C Sections are saving lives everyday.

brandonsfuturewife07 · May 2009

I dare you to go to 0-6 or 6-12 and ask how many people actually wanted one.

i pushed for 3 hrs. my son's heartrate dipped into the 80s with every push. he didn't cry when he came out. because this is 3rd tri, i won't post the first pic i have of him.

if you think they aren't saving lives, you are reading the wrong books and watching the wrong movies.

Deirdre18 · May 2009

dmogmo · May 2009

ITA.

My doctor told me years ago that my pelvis did not arch the way most do and that may cause problems in childbirth leading to a c-section. I truly believe there is a reason my body never progressed into active labor. I was never in a life or death situation (thank god) but I knew a c/s was the right thing to do and I would not change that decision for all the feel-good med free birth stories in the world.

ourlittlebean · May 2009

^^what she said!

37 hours of labor, 3 hours of pushing. ?only to find out that i was hurting my poor DS with every contraction. ?one c/s and 5 days in the NICU later......i thank God every day for those medical advances.

and yeah........i definitely went into this whole pregnancy and motherhood thing thinking "damn! ?wouldn't it be fun to have major abdominal surgery?!?!"?

fnkeefresh · May 2009

My aunt had to have a c-section last week...she had PreE & had been on bed rest her whole pregnancy. She also had spent the last 6 weeks in the hospital and they had to do her c-section at 34 weeks because of her blood pressure being WAY too high. We're all glad that she & baby Tristan are alright.

So I totally agree that they save lives....but hopefully I won't have to have one.

Choco80 · May 2009

Agreed. ?I wonder who the fool is that gave this one star?

Donny-stfu · May 2009

OMGZ C sections aren't saving people! They are giving women worldwide ppd everyday!!1

Yellowtulip · May 2009

I completely agree. ?Women who preach all natural, home births, no medical intervention and no c-sections need to remember that not that long ago it wasn't uncommon for women and/or babies to die during childbirth. ?

ToledoDeux · May 2009

No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.

But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

brandonsfuturewife07 · May 2009

ToledoDeux:

No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.

But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

oh give it a rest.

Choco80 · May 2009

sesa:
OMGZ C sections aren't saving people! They are giving women worldwide ppd everyday!!1

?

Haha! ?:)?

JennifernKevin4ever · May 2009

JCM083009 · May 2009

ToledoDeux:
No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.
But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

Exactly.

Chrysallys · May 2009

brandonsfuturewife07:
ToledoDeux:

No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.

But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

oh give it a rest.

Why should she? It's true. Our national C/S rate keeps rising.

ToledoDeux · May 2009

brandonsfuturewife07:
ToledoDeux:

No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.

But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

oh give it a rest.

I could have said the same to you. You'll notice that I was more polite. And nice rebuttal, BTW. lol.

disbride061103 · May 2009

ToledoDeux:
No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.
But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

Says who? Do you have any statistics that outline the reason why women have c/s? I for one am lucky to have had the option of a c/s. Would you have preferred that I tried to push out my breech baby?

PrimaandGee · May 2009

Yes I had a classic with our last angel son, but he was low on fluid, having decels and breech. Since I had a classic c-section and a grapefruit tumor I have to have a section. Either that or risk uterine rupture and harming my babies and me. Also this is why my section is scheduled early. People judge c-section mamas and early deliveries because they are not informed. And I really don't care what others think of me and what I choose to do. They should be concerned with their own affairs.

ToledoDeux · May 2009

disbride061103:
ToledoDeux:
No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.
But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.
Says who? Do you have any statistics that outline the reason why women have c/s? I for one am lucky to have had the option of a c/s. Would you have preferred that I tried to push out my breech baby?

First of all, it IS possible to birth a breech baby vaginally, and 30 years ago, it was the norm in this country.

Second of all, is this going to be the first in a long line of responses to my post that prove you didn't even read it? I repeat: "No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary..."

Choco80 · May 2009

ToledoDeux:
No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.
But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high.? Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" -? but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

I also think the tonsillectomy rate is WAAAAY too high - after all, human beings have been living with tonsillitis for thousands of years (it's completely natural), so why the trend towards removing them now?

?Sorry, not buying your logic. ?Whatever the reason for the c-section, and whatever the mother's birth plan, I simply don't think it's anybody else's business. ?Judging a woman for getting a c-section (for WHATEVER reason) should be equally as unacceptable as it is to judge a woman who gives birth at home, or unmedicated in a hospital.?

brandonsfuturewife07 · May 2009

ToledoDeux:
brandonsfuturewife07:
ToledoDeux:

No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.

But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

oh give it a rest.

I could have said the same to you. You'll notice that I was more polite. And nice rebuttal, BTW. lol.

much too high because why? because we have the option? instead of letting our children die in our birth canal? instead of dying of hemmorhage? i just don't get why it is "too high"? "too high" according to whom?

ToledoDeux · May 2009

Choco80:
ToledoDeux:
No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.
But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.
I also think the tonsillectomy rate is WAAAAY too high - after all, human beings have been living with tonsillitis for thousands of years (it's completely natural), so why the trend towards removing them now?
Sorry, not buying your logic. Whatever the reason for the c-section, and whatever the mother's birth plan, I simply don't think it's anybody else's business. Judging a woman for getting a c-section (for WHATEVER reason) should be equally as unacceptable as it is to judge a woman who gives birth at home, or unmedicated in a hospital.

First of all, comparing tonsilitis to childbirth is nonsensical. You cannot compare a bacterial/viral infection that requires medical intervention to a natural process that is perfectly capable of happening without drugs or a doctor present.

Second of all, the judgment is about the c-section rate in this country and the medical decisions that have affected it, not about the individual women who are having them.

disbride061103 · May 2009

ToledoDeux:
disbride061103:
ToledoDeux:
No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.
But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.
Says who? Do you have any statistics that outline the reason why women have c/s? I for one am lucky to have had the option of a c/s. Would you have preferred that I tried to push out my breech baby?
First of all, it IS possible to birth a breech baby vaginally, and 30 years ago, it was the norm in this country.
Second of all, is this going to be the first in a long line of responses to my post that prove you didn't even read it? I repeat: "No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary..."

You assume that I didn't do my research on breech births? You are right, it IS possible to birth a breech baby vaginally, but that depends on the position of the baby. Certain breech positions have a higher success rate that others. Do you know what position my son was in? Didn't think so. The risks of cord prolapse and possible harm to my son were great enough that my doctor and I felt it was best to do a c/s.

ToledoDeux · May 2009

brandonsfuturewife07:

much too high because why? because we have the option? instead of letting our children die in our birth canal? instead of dying of hemmorhage? i just don't get why it is "too high"? "too high" according to whom?

Tell me the truth - do you even know how to read?

Shlei · May 2009

I have no doubt that they save lives at all. If I have to get one I will. I am afraid to get one I will admit.

StaceySnGeorgia · May 2009

Choco80:
ToledoDeux:
No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.
But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.
I also think the tonsillectomy rate is WAAAAY too high - after all, human beings have been living with tonsillitis for thousands of years (it's completely natural), so why the trend towards removing them now?
Sorry, not buying your logic. Whatever the reason for the c-section, and whatever the mother's birth plan, I simply don't think it's anybody else's business. Judging a woman for getting a c-section (for WHATEVER reason) should be equally as unacceptable as it is to judge a woman who gives birth at home, or unmedicated in a hospital.

AMEN!

I get so nervous for the baby at the thought of home births and what if something terrible goes wrong and what might happen if they can't get the MEDICAL attention they need in time.

JillShari · May 2009

I don't think that everyone is trying to make anyone feel worse or better about needing or having a c-section or an epidural for whatever reason!

I just think that major abdominal surgery shouldn't be taken lightly and as a gender, we should be making sure that we aren't being cut just because docs are scared of malpractice. Shouldn't we be advocates for ourselves and when it is necessary, great and thank goodness we have the technology available. But, I have heard stories about inductions or c-sections where they have been done because of docs wanting to go on vacation and those crazy reasons. We should be educated about our bodies enough to know exactly when to go with the docs recommendations and when we should question them more.

ToledoDeux · May 2009

disbride061103:
You assume that I didn't do my research on breech births? You are right, it IS possible to birth a breech baby vaginally, but that depends on the position of the baby. Certain breech positions have a higher success rate that others. Do you know what position my son was in? Didn't think so. The risks of cord prolapse and possible harm to my son were great enough that my doctor and I felt it was best to do a c/s.

One of my pet peeves about the nest: when people cling to their irrelevant personal anecdote to disprove a point that no one is actually arguing.

BetchySprout · May 2009

Yes, the c-section rate in this country is alarmingly high.

Guess how many of the natural birth check-in mama's when I was on 3rd tri ended up in c-sections. All but one. Sometimes the best laid plans just don't work out the way you want.

Oh that includes me, btw. I was a week overdue and they tried cervidil on me. It didn't work and Jack's h/r got down into the mid 50's. He would most likely not have tolerated labor and he never dropped. I would have loved to have a med-free home birth but that was not in the cards for me. I had a long fall off of a high, judgemental of those who had c-sections horse. I am willing to bet a lot of you will have the same fall.

I would rather (as I am sure Brandons, Iris, etc. can agree) have a c-section than empty arms, that is for sure. Alarmist? Maybe. Reality for a lot of us? Yes.

brandonsfuturewife07 · May 2009

Shlei:
I have no doubt that they save lives at all. If I have to get one I will. I am afraid to get one I will admit.

i was afraid to get one, but i was glad that i did my research, because i was able to talk with my dr while the OR was being prepped. i got to decide between stitches or staples (stitches of course), talked them out of strapping my arms down, and a lot of other general things. no doubt i was scared, but more about the baby than anything else.

JCM083009 · May 2009

brandonsfuturewife07:
ToledoDeux:
brandonsfuturewife07:
ToledoDeux:

No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.

But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.

oh give it a rest.

I could have said the same to you. You'll notice that I was more polite. And nice rebuttal, BTW. lol.

much too high because why? because we have the option? instead of letting our children die in our birth canal? instead of dying of hemmorhage? i just don't get why it is "too high"? "too high" according to whom?

But that is just IT!!! We have all these interventions (which yes, some are necessary!) and we still have a mortality rate higher than most every other industrialized country! There is something wrong with that.

JCM083009 · May 2009

Choco80:
ToledoDeux:
No one can deny that SOME c-sections are medically necessary, either for mother or baby, and are saving lives.
But you cannot deny the fact that the c-section rate in this country is much too high. Some are elective, and others appear "necessary" - but only after too many interventions interfered with the natural progression of labor to the point where it became so.
I also think the tonsillectomy rate is WAAAAY too high - after all, human beings have been living with tonsillitis for thousands of years (it's completely natural), so why the trend towards removing them now?
Sorry, not buying your logic. Whatever the reason for the c-section, and whatever the mother's birth plan, I simply don't think it's anybody else's business. Judging a woman for getting a c-section (for WHATEVER reason) should be equally as unacceptable as it is to judge a woman who gives birth at home, or unmedicated in a hospital.

Sorry, but your logic fails. Pregnancy and birth is NOT a disease. That is. There is a HUGE difference. I'm not saying that every woman should be forced to squat in her backyard, but come on... that logic makes no sense.

Court0026 · May 2009

I got an epidural (after 12 hours of painful labor because I had been up for 20 hours and needed to sleep/survive) and 2 minutes later my son's heart rate dropped into the 70's and I had to have an emergency c/s. Guess what? The labor team said it is more common than you would think. I had no idea, and I had no interest (before that) in a section. These things happen...

Shlei · May 2009

brandonsfuturewife07:

Shlei:
I have no doubt that they save lives at all. If I have to get one I will. I am afraid to get one I will admit.

i was afraid to get one, but i was glad that i did my research, because i was able to talk with my dr while the OR was being prepped. i got to decide between stitches or staples (stitches of course), talked them out of strapping my arms down, and a lot of other general things. no doubt i was scared, but more about the baby than anything else.

And that is the key I believe. I would fight for my daughter to be ok so if that means braving a C-section than I will happily do it. As for PPD, if I get it i will fight it with all my might for my baby and me. My baby's health is priority.

JARbaby · May 2009

Some of these responses make me want to vomit at the fact that some of you are reproducing.

brandonsfuturewife07 · May 2009

JARbaby:
Some of these responses make me want to vomit at the fact that some of you are reproducing.

i know, right?

emaria · May 2009

i posted this in the other thread but it saved my life. had the cord wrapped around my neck and i came out blue. i am very thankful c-sections are available and this coming from someone who is going to try hypnobirthing!

BetchySprout · May 2009

JARbaby:
Some of these responses make me want to vomit at the fact that some of you are reproducing.

Short, sweet, and right to the point (as well as reading my mind). As usual!

JARbaby · May 2009

JCM083009:
But that is just IT!!! We have all these interventions (which yes, some are necessary!) and we still have a mortality rate higher than most every other industrialized country! There is something wrong with that.

We did before interventions were more popular as well. So splaine your way out of that one.

More women also died in childbirth then too.

BetchySprout · May 2009

JCM083009:
But that is just IT!!! We have all these interventions (which yes, some are necessary!) and we still have a mortality rate higher than most every other industrialized country! There is something wrong with that.

JCM, please read the above post "A note about infant mortality"

Mrs.tlcS · May 2009

There is so much wrong with this thread, and it's coming from both sides of the argument.

Do c-sections save lives? Absolutely.

Are some c-sections preventable? Absolutely.

We can't assign causal relationships between interventions and rise in c-sections, or c-sections vs. vaginal births and outcomes for mom/baby, because the overwhelming response to "would you be willing to be randomized into surgery?" is a resounding no.

At the same time, retrospective studies are pretty suggestive that a lot of interventions are unreliable at best and at worst, they're scaring women into surgeries that they may not need.

Mrs.McLovin · May 2009

brandonsfuturewife07:

JARbaby:
Some of these responses make me want to vomit at the fact that some of you are reproducing.

i know, right?

We'll see how many change their tune once they get to 0-6 months.

Want a personalized experience?

C Sections are saving lives everyday.

Re: C Sections are saving lives everyday.

Choose Another Board

Search Boards