# Life of mother vs. Life of child, where do you draw the line?



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't want to get in a debate with anyone. This is not an abortion issue. I repeat, this is not an abortion issue. Please do not making any pro-life vs. pro-choice posts in this thread. Thank you.

With that said, I have been reading these threads lately about doctors forcing women to induce at 37 weeks and uneccesary (sp?) c-sections and today I finally found time to read the article by Ina May Gaskin in mothering that talked about the woman who was birthing her breach baby naturally until the frazzled doctor put her under before she could push out the head, resulting in the death of the child. I don't know if that is the best example of what I am getting at, maybe a whole other thread topic.

Anywhoo, when I found out that I was basically being forced to induce because of being 43 weeks, I freaked out on my midwife. It finally came out after hours of discussion that I in no way was going to agree to a c-section, even if the baby was in distress. My midwife was devestated and told me that if I held my own life higher than my child's that she could no longer be my care giver. She came back to me after a couple of days, realizing that my comment was made under a lot of stress and anxiety.
I do feel this way though. I love my ds like no other love, but when he was inside of me it was different. I know he was a life then also, but I was the life that mattered most to me. I just don't believe that an unborn child is worth risking my own life. In fact, I think if it weren't for ds 1, I would rather die in birth with my baby then risk being cut into and possibly dieing from complications. Now if I decide to ttc for #2, things will be different because i have a family already to think of, but I still feel the same way. Until baby is born, the pregnant mom is who needs to be protected.

What are your thoughts on this? Also, pm me if you have had similar experiences with your mw or ob.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

if the fetus has more rights than the mother then the mother is nothing more than a slave or a glorified incubator to be used and discarded as wanted.

Honestly, your opinion pretty much parallels mine.


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

Well, I think that if they can really only save one person the mother or the baby, the mother's life should be given greater weight. For me though, having to have a c section wouldn't qualify under this. I would absolutely have a section if my child had something like prolapsed cord or was in severe distress and needed to come out right away. I can't imagine just letting the baby die because I didn't want to risk a c section. I don't think it's that big a risk. What are the percentage of women who die during sections? I'm thinking I remember seeing those numbers and it's not very high at all. I think everyone should be able to make up their own mind about these things though and not have a law surrounding the issue.


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

I think if it were ME, I'd probably place greater weight on the child. Not that this is the "right" answer but just because of how extremely deeply I wanted a child (long journey for me). I would hate to bring a child into the world only to deprive her of her mother, but if I lost my child at the very end like that I probably couldn't stand to live anyway. Now if it wasn't my first child and I already had other children to consider then I would opt for my life most likely. That being said, I don't think a c-section is so risky that I'd be choosing to let myself go over the baby if I had one. I'm extremely pro-NCB and not at all interested in EVER having a c-section myself, but I do believe there's a time and a place for medical interventions which can indeed be life saving for both mom AND baby.


----------



## Kiki Runs (Oct 7, 2002)

Well, having had a c/s (unnecessary), I obviously have a different viewpoint. In the future, I will NOT agree to a c/s for non-medical reasons (ie, postdates w/no maternal or fetal distress, labor "not progressing" w/no maternal or fetal distresss, etc). I will, however have a repeat c/s if either babe or myself is "in trouble".

BUT, it will be MY choice. My doc may consider a c/s necessary if I push for three hours again, but next time *I* will know better. As long as babe is tolerating labor, then no c/s!

OT - are you SERIOUSLY in Anthony?? I grew up (young childhood) in Medicine Lodge, and my granddad still lives there. My mom had a homebirth with my brother there in the early 80s (which still amazes me - rural KS, and she found a midwife who would attend a HB!).

Kinsey


----------



## CarrieMF (Mar 7, 2004)

Having had a child almost die during labour & delivery, which was a delivery that was supposed to be an emergency c-section but she & my body surprised everyone when my body decided it would dilate past 4cm and decided to come out vaginally 18minutes later, I would risk a c-section to save my baby. It is nothing but luck that she is alive today, if my dh hadn't stalled the surgeon asking him what I felt were stupidly annoying questions(especially since I'd had surgery 9months earlier) she would have been born in an elevator on the way to the OR and she would have definitly died. If my dr hadn't been standing outside the case room she would have died. In retrospect she should have been a planned c-section but I can't turn back time.

There is risk of a woman dying by complications of being pregnant. I don't see how a person could willingly die & have their child die for a chance of a complication from a surgery. What I don't understand even more is the thinking behind saying you'd let Child #1 die just so you wouldn't have a c/s, but if you were pg with #2 and you had to choose between c/s & you/baby dying that you would have the c/s so Child #1 would have a mother. If you are willing to have the risk so #1 had a mother still, why wouldn't be willing to have the risk to have #1 alive in the first place?

IMO there is a time & a place for interventions such as c-sections, a child or mother in distress is top of the list for c/s.


----------



## srain (Nov 26, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momsgotmilk4two*
I can't imagine just letting the baby die because I didn't want to risk a c section. I don't think it's that big a risk. What are the percentage of women who die during sections? I'm thinking I remember seeing those numbers and it's not very high at all. I think everyone should be able to make up their own mind about these things though and not have a law surrounding the issue.

Me too, but I think that goes for care providers as well. I'm not a midwife, but I don't know if I could watch a baby die because the mother wasn't willing to undergo what I felt was a reasonable intervention. But the midwife should probably be more upfront about this in the first place.

I, personally, would give my life for my unborn child (I had one stillborn, and really wish I could have done it then!) but it should certainly be the mother's decision whether or not to do so. (I suspect most doctors would save the mother before the child, actually.) But how often does it really come to an either/ or situation?


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

I would risk a c/s to save the life of my child. Before ds was born, I would have said that any life I was carrying, I would hold high above my own...but now that I have ds, I can't imagine leaving him without a mother. I can't imagine leaving a newborn without a Mama to nurse and love him/her. Wow, I just *DON'T* know!


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Wow, reading all of your different perspectives really gives me insight into how you all are. This is great and I thank you for being so forthright.

To address CarrieMF, I don't know if I was so clear in what I wrote last night. It was late. I think I meant that I was weighing the choice between having some major medical complication from an intervention that could either kill me or leave me injured (or I could be fine, I know this) or my unborn child not make it, I would choose my own life. Yes, this is theoretical, but this does come up and women do have to make this choice. I don't have statistics and won't pretend to know how often, but it happens. After having ds #1, I would definitely have a harder decision if something arose with number two. Women still die in childbirth (usually from complications with interventions) and where would that leave my son, who knew me and then I would be gone. Dc #2 wouldn't have known me, wouldn't have lived a life outside of me yet. This is just my head going round in circles, but something I think about often. Incidentally and if you don't mind me asking, what was it that happened that now makes you say that your child's birth should have been a planned c-section? I think rarely, should any birth be a planned c-section. Birth is unpredictable, but our bodies are wise and strong. Much more so then the doctors would like us to believe.

I do think that c-sections are very risky and a lot of women die from them, or really from complications that arise because of them...sepsis, nicked bowels, loss of blood from uterus not contracting. I don't have numbers, but I will try to find some. Yes, there are exceptions. Prolapsed cord is one that I think is valid, but I still don't know what I would do in that situation. I find that from talking to women who have had emergency c-sections, many of them tend to say that it was neccessary, they know that now because doctor said...blah, blah, blah. It is almost like they are reasoning out the experience like this to be able to move on. Doctors do value the life of the child more I think, not all, but many. Just watch A Baby Story and you will see women being completely ignored after the baby arrives, or not being given any choice in the matter if a complication arises.

I know that when I ended up in the hospital for induction, many of the doctors wouldn't even introduce themselves and kept saying things that pertained only to the baby's health. I was threatened with a c-section 4 times and actually fired a doctor because he was so insensitive and cruel and told the nurse that I should shut already and take the epidural.

My heart goes out to those who have lost children to miscarriage or stillbirth. I can understand why your perspectives would be so different from mine. I don't know what I would do in those situations, but I do think I would find the will to go on, but how sad for my ds at such a young age if he had to lose his mother. If my mother had died when I was young, I don't think I could have bared it.

What it comes down to for me is that no one has the right to control my body but me. Especially no doctor and no politician and especially not a male one who has never gone through pregnancy and childbirth. The options should be there, but there should not be an underlying suggestion that birth is unnatural, therefore interventions are good. I think that if you have those options in the back of your head during your birth, then you are undermining your strength to give birth naturally.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I rarely get to discuss any sort of birth philosophy with dh or friends.
-Bianca

Kinsey43, Yes, I really live in Anthony, who is your grandad?


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Bionicsquirrel








Yes doctors do put the value of the unborn ahead of the mother. After all, everyone wants a healthy baby and are willing to do anything they can to have that healthy baby the mother be damned.


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

I guess the problem I'd have with the choice you say you'd make (if I understood it correctly) is that you'd choose certain death to your baby vs. an increased risk (albeit slight) to your life by accepting a c-section and almost certainly guaranteeing your baby's life. Now, I'm seriously the last person who would push c-sections. I very strongly believe in a woman's ability to birth her own baby (particularly when left to do so without intervention), but if I found myself in a situation where I really believed my baby's life was in jeopardy if I didn't accept a surgical delivery, then you bet I'd be ready to consent. I'm also very educated about childbirth and would feel comfortable knowing that that was the right decision at the time because I've learned what is reasonable for labor and what warrants surgical delivery. I certainly do not put blind faith in doctors or midwifes for that matter and I personally make sure that I choose a birth attendant that I really feel I can trust.
I looked up some statistics for you since you didn't have them on hand. Here's what I found:

_A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health, including infections, hemorrhage, transfusion, injury to other organs, anesthesia complications, psychological complications, and a maternal mortality two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth_

This is from childbirth.org

Also:

_The maternal mortality rate after cesarean section is currently very low, but cesarean section is more hazardous than vaginal delivery by a factor of 2-11. Maternal mortality rates of 0 in large series of cesareans have been achieved in some settings, and this suggests that careful attention to good surgical technique and postoperative care could lower mortality after cesarean even further. Infection is the most common cause of morbidity after cesarean, transfusion being second. A large number of factors modify the risk of infection, the most important being prophylactic antibiotics. There is weak evidence that women are slightly more depressed after cesarean than after vaginal delivery. On average, cesarean sections cost more than vaginal deliveries._

That is from the National Library of Medicine

And...

_The Coalition for Improving Maternity Services views with alarm a recent study showing that U.S. women having cesarean sections are four times more likely to die compared with women having vaginal births.1 Investigators reported a maternal death rate of 36 per 100,000 cesarean operations versus 9 per 100,000 vaginal births. This is the difference attributable to the surgery itself, not any complications that might have led to the need for surgery._

From the Coalition for Improving Maternity Services.

I realize these statistics are not pro-section - neither am I in healthy circumstances. Just wanted to add some facts to the discussion.


----------



## magemom (Mar 5, 2002)

While in labor with me, the priest came in to perform last rites on my mother because the doc on call said she wouldn't make it and it was hospital policy to save the innocent baby than the mother. No one ever suggested c section. (per my dad) We both made it fine, my dad never really recovered.

A girlfriend had a vaginal birth and died 22 hours later from an infection.
Dh's friend's wife's c section incision opened at 2 days and became infected (while still in hospital) she ended up staying for 2 weeks and needed at home care for another 2-4 weeks before they were able to close it up. (she still continued to bf!!)

I have changed how I felt in the loose the mother loose the child aspect. With my first I was all set to die and her live. With ds1 I was terrified if I died what would happen to my babes. Last time I made out my will and was prepared to die for my child. This time I am so torn. I have 4 other children to think of. But if I were to have a section, who would take care of me? Who would do all the things i would do if I was able? I don't have family closeby, nor do I have many IRL friends who would make meals, help out. I have left my DH and 4 kids alone for 4 days and see what they mean by 'we cleaned the house'.

It is a scary prospect. I have had such bad reactions to epidurals, it would have to be general anethesia. I have several prolapses, I am afraid they would want to 'fix' things while in there. If they even left my uterus. (past bleeding issues)

Would I risk a section? Probably. Could it devestate me? Yup. As much as I love this baby and am ready to welcome him/her to our lives, I do have others to think about. Namely me. What a rock and a hard place.


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Love_homebirthing,
Thank you for the information, as it does show the risk. I think that this is also a c-section because of interventions vs. c-section because of real need thread. I am not trying turn circles around my point, if I really have a point. As I said before, I am very torn on this issue and many others. I do know that there is sometimes real cause for a c-sec. As I said, prolapsed cord, true incidences where the child just doesn't fit (though I think this is incredibly rare and most of the bs docs give about babies being to big is crap), I personally don't think that pre-eclampsia is a real issue, though others might disagree. We currently have a huge c-section rate in this country, not because of actually need, but because of enforcement by doctors who don't believe in women's bodies. Also because of the idiots who choose planned c-sections. Yes I think they are idiots.

If this was a real issue of life or death my choice may be different, but if it is an issue of intervention, then I stand my ground.

Mamid, I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic, were you?

Magemom, Yes, risk comes with pregnancy and birth. Period. No matter how you go about it. But more risk comes with entering the hospital, for any reason. You are in a difficult spot because of your love for family. I would support you no matter what choice you made and I can completely relate to the "who would care for me?" statement. I think about this often. Just because we choose to become mothers does not mean we should be forgotten as people who have needs also.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Quote:

Mamid, I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic, were you?
No I wasn't. I am furious that it is that way. A previous poster wrote about her birth:
_While in labor with me, the priest came in to perform last rites on my mother because the doc on call said she wouldn't make it and it was *hospital policy to save the innocent baby than the mother.*_
The mother be damned if the unborn can be saved. Mom can live with a surgical scar and even debilitating pain if it produces a "healthy child" is the mentality - nevermind the fact that the same operation could kill her. Same reason why they did episiotomies all the time. Years ago, I read a book about an ob's experience and one woman was even sectioned without any anesthesia to save the baby. Brave woman. Stupid anesthesiologist. Wish I still had that book.


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

I think I read the same book. It was horrible and ITA with your post. Mom's mentality about her birth experience plays such a huge role in how she will be able to care for her child also and this should always be taken into account.
Another thing I have always wondered is why anyone who yeel that the unborn child is more important that the mother would ever subject themselves for testing in pregnancy. Things like amniocentisis make me sad because basically it is giving you an option to rid yourself of the trials of caring for a child with downs. (I don't remember the other things they test for) If that child is so important that you would risk yourself for him or her, then why bother with these tests. Will you love your child any less if they are not "perfect" by societal standards?


----------



## doctorjen (May 29, 2003)

I feel strongly on a philosophical and intellectual basis that a woman should never be forced to undergo surgery solely to save her unborn child. Although I am actually pro-life (don't want to argue or debate, just mean to give you some perspective on my opinion), I don't feel that the fetus has rights that override the mother's rights to bodily integrity. I have studied medical ethics and reviewed much of the case law on moms being forced to have c-sections to save the baby, and most of these cases are terrible examples of doctors trying to force their *opinions* on the mom. One famous case caused the death of the mom, and the baby died also (this mom was very ill herself, the c-section definitely hastened her death but really her underlying illness caused her to die.)
Having said what I believe on an intellectual level, I have to say that on an emotional, practical level, I would have an extremely hard time understanding why a woman would not take the slight increased risks of a cesarean to save her child's life, if it were truly necessary. Prolapsed cord, or placental abruption, or placenta previa mean certain death for the baby. A cesarean is difficult to recover from, and puts mom at increased risk of complications, and a small increased risk of death, but in general in the US, most moms recover from a ceserean.


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bionicsquirrel*
Love_homebirthing,
Thank you for the information, as it does show the risk. I think that this is also a c-section because of interventions vs. c-section because of real need thread. I am not trying turn circles around my point, if I really have a point. As I said before, I am very torn on this issue and many others. I do know that there is sometimes real cause for a c-sec. As I said, prolapsed cord, true incidences where the child just doesn't fit (though I think this is incredibly rare and most of the bs docs give about babies being to big is crap), I personally don't think that pre-eclampsia is a real issue, though others might disagree. We currently have a huge c-section rate in this country, not because of actually need, but because of enforcement by doctors who don't believe in women's bodies. Also because of the idiots who choose planned c-sections. Yes I think they are idiots.

ITA that there are waaaaay to many intervention c-sections (and elective ones) as opposed to "real need" sections. I believe the percent I've read sets the "real need" number down around 3% (not the 25-50% it is in many parts of this country). Obviously there is a problem with how easily the decision is made to conduct major surgery on a healthy woman having a healthy labor (well, perhaps not as healthy as it should be, depending on what interventions have been given). C-section rates tend to be around 50% in teaching hospitals - can you take a guess why that might be??? Anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm in total agreement with you that the rates are way out of hand, although I do believe that pre-e is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that needs to be treated quickly and carefully (although not automatically by c-section). Other conditions which I feel would warrant a c-section would be placenta previa, extreme bleeding, cord prolapse, and true CPD (cephalopelvic disproportion) - which is extremely rare - something like .3 to .5% of the time. I think I'm getting a little off topic so I'm going to stop writing now.


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *doctorjen*
Having said what I believe on an intellectual level, I have to say that on an emotional, practical level, I would have an extremely hard time understanding why a woman would not take the slight increased risks of a cesarean to save her child's life, if it were truly necessary. Prolapsed cord, or placental abruption, or placenta previa mean certain death for the baby. A cesarean is difficult to recover from, and puts mom at increased risk of complications, and a small increased risk of death, but in general in the US, most moms recover from a ceserean.









ITA - this is exactly what I was trying to convey in my posts.


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Here's the kicker question: Do you think it is wrong for me to have another child/go through another pregnancy knowing how I feel (though I am still wavering)? This is where the philosophical quandry of this thread comes back in.
For the record, I am pr0-choice, but it has little to do with the "when does life begin" theory and everything to do with the "hands off my reproductive rights" theory- better known as "U.S. out of my Uterus".


----------



## magemom (Mar 5, 2002)

_Here's the kicker question: Do you think it is wrong for me to have another child/go through another pregnancy knowing how I feel (though I am still wavering)? This is where the philosophical quandry of this thread comes back in._

Well, I continue to have children and everything works out fine. My last was 11 pounds 4 ounces so 'big baby' is not a scare tactic that works with me.

Yes for a true need I would have a section. But I would also do all I need to do to avoid an 'intervention caused' type one.


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

Hmm, do I think it's wrong? I guess ultimately I do. This is how I look at the situation...

You're willing to grow a child all the way up to the point where he/she can thrive outside of your body. You do everything you can in the course of the pregnancy to protect said child. You reach term and discover that there is a complication which prohibits the baby from being born safely vaginally. You could choose to have a c-section with a SLIGHT risk of maternal death and save the baby and very most likely be fine yourself OR you could allow the baby to die and probably ensure your health. Seems off to me, that's all. I'm certainly not interested in taking away your choice. I just don't understand it.

I don't believe that the baby's consciousness begins only after they exit the womb, so to me it seems pretty cruel and unusual to allow that child to die within you like that. For the record, I'm pro-choice as well, however I prefer to term it pro-choice with the hope that you choose not to abort (basically the "keep your hands off my uterus" theory you have). Having lost babies myself, I find it very hard to imagine why a woman wouldn't do everything within her power to save hers. I guess I really don't see a c-section as THAT great a risk to your life (unless you have some medical condition you didn't mention that would increase this risk).

If I were as concerned with the looming threat of an unnecessary c-section as you seem to be, I'd choose birth attendants you feel extremely confident in and use them to assist you in a homebirth. Believe me when I say that the prospect of a c-section was amongst my greatest fears, but my knowledge of childbirth combined with my trust & confidence in my birth attendants left me feeling very secure that IF I were transferred to the hospital and required a section it would be because I truly needed one.


----------



## srain (Nov 26, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *love_homebirthing*
I'm certainly not interested in taking away your choice. I just don't understand it.

Same here. The risks of death from a c-section are probably similar to the risks of interstate driving.


----------



## CarrieMF (Mar 7, 2004)

Quote:

Here's the kicker question: Do you think it is wrong for me to have another child/go through another pregnancy knowing how I feel (though I am still wavering)? This is where the philosophical quandry of this thread comes back in.
I don't think it's wrong, but I think because you are willing to have another child with all of these JIC things that may happen that your stance makes no sense to me.lol

Quote:

For the record, I am pr0-choice, but it has little to do with the "when does life begin" theory and everything to do with the "hands off my reproductive rights" theory- better known as "U.S. out of my Uterus".
ROFL, I think both the "hands off my reproductive rights" and "U.S. out of my Uterus" would make great advocacy t-shirts.

Quote:

Incidentally and if you don't mind me asking, what was it that happened that now makes you say that your child's birth should have been a planned c-section?
I don't mind but I will warn you that I'll probably ramble and it'll probably get long.lol

At my routine US at 18weeks they determined the baby was small(I didn't realize this until 37weeks, I thought they thought the baby was big,lol). By blood test(and ovulation) I was due Mar 30, by US I was due April 11th. My dr(who is my gp and not an obgyn) said they'd do a 2nd us later in pg which I never questioned the reason why. Skip to 30weeks when I fell and landed on handle of my 10month old's infant car seat. I went into premature labour(beyond the normal contractions I get starting at 12weeks). It stopped with rest but I was checked by my dr and things were starting to progress(cervix turning forward and very soft, no dilation or effacement). Her movments freaked me out though, they tripled in frequency and strength. I was on no sex, restricted duties until 35weeks(earliest they can deliver in town because we have no nicu). I had another US and I was measuring at being due Apr 11th. At 34 1/2weeks I decided what's 4 days. I immediatly started bleeding and I did not feel any movements for an hour even if I drank iced tea which always got her going. It was the longest 10min drive to the hospital and then 5min to going up to the ward of my life. I thought I had killed her. I don't think I've ever been so happy to hear a hb in my life. The machines showed that yes I was in early labour, the nurse couldn't tell where the bleeding was coming from so she sent me WALKING back downstairs to ER where my GP just happened to be working that day. I am still in shock that at 34 1/2weeks in early labour she made me walk. By the time I got down there I was more in labour than I had been upstairs(wonder why







). It was very busy down in ER, busier than I have ever seen it so I saw my dr's wife(who's a dr) instead of him. She called in the OBGYN because "my cervix was softer than she is comfortable with for 34 weeks). The OBGYN couldn't figure out where the bleeding was coming from either, but he said she was breech so I was on no sex, restricted duties, etc until 37 weeks now and to come in and see him in 2 weeks. My regular GP came in, asked what the OB said(communication between dr's is great!), my regular dr told me to come into the office in 2 days and that we'd start NST's twice a week. Her movements which had picked up so much after the fall just about stopped. I was doing fetal checks a few times a day because it was the only way I felt her. With the first 3 NST's they had to feed me sugared up juice, pop, crackers, toast to get her to move(or wake up she liked to fall asleep as soon as I was hooked up). With each NST it was showing contractions still. At 36 weeks I purposely planned to go for the NST after a day of shopping(which was stressful with a 12month old and a 3 1/2yo). I knew I'd be contracting more and wanted to see how strong they would show up. After I was hooked up with the first contraction I could hear her hr slow down so I looked at the monitor and watched it go to 118, 106, 92, 89, 80, then start going back up. I told her to not do that again,lol. The next contraction the same thing. After that it stayed above 100 but was low. The nurses came back in 20minutes and after looking at that said they'd monitor me for a while longer because it was still dipping down just not as low. After 40minutes they unhooked me and called my dr to get his opinion. The nurses wanted me in for a Biophysical the next day(which is a Sat and they only do emergency us's on weekends). He wanted me to be hooked up again and remonitored for 20minutes. Nothing showed up on that one so I was to take a copy of it and bring it into his office when I saw him on Tues. For some stupid reason the nurse who copied it only copied the good parts and not the parts where her hr was dropping. I had my folllowup with the OBGYN on the Monday. At 37 weeks pg with complications the idiot didn't even know why I was there, I had to move stuff off of a chair so I could sit down. He said she was no longer breech, neither me or my gp thought she had been breech in the first place. With her movements being as slow as they were I would have noticed. Here a breech baby is an automatic c-section. I had a NST right after and it was the only one that lasted the normal 20min they were supposed to. My bp was up though, I had alot of bp problems through the pg. They thought I was getting pre-eclampsia but the only sign I did not have was protein in my urine. I saw my dr on the Wed and he booked me for a Biophysical for the Friday. She barely passed it. All the requirements were there within 15minutes except for the gross & minor movements. I spent the last 15minutes(at 37 weeks pg) turning from side to side to get her to move. It was exactly at the time limit that she finally did them. At this US he said she was now due April 18th, 1 week past the other us's(it was always the same tech) and almost 3 weeks past my edd based on my blood test and ovulation. Because she passed that test my dr decided to stop the NST's, I did not like this at all and if I had to do it over I'd fake reasons to go and have them. Every time the NST showed contractions the nurses would freak out until I told them that we knew they were there, I could have faked false labour many times to get the NST's.

Skip to labour, at 41 weeks I swear my water broke. I went to the hospital the next day and the nurse said that the strip was not showing up positive and she couldn't find my cervix(which was forward and getting ready for birth a few weeks before), well I was sitting up so I'm not sure what she expected to find that way







. So I was sent home which was a good thing becasue the obgyn had been on call that weekend for c-sections. 4 days later there was no mistaking it when my water broke. I went to the hospital at 8pm, I was fingertip dilated, contracting and there were decelerations with each contraction. During the NST's the decels had only shown that 1 time. My bp was up to 175/90, the highest I've ever seen it.lol I think I was nervous because my water had never broke in it's own before. They let me rest through the night. I didn't get much sleep because I kept trying to convince myself that the contractions were getting stronger(they weren't). My dr came in at 8am I had gone to barely 2 cm. He said if there was no improvement by noon we'd consider out options for later in the day. The nurses said he was thinking of inducing labour in the evening or even the next morning if things hadn't progressed. He did not want continuous monitoring but it wanted it often just to check the decels. I did lots of walking and discovered when you're not in real labour it does not take very long to walk the ward. I was soooo bored. My dr came back at noon, he had another patient in labour so he went to her first. When he came back he asked if the contractions were stronger, I laughed. I'm just realizing this now but every time he did a check or talked about me to the nurses there were always 3 in the room, one being the head nurse for the day. Instead of inducing in the evening or next day he decided to do it right now. He tried to put an internal monitor on but I wasn't dilated enough. They were short staffed that day so they started calling in nurses who were on other floors and off duty(his other patient in labour was having the exact same complications I was). He also said that if things did not improve that they would consider a c-section. They moved me to a different room because they now realized the monitor wasn't working correctly and it wasn't picking up her movements. At 1:30 they had antibiotics and syntocinon hooked up. I only had to be augmented instead of induced because I was having contractions. The first contraction after being hooked up her heartrate dropped to 50, the nurses wanted see what the next one did before reacting. It went to 50 too so they called my dr back at the clinic and called in the GP who was on call for OB surgery(he is also very very hot!!!) I was quite happy to have him and not the obgyn. They had me lay on my left side and I had to hit the movement button every time a contraction started & stopped because the monitor wouldn't pick up contractions. The gp came and because the decels were not as low on my side that they'd leave me for now. He did manage to get an internal monitor on becuase I was now at a 3. My dh came at 2:30(he had no idea any of this was happening). At 3 the syntocinon had finally kicked in and the contractions were starting to get stronger so they moved me to the case room. At 3:50 the were very strong and I felt like I was in transition. I was not dealing with them as well as I could have been but I also knew that if I was in transition it'd be over soon. They checked me and I was still at 3 cm, 60% effaced and she wasn't engaged. I freaked, panicked, angry. I asked the nurse "what do you mean there is no change", I told dh I cannot do this anymore. I felt like I was in transition and there was no way I could go another 7 cm like this. The nurses & my dr(he had delivered the other patient) decided to turn everything off and go for the c-section. He also ordered demerol which dh approved against my wishes. I had refused the gas because I was only 3cm(I got to 8cm last time without it). While they were off calling the surgeon and getting the demerol I had another contraction, I could hear the hb going down and then the machine started alarming. Panicked I asked dh what the numbers on the machine said. I was in a peak contraction and he said they were 13 which I know the contraction numbers were alot higher so it was the hb. I told him it can't be 13. I had a couple of nurses and my dr down there right quick. I have no recolection of them doing it but they gave me the demerol(even though I gave in and had the gas by then). I think they gave me the demerol so if something did happen that I would be more numb(not that I wasn't already). The surgeon got there at 4:30, he checked me and I was 3-4cm, and he could push her head out of my pelvis so he agreed with the c-section. Dh started asking him questions about the surgery which irked me as I just wanted everything over with. The anesthesiologist asked me about what I wanted, I told him I wanted to be knocked out. The dr's went to prepare, the nurses started shaving me and they handed me a drink to take to calm your stomach before a general. I waved it off because I had a contraction. I breathed the gas in and instead of breathing it out I started pushing. My dr was outside the room so he rushed in. The internal monitors were alarming so her heartrate was down around 13 again. As soon as she crowned the nurses and my dr yelled at me to get my legs out and back as far as I could. Before I could react(other than thinking that she was already dead) they did it and my dr was reaching inside to pull her out. She had her hand by her face and was stuck. She was born 18minutes after the surgeon had checked me and I was 3-4cm and she wasn't engaged. They put her on my stomach to clamp the cord and the nurses suctioned her lungs out with the tubes. They all went to the warming table with her. It was the first time after my pg's I was completely alone after giving birth. I wanted to be anywhere but in that room. I had to force myself to open my eyes and look because if she did die I would hate myself for not seeing her alive for a few seconds. My dr came over about 10minutes later and said she was fine. After the placenta was delivered they realized there was a true knot in the cord. They figure the way the cord was bunched up there probably would have been decels anyhow. Her cord was about 2.5 feet long. There is no way to detect a knot in utero(although I wonder if a 3D or 4D us would) but due to the problems before I went into labour IMO it should have been a planned c-section. The dr's and nurses who had been in the room kept repeating "Lucky baby, lucky mom". She was born April 10th, and due to her fingernails, no vernex and how dry she was they say she was 2 weeks overdue which is right according to the blood test and my ovulation date. She was a whopping 6lbs 5oz & 19", my longest pg and smallest child. If my dh hadn't stalled the surgeon she would have been born in the elevator and most likely would have died. If my dr hadn't been outside the room she probably would have died from being stuck. It took me 3 weeks before my entire time was not consumed with going over her birth and to accept that she was alive. She was 4 weeks old before I found out what her apgars were(5 & 9). She was in isolation for her first 24hours except for 2 feedings. They had to keep suctioning her lungs out. She has had several issues over the last 2 years, most due to parts of her body not being developed enough because of the lack of supplies she was getting inutero.


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Now, in my defense, I have to say that I mean this thread to be a discussion of thoughts and options, more so than a declaration of my opinion on the subject. I really do not know what my opinion is, it changes daily and I am sure would change based on what situation I was in, so nothing is set in stone. Okay mamas?

That is quite a birth story. Very intense circumstances throughout your pregnancy and then to just dialate to complete within minutes. Thank you for sharing.
What I get most from it though, is an overwhelming example of doctors panicking when faced with situations they are unfamiliar with. This harkens back to the article in mothering about breech birth. Why should a breech baby mean automatic c-section when there are many, many examples of successful vaginal births? The answer, I think, is lack of knowledge. Panic! What do I do, what about malpractice, don't want to get sued, let the husband sign off on the medications...why should the mother have a say in it? Now in your case, CarrieFM, your dd had a true knot in her cord, it is an unusual, but not all too rare situation. What if though, your daughter was born with issues caused by the drugs you were given, or what if you did have a c-section because she was breech and she got lacerations on her buttucks like in the Mothering article example? (I was very affected by that article, can you tell)
Personally, I think that if the docs had planned a c-section, then she probably would have been worse off because of breathing problems. Also, it is impossible to tell due dates based on 1st or 3rd trimester ultrasounds. You must go by lmp dates, or have two ultra sounds during the 2nd trimester, so your doctors were incorrect by changing your dates. You were right, based on your knowledge of your body's ovulation. Also, your intuition that you should continue to have NST's should have been acknowleged. It dissapoints me that they cared so little about your opinion. When I was in hosp. being induced, the doc. said that if my amniotic sac was still intact, I could go home and come back monday. They had tried induces for two days and nothing had happened yet. My water broke on the third day, just trickles, and the nurse tried to tell me that the strip read negative. I put up a fight and asked her to leave (she was not very kind anyways) What does a ph strip know that I didn't know already? Minutes later my water bag gushed and I was definitely staying till the baby was born. Nothing worse then not being believed and listened to when you are in labor.

I would like to have another child, and I am very concerned about the birth. I am considering UC, but also looking for options with lay midwives who are much more trusting of women's bodies.


----------



## CJ 5 (May 30, 2004)

I guess what I am still trying to figure out is if the child dies you are still going to have to get that little one out somehow. I suspect this would mean a C-section anyway. I mean I am sorry to be crass but the reality is that with a C-section both lives could be saved???? How is this not a good thing???


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

You don't need a section to remove a child from the uterus. ER had an episode on that. Carter's Kem's baby died in utero and the doctor decided to induce her. I was bawling by the end of that episode.

DP and I had that talk after that episode. I told him that if Bun dies in utero, I don't want a section, but would rather be hooked up to an epidural so I can't feel anything while birthing a dead baby. I already went through the horror of it once and felt every single last contraction and after "care" the mysogynistic doctor gave me. I don't want to go through that again. And I won't consent to a section.

Besides that, any other children I have deserve to be born vaginally.


----------



## MommytoTwo (Jun 20, 2004)

If I had to choose between my life and the life of my unborn child, I would choose my own. I could not leave my son without his mother. However, if a c-section would save my baby's life, then by all means I would do it. I would do it myself if I had to. I had a c-section, and I am doing everything I can to avoid another one, but if it were truly medically necessary I would absolutely do it.


----------



## CarrieMF (Mar 7, 2004)

They never changed my dates, I was actually never given an edd just a range. My dr would not change it to what the us's said, on the paperwork he put everything as the later date of Apr 11 but would not change it to Apr 18 based on 1 us. The only reason I know the dates is because I spent more time reading the numbers on the screen so I would have more information.

I don't think the dr's panicked at decided to do a c-section when her heartrate was 13. Over her being breech(which my regular dr and I both believe she never was) if they had done a c-section maybe. I would have been able to drive 3 hours to the city to attempt a version, but if I did that and something went wrong I'd be delivering in an even more conservative hospital with people I did not know. I have since talked to a chiro here in town who has never done the turning techniques(he has seen it and was taught it) but is more than willing to try it on our pg clients. He is surprised nobody has ever asked about it but breech babies are sent to the obgyns and we seem to change those more than underwear.

I don't think dh's should be allowed to sign off on medications unless there is prior written permission. It's a good thing dh didn't tell me until she was 9months old that he did that. Of course she ended up needing Narcan after.

Quote:

What if though, your daughter was born with issues caused by the drugs you were given, or what if you did have a c-section because she was breech and she got lacerations on her buttucks like in the Mothering article example? (I was very affected by that article, can you tell)
Well she was already born with issues due to the cord and we dealt with those on a daily basis. My oldest dd has lacerations on her head from AROM which I didn't even know the dr was doing until after he did it(different obgyn than the ones we have now but I could tell a couple horror stories about him). To me that is an unnecessary procedure during a labour that had no problems. If she has lacerations on her body from a c-section that saved her life then no I would not have a problem with it. I'd be pissed sure, I would not sue the dr(we're not as sue happy in Canada,lol). I have a hard time trusting dr's. The 2 dr's I had during her labour are the only 2 dr's I trust.

Quote:

Personally, I think that if the docs had planned a c-section, then she probably would have been worse off because of breathing problems
I think they would have been the same, in both cases her lungs were not have the benefit of ridding the mucous during birth.

Quote:

Also, your intuition that you should continue to have NST's should have been acknowleged.
I didn't tell my dr that I wanted to continue, I knew I could have gone in at any time and had another one I just didn't go. I probably didn't really want to know if they were still there, even though I felt that they were.

At the time we knew we were done since the complications with my pregnancy with Asha contintued during my pregnancy with Nadia. After the birth and labour I took it as a sign that I am to not have any more kids. Before I got pregnant with Nadia I started thinking of surrogacy(I had 2 mc's before I had Asha), even with Nadia's birth over the last month or so I am considering it again. I am also waiting for the day that we find out dh's vasectomy failed.lol I have always felt I am to have a 4th, everyone I know seems to think we'll have a 4th and no matter how many times I say "nope, we're done, no more, shops closed, etc, etc," I don't really believe it. I'd be a paranoid wreck during the pregnancy & labour but my dr is used to that by now.lol

Stillbirths are induced and born vaginally unless there is risk to the mother. What I don't get is if dr's realize that the risk of an unnecessary c-section is enough to not spare a mom the labour of a stillbirth why do they schedule unnecessary c-sections all the time.

*edited to add* the episode of ER really got to me too. How their baby died is exactly what just about killed Nadia.


----------



## CarolynnMarilynn (Jun 3, 2004)

I believe the percent I've read sets the "real need" number down around 3% (not the 25-50% it is in many parts of this country).

The World Health Organization sets that number at 12% of births. I have heard from other more experienced midwives that they believe that around 10% is reasonable. When c-section rates are lower, it is because forcep and vacuum births go up, both of which can have complications to mother and baby that in some cases outweigh the risk of c-section (for instance, high forceps where the baby is totally hauled out...)

At the hospital where I have privileges the c-section rate is between 25-30%. They care for "high-risk" women, and recommend c-sections for twins and breeches. Some days the c-sections outnumber the vaginal births.

Saying that, I believe Ina May Gaskin quotes a c-section rate on the Farm of around 3%. I don't know the other stats that go with that, or anything about the population of women they serve.

Carolynn


----------



## gurumama (Oct 6, 2002)

If I had to choose between my baby's *certain* death and undergoing a c/s that would save the baby, in spite of possible complications to me and the baby, I would take the c/s.

I would, simultaneously, undergo a triple root canal and a colonoscopy, if that's what it took to keep my baby from certain death.


----------



## gothmommy (Jul 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bionicsquirrel*

Anywhoo, when I found out that I was basically being forced to induce because of being 43 weeks, I freaked out on my midwife. It finally came out after hours of discussion that I in no way was going to agree to a c-section, even if the baby was in distress. My midwife was devestated and told me that if I held my own life higher than my child's that she could no longer be my care giver.

*snip part of post*
Until baby is born, the pregnant mom is who needs to be protected.


One very common reason for c-s I see on a very frequent basis (I work in an intensive care ob unit...so its not the typical population of birthing women) is massive hemorrhaging from placental abruption. /in these cases we have women who are hemorrhaging severe enough that THEIR life, not just baby's, is in grave danger. Are you saying that in a situation like that you would still refuse c-sec, or are you saying in your post that you would only c-sec if the surgery was to save YOUR life and not just because there was a problem with baby?

I also totally agree with everything love_homebirthing has said...well put, mama!!!








Not trying to debate you, just wanting to clarify.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Quote:

One very common reason for c-s I see on a very frequent basis (I work in an intensive care ob unit...so its not the typical population of birthing women) is massive hemorrhaging from placental abruption. /in these cases we have women who are hemorrhaging severe enough that THEIR life, not just baby's, is in grave danger. Are you saying that in a situation like that you would still refuse c-sec, or are you saying in your post that you would only c-sec if the surgery was to save YOUR life and not just because there was a problem with baby?
yes, I did.

I refused a hysterotomy (mini-c as it was described to me) when I was 18. I thought it was because I wanted to try to save the baby, but no, I think it was my future self whispering into my young self's ear that if I went through with that, I'd never give birth normally ever.

The baby died 2 days later when I finally birthed it at 19 weeks.

I had passed fist sized clots launching them up to 10 feet away if not more in the ER. I was so close to having a transfusion that I'm still amazed that I didn't have one. I think I should have.

I was put on terbutaline for 2 days. By the middle of the second day, I was told that I could go home the next day if everything stayed stable...

Before midnight, I had lost my baby.

But I did not have a section. I am so proud of myself now for doing that then because I didn't realize what doing that would mean for my future. Sure, I lost the baby, but the baby was lost anyway. Placenta Previa and Placental Abruption.

My pregnancies aren't the easiest. This is the first one where I haven't spotted during it and, believe it or not, its a little unnerving, yet at the same time reassuring.


----------



## gothmommy (Jul 2, 2004)

First of all, I just want to say that Im sorry for your loss.
A c-sec at 19 weeks would not have saved the baby, I wonder why they thought they needed to do one if you did stabilize?

We've seen women on my unit who had lost so much blood that they went unconscious before we could obtain consent. When the mother's life becomes in question and she is unable to speak for herself, we kind of have no choice BUT to act. I've also cared for a baby who was born via emergency c-section when the mother (a 1st time 16-yr old mama) experienced a uterine rupture and stopped breathing...what do you do? do the c-section and give the mother a chance, or stand back and watch both a healthy mama and baby just die?

Granted the cases where it is an absolute necessity to c-sec for the sake of the mother's life is rare it DOES happen.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

If both baby and mother could live with a simple reletively safe surgery than by all means both should be safe and if I mother chose otherwise I would think she was not in her right mind and was not qualified to make that choice. Sorry but it is just messed up to not save a perfectly helthy baby because you prefer not to have a c-section. they aren't prefect or prefered but they have saved a lot of lives.

Aldo not all babies can be born natrually when they have died in utero. sometimes the inductions don't work, things never kick in, they are stuck in a funny positiona nd you end up having a section. Or would you prefer to die a slow death from birth complications than risk the almost miniscule fatal complication risk from a c-section even then.

Yes it is scary, yes there may be some small complications but gees, i would go to hell and back to protect my children from the very moment I concieve them I certainly wouldn't sit around and let them die because I might have a complication or becausee there is an ever so slight a risk that I might die. hell, you could die during a vaginal birth too. ther3e are risks in everything. I certainly wouldn't have a c-section unless I needed one but if i really needed one, Jesus himself couldn't convince me not to have one and just sit around and let my baby die.

I can't even imagine in what circumstance I would have to chose between my viable child and myself but my first step would be to see if there was any way to continue the pregnancy. If there wasn't I would give birth in whatever manner would be easiest and best for both of us in the situation and try everything to save the baby and myself. I jsut can't imagine an instance where I wouldn't be in ah ospital that could do what needed to be done to me while giving even the most preterm infant the best care available. or at least around someone who could give them CPR until we got to a hospital. I would never ever ever just sit around and let my baby die because i was scared of a c-section and if you are that scared of a little medical intervention perhaps you shouldn't have more. preganancy and delivery usually go off without a hitch but things do go wrong and sometimes intervention is nessecary and if you aren't willing to do the minimum to protect the life you have created it would be best not to create it at all. Sorry if this seems harsh but I can't even imagine not agreeing to a c-section when it truely is what will save your babies life. And I know Dr.s can jump to conclusions but comments like yours are why I feel the mothers rights sometimes need to be overridden. I know it makes things suck for a lot of people with perfectly healthy babies but I also know there are women who are so caught up with having thier completely natrual vaginal perfect births that they would rather thier babies die than diviate from thioer perfect birth. And that is just messed up.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Quote:

First of all, I just want to say that Im sorry for your loss.
Thanks. Even though it happened 13 years ago, it still hurts.

Quote:

A c-sec at 19 weeks would not have saved the baby, I wonder why they thought they needed to do one if you did stabilize?
I didn't really stabilize. I was still passing clots just not as big as the fist sized one, but not as small as what I'd been passing the weeks before. An hour after the doc told me I could go home the next day, my labour started up again.

And why the section? Because I had placenta previa.


----------



## Clarity (Nov 19, 2001)

My decisions before the babe's all the time. I have had losses, complex medical issues - so a lot of times the what/when/how decisions are more complicated than just a c-sec or not. There are a lot of interventions from drugs, bedrest (causing clots), surgery, selective reduction. And illnesses -treating a mother for cancer who is pregnant for instance. To me, a c-sec or not is the least of my concerns. I have been in the middle of life threatening illnesses and emergencies while pregnant, in many cases ones totally unique to my docs, so I would be VERY uncomfortable with a caregiver or an institution that did not consider my health, life and decisions their primary concern.

Do I, and did I make those decisions in consideration of the child? Yes, but they were my sole decisions. I have consented to c-secs in some circumstances. And in order to protect that right for myself, there will be sometimes women who will choose differently and their child may die (or them too...) But as long as she's not high or drunk, or mentally incompetent (slipperly slope, but I mean severe difficulty with decisions or reality because of mental illness or impairment) then the decisions should be hers.

Some people certainly believe being a good parent means being willing to sacrifice your life for your child. I probably am not. I am a good mother. How can that be reconciled? It seems selfish, but then, I have been nearly faced with that decision and I'm not always so sure how women would go if really faced with it. Everyone thinks they'd be brave and strong and self-sacrificing. But self-preservation is a very strong biological instinct. My husband and I even theorized that men are more willing to do so, not just from social conditioning but from biological drives. Women are necessary for more children, perhaps that's why? or it could just be unique for every person. But I know that a certain percentage of children I conceive will die between the second and third trimester...so it certainly colors my view.

Another thing...my DH would certainly not EVER want another child if it meant risking me. After having to see some of the things I've been through, he is quite certain. I have met many other men who feel the same way.


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Clarity*
My decisions before the babe's all the time. I have had losses, complex medical issues - so a lot of times the what/when/how decisions are more complicated than just a c-sec or not. There are a lot of interventions from drugs, bedrest (causing clots), surgery, selective reduction. And illnesses -treating a mother for cancer who is pregnant for instance. To me, a c-sec or not is the least of my concerns. I have been in the middle of life threatening illnesses and emergencies while pregnant, in many cases ones totally unique to my docs, so I would be VERY uncomfortable with a caregiver or an institution that did not consider my health, life and decisions their primary concern.

Do I, and did I make those decisions in consideration of the child? Yes, but they were my sole decisions. I have consented to c-secs in some circumstances. And in order to protect that right for myself, there will be sometimes women who will choose differently and their child may die (or them too...) But as long as she's not high or drunk, or mentally incompetent (slipperly slope, but I mean severe difficulty with decisions or reality because of mental illness or impairment) then the decisions should be hers.

Some people certainly believe being a good parent means being willing to sacrifice your life for your child. I probably am not. I am a good mother. How can that be reconciled? It seems selfish, but then, I have been nearly faced with that decision and I'm not always so sure how women would go if really faced with it. Everyone thinks they'd be brave and strong and self-sacrificing. But self-preservation is a very strong biological instinct. My husband and I even theorized that men are more willing to do so, not just from social conditioning but from biological drives. Women are necessary for more children, perhaps that's why? or it could just be unique for every person. But I know that a certain percentage of children I conceive will die between the second and third trimester...so it certainly colors my view.

Another thing...my DH would certainly not EVER want another child if it meant risking me. After having to see some of the things I've been through, he is quite certain. I have met many other men who feel the same way.


I think Clarity said everything that I have been trying to express, but with much more eloquence.

Lilyka, I do not think it is your right to judge whether I am right of mind or not. You and I just differ in our opinions and I think it is because so many doctors and nurses think they have the "right" to make these decisions for women than many unneccessary interventions are played out on pregnant mothers.

I do not know how this thread became mainly about c-sections. I used that as a scenario, but by no means did I intend to make it sound like I am so scared of them that I do not want to have any more children...It is not fear of the act, it is fear of the establishment. Don't we live in a free country? Why should the choice not be my own?

Mamid, I am also sorry for your loss and very thankful that you are willing to participate in this thread, I think you have a lot to offer from experience that I cannot.


----------



## gothmommy (Jul 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid*
And why the section? Because I had placenta previa.

Ah, OK. If one of our previa patients is hemorrhaging with a baby that isn't viable by gestational age, and her bleeding isn't absolutely critical then we have let them miscarry vaginally if there wasn't anything that could be done to save the pregnancy. If it is a complete previa with a healthy viable baby, I would think it to be nuts to insist against a c-sec for the sake of both lives directly involved.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gurumama*
If I had to choose between my baby's *certain* death and undergoing a c/s that would save the baby, in spite of possible complications to me and the baby, I would take the c/s.

I would, simultaneously, undergo a triple root canal and a colonoscopy, if that's what it took to keep my baby from certain death.











First the disclaimer: I support a woman's LEGAL right to choose what interventions to have. And if I were presented with a cut and dry choice: my life vs. unborn baby's life, I don't know what I'd choose.

I would most definately, however, choose a *risk* to myself over the certain death of my child. The idea of a c-section scares me, but the odds are pretty low I wouldn't come out of it alive. I can't imagine letting my baby die rather than undergo a (relatively) safe operation.

A week ago my friend's oldest daughter gave birth via c-section. The daughter was committed to NCB and devastated by the idea of a section. Ultimately, without going into the complex details, she agreed to a section at 14 days past her due date. (It turned out to be a good choice) She cried as she made the decision, but as her mom pointed out, "I can be pretty sure you and the baby are going to make it out alive. 150 years ago that wouldn't have been true. THIS is what interventions are for, they have their place."


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

DechenA week ago my friend's oldest daughter gave birth via c-section. The daughter was committed to NCB and devastated by the idea of a section. Ultimately said:


> Can you please elaborate? I don't understand why it turned out to be a good choice. Was she or the baby endangered, because going 14 days past your due date is not cause for a c-section.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Well, I'm not going to go into the details, but it wasn't for being 14 days past due. The reason I'm nhot going into details is that I'm not interested in making a huge debate of every detail.


----------



## mehndi mama (May 20, 2003)

We UC, so I know that if there are going to be interventons, they'll be entirely at my request.

If I had to choose between letting a baby die so I could live to take care of the kids I have already, or dying so the baby I carry could live, I'd choose to let the baby die. I lost a baby shortly after birth, and it was horrible - that kind of empty feeling is like no other. But I'd do it again if it meant my children would still have their mother rather than a new baby that nobody could nurse.

That said, I do not consider a c-section life-threatening. Everything in life has risks, and the risks of a section have been brought down so far that I would not hesitate to ask for one if I thought it would save my baby. The difference with me is, with a UC, the only way you get a section is to ask for one - there's no pressure or outside opinion as to whether you need one or not.


----------



## Elisabet (May 24, 2004)

umm, I may regret this, but I just thought I'd speak up.

I am that rarest of creatures, a very crunchy mom who had a c-sec she doesn't regret. We had done lots of natural childbirth training and were with a very sympathetic ob practice (in an area where doc/midwife combos or midwives with hospital privileges are hard to find) when dd turned out to be in a single footling breech position. We tried every way to turn her, including going to the hospital for a version, but she wasn't budging. I did my research and ended up agreeing with the docs who said they would have been absolutely happy to support vaginal birth with a frank breech but were anxious about this particular position. So we planned a c-sec for just a few days before the due date, hoping she'd reconfigure herself. But she didn't, and I had the c-sec. I can't compare it to labor b/c I've never experienced it, but I recovered quickly and had no complications. Dd is a wonder and was absolutely alert and happy at birth. As it turned out, the placenta was high, the cord was short and knotted, and she just may not have been able to get head-down.

So I just have to be grateful that we live in an era when c-secs are available b/c in 1800 or whatever she and I might not have made it if she'd gotten really and truly stuck. I do have faith in and love my body, but these things do happen. Yes, maybe we would have been fine anyway, but I'm glad that when her little head was right there under my ribs so late on, the ob recommended the u/s, and we figured out her position and were able to make a decision about the safer course of action. We made a decision that seemed most likely to be safe for me _and_ dd, and it worked out awfully well.

So of course the c-sec rate is too high, and many are unwarranted, but when a c-sec is really called for, I don't think it should be feared out of proportion.

And yes, with the next one, I'm going to go all out for a vbac...wish me luck in January!


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bionicsquirrel*
I personally don't think that pre-eclampsia is a real issue, though others might disagree. .

Tell that to Gossamer. She lost her baby due to pre-e.

Tell that to all the women on preeclampsia.org who have lost their children to pre-e. Oh, and be sure to tell that to the dh's who post there following the loss of their wife.

Tell that to me, to my face.

WOW. Do you really think pre-e is no big deal? You have obviously never had it then. Mom has a seizure, strokes out, baby and her die in a minute flat. That stuff happens from pre-e. The reason it happens less and less is that we have good medications (namely mag sulfate, which sucks, but works).

But still one woman dies each week from pre-e in the US. That doesn't even begin to measure the unborn children who die of pre-e complications.

I am in SHOCK.

Pre-e is VERY real and very very very very very dangerous.

Kimberly


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

Oh, and let me clarify, I understand that not every situation with pre-e merits a c/s.

But if they do your labwork and it comes back that you are in kidney failure, you'd be STUPID not to get a c/s. Seriously! You could risk permanent long term kidney damage!

After 48 hours of induction with my daughter, my labs came back worse and worse and worse.... and I was only 4cm.... and with my bp at 170/110, my liver enzymes totally screwed up, my kidney in complete failure, my urine output extremely low.... it was a SMART decision for me to have my c/s.

Sure, I could have waited another day, but was it worth the *high* risk of stroke, seizure, or permanent organ damage to have the relatively *small* risk of a c/s? No.

This time, no midwife would get within a mile of me. They saw my med history and went running.

I have pre-e again, and do labs/nst/bpp/etc. every 3 days. I will have a c/s again. This time, we'll do the c/s at the first sign, instead of waiting. Pre-e gets too scary too fast to screw around with it, and I don't want a kidney transplant in 10 years.

Kimberly


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Kimberlylibby, if you are actually trying to influence my opinion (which I am very open to) then please don't be so rude when you post. I am trying to learn from other mamas and am interested in everything that is being posted. I have intended no offense to others, and have not told anyone flat out that their opionions are wrong, because they are opinions. I may disagree with you or vice versa, but I would never post such a patronizing message to you. I understand that you are in a situation that I have not experienced, I am sorry that my comment offended you unintentionally. It is not right to bring Gossamer into this though, if she is interested in joining the conversation than I welcome that, but don't speak for her.

I did some research and have learned a lot more than I ever knew about preeclampsia and eclampsia. My comment above was flippant and should not have been made without doing more research. I apologize, but thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Here is an article that I found. It is in defense of homebirths, but has some info that is reletive to our discussion.
article

Quote:

In the past, most Americans were born at home with lay midwives attending. The mortality rate for both mothers and babies was higher in 1900, at 700 maternal deaths per 100,000 births (Korte and Scaer 97), than it is now. Babies also died at a significantly higher rate at that time, which decreased to 28.9 births per thousand by 1960 (Korte and Scaer 98). Obstetricians tend to emphasize that many women used to die in childbirth, implying that we should be grateful for current obstetric practice. However, even in 1900, the percent of women who died giving birth was only 7/10ths of one percent! One has to wonder how this percentage compares with our country's current cesarean section rate of 22%. Are the surgeries performed on these mothers actually saving them from imminent death? Maternal and infant mortality are lower now than they were 40 years ago. But the assumption that hospital birth is safer for mother and baby has never been supported (Jones 6). Prenatal care, better nutrition, antibiotics and blood transfusion have played more of a part in the relative safety of birth now.

Quote:

Dr. Lewis Mehl did a study comparing home and hospital birth with mothers from California and Wisconsin with matched populations of 2,092 mothers for each group. Midwives and family doctors attended the homebirths; OBGYNs and family doctors attended hospital births. Within the hospital group, the fetal distress rate was 6 times higher. Maternal hemorrhage was 3 times higher. Limp, unresponsive newborns arrived 3 times more often. Neonatal infections were 4 times as common. There were 30 permanent birth injuries caused by doctors (Jones 99).
Also this article:
article

Quote:

Cesarean surgeries are directly associated with increased rates of maternal mortality. This means that out of 4.5 million births last year (1997), a CS rate of 24% resulted in the death of approximately 341 new mothers from the complications of cesarean surgery, compared to only 270 maternal deaths for vaginal birth, -- 20% more deaths for the 1/4 of the mothers delivered by section that the 3/4 quarters who gave birth vaginally. Quite clearly, preventing unnecessary cesarean surgeries prevents maternal mortality.
Preeclampsia info

Quote:

MATERNAL DEATH

18% of U.S. maternal deaths -several hundred women

Incalculable


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

I absolutely and completely disagree with the OP. I understand you feel that way but I don't think c-sections are so horrible that I'd rather my baby die than me have a few complications.
Wow, I've never heard an opinion like that before. I rather shocked.


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

I'm sorry if you felt that my comments were patronizing, but I think you should understand how shocking your comments were.

I realize I'm extremely sensitive to comments about pre-eclampsia. It is a cause I am committed to educating women about, because it is fairly common and extremely dangerous.

I just felt that your initial comment (which you now admit was flippant) was startling, when as you found in that statistic, 18% of US maternal deaths are due to pre-eclampsia. 18% is a hefty percentage of deaths!

I'm glad you've researched pre-e now (from your original post, it sounded like you had already, I apologize for assuming that you had when you had not). I would hate to see any woman take any unnecessary risks when it comes to the health of her organs long-term.

Kimberly


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

One more thing: I don't want you to think I'm pro-c/s.

I am very much pro-vaginal, normal delivery.

I don't like scare tactics to force women into surgical birth. I think western medical care stinks and leaves much to desire.

I just hate to see scare tactics on the *other* side too! Yes, c/s carry more risks, I agree with that wholeheartedly.... but *MOST* women come through a c/s safely.

Kimberly


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

pre-e wouldn't be that dangerous if the doctors acutally listenned to the women they treat and stopped dismissing early warning signals as "minor pregnancy complaints" and started treatment right away, pre-e complications would drop. They also need to stop giving bad nutritional advice especially about restricting salt. You need salt to keep every cell in your body happy. Restricting it causes your body to try to keep every molecule of it and so it starts to swell from water weight gain.

Women need salt in their diets especially while pregnant. Amniotic fluid, blood, sweat, tears, mucous, every single cell in your fetus' body needs salt to grow, nevermind your own cells.

Restricting salt, taking diuretics, and not drinking enough water are a good way to set you on the path of pre-e. Not eating enough protein compounds the problem significantly. Stress just makes things worse as well. The heat of the summer doesn't help much either.

One thing I know that helps is having Epsom Salts baths (magnesium sulfate) since that's the exact same thing that they give through your IV to stop ptl and pre-e at the hospitals. Doing an Epsom Salts bath helps in several ways:

baths are soothing and relaxing and help deal with stress
the water helps by making your body boyant and that gives your joints a bit of a break
your body gets to absorb through the skin Epsom Salts which means it only takes what it needs and not overdose on it unlike IVs
even 20 minutes in the bath every couple of days is far more therapeutic than anything a doctor can inject into you.

Anyway, that's my rant about Pre-E... Although I could rant more about how women who have the warning signs are ignored for weeks.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

I clicked on this thread, started reading and felt my blood pressure surge.

I was forced into inducing and being in a hospital and I'm lucky that I wasn't forced into a C/S.

My midwife abandoned me AFTER my water broke.

NONE OF YOU HAS ANY RIGHT TO SAY THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH SOMEONE REFUSING A C-SECTION. I WOULD HAVE REFUSED IT. I WOULD HAVE RATHER DIED IN LABOR THAN UNDERGONE SURGERY.

I regret having gone to the hospital. I was coerced. And I really, really regret it. Not least because the doctors punished me for even having hope for a homebirth. I was treated like a homeless 16 year old crack addict.

Those were the last people I would have trusted to do surgery on me. They forceably did an episiotomy AND it tore all the way through AND they sewed my anus shut and trapped my sciatic nerve and a ligament in the scar tissue. This resulted in MONTHS of excrutiating pain lasting HOURS every day that was set off by having a bowel movement. Great way to start the post-partum period. But, hey, as someone said, it is just "a few complications"....NO IT ISN'T JUST A FEW COMPLICATIONS! I AM CRIPPLED.

And, besides, it was chance I conceived. It was chance the pregnancy held. It should have been chance that the birth was successful.

It is against MY morality to place possible corporeal life above everything else.


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

I'd have to re-read all the posts but I'm pretty sure no one said it is absolutely wrong for not choosing a c-section - just that the decision may not be right for us (for me it would be wrong to choose certain death of my baby over a very slight risk of death to myself from a medically necessary c-section). I know that's how I feel at least. And I'm confused about your comment about "just a few complications". Wasn't that in reference to having a c-section done? What you described are complications of a very extreme vaginal birth. Not trying to debate you - just curious what you meant. Sorry you had such a horrible birth experience and that you were treated so poorly for your choice to homebirth.


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamid*
pre-e wouldn't be that dangerous if the doctors acutally listenned to the women they treat and stopped dismissing early warning signals as "minor pregnancy complaints" and started treatment right away, pre-e complications would drop. They also need to stop giving bad nutritional advice especially about restricting salt. You need salt to keep every cell in your body happy. Restricting it causes your body to try to keep every molecule of it and so it starts to swell from water weight gain.

While I agree with what you're saying, it's just not true that diet works for all of us. I did a modified Brewer diet, walked 10-15 miles a week, and was extremely healthy this pg, yet still ended up with pre-e.

I do agree that there are things people can do to *lower their risk* of pre-e.

Also, for me, epsom salts baths have done absolutely nothing. And I'm talking daily baths with an entire quart of epsom salts.

Kimberly (who thinks maybe pre-e deserves its own thread)


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

love homebirthing: These are awfully close to, if not over, the line:

"I don't see how a person could willingly die & have their child die for a chance of a complication from a surgery. "

"I guess the problem I'd have with the choice you say you'd make (if I understood it correctly) is that you'd choose certain death to your baby vs. an increased risk (albeit slight) to your life by accepting a c-section and almost certainly guaranteeing your baby's life. "

I didn't read much further because my vision was blurring from the adreniline surge.


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

sohj - Well we obviously have a different point of view here. I honestly don't understand what upsets you so much about my statements. I just said that it's a decision that I do not understand. I've crossed the line by not understanding a choice that you'd make? Never said that it's one YOU (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn't make. Maybe you could finish reading the rest of my post and then feel free to enlighten me if needed.


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

These were out-there-in-the-atmosphere statements. Not ones saying "I couldn't imagine this for me".

Yeah, the rest of your post was more specific to yourself, but, hey, yours and others definately seemed to be saying that women should choose interventions because their risks from c-sections aren't that bad. Especially in this country.

I don't think that is something they can propose. Seems coercive to me.


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

Didn't come across coercive to me. The original poster asked us for opinions - we gave them. Kinda thought that's what this particular thread was for. How are we supposed to express opinions without mentioning what they might be. Obviously not everyone is going to have the same point of view. I think that was the point. To think through all the options, possiblities, and thought processes. I personally got the impression from the OP that she thought/thinks a c-section carried a much greater risk of mortality than it does. Her question was "who's life comes first". I didn't think the scenario she described warranted _either_ life coming first (both could be saved/healthy). I think this whole thing didn't stay on the topic she intended. I'm thinking she simply wanted to know if we'd choose the life of the baby over ours if we absolutley had to make the choice to save only one of us. My answer to that question is, it depends...


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

I'm in too much pain for walking or doing anything more than "rest" for the last few days.

Which pisses me off cause I have the urge to nest - but 15 minutes of cleaning makes me want to lie down and sleep for several hours!

Doesn't help that I had bronchitis last month and I just can't quite shake the cough.







:

But those tips to help Pre-E I listed above helped me through last pregnancy and are helping through this one.


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

I agree with Love_Homebirthing on one thing...This thread has gotten a little out of hand. People have felt insulted, sojh is steaming (thanks for backing me up Sojh), I am feeling a little depressed about the whole thing now, because really I just wanted to talk about this. Now I feel like I have been judged in a way. I did not want this to be all about c-sections, but dangerous interventions, period. It was supposed to be a thread more about the loss of control on the birthing mother's side and how this could lead to things that would then cause her to make a choice, her or her baby? What would you choose. This was supposed to be somewhat theoretical.

Really, I just hope that dialogues that allow us to work on intense issues out in the open can continue to happen without people getting upset. I hope you will all still read and reply to my threads, even if we do disagree.

-Bianca


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

There is no control when a woman goes into labour. Any decisions she makes about her body during labour are easily coerced because of the amount of pain, stress, and work she is doing.

If it wasn't a woman in labour, you could argue that any agreements or decisions made were done under the threat of pain.

And a woman in labour is not in her sane mind. There's no way she can be. The intense pain, the feeling of out of control of her own body, the need to become like an animal in order to deal with it. Even my own DP said that when I was having a contraction, but most assuredly when I was pushing, I was no longer there - just a primative she beast bringing forth life and wanting to kill anyone who got in my way.

There was no way I could consent to anything.

And I know that doctors could argue that a woman in labour IS unable to think clearly, be of sound mind, and consent to things that would be beneficial to her baby's health nevermind her own.

So, yes, there is a loss of control. Its no wonder docs call us their "girls" and are so patronizing. With what happens to us in a normal labour, they can get away with it.


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

Mamid, ITA, and it is not the loss of physical control that frightens me, but the loss of legal control over my body and my rights.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

In Canada, or at least in BC, it is assumed that when you go into a hospital you _want_ help. So they use that as the basis for taking over legal rights during l&d nevermind the ER.

So, probably most American hospitals are the same way. "You showed up here, so you want us to help you. Sign away your rights here..."


----------



## 2+twins (Apr 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bionicsquirrel*
Really, I just hope that dialogues that allow us to work on intense issues out in the open can continue to happen without people getting upset. I hope you will all still read and reply to my threads, even if we do disagree.

I, for one, have no interest in holding our differences against you. I'm glad you are a person who thinks for herself and draws her own conculsions - I respect that in a person. I know topics like this can get sticky and you're brave for taking them on. It *is* interesting to read different viewpoints to an idea - can only help you grow, IMO. I look forward to reading your posts on other threads.


----------



## magemom (Mar 5, 2002)

The more I think of OTHER things besides csection that could be forced at me, then I wonder where the next line will be drawn.

My mother is concinved my babies are a month over due since they are so large (9.10, 8.5, 11.4 pounds) She is upset my doc hasn't scheduled this one for an induction. Never mind the pitocin has twice caused me to bleed excessively and an epidural will crash my bp too low (65/58 low)

So an induction is a risk to me. Anethesia (sp) is a risk to me.

As to going to the hospital, in Nebraska your rights as a pregnant woman are deliver with an attendant in a hospital or at home alone. If you have a homebirth midwife she can be procecuted. (and they have been) If you deliver home 'alone' you can be investigated for child abuse. Unfortunately/fortunately the CPS folks are swamped so they probably will only open a file and ignore you.

I did decline some tests and no one seems to care. But I haven't shown up at the hospital either. I did put it in my birth plan that I was only there to make DH more comfortable and my doc laughed at that. But I think she 'knows' I do not plan on really going to the hospital. And said I was a perfect candidate for a homebirth and she hates the way the laws changed. Not even a free standing birth center here....


----------



## bionicsquirrel (Jan 2, 2003)

love_home birthing, thank you. I appreciate knowing that you are interested in what I have in my head. I too have been reading your posts and gaining a lot from them.

Magemom, that is terrible and sad. I am sorry you are faced with so little choices. Are you able or willing to travel to another state? Many times, midwives with more rights with attend your birth in other states. For instance, women from WA sometimes go to Portland to have their babies because the laws are more lax. I wish I had known this before my induction, I would have driven to Portland in a heartbeat.


----------

