# Which is easier?



## allycat (Apr 23, 2006)

Which is easier to recover from -physically - C section or vaginal birth?

What about mentally?

A.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Natural vaginal delivery to both. Just saying "Vaginal delivery" is too iffy; it's harder to recover from one that you've been exhausted from alt he interventions and stuff.
I've had a c-section and a natural birth and I'd go through the 44 hours hard labour ANY TIME to avoid that c-section pain.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

I've never delivered vaginally, so I can't say for sure which is easier, although I will say I can't imagine recovery being any easier that it was.

Both of my sections were scheduled, and that apparently makes a TREMENDOUS difference in recovery. I also didn't care one way or the other about delivering vaginally vs. having a c-section, so there were no emotional issues for me to deal with.

First c-section was for full term twins, born just before noon on a Monday morning. I was up walking by 2pm and was never in any pain whatsoever. We went home with both babies the following day, approximately 30 hours after surgery began.

The only thing I *couldn't* do was lie flat on my back in bed and get up again without help. I propped a few pillows and that solved that problem. I did not bleed post-partum AT ALL, I had no pain, my milk supply was enough for the entire neighborhood...I really thought 'How can this be any easier?'

Resumed sex (per my insistance...I was very amorous post-partum) at 12 days post op. Pooped and peed with no problems or pain.

Fast forward 13 months to c-section number two. Again, scheduled procedure, although we did stay 48 hours since I was GBS+ and my membranes ruptured prior to surgery.

I could feel them cutting into me at first, and while it wasn't painful, it was startling. When I told them I could feel what they were doing, they fiddled around a bit and fixed things before they continued. So, while it didn't hurt at all, it was freaky to say the least.

Again, no pain whatsoever afterwards. I could sit down on the floor and get back up again without help from day 2 post-op, I spotted enough for a pantiliner for abou 3 days, and could pick up my twins (they were each right around 18-20 pounds) by 5 days post-op. Up til then, I would pull them into my lap on the couch, but full lifting (like picking them up from the floor) took 5 days.

Resumed sex at 6 days post-op, again at my insistance.







Let's see...milk supply that go round was even more ridiculous than the first time. I pumped on day 4 post op cause I was so engorged and got 10 ounces of milk in one sitting. Pooped and peed with no issues this time as well.

Now, don't get me wrong here. While I was truly never in what I would call pain, I was tired and had a lower backache for a few weeks. I attributed the backache more to my entire center of gravity being shifted suddenly and the fact that I was using other muscles to compensate for my stomach being cut open than anything else. And it didn't really HURT, more of an annoying ache.

I can only hope and pray that my third c-section is as pleasant and easy to recover from as the first two were. Like anything, there are no guarantees, but the trend I've noticed with women IRL is that each subsequent section got easier and easier unless there were complications.

I really can't imagine delivering two almost 7 pound babies vaginally in the same day or an almost 9 pound baby the following year would have been any easier, but I never thought my sections would be that easy either.


----------



## mary3mama (Apr 2, 2004)

My first child was a c/s, my second was a medicalized VBAC -- by my insistence.

I'd prefer to give birth by even a medicalized VBAC any day over going the c/s route again. I'm glad that PP had so little discomfort or difficulty following her c/s deliveries, but I'm afraid that's something I've rarely heard about c/s's.

It took me 2 weeks after my c/s to be able to walk across the floor without constant pain. It took 3 months to be even slightly interested in sex again, and even then, it hurt. It was a year before the numbness and weird feeling around my surgical scar started to disapate. Then there was the 'fun' of trying to take only tylenol for the pain so as not to put narcotics into my newborn's body via breastmilk.

Following ds #2's birth, I was up, walking around within 2 hours of birth and talking about going home. By the time he was 24 hours old, I felt better than I did 6 weeks after my c/s. We were able to resume our sex life, tentatively at least, at about 8 weeks PP -- that late only because I remembered the pain from the first time after the c/s.

I felt 'normal' (if a little sleep deprived) by the time DS #2 was 3 days old.

No comparison at all.

Mentally it was as clear as a distinction, too. After my c/s I spent many days crying because I had this cloud over me and I could only express it as, "they reached in and took my baby from me." Whereas because I actively birthed my second son, I didn't feel 'robbed', I felt empowered and connected.

If I have to have a c/s for some medical emergency this time, well, then so be it...but I'll not go that route unless it is a serious situation. That's one of the reasons we're working with midwives and planning a homebirth. As the are 'low-profile' (sometimes called hands-off) oriented, I know that if they see a reason for a hospital transfer, then it would be serious...as opposed to a practitioner that operates under the assumption that all pregnancies are a crisis waiting to happen.

I don't believe it is more 'honorable' to birth naturally, meaning that I don't think that c/s is a failure. But, I do think that given my own experiences, I'd never suggest that c/s is the 'easy way out'. I'd rather have another 2 1/2 hour pushing marathon than go through another c/s.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

What is prettier, a sunrise or a sunset?

Your question is unanswerable, because it varies from women to woman and birth to birth. There will be people, who through their experience, felt vaginal was 1000% bettter than cesarean (probably a lot on this forum). Other people will feel exactly the other way around.

I think regardless, what is easiest to recover from is the birth with the least trauma. A long, difficult vaginal delivery can be good, if the mother feels empowered afterwards. A cesarean can be good, if the mother feels there was a good reason for the cesarean.

If you have shock after whatever type of birth you have, the stress and tension will build in your muscles. Whatever vaginal or abdominal pain you already have will only intensify because of this. Your stress my prolong your exhaustion or intensify your already rampant hormonal changes.

No matter what happens, may you have peace. (I'm looking for it myself.) Kind regards,
Allison R


----------



## kalisis (Jan 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR*
What is prettier, a sunrise or a sunset?

Your question is unanswerable, because it varies from women to woman and birth to birth. There will be people, who through their experience, felt vaginal was 1000% bettter than cesarean (probably a lot on this forum). Other people will feel exactly the other way around.

I think regardless, what is easiest to recover from is the birth with the least trauma. A long, difficult vaginal delivery can be good, if the mother feels empowered afterwards. A cesarean can be good, if the mother feels there was a good reason for the cesarean.

If you have shock after whatever type of birth you have, the stress and tension will build in your muscles. Whatever vaginal or abdominal pain you already have will only intensify because of this. Your stress my prolong your exhaustion or intensify your already rampant hormonal changes.

No matter what happens, may you have peace. (I'm looking for it myself.) Kind regards,
Allison R









:


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

I've never had a c-section. But I can say that my immediate postpartum after my _uninterfered-with_ births was wonderful, I felt great. I was tired, sure, but there was little actual stress on my body, so really very little to recover _from_. Also, with an undisturbed birth process I had the benefit of normal hormone release, which was good for me physically and emotionally.

Even the most successful surgery -- which is inherently an injury to the body -- could not possibly be easier or better for me, unless it was a matter of life and death. I also really hate the feeling of being drugged when I am vulnerable, and would feel very badly about narcotics in my baby's system as well.

If we're comparing it to the trauma and invasiveness of the typical managed vaginal birth, maybe it's not so clear-cut. Hearing of my friend's (highly unusual) planned c-section with soft music, low lights, and immediate contact with the baby, I think I'd rather do that -- even given the damage to my body and risk to the baby -- than many of the violating managed vaginal births I hear about, which carry increased risk to the body and baby anyway. Thankfully, though, I don't live in a world where those are the only two choices available.

Psychologically speaking, I love the idea of my body functioning as it was made to. That feels to me very good and right. In contrast, for my body to be cut open unnecessarily would be a violation to my spirit. Hospitals make me feel queasy and nervous too. Who really enjoys those places?


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mary3mama*
I'm glad that PP had so little discomfort or difficulty following her c/s deliveries, but I'm afraid that's something I've rarely heard about c/s's.

Couple of thoughts on this comment.









You have to keep in mind that my sections were scheduled with no labor prior to delivery (2nd one was after 6 hours of ruptured membranes, contractions every 3 minutes that did exactly NOTHING to my cervix, nor did they hurt, so I don't really count that as 'labor' like if I'd labored hard for 30 hours THEN been sectioned, kwim?).

Usually when I hear of a woman IRL who had a terrible c-section experience, it's one of two things, or a combination of the two. First is after a hard labor that didn't result in vaginal delivery for whatever reason. It only makes sense that to have major surgery after a day or more of hard labor, your body isn't going to recover as quickly or easily. For these women, if they go on to have an ERCS, I've never heard of a single one that didn't go on to have a MUCH better experience the second time around, and this was verified by all of my peris during my twin pg (who were all very much anti-c/s).

Second is the woman who desperately wanted to deliver vaginally and wasn't able to for whatever reason. It seems to me from reading stories online and listening to women IRL that if a woman was crushed MENTALLY by the thought that she'd had to have a c/s, her PHYSICAL recovery is severely impacted as well.

I honestly have rarely heard of a woman having a scheduled section that she felt MENTALLY ok with having such a horrific time recovering unless there were specific medical complications above and beyond what is normally expected.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Another example I thought of is a friend of ours who now has three children with a fourth on the way.

Her first was a c/s after 3+ hours of pushing with absolutely no progress whatsoever. Apparently the baby's head was tilted to the side just enough to make vaginal delivery impossible considering the circumstances (hospital with epi, not a huge surprise that baby wasn't able to self-correct her position). She had a HORRIBLE recovery according to her. Hated every minute of it and desperately wanted to VBAC.

Second was a successful VBAC, but with LOTS of internal tearing, so much so that she came very close to needing a blood transfusion. They were concerned that she'd actually ruptured, but it turns out her cervix was torn pretty significantly which was causing all the bleeding. This was 4+ years ago and sex is STILL painful according to her.

Third was an ERCS. She made it VERY clear after her VBAC experience that she was not interested in EVER doing that again. With the ERCS, she recovered beautifully, BUT again....it was planned and it was her choice to do so, both of which make a huge, huge, huge difference in physical recovery from what I've seen.


----------



## kawa kamuri (Apr 19, 2006)

My children have only been born vaginally so I don't know. I do know this - I will continue to do everything in my power to avoid a cesarean because elective and/or unnecessary invasive abdominal surgery is not my idea of pleasure.


----------



## Autumn_Breeze (May 4, 2006)

I think a vaginal birth would be easier to recover from both mentally and physically. A c-section is major surgery, that usually requires one to take it more slowly otherwise. I suppose if you look at it from both sides, neither idea is loads of fun, lol.

I prefer a vaginal delivery to a c-ssection simply because I think I would feel better sooner rather than later. Add to the fact you have a crying baby, and you're battling the after c-section pain, and it looks pretty grim. The most important thing though, whatever way your babe came out, do not baby your body, iot slows the progress of healing.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Well, I trust evolution to have created the best and most healthy way for things to happen. Last I checked no one has birthed a baby out their abdomen without someone slicing it open first, so obviously the way that nature designed is best.

-Angela


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

I did not recover from my managed vaginal birth for years, mentally it took even longer but a single incidence does not make a statistic. So this one will be a homebirth








where I doubt I'll end up feeling abused and traumatized.


----------



## JayGee (Oct 5, 2002)

For me, the vaginal birth was by far easier to recover from, both physically and emotionally. My c-section took a long time to heal and I had fairly severe PPD for a full year after DS's birth. After my first VBAC (hospital), I felt really good physically and emotionally, although I did take Zoloft as a precaution against PPD starting at 36 weeks. I tore pretty badly though (3rd degree), so that took a while to heal from. Still, I was up and around the day DD was born. My second VBAC (homebirth) recovery was amazing! No tearing and I felt physcially great the same day. I swear, it was like nothing happened down there







! Emotionally, I'm still on a birthing high and don't see any signs of PPD so far, even without antidepressants.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allycat*
Which is easier to recover from -physically - C section or vaginal birth?

What about mentally?

A.

In general, I would say drug free vaginal, on both counts- BUT- I had an unexpected, completely anesthetized csection after laboring for a good while, plus I was sick with a bad sinus cold







:







: ... I had about 24 hours of bad pain, but I recovered SO fast, NO problems nursing... no regrets about how it turned out, although I would not have CHOSEN that path...

I had less recovery problems than my sister who had her boys vaginally, one with & one without an epidural. I had no breastfeeding supply issues, & was up & around much sooner than I anticipated.

The anesthesia gave me weird visions & made me unable to eat anything but cling peaches, apricot nectar & scrambled eggs for days, but that was the anesthesia & not the csection itself- & really, scrambled eggs are darn tasty!


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
I honestly have rarely heard of a woman having a scheduled section that she felt MENTALLY ok with having such a horrific time recovering unless there were specific medical complications above and beyond what is normally expected.

One of the objections going around in my head is this idea that you have put forth that "complications" in c-sections are rare. They aren't. I'm glad you had experiences that pleased you. But having surgery (any surgery) these days is a crap-shoot in terms of complications and infection.

For ME I can't imagine surgical delivery EVER being preferable to natural birth. My first was a fast birth that left me bruised with skid marks that had me pretty uncomfortable for a few weeks. My second was as if I'd not even had a baby the "recovery" was so nonexistent and my third was a few days of recovery from substantial blood loss but my "parts" were just as fine as after the second birth.

Laura


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

i had a 9lbs 10oz baby on my back in the hospital...he tore me inside and then I had an episiotomy.

I was completely back to normal at 2wks except I was anemic. and on the iron pills i was fine. sex hurt at first (attempted at 12wks pp) but after a couple of months it was fine.

well except that my episiotomy scar itches sometimes. not sure if its psychological or not. weird feeling that.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sijae*
One of the objections going around in my head is this idea that you have put forth that "complications" in c-sections are rare. They aren't. I'm glad you had experiences that pleased you. But having surgery (any surgery) these days is a crap-shoot in terms of complications and infection.

Laura

I think what I said were 'complications above and beyond what is normally expected', thus indicating that some minor complications ARE fairly normal and to be expected.

For example, it's not unusual for mom to get a post-partum infection of some sort. These numbers range from 6-8% for an elective section with no prior labor to 25-33% for an emergeny section. However, in the grand scheme of things, if the only real consequence of such an infection is getting an addtional dose of antibiotic via the IV, I just don't see that as MAJOR.

I guess maybe our definitions of major and minor complications might be different, and that's ok. I personally find it fascinating the different ways women can look at a situation and either totally dismiss certain issues or totally blow them out of proportion depending on how they FEEL about the issue in the first place.

For example, I have a friend that had a section after external version failed to turn her son. He was knicked (not even enough to require a band-aid) on his bottom during delivery. Cuts to baby, esp breech baby, during section are fairly common, somewhere around 5% or so IIRC.

My point is he was knicked, again no band aid required, and she was DISTRAUGHT over this MAJOR complication. That's just how she saw things. I personally didn't get it, but I never said as much to her.

Then there are the women who go through a terrible vaginal birth complete with extensive vaginal tearing that makes sex painful for a year or more, yet they brush this off and consider it part of the deal, so it's acceptable and not a big deal to them.

It really does have a lot to do with how you look at it, and I will agree that it's a crapshoot as to which complications you suffer from, if any, although that goes for BOTH vaginal delivery AND c-section.







While you can certainly decrease your chances of suffering from all sorts of complications during vaginal delivery, a certain amount of risk exists no matter what you do or don't do. The exact same thing is true of c-sections.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Second is the woman who desperately wanted to deliver vaginally and wasn't able to for whatever reason. It seems to me from reading stories online and listening to women IRL that if a woman was crushed MENTALLY by the thought that she'd had to have a c/s, her PHYSICAL recovery is severely impacted as well.

I honestly have rarely heard of a woman having a scheduled section that she felt MENTALLY ok with having such a horrific time recovering unless there were specific medical complications above and beyond what is normally expected.

That makes sense, as our mental state is very much connected to our physical state of being. My recovery also hinged on how I was treated by the hospital staff. They took my baby and were downright evil to me and my family.
In 2005, I wanted to breastfeed my baby, but they gave her an IV without my consent and told me there was no need to breastfeed and I would only harmher because of the narcotic painkillers they had given me.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
I've never had a c-section. But I can say that my immediate postpartum after my _uninterfered-with_ births was wonderful, I felt great. I was tired, sure, but there was little actual stress on my body, so really very little to recover _from_. Also, with an undisturbed birth process I had the benefit of normal hormone release, which was good for me physically and emotionally.

Thank you! I think since Birth has become medicalized, women no longer even _'hear'_ about how it should be. I have attended many such births and the mothers never looked like the mothers in the hospital. They were radiant and many were up and eating a meal with everyone and nursing their newborn at the same time. Something you NEVER see in a hospital setting. Most hospitals will not even bring a meal to the mother.







Thank you for sharing your story!


----------



## velcromom (Sep 23, 2003)

Quote:

I honestly have rarely heard of a woman having a scheduled section that she felt MENTALLY ok with having such a horrific time recovering

I hear and read a lot that moms believe a scheduled c/s is going to be so much better to recover from than an unplanned one. It's just not always so.

My unplanned c/s came after many hours of labor and the recovery was a breeze.

My scheduled c/s I felt confident that I knew the drill, and was anticipating a few weeks of taking it easy and then jumping back into family life with our new baby, like the first time. I was definitely ok with the idea of surgery again. Reality disillusioned me, and fast. In spite of the fact that there were no specific complications, the pain was horrific and carried on and on, far longer than I ever expected. My doctor had no explanation, and could only offer painkillers. It took well over a year to get back to what I could even tentatively call normal.

I've had two atypical recoveries that according to generalizations about c/s, were unlikely to have occurred the way they did. You just never know.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Usually when I hear of a woman IRL who had a terrible c-section experience, it's one of two things, or a combination of the two. First is after a hard labor that didn't result in vaginal delivery for whatever reason. It only makes sense that to have major surgery after a day or more of hard labor, your body isn't going to recover as quickly or easily. For these women, if they go on to have an ERCS, I've never heard of a single one that didn't go on to have a MUCH better experience the second time around, and this was verified by all of my peris during my twin pg (who were all very much anti-c/s).

For what it's worth...while I wasn't exactly "mentally okay" with my second c-section, I did go to the hospital as per instructions from my OB and FP. I fully expected to have an easier physical recovery than I did with my first...after all - no labour, which everyone told me was easier, plus I had waited ten years for dd. I had the surgery, and did okay getting back on my feet...but I had pain in my incision for 7-8 months.

With my first - an "emergency" after 20+ hours of labour, my initial recovery was wretched...I was so wrecked from exhaustion, drugs and lack of food that it took me four days before I could even walk around the maternity ward. _But_, at the end of the initial six weeks, I didn't have any pain left at all.

With my last one - a scheduled section, but I was in labour first, my initial recovery was great. I was mobile quickly and felt okay about things. I was mentally okay, as I'd at least put the surgery off until I went into labour (they'd wanted to cut him out three weeks earlier). I developed an incision in the infection, so it didn't heal up properly, but it wasn't a huge problem (except that I couldn't go swimming at our complex). The pain was gone within 2-3 months...except for the area below my navel, which still feels bruised (nerve damage, I guess).

So...I hated all my recoveries, but in terms of how long the actual pain lasted...my scheduled labour-free section, which is touted by _everyone_ as being soooo much easier, was by far the worst. There's nothing on this earth that could make me go through that again...I honestly believe I'd rather die.

I do have to ask, though - how on earth do you have a pain-free c-section recovery? I've herad quite a few women online say this, but I don't know anybody IRL who has had one...even my SIL, who was doing crunches 4 weeks post-partum said the pain was brutal. Is there a trick to this?


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Well I had a vaginal birth, and had absolutely no pain, except for a bit of stinging a couple times when I peed, which the peri-bottle took away.

I had a bm a couple hours after birth with no problems. My bleeding stopped in less than 2 weeks, and before that I was only using panty liners. I started having sex again at 2 weeks.

I know I am an extremely easy case, but everyboody I know had tougher times recovering from c/s.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

I think one of the things to keep in mind about c/s vs. vaginal recovery is that after a normal vaginal birth you'll be hard-pressed to find a woman who is knocking back narcotic pain medication for the next two weeks so she can "feel great"... but after a c-section? It's necessary. No one "just takes a Tylenol on the first day" and feels fine for the next six weeks.

Lots of women feel great all drugged up after major abdominal surgery! So long as I was very, very, very vigilant about taking my meds I felt alright. I had resumed sex in under two weeks, my scar never oozed or looked funny, and apparently I had a "Very fast" and miraculously easy recovery by most standards. But the fact that I *had to* take medications for two solid weeks told me otherwise.
After my vaginal I took a Tylenol on the first day and never needed anything else. I could walk around just fine. Sure, peeing stung a little bit (yay peri bottles!) but geez, at least I didn't REQUIRE morphine for the first 24 hours after because shot after shot after shot of whateverthehell they gave me when I woke up completely unanesthestized in recovery never took.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

LTP- I took pain medicine in the hospital, & the first day I was home- Darvocet, I think it was... then that was it. I can't even remember if I needed Tylenol.

I realize that is rare, but it does happen.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I take very minimal pain meds post-section. If I get cut again, I won't take any. I twisted one of my staples last section, because I'd used drugs to short-circuit my body's warning system, and didn't realize I was overdoing it physically. That's how I ended up with an infection. If I end up cut again, I'm going to be able to listen to the messages my pain is giving me, because I'm going to be able to "hear" my pain.


----------



## AnditheBee (Oct 3, 2003)

I had two unplanned cesareans after a lot of pushing, and the first was absolutely a breeze to recover from physically. I recovered faster than my friends who had birthed vaginally (and naturally) at around the same time! (They both had a lot of tearing.) However, that does not seem to be the norm by any means, and I don't want anyone to think it is! I was lucky, plain and simple...I've met plenty of women who weren't.

My second c-section was more conventionally difficult to recover from--no serious complications or problems, but just the usual UGH stuff. The first time I took pain meds for 36 hours...the second time, two weeks. Go figure.


----------



## shelbean91 (May 11, 2002)

I had 2 natural vag births and one unplanned, but necessary csection. Physically and emotionally, the vag births were easier. I wasn't traumitized emotionally by the cbirth, but it was something I had to accept as it wasn't in my plan and ds2 is my last baby.

It sounds like one person had easy-peasy recovery from surgical birth. I just don't see how that's possible, but if that happened, that's great and I wish everyone had the same experience. It hurt when I laughed, coughed or sneezed for a couple of weeks. I didn't have any complications (except vomiting as the spinal wore off).

With my vag births, I had one w/episiotomy and one w/out. The one w/out was much easier to recover from.

No matter how ready you are for it, it's surgery. My sister had surgery on her knee. She was prepared for it, it still hurt.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*

I do have to ask, though - how on earth do you have a pain-free c-section recovery? I've herad quite a few women online say this, but I don't know anybody IRL who has had one...even my SIL, who was doing crunches 4 weeks post-partum said the pain was brutal. Is there a trick to this?

Shoot, I wish I knew why it was so easy, then I could sell my secrets.










With my first section (full term twins), I *fully* anticipated agony. They told me over and over again how AWFUL it was going to be the first time I stood up and it would 'feel like your guts are falling out'. Needless to say, when that nurse came in my room a mere THREE HOURS after surgery wanting me to get up....I almost had a panic attack. Thought 'Oh Lord, I *asked* for this, and now I've got to suck it up and get moving.'

I was TERRIFIED to stand up that first time. I sat on the side of the bed and braced myself. I stood up slowly and thought 'Is this all there is to it? Surely not.' So I asked if I was supposed to walk or something. The nurse said I didn't have to, but I could try. So I walked to the bathroom. Still no pain. By now I'm wondering what all the hullabaloo was about. But certainly not brave enough to voice this thought at that point.









One thing that probably made a difference for me is that the last 10 days of my pg were SO MISERABLE. I literally felt like my pelvis was being pried apart with a crow bar every time I stood up or shifted positions. I cried every day for those last 10 days from the pain. Just having the babies OUT of me was such a huge relief physically.

The post-op pain just never materialized, and it was the same a year later with my second section.

As far as actual pain relief, I had Duramorph in my spinal both times. If you have to have a section and aren't allergic to morphine, Duramorph is the way to go. It provides up to 24 hours of pain relief and you don't have to do a thing, unlike the PCA pumps where you have to push the button every so many minutes. Obviously if you doze off and 'miss' several doses with the PCA, you're much more likely to wake up in agony.

From 24 to 48 hours post-op, I took Percocet (first section) or Roxicet (second section). I pretty much took it as directed, meaning 1-2 every 4-6 hours, as I've always heard that staying ahead of any pain the first 48-72 hours is key to an easier recovery.

I also took something for gas (like Gas X) from just a few hours post-op cause I'd heard that gas can be terrible after abdominal surgery. And I took colace til my first BM to prevent trouble from that end.







I figured I'd rather prevent rather than wait til I was in agony, kwim?

Overall, I figure I got VERY lucky to have three healthy children and never had one iota of pain as a result of birthing them.







I am hoping to get lucky again with this fourth baby, but the reality is it could be horrible and more than make up for my two easy experiences previously. I don't see how it could possibly be easier than either of my two prior deliveries, but only time will tell.


----------



## MamaTaraX (Oct 5, 2004)

Sounds like wifeanemom is a great c/s birther. I'm happy for you







I'm glad you have had good experiences and everything. You just dont'appear to be the norm. Most women have a much tougher physical recovery than you did, and I do see that you mentioned all the drugs you took. That's not really a pain-free recovery so much as it is a medically-induced pain-free state. To me, that's not the same thing. I too hope your future deliveries will be as positive of an experience for you. You sound like you are at peace with how you bring your babies into the world, and that's what really matters.

I've onlygiven birth vaginally so I don't really have a good answer beyond myskewed version of one







So i won't answerthe question.

Namaste,Tara


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaTaraX*
Sounds like wifeanemom is a great c/s birther. I'm happy for you







I'm glad you have had good experiences and everything. You just dont'appear to be the norm. Most women have a much tougher physical recovery than you did, and I do see that you mentioned all the drugs you took. That's not really a pain-free recovery so much as it is a medically-induced pain-free state. To me, that's not the same thing. I too hope your future deliveries will be as positive of an experience for you. You sound like you are at peace with how you bring your babies into the world, and that's what really matters.

Namaste,Tara

You know, you are SO right in that women have to be at peace with how their births go. I can't imagine having my heart set on one thing and having that crushed, often for no valid medical reason. Birth itself was simply a way to get a baby out of me alive. How that happened truly didn't matter, I just wanted LIVE babies.

I'll also add that every woman I knew who gave birth in the same time frame I did (most of which were vaginal deliveries, but hospital births virtually all with epis and most with Pit) came home with the same number of narcotic pain pills I was given after my c/s.

*I* was the only one who had any left over though. So from my experience, the need for narcotics regardless of delivery method is pretty common with hospital birthers, or at least that's how it has played out IRL with my friends. Heck, the only girl I knew who actually had to have REFILLS on her narcotics delivered vaginally. She was on that stuff for over a MONTH. Of course, if I'd come out of there with the damage she did, I'd probably STILL be on narcotics 5 years later.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

I had a difficult vaginal delivery with a very painful recovery. I had pubis synthesis ( pubic bone separated ) and some torn ligaments. Sometimes I wonder if recovering from a section would have been less painful! But there are pros and cons to everything- and when it comes down to it, you still couldn't talk me into going under the knife.


----------



## sprout 1 (Oct 18, 2003)

I don't think a major abdominal surgery can be compared to a natural vaginal delivery. We were designed to birth babies vaginally and recover quickly. We weren't designed to be cut open. It hurts really bad to be cut open. Especially after a long and exhausting labor. It takes a long time to heal all those layers that have been cut/ripped open.
And the biggest factor, for me: take heavy duty painkillers that would go straight to ds, or go without to spare him from more exposure to drugs. He had nursing issues so I felt like I had to choose to go without. It SUCKED! So if that's the "secret" to painless recovery, don't count on being able to use it.
Oh yeah, I also have pubic synthesis and didn't even notice compared to the wrenching pain in my abdomen every time I tried to move, cough, laugh, hold ds on my tummy, etc. I never realized how much we depend on those muscles until I couldn't use them.


----------



## maxmama (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CalebsMama05*
well except that my episiotomy scar itches sometimes. not sure if its psychological or not. weird feeling that.

'S okay. My section scar has been itching like crazy during this pregnancy . Easier to scratch in public than the epis scar, though.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
One thing that probably made a difference for me is that the last 10 days of my pg were SO MISERABLE. I literally felt like my pelvis was being pried apart with a crow bar every time I stood up or shifted positions. I cried every day for those last 10 days from the pain. Just having the babies OUT of me was such a huge relief physically.

I wasn't quite that bad (not crying every day) with ds2, but I was definitely a lot of pain for the last couple of weeks. He was big, and seemed to be pushing my pelvis apart. I loved every second of the pain, of course - proof that he was my vertex baby who wasn't going to be a c-section. *sigh*

Quote:

As far as actual pain relief, I had Duramorph in my spinal both times. If you have to have a section and aren't allergic to morphine, Duramorph is the way to go. It provides up to 24 hours of pain relief and you don't have to do a thing, unlike the PCA pumps where you have to push the button every so many minutes. Obviously if you doze off and 'miss' several doses with the PCA, you're much more likely to wake up in agony.
Ah - I've never had any kind of spinal catheter, and I'd kill anybody who tried to give me one. I _have_ to put up with the anesthetic during the surgery (which is just _one_ reason I hate having my babies through surgery), but there's no way in hell I'm letting muck with my spine further just so I can stand up without pain. To me, pain isn't that big a deal, compared to having stuff stuck in my spine (I actually considered telling the OB that if he was going to coerce me into a section, he was going to have to do without the evil anesthetic, just so he couldn't pretend he wasn't hurting me.)

I have had Duramorph (I believe - something morphine related). It was given to me last time without the anesthestist telling me he was administering it, which made me furious as I'd already told the doctor I didn't want it. I'm not exactly allergic to it, but it does make me itch...and I'd rather have somebody come into my room every half hour and cut me than have to put up with the itching. As my dh says, I can deal with pain - but not so much with discomfort (the sweat from sitting under a window in the sun was worse than the incision pain, which was bad enough).

Quote:

From 24 to 48 hours post-op, I took Percocet (first section) or Roxicet (second section).
Does everybody in the US get Percocet? I've seen that on here many times, but nobody I know has ever had it post-op.

For the first 24-36 hours with dd and ds2, I had Voltaren and some Tylenol. After that, I took a few Tylenol, but that was it...but not because it didn't hurt. I just don't think really effective pain management is a good idea, honestly.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maxmama*
'S okay. My section scar has been itching like crazy during this pregnancy . Easier to scratch in public than the epis scar, though.









I watched a cesarean on "The Operation" (morbid fascination) when ds1 was about two years old. My scar hurt for over an hour, and before that, I hadn't had even a tiny twinge since he was 3 months old. The mind-body connection manifests in interesting ways sometimes.


----------



## mimid (Dec 29, 2004)

I've only had a c/s, but my mom had 3 vag and she was in the room with me watching me struggle to sit up, get up, get to the bathroom and then get back in bed. She said that while vag is uncomfortable, it was not as uncomfortable as I looked. Honestly, I can't imagine anyone choosing to do a c/s because it is "easier". I totally get the medically necessary ones, but the elective ones are beyond me.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mimid*
I totally get the medically necessary ones, but the elective ones are beyond me.

Sadly, the vast majority of c-sections, imo, are neither medically necessary nor elective (at least on the mom's part). For example...none of mine fall into either category...my first was medically...expedient, I guess. My second was coerced by my doctors for a footling breech, and my third was also coerced (as in "be there tomorrow or I'm withdrawing from your case"...no alternative care provider available, and I was 41w,4d and in prodomal labour). The situation's a mess.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
Sadly, the vast majority of c-sections, imo, are neither medically necessary nor elective (at least on the mom's part).

I gotta agree with this. I see an awful lot of women convincing themselves theirs was needed, and I see an awful lot of the same excuses doctors give women to make them believe it was done for a reason. "Low heart rate" or "cord around the neck" are always good ones, but they always seem to only become a problem when mom's slow progress gets old...

Mine was neither necessary nor elective: it was for a breech that was actually *crowning* at the time of discovering it. With one previous vaginal birth, pushing him out would have been just fine.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleteapot*
I gotta agree with this. I see an awful lot of women convincing themselves theirs was needed, and I see an awful lot of the same excuses doctors give women to make them believe it was done for a reason. "Low heart rate" or "cord around the neck" are always good ones, but they always seem to only become a problem when mom's slow progress gets old...

There are lots of good ones...even the "slow progress" gets used. I mean - we all know that without the c-section, mom's labour would just stop, and she'd be stuck at that point for _years_. *sigh*

Quote:

Mine was neither necessary nor elective: it was for a breech that was actually *crowning* at the time of discovering it. With one previous vaginal birth, pushing him out would have been just fine.
That was my first one...baby wasn't crowning, but I was fully dilated, and going into transition labour when they put me on the operating table. I guess they just couldn't hear the "no - I don't want a c-section" over the machine that goes "ping"...
I also didn't have a previous vaginal birth, so I wasn't "proved" as a childbirthing mom. I wonder why "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to pelvises and cervixes?


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
That was my first one...baby wasn't crowning, but I was fully dilated, and going into transition labour when they put me on the operating table. I guess they just couldn't hear the "no - I don't want a c-section" over the machine that goes "ping"...
I also didn't have a previous vaginal birth, so I wasn't "proved" as a childbirthing mom. I wonder why "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to pelvises and cervixes?

Indeed! My pelvis was innocent!
















I also yelled for a vaginal birth, citing that both my mother and my uncle were born vaginal breech (first and second babies). At first they just all said "no" and after a while just ignored me and started shaving and hooking me up to IVs. I found out later that vaginal breech "isn't done" there and they actually had the power to just rush me into the OR even if I didn't eventually consent. Not in my right mind, and all. Especially since I didn't know I was in labour until the doctor told me he was crowning.


----------



## Karah R (Aug 21, 2005)

I've had one c-section and two vaginal births, and hands down the vaginal births were easier recoveries-I wouldn't even use the word recovery to describe the days after my vaginal births, even though I did tear and did have hemhorrhoids. My c-section caused excruciating pain for weeks-no pain meds was not an option for me, and I'm a tough cookie who has a strong pain tolerance. In total agreement that it's not natural to be cut open like that-and that being cut open like that does cause considerable pain, and it wasn't stuff that I could just block out or work my way through. Believe me, if I could have I would have.

I didn't have so much as a tylenol after my girls were born-I was a little sore down south but really felt good overall.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*

Ah - I've never had any kind of spinal catheter, and I'd kill anybody who tried to give me one. I _have_ to put up with the anesthetic during the surgery (which is just _one_ reason I hate having my babies through surgery), but there's no way in hell I'm letting muck with my spine further just so I can stand up without pain. To me, pain isn't that big a deal, compared to having stuff stuck in my spine (I actually considered telling the OB that if he was going to coerce me into a section, he was going to have to do without the evil anesthetic, just so he couldn't pretend he wasn't hurting me.)

I have had Duramorph (I believe - something morphine related). It was given to me last time without the anesthestist telling me he was administering it, which made me furious as I'd already told the doctor I didn't want it. I'm not exactly allergic to it, but it does make me itch...and I'd rather have somebody come into my room every half hour and cut me than have to put up with the itching. As my dh says, I can deal with pain - but not so much with discomfort (the sweat from sitting under a window in the sun was worse than the incision pain, which was bad enough).



I'm confused. How can you have had Duramorph without having had a spinal or epidural? DH does anesthesia, and according to him, the ONLY way Duramorph is admininstered is through either a spinal or epidural.

You can get straight morphine through several other routes (pill form, shot form, IV, PCA pump, etc), but NOT Duramorph specifically. As for the itching, that's one of those things that happens but I honestly didn't even think about it til you reminded me. I took Benadryl for itching both times and that was the end of the itching. I had it IV the first time, but that made me *really* sleepy, so I asked for pills the next time. It just wasn't a big deal to me...another example of how different women are in how we look at various aspects of how we gave birth.

Anyhow, the addition of Duramorph to a spinal is a matter of putting the meds in through the catheter prior to removing it (with a spinal, the catheter is placed, the meds are administered, and then the catheter is removed BEFORE surgery ever begins). It's nothing more than an additional dose of something, it's not like they have to poke you twice or leave the catheter in to dose it.

What kind of anesthetic DID you have if you didn't have any type of spinal catheter? An epidural and spinal go in the EXACT same place, the spinal actually goes INTO the spinal space, whereas the epidural does not, however the spinal provides much better and faster numbness in comparison to an epi. Also, the fact that the spinal does not involve leaving the catheter in place like with an epidural means less chance of infection, although the risk is still obviously not zero.

Did you have a general anesthetic? Surely not....That's a heck of a lot riskier compared to either spinal or epi, ESPECIALLY in a pregnant woman. Typically general anesthetic is reserved ONLY for the most dire emergencies or when the spinal or epi doesn't work as the risks go up exponentially for mom with the use of a general anesthetic. It's one thing if there is no other choice, but I've honestly never heard of a woman having a section under general BY CHOICE since it IS much riskier.

And the only other option I can think of would be a local, and while I have heard it is theoretically POSSIBLE to do a crash section under local anesthetic only, the doc would have to be one barbaric person to even attempt such a thing unless the baby was DYING and no other option was available.

So, color me confused, but what kind of anesthetic DID you have if you have never had a spinal catheter placed?


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*

Does everybody in the US get Percocet? I've seen that on here many times, but nobody I know has ever had it post-op.

All the moms I know either got Percocet or Roxicet, depending on where they delivered and who their doc was. The typical discharge script is for 15-20 pills. Lots of vaginal delivery moms also came home with Tylenol 3's in addition to the narcotic. Many of the vaginal delivery moms took only a few of either, unless there was extensive tearing. Unfortunately in both places I delivered at (teaching military hospitals), tearing was a pretty common event.

Quote:

For the first 24-36 hours with dd and ds2, I had Voltaren and some Tylenol. After that, I took a few Tylenol, but that was it...but not because it didn't hurt. I just don't think really effective pain management is a good idea, honestly.
I had to look up Voltaren since neither DH nor I had ever heard of it. Here's what I found:

Quote:

Voltaren and Cataflam are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
While some docs here will give a woman NSAIDs after a section, it's not common IME. The reasoning behind it is it increases your risk of bleeding, obviously a concern after a c-section.

My last OB was ok with me getting one of the NSAIDs by IV, can't remember which one to save my life at the moment, but I wasn't super comfortable with that idea. Once the first 48 hours or so have passed after surgery with no indication of bleeding problems, NSAIDs aren't as big of a deal, but in those first two days...just not something I felt good about.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

VOLTAREN! That's it. I've been trying to remember the name of that drug for months now. That's what they gave me after my c/s, but they wouldn't let me take it home though. At home after 72 hours I was only able to have T3's/Codiene.

It worked well but I was pretty stoned.







:


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

wifeandmom: Sorry for the confusion. My last two sections were done under spinal anesthetic. When I said I hadn't had a catheter, I meant I hadn't had one for _post_-operative pain relief. It was removed in the OR, as soon as the surgery was completed.

Voltaren is routinely administered to all post c-section women at the local hospital. When I had dd, it was administered by suppository, and I didn't even know I had it until about 12 hours after the surgery - they put the first one in while I was still numb from the spinal. I didn't know until I had ds2 that it was anything but a painkiller, but all the nurses at the hospital love the stuff, and absolutely swear by it.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
wifeandmom: Sorry for the confusion. My last two sections were done under spinal anesthetic. When I said I hadn't had a catheter, I meant I hadn't had one for _post_-operative pain relief. It was removed in the OR, as soon as the surgery was completed.

Oh, well, in that case, I never had a catheter for POST-operative pain relief either.







The way spinals work according to DH is they give you a local to numb the area, then they put the catheter into your spinal space. Once it's in place, they administer all meds right then (including the Duramorph unless allergies preclude doing so), then the remove the catheter before ever lying you back down for the actual surgery. The catheter doesn't stay in place at all like it does with an epidural.

The Duramorph is on board before they ever cut you open. It is a long acting morphine that provides pain relief for up to 24 hours in most c-section patients. It allows mom to avoid the dreaded PCA morphine pump, which IMO would be a huge PITA to push that button every 5-10 minutes for 24 hours.

I'm not sure what the reasoning would be for leaving the catheter in place while surgery was taking place though, as a spinal is a 'one-shot' deal, unlike the epi that can be dosed up if necessary.

Quote:

Voltaren is routinely administered to all post c-section women at the local hospital. When I had dd, it was administered by suppository, and I didn't even know I had it until about 12 hours after the surgery - they put the first one in while I was still numb from the spinal. I didn't know until I had ds2 that it was anything but a painkiller, but all the nurses at the hospital love the stuff, and absolutely swear by it.
It's interesting how different places do things, and the thought occurred to me that perhaps this particular drug isn't a very powerful NSAID, thus the bleeding risk wouldn't be as high as with some of the others available.

It makes complete sense that an NSAID would be a good choice for pain relief because of its anti-inflammatory properties, and as long as they aren't seeing increased post-op bleeding in their patients, I can see why they'd use it. I still cannot remember for the life of me what my last OB was willing to give me that I refused, mostly on DH's recommendation, again based on the increased risk of bleeding.


----------



## egoldber (Nov 18, 2002)

Around here, the C-section post-op pain relief (for those who did not have GA), is Duramorph for the first 24 hours (assuming no allergies), followed by percocet alternating with 600 mg ibuprofen until discharge, and then the mom is sent home with a scrip for about 5 days worth of Percocet and told to continue OTC ibuprofen as needed.

If you have had a C-section under GA, you get a PCA with morphine for the first 24 hours and then the percocet/ibuprofen combo as described above. My second cesarean was under GA and I actually got better pain relief with the percocet/ibuprofen combo than I did with the PCA.

But in terms of the OP, I think your mental attitude plays a huge role. My first cesarean was non-emergency and basically due to my lack of education and OB's lack of caring.







: I had a fine recovery, but had no desire to elect to have an ERCS. My second cesarean was a true emergency with a uterine rupture, after a full day of hard labor and 2 days of prodromal labor with virtually no sleep during that time. By all accounts I should have been a wreck physically and a recipe for infection after that second section.

But I was so preoccupied with the state of my second DD's health, getting myself to the NICU and spending as much time with her as possible before she died, that the fact that I had a cesarean really meant nothing to me. And my physical recovery continued to be super quick, much better than with my first section with no real labor. And planning my upcoming section in the fall brings me no angst at all. There is some small part of me that is a little sad that I will never have a vaginal delivery but after my life experiences, that fact is so far down on my list of things that bother me, its not a real concern. But I understand that this is true for *me* because of what I have personally been through. So it is difficult to compare delivery experiences without taking into account all the life history that comes with it.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
OhI'm not sure what the reasoning would be for leaving the catheter in place while surgery was taking place though, as a spinal is a 'one-shot' deal, unlike the epi that can be dosed up if necessary.

It probably wasn't left in place. I don't know much about spinals, because even thinking about them makes me queasy. It must have been taken out when he got me to lie back down again. I wouldn't really know, since I couldn't feel anything from my breasts down. That was definitely when he gave me the freaking duramorph...I was _pissed_ when I realized I'd been given that crap again. They all do things differently, though - the anesthetist for my second section asked me about the duramorph, and I said, "yes" becasue I didn't know it would make me itch. The other guy didn't even tell me he was administering it. (He also gave me a damned oxygen mask, so I hate him on general principles. I'd never had one before, and thought they didn't use them at that hospital. I guess adding a huge dollop of claustrophobia doesn't really matter, though...I was already paralyzed with fear. I actually wonder if they do that on purpose - if I'm terrified enough, I just let myself be pushed around, because my brain goes on vacation.)

Quote:

It's interesting how different places do things, and the thought occurred to me that perhaps this particular drug isn't a very powerful NSAID, thus the bleeding risk wouldn't be as high as with some of the others available.

It makes complete sense that an NSAID would be a good choice for pain relief because of its anti-inflammatory properties, and as long as they aren't seeing increased post-op bleeding in their patients, I can see why they'd use it. I still cannot remember for the life of me what my last OB was willing to give me that I refused, mostly on DH's recommendation, again based on the increased risk of bleeding.
I had no idea there was any increased bleeding risk with NSAIDs. The nurses on the ward talk about it the way some moms talk about epidurals.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Wow, so wifeandmom, you took Percocet, Gas X, colace, and benadryl? That's a whole lotta drugs.









I took some regular ibuprofen for afterpains after both of my homebirths and used a peri-bottle to pee. I was a little sore, but fine.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
Wow, so wifeandmom, you took Percocet, Gas X, colace, and benadryl? That's a whole lotta drugs.









I took some regular ibuprofen for afterpains after both of my homebirths and used a peri-bottle to pee. I was a little sore, but fine.









After my csection I took tylenol & dulcolax.







I didn't need a peri bottle. My sister delivered vaginally & could not get up without wincing for weeks. I peed with no pain as soon as my catheter was removed.

Each situation is so different, we are never going to come to a consensus on whose birth was "better." Sure mine was not the birth I wanted, but it was SO easy for ME to get through, & it seems that no one who has birthed naturally or especially at home can really believe that...


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joesmom*
After my csection I took tylenol & dulcolax.







I didn't need a peri bottle. My sister delivered vaginally & could not get up without wincing for weeks. I peed with no pain as soon as my catheter was removed.

Each situation is so different, we are never going to come to a consensus on whose birth was "better." Sure mine was not the birth I wanted, but it was SO easy for ME to get through, & it seems that no one who has birthed naturally or especially at home can really believe that...

I'm not trying to say that my birth was "better". I don't intend to deny anyone their experience. I was simply astounded by the amount of drugs she took to feel okay. Sounds like she felt fine.

I do think, however, that women are meant to birth vaginally and how easy or difficult the recoveries of a bunch of women on the internet were would not affect my decision to give birth naturally if at all possible (not saying that I wouldn't undergo a c/s if medically indicated). My decision is for my own health and well being as well as that of my babies.


----------



## joesmom (Nov 19, 2001)

I didn't mean you were saying that- but the whole thread is about "which is easier..."

I agree with you that women are meant to birth vaginally- an internet forum would not change my decisions either- but it is interesting to read of other women's experiences.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joesmom*
Sure mine was not the birth I wanted, but it was SO easy for ME to get through, & it seems that no one who has birthed naturally or especially at home can really believe that...

Well...I believe it, because I can't see why you'd lie about it. But, it does boggle my mind, and I've never birthed naturally.

I don't know why I even read these threads. Now I just feel like a wimp again, and I've always pretty good at dealing with pain. I don't know how someone can have their abdomen sliced open and be "pain free" - I just don't get it. I've never heard anybody say they cut themselves with a knife and it didn't hurt or they got cut with a piece of glass and it didn't hurt..._how_ can surgery not hurt?


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
Wow, so wifeandmom, you took Percocet, Gas X, colace, and benadryl? That's a whole lotta drugs.









I took some regular ibuprofen for afterpains after both of my homebirths and used a peri-bottle to pee. I was a little sore, but fine.









Don't forget the Duramorph in my spinal and the Ibuprofen after I was done with the Percocet.









Pain meds after major abdominal surgery is shocking to you? That's an interesting way to look at it.









And from what I've seen of the moms who tore during vaginal delivery, or heck, even the ones who DIDN'T tear, taking a Colace a day til BM's are well established again would be a good idea for them as well. At least I wasn't sitting on the toilet crying while I tried to poop for hours. Colace is a STOOL SOFTENER. I fail to see what the big deal is with taking a stool softener.

Two Benadryl for itching post-op and some Gas X to prevent gas...maybe I didn't *need* the Gas X, but I didn't wait around to find out if horrid gas pains, which are common post-c/s, were going to have me doubled over in pain. I was a farting fool, but I sure wasn't hurting when I needed to be taking care of my newborns, getting the hang of breastfeeding, etc.

I fail to see how playing the martyr by taking no pain meds, ESPECIALLY after a surgical delivery, is going to help anyone. It's a pro/con type situation, as most things in life are. What good am I to my brand new babies if I'm doubled over in pain, not able to walk across the room for weeks? I simply didn't have that as an option to be honest. My husband went back to work (not by choice, hello military) when my twins were 4 days old and when my singleton (with 13 month old twins to care for as well) was ONE day old. Refusing pain meds would have been a very stupid approach IMO, as I had children to care for without the luxury of having a whole lot of help while I did so.









Of course, I'm also one to take pretty much any Class B drug during pg, esp after the first 10 weeks when all organ systems and such are already developed. I've even been known to take a Class C drug during one of my pg after weighing the pros and cons of doing so vs. NOT taking it. I know some women won't even touch a Tylenol during pg, and that's certainly their perogative, I just don't see the point of it.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

I started having regular, pain-free bms a couple hours after birth, and I was certainly never sitting on the toilet in tears.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Don't forget the Duramorph in my spinal and the Ibuprofen after I was done with the Percocet.









Pain meds after major abdominal surgery is shocking to you? That's an interesting way to look at it.









I just never thought about it really. No need to martyr oneself at all.

And,







: to the_lissa. Pooping after birth can be sensative, but if you eat properly, no need to take a bunch of meds.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*

I don't know why I even read these threads. Now I just feel like a wimp again, and I've always pretty good at dealing with pain. I don't know how someone can have their abdomen sliced open and be "pain free" - I just don't get it. I've never heard anybody say they cut themselves with a knife and it didn't hurt or they got cut with a piece of glass and it didn't hurt..._how_ can surgery not hurt?

PLEASE don't feel like a wimp!! If you were in pain, you were in pain! There is nothing wrong with that. They DID cut you open, and that typically DOES hurt. Refusing to take adequate post-op pain meds is only going to compound the problem, and really, there is no point in doing so.

Will the narcotics make your baby sleepy? Probably at least a little bit. But my experience has been that even babies born to moms with NO pain meds whatsoever and NO pain meds while BF were still at least a LITTLE sleepy in the first few days after being born. Birth is a big deal for a baby, and it's NORMAL for them to be sleepy after delivery. It's something to keep an eye on, not suffer horrific pain over, or at least that's how I looked at it.

You have a big job to do after having a baby. Establishing an on-going BF relationship was critical in my mind, and I cannot imagine trying to do so if I was in horrible pain. And, if you MUST have a c/s, it makes a whole lot more sense to ME to take the pain meds for a few days so you can focus your efforts on more important things...like falling in love with that new baby and making milk for him or her.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
I just never thought about it really. No need to martyr oneself at all.

And,







: to the_lissa. Pooping after birth can be sensative, but if you eat properly, no need to take a bunch of meds.

Hmmm...

There are A LOT of women on this very board that need to be educated in this matter then. I've read a thread on the very subject in the last week or so IIRC that talked all about the horrors of pooping after a significant tear during vaginal delivery.

If you are torn into your rectum, I fail to see how 'eating properly' is going to change the fact that you've got stitches in your rectum.

Even the women on that particular thread that DIDN'T have significant tearing spoke of how awful it was to poop for quite some time. I couldn't help but wonder why they weren't told to take something to PREVENT such problems in the first place, esp the ones who had significant damage down there.

Perhaps some education is called for if all it takes is proper eating though. Who'd have thought that was all that it took to make pooping around a huge tear that's been stitched up was all it took.


----------



## shelbean91 (May 11, 2002)

Of course you're going to have pain meds during and after surgery. I think that's the point. After most vag births, there are much less meds needed than after most csec births. Of course, there are exceptions, but on the whole, a vag birth would be easier to recover from physically- regardless of how easy you recover from surgical birth.

As I posted earlier, my recovery from my csection went relatively well. But, my vag births were much easier. If you've had both, you probably agree with me, but maybe not. if you haven't had both, you are only able to imagine what recovery from the other is like, for the most part.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa*
I started having regular, pain-free bms a couple hours after birth, and I was certainly never sitting on the toilet in tears.

And I had two pain free c-section recoveries. Your point?

Obviously we were both not 'typical' in that most c-section moms have at least SOME pain at SOME point during recovery and most moms who have delivered vaginally remember very well (and not for a GOOD reason either) their first attempts at pooping after delivery.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shelbean91*

As I posted earlier, my recovery from my csection went relatively well. But, my vag births were much easier. If you've had both, you probably agree with me, but maybe not. if you haven't had both, you are only able to imagine what recovery from the other is like, for the most part.

I've never thought of it like that, but you are probably right. Had I delivered vaginally, I would not have hesitated to take whatever pain meds were necessary to deal with the pain, both during labor and after the baby was born.

I will say I have no warm squishy feelings over the thought of dealing with the aftermath of significant tearing, and of course, you have no way of knowing if you'll be the unlucky one. Reading women's stories of painful sex for MONTHS after delivery...well, I'll admit it runs through my mind to be VERY thankful that was never a possibility with c-sections.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Hmmm...

There are A LOT of women on this very board that need to be educated in this matter then. I've read a thread on the very subject in the last week or so IIRC that talked all about the horrors of pooping after a significant tear during vaginal delivery.

If you are torn into your rectum, I fail to see how 'eating properly' is going to change the fact that you've got stitches in your rectum.

Even the women on that particular thread that DIDN'T have significant tearing spoke of how awful it was to poop for quite some time. I couldn't help but wonder why they weren't told to take something to PREVENT such problems in the first place, esp the ones who had significant damage down there.

Perhaps some education is called for if all it takes is proper eating though. Who'd have thought that was all that it took to make pooping around a huge tear that's been stitched up was all it took.









I didn't think we were talking about people who had tears. Women who birth naturally and instinctively will most likely not have 4th degree tears. That is something that you are likely to NEVER see in a homebirth. 4th degree tears into the rectum are almost ALWAYS the result of episiotomies.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
I didn't think we were talking about people who had tears. Women who birth naturally and instinctively will most likely not have 4th degree tears. That is something that you are likely to NEVER see in a homebirth. 4th degree tears into the rectum are almost ALWAYS the result of episiotomies.

I didn't specifically say either way, and from what I've read, it doesn't really matter if you tear or not...pooping afterwards isn't going to be pleasant.

The only moms I know IRL who had 3rd or 4th degree tearing did so *without* having had an episiotomy first, but forceps due to extreme fetal distress (as in the baby's in question were blue and floppy at birth) were a common factor in most of the cases.

Oh, and my neighbor who has homebirthed all six of her kids has had anywhere from no tearing at all to a full 4th degree tear with two of her births. She's just one mother of course, but honestly people around here don't typically homebirth at all, so my real life example pool consists of her and her alone.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

I didn't say pooping after childbirth was FUN, but it didn't involve crying on the toilet. Just patience. And certainly, eating lots of fiber and drinking LOTS of water helps.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I birthed at home and had a small peculiar tear that was not stitched. I never had a problem pooping. Didn't even feel uncomfortable.

-Angela


----------



## shelbean91 (May 11, 2002)

For me, the *thought* of pooping after birth was WAY worse than *actually* pooping after birth.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
PLEASE don't feel like a wimp!! If you were in pain, you were in pain! There is nothing wrong with that. They DID cut you open, and that typically DOES hurt. Refusing to take adequate post-op pain meds is only going to compound the problem, and really, there is no point in doing so.

If I have another baby, and actually need a c-section (I wonder what a necessary c-section is like...probably a very different emotional state, but probably not any better...I don't know), I won't have any pain medication. If I'd been able to feel the pain better in my first 24 hours, I probably wouldn't have twisted a staple last time - I probably would have healed up properly - I probably wouldn't have spent the next two months coping with an infected incision.

Quote:

You have a big job to do after having a baby. Establishing an on-going BF relationship was critical in my mind, and I cannot imagine trying to do so if I was in horrible pain. And, if you MUST have a c/s, it makes a whole lot more sense to ME to take the pain meds for a few days so you can focus your efforts on more important things...like falling in love with that new baby and making milk for him or her.








I've breastfed all three kids. Pain is pain - it sucks. But, pain in my incision didn't mean I couldn't bf. I can't imagine trying to stand at a stove and sterilize bottles and mix formula post-c/s, so I guess a lot of it is perspective. I basically psyched myself, and refused to admit that formula even existed...if I didn't breastfeed, my babies would starve. Once I had myself in that mindset, the pain wasn't terribly relevant.

I don't find that Tylenol and ibuprofen really touch the c/s pain. The duramorph did, but I'd rather be in ten times the pain than have to cope with the itching. I'm not a martyr - I just think there are worse things than pain. Anyway, for me, the worst thing about the c/s pain is that I can't cry...and after a section, I really, really need to cry.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Will the narcotics make your baby sleepy? Probably at least a little bit. But my experience has been that even babies born to moms with NO pain meds whatsoever and NO pain meds while BF were still at least a LITTLE sleepy in the first few days after being born. Birth is a big deal for a baby, and it's NORMAL for them to be sleepy after delivery. It's something to keep an eye on, not suffer horrific pain over, or at least that's how I looked at it.

My baby was not sleepy. Seems like most homebirthed babies are a lot more awake than hospital babies.

-Angela


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I've never taken stool softeners. But, last time, having learned, I ate a bunch of grapes, peaches & plums after my surgery. I had no problems. I'd never been at the point of crying on the toilet, but I certainly found it something to dread in the initial weeks after my first two surgeries.


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

I wish my c-section experience was as easy as wifeandmom says hers was.

My first child was a c-section and my second was a drug-free vaginal birth.

The vaginal birth was a lot easier to recover from and a lot less painful overall.

While the contractions are a lot stronger than any pain I had from the c-section, the c-section pain lasted a much longer time.

The afternoon after dd was born, probably 20 hours later, I walked to the bathroom for the first time. I felt like all my organs were going to spill out onto the floor. It was horrid. I took the pain medication they gave me but by 3 hours after I felt like I needed more but had to wait another hour before I could get more vicodin.
Moving around was not easy for weeks. Getting up and down, positioning the nursing pillow, and rolling over in bed were hard for many weeks as well. Getting up at night to feed dd was hard because I didn't know how to side lie at first.

Months and years later I had pain around the incision area that I assume were adhesions.

ds was a home vbac. I was in labor about 26 hours with the last 4ish being the intense part. The burning of pushing hurt but only while he was crowning. That soreness quickly wore off. I was tender for a while but could walk around, sit and do everything else without fear. It burned when I peed almost 2 weeks but that was very temporary and I was able to handle it well. Nothing compared to the recovery from surgery.

I also think a big part of why I recovered so well is that at home I could sleep whenever I wanted and wasn't constantly being messed with like in the hospital when they came in every 2 hours to take vitals.

I'd definitely take another homebirth over c-section.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


The afternoon after dd was born, probably 20 hours later, I walked to the bathroom for the first time. I felt like all my organs were going to spill out onto the floor. It was horrid. I took the pain medication they gave me but by 3 hours after I felt like I needed more but had to wait another hour before I could get more vicodin.
Moving around was not easy for weeks. Getting up and down, positioning the nursing pillow, and rolling over in bed were hard for many weeks as well. Getting up at night to feed dd was hard because I didn't know how to side lie at first.
THIS is what I fully expected going into my first section. Even my second one, I figured I had only gotten lucky the first time around. Now with a third upon me in a few months, I am *hoping* to have it as easy as I did both times before, but fully realize there are no guarantees.

The side lying comment reminded me that there was no way I could do that. I propped up on several pillows instead. When I would roll on my side, all that massive amount of skin would shift towards the bed and pull on my incision. Didn't try that one again.







I think it didn't help that I had stretched out so much to accomodate nearly 14 pounds of babies in there, so we're talking A LOT of hanging skin there in the beginning. Ack.

Quote:

I also think a big part of why I recovered so well is that at home I could sleep whenever I wanted and wasn't constantly being messed with like in the hospital when they came in every 2 hours to take vitals.
EXACTLY why I was SO SO SO glad they discharged us 24 hours after my section. I freaked a bit at first at the thought of taking two brand new babies home that I was still trying to get the hang of nursing, but the reality was, we rested SO much better at home vs. in the hospital.

I knew that DH was fully capable of knowing if something was wrong with me, and I felt pretty confident in my ability to tell if something wasn't right with either of the babies, so it really worked out well.

With my second, I stayed 48 hours (GBS+ with ruptured membranes prior to section), and boy was I cussing by the end of that second night. It never failed that as soon as I had him nursed, changed, and settled, in would come somebody to do something that of course they thought was vitally important right.that.very.second. Argh. Very frustrating to say the least.

I am hoping to do another 24 hour stay with this section, as it was just a much better overall experience being able to get more rest at home that second night.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
If I have another baby, and actually need a c-section (I wonder what a necessary c-section is like...probably a very different emotional state, but probably not any better...I don't know), I won't have any pain medication. If I'd been able to feel the pain better in my first 24 hours, I probably wouldn't have twisted a staple last time - I probably would have healed up properly - I probably wouldn't have spent the next two months coping with an infected incision.

Obviously you have to decide what you feel is best for you overall, and you know yourself better than anyone else. I would point out that there are several other options besides staples though. The thought of staples really freaked me out for some silly reason, so I specifically asked for something...anything...else.

The first time I was sewn up til the last layer then had steri-strips. I thought those worked well. But then with my second they sewed me up til the last layer and then used this glue stuff for the last layer. Now THAT was nice and it's what I'll ask for this time too. My incision looks better now than it did after my first section...not that you can actually SEE it without lifting the belly fat...but that's not the point.









Quote:

I've breastfed all three kids. Pain is pain - it sucks. But, pain in my incision didn't mean I couldn't bf. I can't imagine trying to stand at a stove and sterilize bottles and mix formula post-c/s, so I guess a lot of it is perspective. I basically psyched myself, and refused to admit that formula even existed...if I didn't breastfeed, my babies would starve. Once I had myself in that mindset, the pain wasn't terribly relevant.
This was my attitude as well. Come hell or high water, my babies were GOING to nurse. I can only imagine that signifcant pain would make it harder to nurse, if for no other reason than having a baby lying across your belly that is throbbing must be terribly difficult. I know they say that's what the football hold is for, and after a few weeks, I had that down pat, but at first, it was much easier for me to get them to latch on correctly in the typical baby in mom's arms across her middle type position.

I guess my point is that for anyone reading this who might one day find herself dealing with post-op c-section pain and trying to nurse, I'd much rather she take something to ease the pain so nursing wouldn't be so hard, kwim? I knew a girl a few years ago that gave up nursing her first baby because of this very reason, and I always found it incredibly sad that their BF relationship was ruined by pain when it could have been avoided or dealt with.

Quote:

I don't find that Tylenol and ibuprofen really touch the c/s pain. The duramorph did, but I'd rather be in ten times the pain than have to cope with the itching. I'm not a martyr - I just think there are worse things than pain. Anyway, for me, the worst thing about the c/s pain is that I can't cry...and after a section, I really, really need to cry.
Benadryl is your friend! Literally one dose will stop the itching and it's unlikely that you'd need more. It's not a matter of itch/no pain OR no itch/pain. You really CAN have both, and from everything L&D nurses have ever told me, if you can avoid significant pain in those first 24-48 hours, your overall recovery will almost always be much, much, much easier.

Aside from the fact that I just don't care to be in agony if it can be avoided, I truly feel like it's important to take care of YOUR body as well as possible so you can give 100% to your baby. If I'd been doubled over unable to care for my twins at 4 days post-op, I truly do not know what we would have done. DH didn't have a choice but to return to work and the closest family we had was over 600 miles away.


----------



## ntengwall (Feb 21, 2003)

Well, considering that I was home 4 hours after my natural birth center birth and I was up putting a load of laudry in 2 hours after my homebirth, I would have to go with a NATURAL vaginal. I don't think the same necessarily applies to heavily mangaged vaginal births (drugs, forcepts, vacuum, episiotomy etc...)
I always tell my childbirth students that pain in labor is normal, pain for 6 weeks after giving birth IS NOT NORMAL. It will interefere with bonding and breastfeeding and I can't imagine anyone choosing that.
I'll leave you with a question I often ask of c-section proponents:
Would you ever choose to get your kidney removed on the same day you bring home your adopted child??? LOL


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ntengwall*
I'll leave you with a question I often ask of c-section proponents:
Would you ever choose to get your kidney removed on the same day you bring home your adopted child??? LOL

What on earth does my kidney have to do with anything?

Your 'anaolgy' has a serious flaw to it.

When you give birth, you either do it vaginally or by c-section. No other way to get the kid out that I'm aware of.

So if you're going to compare having a kidney taken out to having the kid by section, what is the comparison for vaginal delivery?

Maybe...'Would you rather have your kidney taken out OR would you rather pass an 8 pound piece of poop?' That might work...but just leaving it at having the kidney removed totally ignores the fact that delivering vaginally isn't a walk in the park either.


----------



## ntengwall (Feb 21, 2003)

My point was--who would choose to have major surgery (with all it's risks) when they have a newborn to care for. Obviously this comment was meant for elective c-sections for no medical reason.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ntengwall*
My point was--who would choose to have major surgery (with all it's risks) when they have a newborn to care for. Obviously this comment was meant for elective c-sections for no medical reason.

Ah, it just seems to me that your analogy doesn't work so well because the other side of having a kidney removed is NOT having a kidney removed. And the other side of a c-section is most certainly NOT doing nothing.


----------



## PerennialMom (May 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Benadryl is your friend! Literally one dose will stop the itching and it's unlikely that you'd need more. It's not a matter of itch/no pain OR no itch/pain. You really CAN have both, and from everything L&D nurses have ever told me, if you can avoid significant pain in those first 24-48 hours, your overall recovery will almost always be much, much, much easier.

Off topic, sort of, but Benedryl is an antihistamine....antihistamines dry up body fluids....breast milk is a body fluid. I found this out the hard way when I was rushed to the ER for a mold allergy and given one dose of Benedryl via IV. DS1 was only 4 months old.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Obviously you have to decide what you feel is best for you overall, and you know yourself better than anyone else. I would point out that there are several other options besides staples though. The thought of staples really freaked me out for some silly reason, so I specifically asked for something...anything...else.

The first time I was sewn up til the last layer then had steri-strips. I thought those worked well. But then with my second they sewed me up til the last layer and then used this glue stuff for the last layer. Now THAT was nice and it's what I'll ask for this time too. My incision looks better now than it did after my first section...not that you can actually SEE it without lifting the belly fat...but that's not the point.









Staples don't really bother me. I'd rather have staples, if that's what the surgeon's used to, than be sewn up by someone who isn't used to doing it. My point is that the drugs they gave me masked signals from my body. Those signals were trying to tell me something, and I couldn't hear it.

I've heard conflicting reports about the glue. Some people love it, but someone hear had a really bad allergic reaction to it, and someone else had it just...fail on part of her incision. Yuck.

Quote:

This was my attitude as well. Come hell or high water, my babies were GOING to nurse. I can only imagine that signifcant pain would make it harder to nurse, if for no other reason than having a baby lying across your belly that is throbbing must be terribly difficult. I know they say that's what the football hold is for, and after a few weeks, I had that down pat, but at first, it was much easier for me to get them to latch on correctly in the typical baby in mom's arms across her middle type position.
I found the football hold absolutely impossible. I never even tried it with dd or ds2, because it just plain didn't work for me. Side-lying was awful, as well. The only one that worked was holding the baby on my belly, which is what everyone thinks would be terrible.

Quote:

Benadryl is your friend! Literally one dose will stop the itching and it's unlikely that you'd need more. It's not a matter of itch/no pain OR no itch/pain. You really CAN have both, and from everything L&D nurses have ever told me, if you can avoid significant pain in those first 24-48 hours, your overall recovery will almost always be much, much, much easier.
Doesn't Benadryl dry up breastmilk? I've been warned off that kind of drug more than once as a breastfeeding mom. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to take a chance like that with dd, as I was having a lot of trouble getting my supply established, anyway. Pain relief just isn't that big an issue for me. I don't want the surgery in the first place...how much it hurts isn't really the point...the _damage_ is the point.

Quote:

Aside from the fact that I just don't care to be in agony if it can be avoided, I truly feel like it's important to take care of YOUR body as well as possible so you can give 100% to your baby. If I'd been doubled over unable to care for my twins at 4 days post-op, I truly do not know what we would have done. DH didn't have a choice but to return to work and the closest family we had was over 600 miles away.
If I were doubled over, I'd just do my best. I got stuck on my couch at 6 days post-op, unable to get up. Fortunately, I had him in my lap to nurse, so it was a diaper change, not a feeding, that was delayed. It had nothing to do with pain, though. I simply couldn't stand up. We were stuck there for almost 30 minutes. Pain wasn't relevant. What was relevant was that I'd had surgery, and could _not_ stand up. I can't give 100% post-op, because I'm not 100%...and it's not about pain. I don't see pain management as taking care of my body. Taking care of my body is about _healing_ the damage that's been done - not about masking it under drugs, so that I do more than I should.

I _hate_ pain medication...absolutely hate it. You're talking to someone who gets dental caries filled without freezing, because I'd far rather be in pain than have my mouth frozen. The drugs suck worse than the pain does.


----------



## ntengwall (Feb 21, 2003)

*"Maybe...'Would you rather have your kidney taken out OR would you rather pass an 8 pound piece of poop?' That might work...but just leaving it at having the kidney removed totally ignores the fact that delivering vaginally isn't a walk in the park either."*

I'm not saying that delivering vaginally isn't hard work--although my birth center birth and my homebirth were almost pain-free except for transition (and I had a 10 lb 4 oz baby!). My point is that afterwards (unless you have had unusual tearing) you feel great. I was barely even sore after my 10 lber. Very different from having a 6 inch long incision and major abdominal surgery.


----------



## liam's mom (Jun 18, 2003)

I've had both, and while the vaginal delivery was hardly easy, it was light years better than the recovery from my c-section.


----------



## myjulybabes (Jun 24, 2003)

I've had 2 c-sections, neither planned, and a medicalized VBAC in between. Mentally, the VBAC was awesome. Loved it. If by some miracle I have another child, I'll be pushing for a VBA2C. (no pun intended







)

But physically? My second section was easiest. I was up and walking short distances (like to the bathroom) in just a few hours, and longer distances and up and down stairs in less than a week. I only took the pain pills for about a week. Could have been less I'm sure if it had been a scheduled deal, but the little bugger had decided to turn transverse after 17 hours of labor, and with my pre-e, noone was really willing to wait and see if he'd turn back.

Now I'm sure a natural vaginal birth with little or no tearing would be easier still, but my VBAC didn't go that way. I can't say for sure if it was strictly necessary, but they were in a big hurry to get dd out (and she did take quite a bit of time to get breathing and pink up, so who knows), so I pushed her out in less than 10 min, no time for her bowling ball of a head to mold, so I ended up with a huge episiotomy. That sucker hurt alllllll the time for weeks. At least with my sections, I could help the pain by sitting or lying down. But there was no comfortable positions at all with a billion stitches in my yoni.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PerennialMom*
Off topic, sort of, but Benedryl is an antihistamine....antihistamines dry up body fluids....breast milk is a body fluid. I found this out the hard way when I was rushed to the ER for a mold allergy and given one dose of Benedryl via IV. DS1 was only 4 months old.

This is true, and must be kept in mind as a con to taking something for the itching. Just as the Duramorph is a long acting narcotic that will pass through your breastmilk and the narcotics I took after the Duramorph wore off, it's a matter of deciding if the risk is worth the benefit. Phenergran (sp?) is also an anti-histamine that has the side effect of relieving nausea, so that is another commonly used drug that moms should be aware of the possible consequences when taking it.

Considering I had enough milk to feed the entire neighborhood both times, that one dose of Benadryl within hours of my sections simply didn't faze my over-abundant supply.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Considering I had enough milk to feed the entire neighborhood both times, that one dose of Benadryl within hours of my sections simply didn't faze my over-abundant supply.









I might have been okay with it with ds2, then. With dd, when the itching was actually even worse, I'd have been furious if someone had suggested Benadryl, but without a warning about my milk. It took days for any kind of supply to come in as it was. DD's the only one of my children who ever got formula with my knowledge and consent...the poor little thing was starving, no matter how often I put her to the breast, nothing was being produced.

I honestly think that if a doctor ever again tries to tell me about the "benefits" of having a section without labour, I'll smack him/her. I suppose it could be a coincidence that dd is the only one of my babies to have had breathing problems and nursing problems, but I really don'tt hink so.


----------



## doctorjen (May 29, 2003)

For the itching related to narcotics like Duramorph (although all narcotics can cause it in folks who are susceptible) Benadryl is a possible choice, but it does cause pretty significant sedation in a lot of folks, as well as possibly affect milk supply (which is more of a problem after the mature milk comes in than before.)
Another option is Nubain, a narcotic agonist/antagonist which usually takes the itching away without as much sedation. This is what our anesthesiologists use.

I agree that you can't really make a prediction that will hold true for every person. I attend a lot of births, though, and in general, the vaginal birth moms are a lot more comfortable post birth. It is absolutely not routine for the vaginal birth moms I attend to need a narcotic after birth. Nor do I routinely see any problem with pooping after birth. I routinely leave an order for ibuprofen, and many of the second and higher times moms take it for cramping. A lot of the first time moms I attend don't take anything at all. I am not stingy with pain meds, though. If someone is hurting, I want to make them better if at all possible - it's just that I don't really see women having that much pain after a normal vaginal birth. We also are very good about non-medical pain relief at my hospital, for delivered moms, and they can do things like soak in a whirlpool bath, use a traditional sitz bath, have a heating pad, a nurse to rub their back, etc, and many moms use at least one non-medical method of pain relief, too. Almost never do I have someone go home on a narcotic, and only sometimes on the ibuprofen.

To give you an idea what sorts of births I attend, in my practice, of moms who birth vaginally, I attend about 30% moms who have an epidural, about 50% that have an IV narcotic once during labor, and about 20% who have a pain-med free birth. I do not routinely do episiotomies (my rate hovers at around 2%, or generally about 1 mom out of 50, only for real fetal distress and a true need to shorten labor) I have about a 3-5% vacuum assisted delivery rate, and about 40% of first time moms and much less repeat moms with some stitches for tearing. I have yet to see a spontaneous 4th degree tear in about 200 births since I started practicing. I have had a few partial 3rd degree tears, usually associated with persistend posterior babes and prolonged pushing. Most women who I attend birth their babies either squatting, in hands and knees, or side-lying, with some on their backs, and I don't do any pushing coaching other than things like "Oh, look we can see the hair!"

Most of the cesarean birth moms I take care of have either duramorph post-spinal, or an epidural catheter in place for the first 24 hours. They are up and moving within a few hours after birth, and we get everyone up to shower the next day. 24 hours after birth, the epidural, foley catheter, IV, etc are all removed and most moms take oral narcotic combinations (like Vicodin) pretty routinely. Most go home with about 30-40 Tylenol #3 or Vicodin and I usually see moms taking them for the first 1-2 weeks. Most cesarean moms in the hospital are needing help to get up for the first 2-3 days. The more they move in the first day or so, the less trouble we see with gas pains which can be as bad as the surgery pain it seems.

So, who knows what someone's individual experience will be like, but in general that's what I see.

My own 4 vaginal births were fairly easy recoveries. My first I had an (unnecessary) episiotomy and had pain the first few weeks because of that, but not enough that I even took oral pain meds. The other 3, I felt wonderful post birth, and with all 4 I honestly remember the first few days after birth to be the best I have ever felt - from the endorphin high, no doubt! All 4 of mine were unmedicated, spontaneous labors and births (the second an accidental UC after a very short active labor.) After 4 babies, I also have no lasting problems like incontinence, pain, numbness, problems with sex, etc, except for some stretch marks!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Blech. Duramorph, for the pain (which is a side effect of surgery), then more drugs for the duramorph, which can either muck up my milk or sedate me (which I _hate_). And, my doctors wonder why I hate having c-sections. I think part of the problem is that there's this attitude that if something is hidden by medication, it doesn't exist..."you're not in pain - you have duramorph". I don't see it that way.

I want to have another baby, but it sucks to know that if my doctors have their way, I won't be able to look after it.

doctorjen - I wish you worked around here!


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

I was given morphine in an IV just after my section, but not for long. The itching was TERRIBLE. It's the second time I've had morphine and both times I itched from head to toe uncontrollably.
then when I was sent home they put latex tape on my incision, even though I'd probably told them 12 times in two days I'm allergic, it's on my chart, I asked about the tape specifically, etc... I literally cried the itching was so bad and they kept saying, "It's normal for your scar to itch". I finally went to a doctor to said it was okay to take it off (they'd originally told me 12-14 days) and instantly the itching was relieved.







:


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

[. Birth itself was simply a way to get a baby out of me alive. How that happened truly didn't matter, I just wanted LIVE babies.








:









Are you insenuating(sp?) that ceserean birth is more likely to produce LIVE babies than vaginal birth?







:


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

wifeandmom said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> There are A LOT of women on this very board that need to be educated in this matter then. I've read a thread on the very subject in the last week or so IIRC that talked all about the horrors of pooping after a significant tear during vaginal delivery.
> 
> ...


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
[. Birth itself was simply a way to get a baby out of me alive. How that happened truly didn't matter, I just wanted LIVE babies.








:









Are you insenuating(sp?) that ceserean birth is more likely to produce LIVE babies than vaginal birth?







:

In *some* cases, c-sections *absolutely* are more likely to produce LIVE babies. Heck, in *some* cases, a section is the ONLY reason that baby comes out alive.

Are you suggesting otherwise?







:


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Emilie said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
> ...


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

no-

but your use of that fact to promote elective ceserean on a natural family forum is. You can fear monger elsewhere if you please- but i do not think that MDC is the place for it.

I also find your comment about being able to have sex sooner a perk to a c/s a bit baffling.

In some cases. Yes. You are right cesareans save lives. Can you explain to me why the hospital rate for c/s is so high then versus a hb rate?


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

I wanted to add I had a vaginal birth, in a hospital. Labor was excruciating. I can't describe how bad it was. I had pitocin. (I don't feel it was needed, but thats another story, and its my fault for not pushing the issue. I know better for next time now.) But.... Delivery itself was simple! I pushed for less than 10 minutes. I had a tiny tear (I needed about 3 stitches) and I did push while on my back and in stirrups. I was hardly sore at all afterwards. It felt like I had some rough sex. (sorry if TMI!







) I pooped about 8 hours after having my dd and it did not hurt at all. I refused the Percocet and Motrin offered afterwards. I didn't use the Tucks or Ice packs, either. I didn't need anything! I was up and walking around feeling as good as gold right after delivery. You would never know I *just* had a baby. BUT..... My dd was only 5 lb 13 oz with a small head. (I forget the circumference, but it was smaller than "average") Labor may have been really bad, but I liked how I did not require any time at all to recover. I would rather terribly suffer the 24 hours than moderatly suffer for several weeks (going by what others said) afterwards from a section.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

i had augmented labor with ds1 and going from 1-3 cm was in a hospital was so much worse than all labor & delivery with dd at home.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
In *some* cases, c-sections *absolutely* are more likely to produce LIVE babies. Heck, in *some* cases, a section is the ONLY reason that baby comes out alive.

Are you suggesting otherwise?







:

I think it's quite clear what she's suggesting is that the idea that c-sections produce more live births is a crock, which it is.
It's like saying that a hysterectomy, in *some* cases, is the ONLY reason a mother survives childbirth. Does this mean it should be done all the time? Hell no. Does it mean it should be done frequently? NO!!! It's a surgery, and just like any others it has it's reasons...


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

thanks L.T.









I think that by saying it- that she wanted LIVE babies was to suggest that dwlivering vaginally was not safe- and that imo is EXTREMELY harmful to women and our society.


----------



## illinoismommy (Apr 14, 2006)

I've only had a vaginal birth, but since I had a 4th degree tear recovery was awful. My c-sectioned friend looked a lot better than me during recovery.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
thanks L.T.









I think that by saying it- that she wanted LIVE babies was to suggest that dwlivering vaginally was not safe- and that imo is EXTREMELY harmful to women and our society.









ITA.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
thanks L.T.









I think that by saying it- that she wanted LIVE babies was to suggest that dwlivering vaginally was not safe- and that imo is EXTREMELY harmful to women and our society.









I *did* want two LIVE babies. And in *my* particular situation, the statistically safest way to go about arriving at two LIVE babies was a c-section.

Please do not assume I am implying in any way that ALL women fit into the very narrow set of circumstances that I faced when pg the first time, because I simply have never said any such thing.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleteapot*
I think it's quite clear what she's suggesting is that the idea that c-sections produce more live births is a crock, which it is.
It's like saying that a hysterectomy, in *some* cases, is the ONLY reason a mother survives childbirth. Does this mean it should be done all the time? Hell no. Does it mean it should be done frequently? NO!!! It's a surgery, and just like any others it has it's reasons...

You are certainly free to read into my posts whatever you wish. It does not make your assumptions correct.

In *my* particular situation, a c-section was statistically safer than the alternative options. Please point out where I said (you know, actually SAID something, not where you are ASSUMING your leap in conclusions is logical and correct) that c-sections produce more live babies than vaginal delivery.

I've actually never seen any such study in the first place, one that compares first time elective c-section babies to first time vaginal delivery babies. Does such a study even exist in the first place? And how do you really study something like that?

If a baby is alive after an elective section, there's obviously no way to determine if they would have survived a vaginal delivery or not. If a baby is alive after a vaginal delivery, would that baby have survived an elective section? And if a baby gets in obvious trouble during an attempted vaginal delivery, would that count as a 'dead' baby for the vaginal delivery side even if baby arrives safely by emergency section? Or would that count as a live section baby? See the problems with studying this??


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
no-

but your use of that fact to promote elective ceserean on a natural family forum is. You can fear monger elsewhere if you please- but i do not think that MDC is the place for it.

I have always, and will continue to, promote CHOICE by women when it comes to birth. I absolutely believe every woman should have adequate information on her choices, and her choices should be respected. Period.

I am appalled when I hear of women fearing CPS involvement simply because they choose to homebirth. I am appalled to hear that insurance companies refuse to cover homebirths attended by certified midwives. It's a disgrace, because it TAKES AWAY CHOICE from the woman.

That, first and foremost, is what is important to me.

Quote:

I also find your comment about being able to have sex sooner a perk to a c/s a bit baffling.
Why? Is that threatening too? It was an unexpected perk, may or may not happen this time around. Either way, it was on the 'plus' side of the column when it was all said and done. On the 'minus' side was having to sleep propped on pillows for 2 weeks cause lying flat was certainly possible, but getting up again was a joke without help.

There are pros and cons to everything we do. If all you want to focus on is the positive side of vaginal delivery, while focusing solely on the negative side of c-sections, well...that's your right I guess. It just doesn't make for intelligent discussion IMO.

Quote:

In some cases. Yes. You are right cesareans save lives. Can you explain to me why the hospital rate for c/s is so high then versus a hb rate?
Um, well, where to begin.









Eidted out my list of reasons by request of moderator due to gross generalizations regarding the medical community and physicians who deliver babies.









Those are off the top of my head.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I AM aware of many of these issues surrounding birth in our culture today.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

Here is the problem....You are using numbers and calculations and statistics based upon HOSPITAL deliveries which includes a large number of interventions.....

you can not get a clear picture of how birth would happen if left alone- by doctors and nurses and statisticians- if it was just left to be BIRTH- the act of a woman bringing her baby- or babies in your case- naturally. this does not only mean w/o an epidural- but with no interventions.

What were your circumstances leading to a c/s- since you brought it up


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Wifeandmom, is there a reason why you're being so incredibly belligerent about this?


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

Here i just read you say that c/s recovery was no big deal- now i hear you could not get out of bed unassisted?

hmmm....

I am confused.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you- It concerns me greatly that in this Dr=God society- womens ability to birth has been robbed from them.....and I want to know WHY.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
Here i just read you say that c/s recovery was no big deal-

I just wanted to jump in again. I hear this statement ALL THE TIME from pro-c-section moms. _All the time!_
What they fail to mention is that c-section recovery 'can' be easy for some women provided they take their heavy duty pain medication every few hours! No one walks away from major abdominal surgery without a recovery time. You better be choking those babies DOWN!
My c-section recovery was "amazingly fast and easy" according to everyone else, including the doctor, but I suppose with the experience of a natural birth recovery under my belt I certainly didn't agree!! I didn't have to take anything after my vaginal, but there was no WAY you'd see me three days postpartum without meds after a huge surgery.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

[_B]I really can't imagine delivering two almost 7 pound babies vaginally in the same day or an almost 9 pound baby the following year would have been any easier, but I never thought my sections_ would be that easy either.[/QUOTE[/B]]

this sums up what i have a problem with. this attitude is what is leading women into opting for ELECTIVE c/s. Period.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
Here is the problem....You are using numbers and calculations and statistics based upon HOSPITAL deliveries which includes a large number of interventions.....

you can not get a clear picture of how birth would happen if left alone- by doctors and nurses and statisticians- if it was just left to be BIRTH- the act of a woman bringing her baby- or babies in your case- naturally. this does not only mean w/o an epidural- but with no interventions.

What were your circumstances leading to a c/s- since you brought it up

Homebirth was never a consideration for me. The studies that support homebirth (and they DO support homebirth, I want to make it clear that I understand this 100%) *repeatedly* state that homebirth attended by a competent midwife in a routine, LOW RISK PREGNANCY is at least AS safe as hospital birth, and in many instances, maybe even SAFER.

There are some qualifications there if you noticed. First is a qualified midwife, something that was not available to me at the time. Second is a LOW RISK PREGNANCY, something that was not the case for my particular pregnancy.

So, the issue of 'what if' I'd had them at home is moot at best. There was nothing statistically available to me to say that a high risk delivery at home with nobody but my DH and myself present was even remotely a good idea.

On to my pg itself. I carried vertex/vertex twins to term with rising blood pressure, although nothing alarming and decent 24 hour urine results. Babies consistently passed NST/AFI/BFP...until the very end.

At that point, Baby A had no measurable fluid left. None. They simply could not find a single pocket of fluid large enough to measure on her. Tried several times over 3 days to get a pocket to measure. I was drinking GALLONS of water, peeing over 4 LITERS of urine in 24 hours, so dehydration was certainly not the problem. By the end of the 3rd day, she was no longer passing the NST, and had obviously been 'failing' the AFI that entire time.

Baby B wasn't doing much better. She had severe calcification of her placenta, the worst possible grade it could be, although how they even grade them (is it letters? numbers?) slips my memory at the moment. Her heart rate was hovering consistently above 200. Nothing I did or didn't do made a difference in her heart rate.

So....

They *needed* to come out, or at least that was the conclusion of 4 perinatoligists who were overseeing my pregnancy.

There are a lot of reasons that I was against induction, but for grins and giggles, some of the reasons were as follows:

1. My Bishop score was a big fat zero. My cervix was hard, closed, and still just over 5 cm in length (as long as it was at my first u/s to measure cervical length at 18 weeks). The chances of induction being successful, again based on research, were very, very, very slim.

2. The hospital where I was delivering (with no choice in the matter except to go completely unassisted at home that is) was not known for good vaginal delivery outcomes with SINGLE babies, much less twin births. They could botch the simplest, most straight forward vaginal delivery it seemed.

The horror stories from that place would take up an entire server, and aren't really the point.

I did trust one of the peris I was seeing to be a competent surgeon however. And they obviously couldn't come out of my nose.









3. Twin B is known to be at higher risk during vaginal birth in comparison to Twin A. There has actually been a study released since I had my twins that clearly showed elective section reduces Twin B's chance of death by 75%.

Now....I had to make a choice. I never had any dreams of pushing out babies. It just never mattered to me one way or another. I figured I'd end up being sectioned either way to be honest, and I was fine with that. That was how *I* felt about it.

I did not go into that OR without understanding what I was asking them to do though. I understood I was twice as likely to die (4 times as likely if it's not a scheduled section). I understood there were so many things they could accidentally knick inside my gut that it wasn't funny. I understood that I had an 8% chance of post-op infection (rate approaches 25% or more with unplanned sections).

I understood I might require a blood transfusion. I might not come out with my uterus at all, effectively ending my childbearing days forever. I understood it would likely hurt like he!! after it was all said and done. I understood my milk might not come in as fast, it might be harder to nurse (esp twins) with an incision to deal with.

Further, I understood that any future pg I might be blessed with would be more at risk for all sorts of problems. I would likely have a very hard time finding someone to agree to a VBAC attempt if I ended up hating the whole section experience. The more sections I had, the more at risk I was of a whole host of problems. Any future babies would face increased risks as well.

I got all that. Truly I did.

But I also understood that on that day, there were two babies inside me that weren't doing so hot inside me anymore, and again, they couldn't take them out of my ear. I picked what I decided was the lesser of two evils and prayed that I fell on the good side of statistics.

I was very fortunate. Not so much that I lived or anything like that, as the overall risk of death during section simply isn't high enough IMO to say 'I got lucky' to make it out alive. But I was lucky in that none of the awful stuff that I often read, hear, and had prepared myself for mentally came to pass. I never had any pain, never had any trouble nursing, no infections, nothing. No complications whatsover.

Now, in my third pg, I have a partial previa. 1 in 200 women with an unscarred uterus have it at delivery. 1 in 50 women with 2 prior sections have it at delivery. So, there's a 75% chance that it's directly related to the sections I've already had.

I understood that this was a possibility before I ever signed on that dotted line almost 5 years ago. And I'd sign it all over again.

I do not sugar coat things, neither in favor of section OR in favor of vaginal delivery. It's about choices, and we all have to make them for ourselves and our children and hope that we are making the right choice at the time.

Even if I had possessed a crystal ball, and could have foreseen a previa in this 3rd pg, I'd have taken my chances with the previa. The two babies inside me at the time were safer coming into this world by section, of that I had no doubts whatsoever.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
Here i just read you say that c/s recovery was no big deal- now i hear you could not get out of bed unassisted?

hmmm....

I am confused.


I could not lie flat and get up unassisted.

So I propped my pillows up behind me and all was well.

I do not consider needing DH to assist me one time in sitting upright to be a huge wrinkle in recovery. It didn't hurt when I tried to sit up, I just *couldn't*. So he held out his hand for me, I pulled myself up, and didn't lie flat like that til my abs were recovered more from the shock of being cut apart.

Does that help?


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleteapot*
Wifeandmom, is there a reason why you're being so incredibly belligerent about this?









Me?

I'm answering the questions being posed directly to me.

If I ignored the questions, would you question that as well?

Just because you do not like the answers, doesn't mean I'm being 'belligerant'.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
[_B]I really can't imagine delivering two almost 7 pound babies vaginally in the same day or an almost 9 pound baby the following year would have been any easier, but I never thought my sections_ would be that easy either.[/QUOTE[/B]]

this sums up what i have a problem with. this attitude is what is leading women into opting for ELECTIVE c/s. Period.

I am sorry you have a problem with my experience.

I clearly stated that I never anticipated my sections being so easy. Never in a million years. I was *terrified* to stand up after surgery with my twins. Absolutely terrified. I believe the thought that ran through my head was something like 'You asked for this, you got it, and now it's time to face the music.'

I never dreamed I'd stand up and NOTHING would hurt. I walked across the room. Still nothing. Went to the bathroom. Felt fine.

I was shocked to put it mildly. I had been warned that it would be simply dreadful. I'd feel like my insides were falling out. I wouldn't be able to walk for days, maybe weeks. Forget being able to take care of my babies by myself. All that jazz.

It just didn't happen like that.

At all.

And that's my experience. It's all I have to go on.

I can't imagine going through an induction and pushing out two babies (esp in the hospital I had to deliver in at the time) could have possibly been any easier.

I mean, I guess maybe I would have shot them both out with no trouble, no pain whatsoever (does anyone ever actually go from 0 to 10 on pitocin with NO pain whatsoever?), and been up running around the building 4 hours later. It could have happened I guess. I just don't see that as a very practical expectation, that's all.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
I've read a thread on the very subject in the last week or so IIRC that talked all about the horrors of pooping after a significant tear during vaginal delivery. [...] Even the women on that particular thread that DIDN'T have significant tearing spoke of how awful it was to poop for quite some time.

Here's the thread -- http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?p=5328854 I'm not seeing any posts (except the c-section mom) in which it's stated that there was great difficulty having a bowel movement after a birth in which there was no significant tearing. Almost all the posters mentions 3rd and 4th degree tears (which we can assume, if we want to give creedence to the studies that have been done, virtually never happen without surgical or instrumental birth.)

Quote:

most moms who have delivered vaginally remember very well (and not for a GOOD reason either) their first attempts at pooping after delivery.
No doubt. But then, most moms (at least in the US) have surgical or instrumental or hormonally disturbed births, too. So that's to be expected. There's no evidence, though, that it's normal.

Quote:

I will say I have no warm squishy feelings over the thought of dealing with the aftermath of significant tearing, and of course, you have no way of knowing if you'll be the unlucky one.
Well, it's not a matter of chance. It's pure cause and effect. Given certain conditions you could pretty darn sure of tearing, or not. If I'm allowing my body to birth spontaneously and instinctively and unhindered by distraction or inhibition, I'm not going to tear significantly (depending on other factors such as diet,) and probably not at all. It has nothing to do with luck.

Quote:

Reading women's stories of painful sex for MONTHS after delivery...well, I'll admit it runs through my mind to be VERY thankful that was never a possibility with c-sections.
And I'm thankful that it was never a possibility with my vaginal births. The notion that vaginal birth is inherently damaging to the body is one of the greatest obstetric myths.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*

Well, it's not a matter of chance. It's pure cause and effect. Given certain conditions you could pretty darn sure of tearing, or not. If I'm allowing my body to birth spontaneously and instinctively and unhindered by distraction or inhibition, I'm not going to tear significantly (depending on other factors such as diet,) and probably not at all. It has nothing to do with luck.


Would you advocate continuing to allow your body to birth 'spontaneously and instinctively' if your baby's heart rate bottomed out and didn't come back up AT ALL during the final minutes of pushing? Or would you consent to whatever it took to get that baby out immediately?

And are you saying that there is ZERO chance of a baby going into severe distress as long as you do everything 'naturally'?

My point is that if you are the 'unlucky' one who has a baby in severe distress, I'd venture to guess that you'd consent to whatever it took to get the baby out promptly. And then you'd deal with the repercussions of such intervention later.

Really, what is up with this insistance that if mom would just do everything 'naturally' that NOTHING could possibly go wrong or hurt or be troublesome down the road? I don't get it. It's just not true.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

I don't see anyone insisting that at all. However, having natural and unhindered births significantly LESSONS the chances for these interventions or problems to arise.
Education on proper nutrition during pregnancy can make a huge difference, for instance. Blood pressure, toxemia, pre-e, etc...
Not having your waters broken won't lead to infection.

The problem with medical care is fear of being sued. So they go overboard.
Baby's heartrate is falling - so what do they do? C-section of course! Thank god they saved that baby's life! But was that baby really at serious risk?

Example:
I have reoccuring hangnails. I could go to a doctor and say, "This hurts like #%*, it's a huge problem!". It's leading to repeated infections, pain, etc. If hangnails were like 'complications' during labour, he might choose to cut off my finger at the top knuckle.
Thank god he saved my finger! No one can argue he didn't stop the problem and intervene, it was a HUGE risk to leave it just sitting around like that.

But ... what if he'd actually tried to find out what was *causing* the hangnails, infections and pain? What if in the vast majority of cases my top knuckle didn't need to come off at all and I could have kept it if I'd only persued other treatment? What if all I needed to do was apply a salve and I would have been just fine?
I'd probably feel pretty crappy if I found that out and I might even fight tooth and nail (no pun intended) to prove that he NEEDED to cut off part of my finger and that other people with the same situation should have it done, too.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*

And I'm thankful that it was never a possibility with my vaginal births. The notion that vaginal birth is inherently damaging to the body is one of the greatest obstetric myths.

Here you are again insisting that it was NEVER a possibility that you'd have painful sex afterwards. How is that even possible to be CERTAIN you wouldn't end up in an emergency situation where baby HAD to be out right then, even if it meant a huge episiotomy and/or forceps?

How is it possible for you to go into vaginal birth KNOWING for CERTAIN that something wouldn't go wrong and result in pelvic floor damage of some kind?

Please don't misunderstand, I am not even trying to suggest that any of these complications are COMMON, only that if you have a c-section, your vagina will NOT be torn. I can guarantee it. With 100% certainty.

The same simply cannot be said for vaginal birth. You can reduce your chances of tearing/damage, but you cannot eliminate the chance altogether. To suggest that you CAN do so is just....well....wrong.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleteapot*

Example:
I have reoccuring hangnails. I could go to a doctor and say, "This hurts like #%*, it's a huge problem!". It's leading to repeated infections, pain, etc. If hangnails were like 'complications' during labour, he might choose to cut off my finger at the top knuckle.
Thank god he saved my finger! No one can argue he didn't stop the problem and intervene, it was a HUGE risk to leave it just sitting around like that.

But ... what if he'd actually tried to find out what was *causing* the hangnails, infections and pain? What if in the vast majority of cases my top knuckle didn't need to come off at all and I could have kept it if I'd only persued other treatment? What if all I needed to do was apply a salve and I would have been just fine?
I'd probably feel pretty crappy if I found that out and I might even fight tooth and nail (no pun intended) to prove that he NEEDED to cut off part of my finger and that other people with the same situation should have it done, too.

Good example.







I have a hard time coming up with examples that 'work', but I like this one.

What do you think would happen if the doc in question was afraid of being sued for NOT cutting off your finger at the joint, as that's simply the 'expected' treatment for whatever might go wrong with that fingernail?

Even if he knows that he really probably could just put some ointment on it and all would be well, that one case in however many hundreds or even thousands, that's the case that can put him out of the finger business altogether.

Add in the fact that no docs really get sued for actually cutting off the finger at the joint, but plenty are hung out to dry for going with the ointment route first. And sometimes, they are sued by the very patients who ASKED for the ointment vs. the cut-off-the-finger approach. Talk about adding insult to injury.

So, they continue to cut off the finger at the joint. Cause it's the way things are done, it's what the average citizen EXPECTS to happen. And if you're brave enough to try the ointment first, well, good luck with that if the ointment doesn't work out so great and the patient loses their entire hand.

I'm not saying it's right that things are like this, just that it IS. And until it changes, it will continue to be this way. And yes, it is very sad.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

Please don't misunderstand, I am not even trying to suggest that any of these complications are COMMON, only that if you have a c-section, your vagina will NOT be torn. I can guarantee it. With 100% certainty.

The same simply cannot be said for vaginal birth. You can reduce your chances of tearing/damage, but you cannot eliminate the chance altogether. To suggest that you CAN do so is just....well....wrong.[/QUOTE]

So are you suggesting women should give up vagina birth and have c sections?

This type of talk is igniting fear in girls and women all over the world- and it is effecting generations.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
Please don't misunderstand, I am not even trying to suggest that any of these complications are COMMON, only that if you have a c-section, your vagina will NOT be torn. I can guarantee it. With 100% certainty.

The same simply cannot be said for vaginal birth. You can reduce your chances of tearing/damage, but you cannot eliminate the chance altogether. To suggest that you CAN do so is just....well....wrong.


Quote:

So are you suggesting women should give up vagina birth and have c sections?

This type of talk is igniting fear in girls and women all over the world- and it is effecting generations.








No, I am *not* suggesting that vaginal birth should be abandoned to eliminate the possibility of tearing.

The entire discussion where this came up was in regards to pros/cons of each type of delivery IIRC. There are distinct advantages to delivering vaginally, but there are also advantages to delivering by section.

I see over and over and over again that women need ALL the information to make an informed choice, but it appears the only information that is 'acceptable' with regards to c-sections would be all of the BAD stuff, and that seems hypocritical at best.

Is there really such a huge fear that if women have a full list of pros and cons for BOTH deliveries that women will just flock to the OR en masse?

To me, knowledge is power. And that power will enable an intelligent woman to look at the big picture and make a decision based on ALL of the information, not just some of it.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

the thing is- you are talking about medical procedures and I view birth as something entirely different. It is hard to find a woman who will birth without drugs- ( i was one of them) It is hard to put into words the spiritual journey that labor and birth can be..... it is something you can not grasp without experiencing....and with more and more women choosing to not attempt to labor at all- it is difficult to imagine that it iwll have no impact on our society.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

wifeandmom said:


> Is there really such a huge fear that if women have a full list of pros and cons for BOTH deliveries that women will just flock to the OR en masse?
> 
> they are because the hosital they are getting these stats from is not giving the whole picture.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Emilie said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
> ...


----------



## TanyaS (Jun 24, 2003)

Unmedicated vaginal birth is unbelievably easier to recover from physically and mentally. I went home from the hospital 12 hours after my dd's birth with no pain at all (no tears, just some bruising) compared to three DAYS in the hospital for my c/s and most of the first year in pain. There is also the emotional trauma that I'm still not over five years later. It's not bad, but it rears it's ugly head when I'm pregnant or someone close to me is pregnant. In addition, planning a VBAC in the birth climate in this country is extremely stressful. Something no pregnant woman should have to deal with.


----------



## moppity (Aug 15, 2005)

I have only had one baby so I can't compare for myself but my cousin had a c section and I had a vaginal birth within 6 months of each other. I know her recover was A LOT faster than mine. I was induced, tore badly, took 2 hours to stitch and didn't enjoy sex for about a year.


----------



## ckhagen (Sep 6, 2004)

With my first, I was induced, spent 38 hours in labor, and then had a c-section.

I spent 5 days in the hospital, wasn't allowed to eat until the 4th day because I had gas SO bad from the surgery that the gas moved up into my shoulders and neck, making it hard to move. My incision was excruciating... I wasn't able to get out of the bed until 2 days after the surgery. I spent the first two days on a morphine drip, then almost 2 weeks on percosets. The ride home from the hospital was spent mostly in tears because every little crack in the road was like being punched in the stomach over a fresh incision.

The whole experience was a complete nightmare. And to think, I didn't have any problems with infection, oozing, stitches popping back open, or anything of that nature. I can't even imagine having that on top of what I was already going through.

My second birth was a completely unmedicated vaginal birth in a birth center with a midwife. My little guy was 9lbs and I was in labor for almost as long as with the first. I had a tiny tear repaired with one stitch, got up and moving around within 30 minutes or so and then left the birth center 4 hours later. I got a good nights sleep and then went to brunch the next morning (I birthed over 2 hours from our hometown) before returning for a 24 hour checkup.

The recovery from my VBAC was so incredibly different from my c-section that I can hardly put it into words. I literally felt like I hadn't even given birth within a few days.

I know not everyone's vaginal birth recovery can be as wonderful as mine was. But, it's now obvious to me that I was not designed to have a surgical birth. My body obviously deals very well with vaginal birth and I'm so greatful for that and hope I never ever have to have a c-section again.

Mentally of course the vaginal birth was a major high compared to my c-section where I felt victimized, abandoned, and broken. The sense of accomplishment (the "I did it!!!!" feeling") was overwhelming and makes me smile every time I think about it.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Would you advocate continuing to allow your body to birth 'spontaneously and instinctively' if your baby's heart rate bottomed out and didn't come back up AT ALL during the final minutes of pushing? Or would you consent to whatever it took to get that baby out immediately?

And are you saying that there is ZERO chance of a baby going into severe distress as long as you do everything 'naturally'?

I didn't say, or imply, either of those things.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Here you are again insisting that it was NEVER a possibility that you'd have painful sex afterwards. How is that even possible to be CERTAIN you wouldn't end up in an emergency situation where baby HAD to be out right then, even if it meant a huge episiotomy and/or forceps?

Because in a hormonally and physically normal birth, the baby _does_ come out _right then._ This will be the result when there is nothing to interfere with the hormonal process, the pelvis is not deformed and is allowed to open maximally, and the mother isn't trying to push the baby out before her body is ready. Episiotomy and forceps are interventions useful in dealing with iatrogenically or environmentally dysfunctional second stage. It's another obstetric myth that in some women the perineal tissue simply will not stretch enough. If the mother's body is capable of producing the hormones that get the baby to the entrance of the birth canal, it is capable of producing the hormones that can make the surrounding tissue stretchy. Unless it is not given enough time to do so, or distraction or fears interfere with the release of those hormones. Very often women have a relatively normal first stage because they are left relatively in peace, but once she's reached "full dilation" the circus starts. That's when many women's bodies suddenly lose the ability to move the baby down and out.

Quote:

only that if you have a c-section, your vagina will NOT be torn. I can guarantee it. With 100% certainty.
And I think that no one has actually disagreed with you about that.

Quote:

The same simply cannot be said for vaginal birth. You can reduce your chances of tearing/damage, but you cannot eliminate the chance altogether. To suggest that you CAN do so is just....well....wrong.
Some women experience vaginal trauma during childbirth. It does not follow that it is inherently a risk. In terms of the biochemistry of birth, it makes no sense, unless you simply believe that birth is inherently difficult because of the size of the baby in relation to the vagina. I am telling you that this is a myth, pure and simple. Hormonally, the vagina is made to be able to stretch to admit a baby just as well as it is able to stretch to admit a penis. So. If you are healthy and the hormonal process is undisturbed, you will come through unscathed. This is not just conjecture, there is no mystery or chance here, it is logical cause and effect.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*

So. If you are healthy and the hormonal process is undisturbed, you will come through unscathed. This is not just conjecture, there is no mystery or chance here, it is logical cause and effect.

I might could go along with that idea, except you just have NO WAY of knowing beforehand if your baby will be stable enough to allow a completely undisturbed delivery or if nature will necessitate taking 'unnatural' action to save the baby's life and/or health.

To me, that's a risk.

Not a great one in terms of how often I'd guess it might actually happen, but it's a risk nonetheless. Just as a prolapsed cord is a risk of vaginal birth, vaginal tearing/trauma is a risk.

I do not *ever* attempt to gloss over the very real risks of a c-section, so it is quite amusing really to see all this insistance over the very real risks of vaginal birth. None of it is risk free, and overall, in a healthy mom carrying a healthy baby, the risks associated with vaginal birth (while different than c-section risks) are less than just trotting off to the OR for no apparent reason.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a 'con' side to vaginal birth with a whole host of things that CAN and DO happen REGARDLESS of how 'natural' your birth is planned to be.


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

I can't imagine a c-section could even compare if it was a normal low-intervention vaginal birth with no complications. I've had 3 vaginal homebirths. I just had my third last week. I was pretty much done bleeding by the third day, and was back to doing all my normal household chores. 9 days later I'm mowing the lawn. I can't imagine that would ever be possible with a c-section.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

wifeandmom-
birth is not something to fear.


----------



## shelley4 (Sep 10, 2003)

i've had two vaginal births.. one in the hospital (transfer after attempted home birth), and one at home. after my home birth, i felt *radiant* for weeks! i felt like i was high or something, i just felt so empowered. i felt physically fabulous on the same day as dd's birth, i felt like i could run a marathon! (with ds, it took 3 days to feel normal, but i did tear with him). my bleeding was completely gone by 2 wks in both cases.

i've never had c/s to compare it to, so i can only imagine it would be harder, with surgical pain and whatnot.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
wifeandmom-
birth is not something to fear.

Under ordinary circumstances, I agree with you.

Under my particular circumstances, the chance of burying my second born twin was much higher than an ordinary birth. A very large part of that was the direct result of having no real choices regarding where I would deliver and with whom I was forced to place my 'trust'. It was either take what the military had to offer or go completely unassisted at home. Both 'choices' were very scary indeed.

It is one of the biggest reasons I am such an advocate for moms being given CHOICES in the first place. Given a different setting in which to birth, vaginal delivery might very well have been a viable option.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

I think that experiences like yours frame how you view birth.
The same as my 2 totally different experiences helps to shape mine.

I think natural birth is important for women and society and I will advocate for women to birth at home with a mw.

I need to say the reason you do not find people jumping on board with your lets talk about pros for cesarean talk is that there is enough of it in our society. By doctors, nurses, hmo's.
C/s provides a live baby- why should anyone complain?


----------



## doula and mom (Nov 28, 2005)

To answer the original q --

PHYSICALLY: We're comparing having your stomach cut open and a baby pulled out, then the rest of you is put back together and sewn into place versus pushing a baby out of your vagina.

Honestly, is there REALLY a question?







:

MENTALLY: Again I'm going to go with the vaginal, however I know women who schedule c-s and seem okay with it. It just seems to depend on your point of view. If you think a c-s is great, then you're going to be fine mentally. If you plan to have a non-medicated vaginal birth and end up with a lot of interventions, then you'd probably not be thrilled with your vaginal birth. But I think recovering physically would help mentally, and the vaginal recovery is just so much easier.

But women who want a completely "natural" birth in the hospital are living in fantasyland, in my experience, because hospitals intervene, PERIOD, and there goes her dream. I think many women are on the fence about "natural" birth. They want it, yet they want a doc/hospital there "just in case." They don't trust their bodies or themselves, and they usually end up disillusioned or discontent.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

[ I think many women are on the fence about "natural" birth. They want it, yet they want a doc/hospital there "just in case." They don't trust their bodies or themselves, and they usually end up disillusioned or discontent.[/QUOTE]

This is due to the medical model of birth that is the only model women know. FEAR. Just in case?
So many hospital procedures CAUSE the things women are afraid of happening.







:


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

I might could go along with that idea, except you just have NO WAY of knowing beforehand if your baby will be stable enough to allow a completely undisturbed delivery or if nature will necessitate taking 'unnatural' action to save the baby's life and/or health.
I think I must not have been clear before. If the mother's body is hormonally capable of a hormonally and physiologically normal first stage and her birth canal is not deformed, then her body is capable of a hormonally physiologically normal (i.e. *speedy*) second stage. For a woman (such as myself) for whom this applies, there are no reasons other than iatrogenic, environmental, or pyschological ones for her body to fail to birth the baby or to birth it in a dysfunctional (e.g. slow) way. If I avoid those things, there is no reason for second stage to be prolonged, and there will therefore be no need for instrumental or surgical delivery through my vagina. It is totally irrational to believe otherwise. I'll say it once more: it is a myth that problems occur "for no reason". _Prolonged second stages are the result of iatrogenic, environmental, or psychological causes_ in which there is time for the baby to suffer from distress in the birth canal, necessitating a forced delivery. If you don't believe that, I'd suggest doing some reading on the hormonal process of birth and what sorts of things create dysfunctional second stage.

In the case of a natural complication that was causing distress to the baby, I would have a c-section.

Quote:

I do not *ever* attempt to gloss over the very real risks of a c-section, so it is quite amusing really to see all this insistance over the very real risks of vaginal birth.
I'm not glossing over anything. I'm saying that you are wrong, and that under certain conditions certain risks do not exist. For my part, I don't find it amusing at all that you believe that bodily damage from vaginal birth is an inherent risk for all women. I find it very sad.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*

I'm not glossing over anything. I'm saying that you are wrong, and that under certain conditions certain risks do not exist.

And here we are, back again, to you insisting that certain risks 'do not exist' under these 'conditions'. Ok. I'll give you that.

What you simply *cannot* control with 100% certainty is that you'll actually MEET those 'certain conditions'. And if you happen to fall in the unlucky few who do NOT meet those 'certain conditions' where vaginal tearing 'is not a risk', well you're just out of luck I guess.

Quote:

For my part, I don't find it amusing at all that you believe that bodily damage from vaginal birth is an inherent risk for all women. I find it very sad.
It is a *possibility* that you will tear during a vaginal delivery. It absolutely does not HAVE to be a common occurrance, if like you've said, you meet certain conditions (no meds, no coached pushing, likely no pushing flat on back, no need for last minute intervention for baby in distress, etc etc etc).

You simply cannot control ALL of those variables, and for you to continue insisting that it IS somehow possible is what I find odd. It certainly doesn't do any good to the women who DID do everything possible to decrease their risks of complications, yet found themselves facing a 3rd/4th degree tear DESPITE their best efforts. Did they just do something wrong or what?

And to clarify one thing here, you are saying that it is medically IMPOSSIBLE for a baby to go into such severe distress as to necessitate sudden forceps delivery (which we all know can result in significant tearing) as long as mom meets these 'conditions' during labor/pushing? NEVER? It could literally NEVER happen?

Your comment that you'd just have section if baby were in that much trouble doesn't really work in the real world either cause there comes a point where it truly is safer to use forceps to get the baby out vs. going to section since forceps are faster once the baby has come through the birth canal to a certain point. When time is of great importance, tearing mom's vagina/perineum/rectum becomes a secondary concern at best, as it should.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
I'll say it once more: it is a myth that problems occur "for no reason". _Prolonged second stages are the result of iatrogenic, environmental, or psychological causes_ in which there is time for the baby to suffer from distress in the birth canal, necessitating a forced delivery. If you don't believe that, I'd suggest doing some reading on the hormonal process of birth and what sorts of things create dysfunctional second stage.

Ok, where would a shoulder distocia baby fit into your picture here? Would that be the result of 'iatrogenic, environmental, or psychological' complications? Cause it could certainly cause baby to go into severe distress, even die, right there in the birth canal from my understanding.

And the things that they do to get that baby 'unstuck' could very well lead to some trauma to mom if I had to guess. I'm thinking if it came down to breaking the baby's collar bone, that involves an entire hand/forearm inside the vagina (quite forcefully I'm sure, as it's not like we've got all day to get baby unstuck), along with the fact that the baby is already filling the birth canal...and how much room are we talking here?

So if baby is literally stuck, what do you blame that on?

Breech babies also come to mind. Sometimes they get stuck.

Cord around baby's neck is notorious for causing distress, especially if the cord is short and being stretched and/or compressed during pushing.

How does one go about controlling for those types of variables?


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

*How does one go about controlling for those types of variables?*
It appears that one school of thought represented on this thread's answer would be: seek out the most competent surgeon one can find, and put all faith in the medical model to save us from our faulty and unpredictable biology.

I know so many other-wise quite "crunchy" mamas who will RUN to the trusty OB to save them from themselves. Well, they'll run only if they're "low risk," that is









Choice is great, if the choices are truly all in a woman/baby dyad's best interest. I suppose "best" is just as subjective as "safe" though


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

:


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia*
It appears that one school of thought represented on this thread's answer would be: seek out the most competent surgeon one can find, and put all faith in the medical model to save us from our faulty and unpredictable biology.

I know so many other-wise quite "crunchy" mamas who will RUN to the trusty OB to save them from themselves. Well, they'll run only if they're "low risk," that is









Choice is great, if the choices are truly all in a woman/baby dyad's best interest. I suppose "best" is just as subjective as "safe" though









Yes, the medical model with a competent surgeon certainly IS the safest alternative for SOME women in SOME circumstances.

To deny this as fact is simply ignorance. Even the WHO acknowledges that c-sections are necessary in what is it? 10% of women? That's 1 in 10 who NEED the medical model in order to come out of childbirth alive with a live baby. Or maybe the WHO is wrong?


----------



## shellbell (Jun 18, 2006)

Teehee!! I'm not really going to get into this discussion, but I am wondering if allycat... the original poster is still folowing this thread... and what she now thinks. I wonder where all of this has gotten her in her search for an answer.

(((((Allycat))))) are you out there? Whatdya think now? Do ya have your answer?


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

:


----------

