Title: The many Ignored Risks Of C-Section.

[prideNJoy]

Hi All,

I received this is in my email, and thought i might post it. I hope know-one is offended as that is not my intention.:no: I personally dont have much of an opinion when it comes to the c-section debate. But i thought others may find it an interesting read if they dont know too much about the risks (me being one of them!) :o .
http://www.mercola.com/2007/mar/8/the-many-ignored-risks-of-c-sections.htm

Mel :wave:

[SamanthaJane]

I think there are risks with most things in life, but unfortunatley a c/section is required by many women these days and the choice is taken away from them :yes:

I don't like the title of "ignored" risks.... it's a pretty big thing to consider a c/section whether its elective or not. And if you are electing a c/section i am guessing your ob would have to list all these things?

Not sure tho, perhaps someone who has had an elective could share?

And emergency c/section - are you told of risks? i guess there'd be no time lol maybe you could share with us too?

[prideNJoy]

I think there are risks with most things in life, but unfortunatley a c/section is required by many women these days and the choice is taken away from them :yes:

I don't like the title of "ignored" risks.... it's a pretty big thing to consider a c/section whether its elective or not. And if you are electing a c/section i am guessing your ob would have to list all these things?



I understand, as im sure most of the population does that there are alot of different reasons as to why some women have to have a c/section.

I agree, i thought the title 'Dr Mercola' used was a little insensitive!:shame: I got the feeling though, from the articles that they are trying to target(prob not the best word) women who are looking at electing a c/section rather than those that have no choice.
Thats simply what i took away from reading it.
Like i said before it's not something i really have much of an opinion on either way, i just found those statistics rather frightening. So thought i would share! :)

[OJandMe]

I agree with Samantha Jane.

I don't think it's entirely fair to call them 'ignored' risks. especially for women who desperately wanted to have a natural birth and couldn't without the risk of one (or both in my case) of their children/child dying.

Before you sign the consent form I was told all the risks and chances of complications.. but when one of your kids heartrates is skyrocketing and the other one has a cord around his neck.. you don't really stop to think about the chance of danger to yourself... not seriously.

[stellarella]

I think emotions are getting the better of people. Which is perfectly natural. Humans are emotive beings and we cant help but be influenced by our own experiences and feelings.

However the article is not saying that all c/secs are too rsky. It is saying, unless the risk of delivering vaginally is more than the risk of delivering by c/sec then c/secs should be avoided.

No one has ever or WILL ever suggest that many c/secs are not lifesaving and wonderful interventions. Of cousre they are for women who have no other choice for their or thier babies safety.

This article is to inform women who may choose to have a c/sec for non-medical purposes. Whatever they may be.

Of course everything involves risk, including VB's. But in general they are safer. The degree to which they are safe will vary from woman to woman and situation to situation.

For some women a c/sec will be the safest option.

This article is saying that if it is safe for you to deliver vaginally then the risks of having a c/sec are great. If women still choose to have a c/sec in this situation then they are "ignoring" the risks, in that they will choose a riskier option over a safer option. Not in that they dont know about the risks, but they know and they do it anyway.

The article is saying that a VB is safer than a c/sec in general. It is a well known fact that a VB is the safest way to deliver a baby. And when a VB is NOT safe then a c/sec is there to deliver baby safely (hopefully).

I cannot see why anyone would find this article offensive. I believe some women are "ignoring" the risks, when we know too many c/secs are chosen when there is no medical indication.

There is no need to see this article negatively. If you needed a c/sec because it was unsafe to deliver your baby vaginally then you have taken the path of least risk.

[our little treasures]

I think it is clearly saying if it is used without truly needing a c/s! I think it is good you have posted the article because it might help someone considering one!!

[GraceUnhearing]

I think it is clearly saying if it is used without truly needing a c/s! I think it is good you have posted the article because it might help someone considering one!!

i agree!
and i think thats where the statement 'to posh to push' comes from.

alot of woman who chose to have a c/s think its easier, but VB is the easier option.
i had a terrible VB (failed suction 4 times bub got stuck,Bub had the cords wrapped very tight around his neck.forceps and a big episiotomy and quite a few stitches.) but i'd do it again, unless a c/s was 100% needed.

[cchinnery]

I had a semi-emergency c-section and at the time was given two options:
1) to be induced, "during which the baby might get distressed and you'll end up with a c-section anyway"
2) to have a c-section, for which the risks are "infection and bleeding"
I was then expected to make a decision about what to do with no time to go away and think about it.

I guess my point is that in some circumstances you aren't given all the information you need and many of the risks of c-section are ignored - I was not told about the effect it would have on subsequent pregnancies for example.
HTH
Claire
ps I'm not blaming my obstetrician here, there are many things I would do differently second time around, just making the point that some more information would have been helpful.

[SorenLorensen]

sooo i am thinking by reading that, that by not really choosing to have my c/s (there is no choice for me) i should be fine :confused:

[janiece]

I think it really depends on whether you have a choice or not.

Mine was an 'elective' cesearean however i really had no choice. The day after i was due i went to see the dr (the baby still hadn't dropped) and she said the baby wasn't going to drop as she was too big. So what choice did i have as it was physically impossible without a ceasar? My only choice was to wait until it was an emergeny or get it done straight away. As i was VERY uncomfortable with this big baby up under my ribs i chose the latter!!!

I wish though i could of had her naturally, i didn't even think until right near the end that i might have to have a ceasar so guess i was a little unprepared.

My baby had actually dropped earlier, but after my 36wk scan the lady doing the ultrasound actually pushed her head out of where she was sitting (ready to go). Big disapointment as she never dropped again after this.:confused:

[kristi001]

I think it is clearly saying if it is used without truly needing a c/s! I think it is good you have posted the article because it might help someone considering one!!

Agreed! :yes:

[FourAngelKisses]

Agreed! :yes:

Me too!! I don't think it was implying that you should say no to an emergency ceaser because of the risks. I think it was aimed more at those who say they want a c-section just because.

[SorenLorensen]

:thumbsup: ok im sweet then, i fully think people should really think about having a c/s or not by choice, i dont really care what they do, but i dont think they should go into it thinking it is the easy way out (not saying everyone does).

i get sooo scared reading things like this because i dont have any choice i have to have them, but if i didnt have to i wouldn't

[kita]

I am choosing to have a c/s for no medical reasons and know i am not the only one!, of course we know all the risks or we wouldnt still go through with it. If its something that puts our mind at ease just let it be. i coudlt care if a lady had a baby out of her nostril, as long as she was happy

[SamanthaJane]

I don't understand what the difference is between an emergency c/section and an elective c/section :confused: As in, are the risks different? I just figured a c/section would be a c/section no matter what circumstances it would be in :confused:

I don't know if i am making sense.... still a bit sleepy :sleeping: But i guess what i am trying to ask is whether an elective c/section is more "risky" or is an emergency c/section more "risky" or are they both the same risk?

[SorenLorensen]

I don't understand what the difference is between an emergency c/section and an elective c/section As in, are the risks different? I just figured a c/section would be a c/section no matter what circumstances it would be in :confused:

I don't know if i am making sense.... still a bit sleepy :sleeping: But i guess what i am trying to ask is whether an elective c/section is more "risky" or is an emergency c/section more "risky" or are they both the same risk?
dont worry i dont get it either, just from what this article is saying i dont have to worry, :confused:
i think really what they are doing is saying elective because people in my situation realy have no choice so they really cant say much about us, and just by having a go at the electives i think they prevent upsetting us a little, but really the risk would be the same......but i dont have to belive that, i can just ignor it, because it does not refer to me.(i know, i know ...but that is what i am telling myself :p )

[shed]

I think there is 'elective' and 'truly elective'.

There should be another word for it. Some women have caesareans just because they want to, no medical reason - they just want to.

Some woman have caesareans because its too dangerous to have a VB or they are physically unable, so they technically 'elect' to have it, but really there is very little choice involved.

There should be two different words.

[SorenLorensen]

I think there is 'elective' and 'truly elective'.

There should be another word for it. Some women have caesareans just because they want to, no medical reason - they just want to.

Some woman have caesareans because its too dangerous to have a VB or they are physically unable, so they technically 'elect' to have it, but really there is very little choice involved.

There should be two different words.

my doc is not refering to me as an elective c/s because he feels the same way as you, all my papers have, "c/s needed" he said he was not going to write elective becuase that is not what it is

[melissa.r]

When I read this article it wasn't anything I didn't already know. I guess what interests me is why the c/s rate in Australia is so high? Approx one in three women giving birth here will have a c/s, much higher than is actually medically required. When the research is so clear about the risks, why is the medical establishment still performing c/s so readily? Shouldn't women who have an OB attending their birth be completely sure that if they have to have major abdominal surgery that it was absolutely neccessary? Because a 30% c/s rate tells us (according to WHO) that most women who have a c/s don't actually need one, despite what they have been told by their OB?

[SorenLorensen]

melissa.r i understand what you are saying, if i am in a conversation with someone regarding a c/s they tell me that they had one and need others because they did not handle the labour for their first very well, or that because their baby had a hard time and the labour was long. it does anoy me a little, i would just prefer them to say that they had a bad experience first time around and are to scared to do it again, that to me is a very understandable reason.
I am one of those people who have to and if i could change it i would, my body is not set up to deliver, its not a nice thing to know sometimes but it is my reality.
i do wonder sometimes why people choose to have them but then again it really it has nothing to do with me and the only thing that is important is that mum and bub are happy.

[sakane]

I think the difference between elective and emergency comes down to the best possible option. The safest choice. Obviously, if you want a VB, but there is a medical situation that can't be avoided that puts mother and/or baby at risk then you go for c-sec. Risking post-opertative infection etc would be better than risking the life of baby and/or mother.

[annb]

what i cant understand is if c/s are considered risky (which I know they are) then why are they used in emergencies as the best option to deliver the baby, no one ever goes in for a emergency c/s and ends up having a vaginal birth coz it was safer - dyou know what i mean! Ive had 2 elective c/s just because I wanted to and all I hear is how risky they are, it seems to me there are just as many risks in some cases with VB but no one ever critises people for having a VB

[SorenLorensen]

what i cant understand is if c/s are considered risky (which I know they are) then why are they used in emergencies as the best option to deliver the baby, no one ever goes in for a emergency c/s and ends up having a vaginal birth coz it was safer - dyou know what i mean! Ive had 2 elective c/s just because I wanted to and all I hear is how risky they are, it seems to me there are just as many risks in some cases with VB but no one ever critises people for having a VB

:confused: an emergency c/s is normaly the result of a labour not going well, or a baby needing to be delivered ASAP, sorry but i dont understand your question to well. i had an emergency c/s for my first as she was stuck and had no chance of comming out. there for an emergency c/s was required. another example a friend of mine went for a check up for her twins and the smaller of the two had stoped growing and heart beat was slowing so she was rushed in, if they made her go through a VB melody may not have made it because of the stress it would have caused

[annb]

ahh it wasnt actually a question...i know why they do emergency c/s...i was really making a statement as I get fed up with people criticising the choice of having a c/s by saying how risky they are - I mean as if we didnt already know - im not wanting to strike up a debate or anything as there are far too many of those, I was just saying :)

[stellarella]

I don't understand what the difference is between an emergency c/section and an elective c/section :confused: As in, are the risks different? I just figured a c/section would be a c/section no matter what circumstances it would be in :confused:

I don't know if i am making sense.... still a bit sleepy :sleeping: But i guess what i am trying to ask is whether an elective c/section is more "risky" or is an emergency c/section more "risky" or are they both the same risk?

they both carry the same risks, its about their risk in comparison to a VB. If the VB is far riskier than a C/sec in one particular case then you would opt for a c/sec. If a VB is not particularly risky for a particular women...why choose the riskier option??

I hope I am making sense.

Risk varies according to each situation...its about risk assessment.

[stellarella]

When I read this article it wasn't anything I didn't already know. I guess what interests me is why the c/s rate in Australia is so high? Approx one in three women giving birth here will have a c/s, much higher than is actually medically required. When the research is so clear about the risks, why is the medical establishment still performing c/s so readily? Shouldn't women who have an OB attending their birth be completely sure that if they have to have major abdominal surgery that it was absolutely neccessary? Because a 30% c/s rate tells us (according to WHO) that most women who have a c/s don't actually need one, despite what they have been told by their OB?

i think you will find alot of women asking for non-medical c/secs are very forceful in requesting them. they beleive it is their right and heaven forbid their OB try to talk them out of it. If you have a look through other threads you will see some of this. also, many people are going private...basically they can pay for what they want and an OB is not going to say no to $$$$$...

This is my belief anyway

[stellarella]

what i cant understand is if c/s are considered risky (which I know they are) then why are they used in emergencies as the best option to deliver the baby, no one ever goes in for a emergency c/s and ends up having a vaginal birth coz it was safer - dyou know what i mean! Ive had 2 elective c/s just because I wanted to and all I hear is how risky they are, it seems to me there are just as many risks in some cases with VB but no one ever critises people for having a VB


I think the reason women who choose c/secs for non medical purposes are criticised is because its unnatural. It would be silly to criticise a women who has a VB because its what a womans body is designed to do.

And regardless if some VB's are risky or not. In general VB's are far safer than c/secs. So that is why women are often criticised. Why would one choose the riskier option??

I am not asking that queation to you or anyone in particular...but that is what many people think....why on earth??

[SorenLorensen]

ahh it wasnt actually a question...i know why they do emergency c/s...i was really making a statement as I get fed up with people criticising the choice of having a c/s by saying how risky they are - I mean as if we didnt already know - im not wanting to strike up a debate or anything as there are far too many of those, I was just saying :)
i know it wasnt really a question, bu the whole thing confused me, saying if it is risky then why would it be done.........because it saves the baby diying inside the mother.
VB is risky but i dont see the other mothers having to not carry anything heavy for 6 weeks, not being cut open throught mutiple layes and getting stiches and staples, not haing to worry about high risk infections and so on

[tootiredtosleep]

I had an emergency csection and kind of remember the doc reading out a script to me of all the risks involved, while I was getting a catheter put in and other stuff done!
I didn't ignore what he was saying, I just didnt have any time to process it. DH just signed all the forms and didnt read a thing.

Next time I'm sure all the risks will be explained to me in detail, as I will elect. I will consider them again and probably be terrified of what could happen, but I just can't do VBAC. It's hard to explain, but I feel if I don't elect I will not have any more children.

Every mother should have the right to choose, and every doctor has the obligation to inform them of the safest way.

[Minke]

I don't understand what the difference is between an emergency c/section and an elective c/section :confused: As in, are the risks different? I just figured a c/section would be a c/section no matter what circumstances it would be in :confused:

I don't know if i am making sense.... still a bit sleepy :sleeping: But i guess what i am trying to ask is whether an elective c/section is more "risky" or is an emergency c/section more "risky" or are they both the same risk?

An emergency c'section is more risky - they don't have the time to be as careful, the babies head is lower in the pelvis etc... but apparently those risks are outweighed by the need for the c/s (ie labour going very badly)

[melissa.r]

I think the debate over elective c/s is very emotive and women have various views about this issue. In terms of the high c/s rate in our country I think that this is not only high because of those women who choose elective c/s but I also think that the emergency c/s rate is also very high. Why is there so many emergency c/s required? Is it possible that this is because so many OBs manage births poorly and therefore births end in c/s? Is it possible that OBs need to 'get back to basics' and not be motivated by litigation? Yes, it is true that many women are required to have a medical emergency c/s but according to WHO this occurs more frequently in Australia than it should, if it is not because of the reasons I have said above, why is it??

[sam's mum]

Before there can be any resolution of this issue, they need to start keeping meaningful statistics. Terming a c/s as either elective or emergency is not helpful as there is no differention between truly elective (just because someone wanted one) and a planned c/s for medical reasons. Until true statistics are kept, it will only be anecdotal how many c/s are truly elective. Of course this doesn't mean that there won't still be people caught into the planned c/s for medical reasons figures where the ob was overly cautious and recommended the c/s where it may not have been needed.

I had a planned c/s where they still had trouble getting him out because of placenta praevia and had to use forceps. It annoys the c - rap out of me that this is termed an elective c/s because there are only two categories.

[stellarella]

I had a planned c/s where they still had trouble getting him out because of placenta praevia and had to use forceps. It annoys the c - rap out of me that this is termed an elective c/s because there are only two categories.

I agree, its ridiculous to call "planned medical" c/secs elective along with "requested" c/secs.

There obviously needs to be a new term for one type.

I think it has probably only been in the last decade or so that there has even been such thing as a non-medical/requested c/sec. Im sure it was unheard of 20 yrs ago.

Perhaps we just need to catch up with the times in terms of creating a word for the "requested" c/secs.

[SassyMummy]

Oh - I agree about terms for types of caesareans.

I didn't have an emergency, but I didn't have an elected either. I had a "was given no other reasonable choice by doctors whom I put my trust into."

I found out about my caesarean about 16 hours before I actually had it. The choice I was given was, "If you don't have a caesarean, your baby would probably die." The beauty of hindsight made me realise that they did no testing to suggest DD was in any danger - but when you're 2 weeks overdue and induction ins't working... well, you're kinda in an emotional place where you just don't think of these sorts of things.

They DID present me with a table full of stuff that might go wrong... but the OB really did skim over it, and said, "It says that, but I don't think it's true," (he said that when talking about colostomy bags being needed).

It's difficult to understand if you've never been in a similar situation, but I couldn't really find it within myself to give a stuff what risks he was telling me. I was too busy thinking "OMG I've failed! I have to have a caesarean. I'm less of a woman. I'll be a lesser mother too."

IMO, it's not good enough to present the facts to women when they're in that kind of situation. I didn't really pay attention to him at all - I couldn't.

[harvey123]

i've got to agree with all of you. i had an "elective" c/s - her cord was between her head and my pelvis preventing her from getting out and i never dilated at all, and finally at 41 wks started haemoraging and had a c/s. there does need to be a better way to term c/s. i was really determined to have a normal labour and felt very ashamed for the first few months after our dd was born whenever people would ask if i had a c/s. because everyone then asks was it elective? technically yes it was and then you have to explain yourself and have people that had great natural births pity you. i also felt ashamed for a while that i found having a c/s quite good and recovered very quickly and didn't really experience any pain. i don't really believe too many women honestly have true elective c/s, whether some obs are jumping in a bit early to offer c/s might be a bit truer.

[MCNmummyof2]

I had an emergency c section. Hubby signed the forms, because i was unable to, and I was never told anything about what would happen, or what the risks were etc.

But then again, I had a rather difficult vb, and was out of action for quite a while - and I mist say you arent really told the risks for vb!

[stellarella]

But then again, I had a rather difficult vb, and was out of action for quite a while - and I mist say you arent really told the risks for vb!

I was told the risks of a VB...but they are not presented the way the risks for a c/sec are, for a very good reason. A c/sec is an operation, a procedure being performed on you. It involves doing something very unnatural.

Presenting the risks of a VB the same way as a c/sec is like listing the risks involved in walking!!

You may trip, you may fall over and hurt yourself, you may break a bone, you may not walk with correct posture and therefore you may have pain....etc etc

I couldnt think of a better example..sorry, but its a natural function of the human body, so even though there are risks they are just risks of living basically.

[melissa.r]

Oh - I agree about terms for types of caesareans.

I didn't have an emergency, but I didn't have an elected either. I had a "was given no other reasonable choice by doctors whom I put my trust into."

I found out about my caesarean about 16 hours before I actually had it. The choice I was given was, "If you don't have a caesarean, your baby would probably die." The beauty of hindsight made me realise that they did no testing to suggest DD was in any danger - but when you're 2 weeks overdue and induction ins't working... well, you're kinda in an emotional place where you just don't think of these sorts of things.

They DID present me with a table full of stuff that might go wrong... but the OB really did skim over it, and said, "It says that, but I don't think it's true," (he said that when talking about colostomy bags being needed).

It's difficult to understand if you've never been in a similar situation, but I couldn't really find it within myself to give a stuff what risks he was telling me. I was too busy thinking "OMG I've failed! I have to have a caesarean. I'm less of a woman. I'll be a lesser mother too."

IMO, it's not good enough to present the facts to women when they're in that kind of situation. I didn't really pay attention to him at all - I couldn't.

I agree that trying to process all the information while in labour is almost impossible, of course you are going to do what your OB or middies tell you is the best option. What we do know is that this course of action is not always to best. Often their decision making is influenced by hospital protocol etc etc and not neccesarily considering your individual circumstances. This is why I believe that a doula is so important in the birthing process.

I also believe that this is not going to change until women stand up and say that these practices are not acceptable. Women should be confident that when they have a c/s it was because it was absoultely necessary, not because their labours are managed inadequately and ended in surgery. I guess this is why organisations such as the Maternity Coalition exists. It think it can be a really healing process to get your own hospital records and read through them. Often there can be many questions that arise about the process of your birth, and understanding these is important. If you do find decisions were made that changed the course of your labour or contributed to a negative outcome then challenging this is one option. If you don't feel you can challege them, then talking to other women about this can empower both you and other pregnant women. Hopefully this can lead to some kind of change...

[SunnyDreamz]

I just wanted to share my experience of the emergency c-section I had 16 years ago.I was 22 & having my first child.The baby became distressed after some time of labouring & my OB. told me I would have to have a c-section.Fine.However post surgery I developed a really nasty pelvic abcess , which obstructed my bowel & ultimately lead to infertility.
I was pretty much resigned to my infertility & so traumatized by the post op infection(felt totally butchered infact as they had to operate again to drain the massive infection), that I couldn't even face the thought of trying for a baby through assisted reproduction for some years.However the story does have a happy ending.Here iam 16 years later 27 weeks pregnant with a baby girl conceived through IVF.The wonders of modern medicine.:wizard:
I have no regrets about the emergency c-section as such.My 1st daughter may have died with out it.I do however still feel traumatized by the infection I suffered & the resulting infertility.There are no guarantees in life & apparently this was my fate.