c-secs are unnatural, I don't mean to offend... but, ultimately, they ARE unnatural).

the article is by Henci Goer, a Childbirth educator, and she is the author of 'Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities'. She is a very well respected woman, and her research is some of the most extensive in the medical world and is well-respected for this. She is an amazing woman, I can pm you the link to the article if you like, or to find out more about her, here is her web page: http://www.hencigoer.com/

the blurb gives the impression that she thinks c/secs are safer, I think, but it sure grabs your attention, doesnt it ;) You will see what her real conclusions are when you read the whole thing....

[ShadyCharacter]

I would be interested to know how many women with traumatic vaginal births had absolutely NO intervention :detective:

[Minke]

A close friend of mine had a fairly traumatic birth with no intervention, well not quite true, he was stuck, his heart rate dropped, they tried to vacuum extract him twice, both times failed, she was rushed in for an emergency c/s, but he was still born. Oh and she had gas, and maybe pethidine, not sure will ask her. I do know that she was two weeks and 2 days overdue (her induction kept getting put off) and they wouldn't break her waters, or let her have an epi (until it came time for her c/s). But i guess she didn't have a vaginal birth... so it would be classed as a traumatic cesarean?

[becca74]

I would be interested to know how many women with traumatic vaginal births had absolutely NO intervention :detective:


I might go and ask over in the homebirth section....since these women have the least intervention of all.......

[SassyMummy]

Becca - I came across as mocking the author of the article, but that's not what I meant. I was more agreeing with the article (or what I read of it)...but rolling my eyes at what she says some OBs have been suggesting... not at her. Hope that makes sense...

And yep, it'd be great to have a link to the article if possible! :thumbsup: