# Birth is NOT normal



## trimommy2009 (Mar 22, 2012)

WHAT?? Ok, a little background. I've always felt that birth is a normal and natural thing. God and Mother Nature designed us perfectly for the task at hand. I attempted a natural Birth Center birth with my first son which ended up in a c-section, my second son was born at home 4 months ago (one of these days I might have time to actually post my birth stories) and it was the most amazing experiance EVER. I whole heartedly advocate natural birth for soooo many reasons. That being said I also believe every woman has the right to choose the birth that will make them most comfortable, therefore I try to educate those I love without preaching and support them in whatever decision they make. I truly believe the best and safest birth will happen where the mom feels the most secure and safe. For some that is a hospital and for some that is at home.

So on to the story...I was talking with one of my very best friends about her 1st pregnancy and upcoming birth. She is currently 32 weeks pregnant and planning an blissful, "pain-free" epidural hospital birth. This always surprised me about her as her mother had all three of her kids naturally and her older sister had 4 natural births, two of them at home where my friend was present. Anyways, she was telling me about watching The Baby Story (which I think should probably be banned for all pregnant women), I jokingly told her to stop watching that and to stop reading horrible blogs about all the things that can go wrong in birth (yikes). I suggested that, even though she is planning a hospital birth that perhaps she watch some natural births on Youtube to get the idea in her head that birth is natural and normal, that things proceed normally without problems (I'm by no means saying things don't go wrong, just that they don't deviate as ofter as shows and blogs like that make women believe). She actually said to me...birth is not natural. WHAT???? I asked her to explain and she said that it is SOOO painful it isn't normal. She said when her OB asked what kind of birth she wanted, her OB was thrilled when she stated an epidural because she see's too many things go wrong with natural births.

When did this happen?? When did women stop believing in their god-given super power of giving birth naturally and NORMALLY!! It's happening even to women who have attended natural home births. Geez 'normal' women don't have a chance of believing in themselves!!!


----------



## tonttu (Dec 24, 2010)

Looks like she is getting herself ready to happily fall into the " let´s do every intervention possible and say yes to everything doctor says " trap .

You should ask her " if birth is not natural , how come mankind has survived for as long as they have ?"


----------



## rs11 (Sep 28, 2011)

Yes, birth is not natural. We've only been doing it without the help of hospitals for 150,000 years.

/sarcasm off.

Seriously, my best idea is that she's scared. It's her first, after all, and she knows about everything that can go wrong. I'm *terrified* at the thought of giving birth, and I'm not even pregnant yet.


----------



## tonttu (Dec 24, 2010)

And then to end up in hospital , with every possible thing gong wrong and doctor throwing one intervention at her after another is really a recipe for disaster .

Many times , those are the type of women , that completely loose faith in their body´s ability


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

To play devils advocate for a minute, why does it matter to you? It's her birth. You can say your piece about your philosophy of birth, then let it go. I know women who've birthed with epidurals and chose epidurals for their subsequent babies and feel fine about their decision. Even if they come away from it thinking "man, I'm glad the docs were there to help me with an epidural and XYZ", at the end of the day if they feel good about the decision and they and their baby are all right, they're entitled to their own feelings about their birth just like you are entitled to your own feelings about yours.

While birth is natural, many things that are natural aren't safe and can be painful/go wrong. Enough women and babies survived childbirth to perpetuate the species, but that doesn't mean there weren't a number of losses that we probably wouldn't consider acceptable.

I think MOST women do get epidurals (maybe not on MDC, but most women in the general population) and seem to like them.


----------



## trimommy2009 (Mar 22, 2012)

You're right, of course. It is her birth and it shouldn't matter to me. I guess I'm just sad to see my friend, who is so strong and smart is so many areas of her life fail to see that same strength in her own body. I need to stay on the right side of the educational support vs preach line.

Thanks for the mental check, I can be a better friend to her by just supporting her.


----------



## StudyingStones (May 16, 2012)

I'd like to chime in on this, if I may.

When I was pregnant with DS (my first pregnancy), I was TERRIFIED of birth. I had no idea what I was in for, but I imagined horrible, horrific pain that no person should want to go through. When I made my birth plan, the first thing I asked for was an epidural "as soon as possible".

Looking back, I don't regret my decision. I was very scared of the pain, and having an epidural and being in the hospital was the most comfortable thing to me. In hindsight, I wish I had read the books that I have read now, and believed in myself and my body to give birth naturally (I had a short 6 hour labor and only 20 minutes of pushing!) This time around I am planning a homebirth with a midwife (that is WHEN we get pregnant), but it would not have been the right thing for me the first time around.

Maybe your friend is experiencing some of the pain that I and a lot of first-time mothers face.. the fear of the unknown is a powerful thing, and fear of pain is even more powerful. Try to give her a break, and let her learn from her own experience. Who are you to say what is right or wrong for her birth experience? (sorry, that wasn't meant to sound snarky). I now consider myself truly for homebirth, but I would never advocate that it is right for everyone, and first time mommas do sometimes experience fear as to what birth will be like.


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trimommy2009*
> 
> You're right, of course. It is her birth and it shouldn't matter to me. I guess I'm just sad to see my friend, who is so strong and smart is so many areas of her life fail to see that same strength in her own body. I need to stay on the right side of the educational support vs preach line.
> 
> Thanks for the mental check, I can be a better friend to her by just supporting her.


Makes sense. I think also you could be helpful by discussing ways to deal with the pain in a way that meets her where she is--even if she does want an epidural, there will probably be time laboring at home, in the car, while waiting for anesthesia, etc. that having some coping techniques up her sleeve could help her even if she does plan on the epidural.


----------



## tropicana (Sep 11, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rs11*
> 
> Yes, birth is not natural. We've only been doing it without the help of hospitals for 150,000 years.
> 
> ...


crashing.

i too was terrified at the thought of giving birth.

i wasn't sure i wanted a natural birth.

i wound up getting one, and the experience did change me.

my very first thought after birthing my daughter (in a hospital with no pain relief) was: "i could do that again."

three years later, i did do it again, gave birth to my son (also in a hospital with no pain relief -- this time, planned that way.)


----------



## SympatheticDad (Jun 26, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trimommy2009*
> 
> You're right, of course. It is her birth and it shouldn't matter to me. I guess I'm just sad to see my friend, who is so strong and smart is so many areas of her life fail to see that same strength in her own body. I need to stay on the right side of the educational support vs preach line.


A husband and father here dropping in to opine. I totally don't get this attitude - your friend is strong and smart and getting pain relief doesn't in any way diminish that. To put this in perspective, if one of my male co-workers said to me "I'm getting a root canal tomorrow, and I've decided to get novocaine and whatever other pain relief is available" I certainly wouldn't think to myself "Pfffft, what a wimp and a loser that guy is. If he was a real man he'd just tough it out. I'm sad for him because he's not living up to his Dental Warrior potential."

If you don't want or need pain relief - hey, that's great! But there are no merit badges handed out for being more or less 'natural' than the next guy (or gal!). I think instead of feeling sad for your friend, you should address the real issue and work on not feeling sad for her - and, instead, support her birthing choices 100%.

Birth is a profound experience - even as a bystander I can see that. But I have no problem saying with confidence that in the long run, how we come into the world is of miniscule importance compared to how our lives are lived afterwards. Your friend wants to maximize her chances of having a healthy baby, while minimizing the amount of pain and suffering she has to go through to get there, and she's decided medical pain relief is the way to go. There is nothing shameful about avoiding suffering, or about using medicine to relieve that suffering, and I think you should seriously ask yourself why her wanting to ease her pain (sort of?) bothers you so much.


----------



## StudyingStones (May 16, 2012)

*SympatheticDad,*

I used to think this way too, and in fact I used almost the exact same example you just did for why women are silly to not accept pain management during labor. My opinion has since changed (I now have a 5 year old). I think maybe the OP's concerns (of course, I can't speak for her), are not that her friend is WRONG for choosing to have an epidural, but overall sadness that women don't have faith in their bodies to give birth naturally, and are so paralyzed by the fear that they opt for an epidural and hospital birth because that's the societal norm.

I am not judging here - that is exactly what I did with my son because I was TERRIFIED of the pain, and you are right, there is nothing shameful about that. 5 plus years later and lots of reading and research on natural labor, and I am going forward with different expectations of what labor/delivery will be like next time around, and I believe that will make all the differene in my next experience.

I do agree with you that there are no merit badges for having natural childbirth (but maybe there should be!). I think what most women feel/are concerned about with epi's and hospital birth in general, is that there are so many unnecessary interventions that can take place, and that it can take away from the experience and the bonding that mom and babe share in those first initial moments. I truly believe that had I not had a hospital, intervention filled birth, my son and I would have had a better start, and could have had a successful breastfeeding relationship.

That is not to say that hospitals and pain management and other resources provided by hospitals aren't worthwhile - for some families, they are an absolute lifesaver, and I am so grateful to live in a country where women have the option of either a hospital or a home birth. Just my two cents here.. I agree with the other PP's that OP should be less concerned with what her friend is choosing for her birth, as women need to be able to choose what feels safe and comfortable for themselves.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

I'm just going to quietly delete my comments.


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

Quote:


> This always surprised me about her as her mother had all three of her kids naturally and her older sister had 4 natural births, two of them at home where my friend was present.


It sounds like your friend is (for this culture, at least) unusually experienced with birth, given that she's a first-time mom herself. She knows a lot, she's seen a lot, and, on that basis, she's made a decision for herself.

Watching other women give birth isn't going to assure all women of their god-given power to get through this experience unmedicated. Different people are going to react differently - some will feel that the pain and loss of control are appalling, and they'd prefer to avoid them. That's their choice to make.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Sympathetic Dad: Giving birth cannot be compared to having a root canal. Giving birth is a natural process that women's bodies were designed to do! Having a root canal, while necessary, is not something your body is designed to do.

The pain of injury and the pain of labor-in my experience, NOT the same thing at ALL. Labor will be MUCH more painful if you are fearful (speaking from experience here) as well as MUCH more painful if the natural process is tampered with by having strangers around, bright lights, no privacy, beeping machines, people talking to you, being jabbed with needles, not allowed to eat or drink, and forced to lie still on your back.

Birthing practices in hospitals are NOT evidence-based. Unnecessary interventions hurt babies and mothers immeasurably. I realize these are strong claims but what I'm saying is backed by research.

My problem with epidurals and all the rest is not that a woman is weak for choosing one. It's that they come with very real risks and decrease your chances of a good outcome. They should be taken seriously and should only be used as a last resort.

If women were educated about birth and their bodies, and supported by practitioners who also understand birth and give *evidence-based* care, epidurals would still be needed in some cases, but would certainly NOT be the default for birthing women.

I have friends whose labors were stalled from fear/exhaustion/whatever, and then progressed rapidly after they got an epidural. I have no doubt there are cases when epidurals are wonderful. I totally would get an epidural if I *needed* one for any reason.

But it bothers me a lot when I see women assuming everyone needs one. Natural birth really should be the default and pain relief should be used as a tool only when needed. From the time we are little girls in this culture, we are told, both with subtlety and implicitly, that giving birth will be the most horrifically painful thing a human can experience, that it's so bad you think you're going to die, etc. Let's just say this can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't underestimate the mind-body connection.

It's difficult to say this in a way that still respects women who have had that horrible scary-pain nightmare, but it doesn't have to be like that. I had 2 babies at home with zero interventions. I can't even describe what a wonderful empowering experience natural birth can be. It was not awful, scary, and the "pain" was not unbearable. Don't get me wrong, it was intense and memorable and at times not much fun. But it was also thrilling and filled me with pride while I was doing it. The thought of missing out on the true experience and all of the real feelings, through external interventions, is way more awful to me than anything I experienced during labor and birth. I'm not saying this to discount or deny other women's bad experiences. Just keep in mind, birth is always intense--but it isn't necessarily bad, painful, or any of that.

I wish more women could understand this! Statistically speaking, it would lead to better outcomes for everyone, a more gentle welcome to the world for babies, easier breastfeeding, quicker recoveries for women, less stress, and more feelings of self-worth if women's natural abilities were not constantly doubted and undermined by well-meaning but ignorant people!

/end rant


----------



## WildDoula (Nov 3, 2010)

I think that's really what the OP is experiencing, the frustration that her friend cannot see "the light at the end of the tunnel." She cannot see the merit of natural birth, cannot see herself being strong enough, capable enough, etc. And that really does suck. We shouldn't be conditioned that way at all.

Is natural birth for everyone? No. But women should at least know that they CAN have an unmedicated birth. That they aren't broken and don't need to rely on doctors and hospitals to "fix" their "ailment." It seems that many people think childbirth and pain meds go hand in hand, when really it's not an integral part of the process.


----------



## courtneymtx (Aug 2, 2012)

I really find it sad that you feel your friend isn't making a strong choice because it isn't the same as the choice you would make. I am not trying to pass judgement here, but friendship is supposed to be mutual including respect of decisions. I don't know you or your friend, but your post seems to indicate that she doesn't pass judgement on the decisions of others she loves (ie. attending a home birth, being a close friend to you through your births, etc.). Sometimes it really is being the best friend you can be to not feel a need to educate or to judge, but to simply be loving and supportive showing that person you respect them and trust them knowing they will do what they feel is best according to them. The fact that she stood up to you shows that she is plenty strong and has made a decision that she views as best to her without telling anyone else what they should do or how they should do it, nor condemning the choices of others.

When we judge our friends choices we often cause a barrier to be there which also disables us from supporting them when they need it most. If you want to feed the friendship then agree to disagree in personal choice on this matter, but respect each other enough to listen, share, support and love. If something should happen during her birth the last thing you want is her to not turn to you for support for fear of judgement.

Love more, judge less and realize that by virtue of it being "choice" opinions will vary.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Her birth, her body, her decision.

Not everyone needs to have a natural childbirth to feel empowered and happy with themselves. Those of us who do often times dont present ourselves well and come off as holier than thou to our friends who arent choosing a NCB path. Some women don't like being disappointed, and would be very dis-empowered if they planned a natural childbirth and it didn't go the way they wanted it to. I think it's awesome to have a natural childbirth, but I wouldnt do much to try and convince a friend who is 32 weeks pregnant with her mind made up.

And, it's not natural for women to be in that much pain. Women shouldnt be strapped to a bed where they have no ability to control their pain by movement- that is not natural.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trimommy2009*
> 
> I guess I'm just sad to see my friend, who is so strong and smart is so many areas of her life fail to see that same strength in her own body.


Why is choosing not to feel pain the same as failing to see strength in one's body, though? My agonizing menstrual cramps are all natural, but I choose not to writhe in pain - I use painkillers. Does this mean I do not see the strength in my body? What's the difference?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StudyingStones*
> 
> [...] not that her friend is WRONG for choosing to have an epidural, but overall sadness that women don't have faith in their bodies to give birth naturally, and are so paralyzed by the fear that they opt for an epidural and hospital birth because that's the societal norm.
> 
> [...] I think what most women feel/are concerned about with epi's and hospital birth in general, is that there are so many unnecessary interventions that can take place, and that it can take away from the experience and the bonding that mom and babe share in those first initial moments.


Why assume that women who choose an epidural "don't have faith in their bodies" or "are so paralyzed" by fear, though? Maybe they just choose not to feel pain during this process - what's wrong with that?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> My problem with epidurals and all the rest is not that a woman is weak for choosing one. It's that they come with very real risks and decrease your chances of a good outcome. They should be taken seriously and should only be used as a last resort.
> If women were educated about birth and their bodies, and supported by practitioners who also understand birth and give *evidence-based* care, epidurals would still be needed in some cases, but would certainly NOT be the default for birthing women.
> ...


How do you define "good outcome"? I define it as "healthy baby, healthy mom" - in that order. How does an epidural decrease safety?

Also, when an epidural should be used should be up to the individual woman - it is not up to you or anyone else to decide if the woman in now in the land of "last resort" and "needs" an epi. It is pain relief. Pain relief should be available to patients experiencing pain as they feel it is needed. Period.

Do you realize how insulting you sound when you imply that anyone who has used an epi (or other interventions) has missed "out on the true experience and all of the real feelings" of their child's birth?!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildDoula*
> 
> I think that's really what the OP is experiencing, the frustration that her friend cannot see "the light at the end of the tunnel." She cannot see the merit of natural birth, cannot see herself being strong enough, capable enough, etc. And that really does suck. We shouldn't be conditioned that way at all.
> 
> Is natural birth for everyone? No. But women should at least know that they CAN have an unmedicated birth. That they aren't broken and don't need to rely on doctors and hospitals to "fix" their "ailment." It seems that many people think childbirth and pain meds go hand in hand, when really it's not an integral part of the process.


What "light at the end of the tunnel"? What if she doesn't believe there is any merit to natural birth, for her? She's obviously been exposed to it, knows it's a viable option, and then rejected it. Why must her choice be subjected to all these assumptions that she just must not be strong enough, informed enough, courageous enough, or is too conditioned by societal norms??


----------



## Alenushka (Jul 27, 2002)

First of all, if God and nature designed us perfectly, you would not have a c-section. Bodies are not perfectly designed. Nature designed our species with huge percentage of reproductive wastage in mind. I do not understand how you fail to see the irony of your own statement in the light of your own expirience.

If you did what nature intended, your baby would have died, maybe you as well, Or perhpas you would have survived with fistula like hundred thousand of women in Africa. humanity evolved because we used our brains to develop modern medicine. That is real gift from aboce.

Modern obstetrics decrease maternal and neonatal mortality by 90%. That is simple statistical fact.

There is is not god or nature given power. Birth is natural event but so is cancer. Natural does not mean good or sucessfull.

Secondly, your Friend body and birth are her own. Why you so invested in her experience emotionally is not clear to me . She does not want pain. She wants and epidural. It is her choice. We still live in the country where women have choice.

Perhaps you friend know something about her body that make her cautions. Perhpas she would rather start in the hospital than deal with transfer because that is what her womanly intuition is telling her.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
> Modern obstetrics decrease maternal and neonatal mortality by 90%. That is simple statistical fact.


Source? I'd like to read the facts for myself.

Sus


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

I think the OP just came here to vent feelings. Her friend said to her that birth is not natural. Yeah, OP. I feel ya. That seems like a weird statement to me.

As to the pain aspect, her friend says that birth is "SOOO painful" but this friend has not given birth. It's not like we can all say- don't dismiss this friend's personal experience. I never want to dismiss the experience a woman has with her own body and birth. But it does make me sad that this friend, and it seems a lot of people, discount the possibility that birth might NOT be painful. A PP talks about relieving the "suffering" of birth. I had an awesome time with my unmedicated birth. No suffering involved. Not getting an epidural doesn't automatically mean pain and suffering. The sad thing to me is that people don't recognize that.

I'm totally cool with women planning whatever kind of birth they want, but it might make me also feel that they don't know the full range of possibilities if they just assume that birth is automatically the most horrific thing a woman can go through.

So OP, the "mental check" you got is probably a good thing for your friendship but I think I understand what you're feeling.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> Why is choosing not to feel pain the same as failing to see strength in one's body, though? My agonizing menstrual cramps are all natural, but I choose not to writhe in pain - I use painkillers. Does this mean I do not see the strength in my body? What's the difference?
> 
> ...


Whoa boy. Okay. You ask what is the difference between using pain meds for menstrual cramps vs. for giving birth. The difference is you *need* to be able to feel your body to effectively give birth. That's why *even* when a woman has an epidural during labor, they need to either let it wear off or turn it down somewhat before she can feel enough to push the baby out. Being able to move freely, choose the movements and positions that feel "right," and use gravity to help, usually helps a woman have a quicker and more straightforward labor and birth. Being flat on your back, regardless of how much or little pain you feel, is pretty much the worst position to be in when your body is trying to get that baby to move down and out.

You define "good outcome" as "healthy baby, healthy mom." Of course I agree with that. And epidurals (statistically speaking) decrease the chances of both. Not speaking for anyone else here. But for myself, a good outcome means not just healthy but also happy. An excellent bonding experience after birth, nobody getting between me and my baby, a great start to breastfeeding, my baby being treated gently at all times, sharing those transformative moments with people of my choosing, in an environment of my choosing. Not dealing with the effects or after-effects of drugs (for myself or my baby.) Being able to look back on the experience and feel elated at what I accomplished all on my own. Come to think of it, all those happy things I described also count as "healthy." It seems a lot of people define "healthy" just to mean "alive, and even if suffering in the moment, going to recover eventually." Clearly a good birth experience is not as important, or important at all, to many women. I honestly cannot fathom why, but that doesn't mean I don't respect them. I do, really. Again, I am speaking for myself, not others. Just trying to explain my reasoning.

I know I'm probably not communicating as well as I could. I certainly did not mean to come across insulting--as I said, it's a difficult thing to put into words because people (clearly) get very easily offended. But yes, I absolutely believe that *not being able to feel large parts of my body* would mean a *gigantic* loss of experience while giving birth--to me that is just "duh." Obviously *you* don't feel the same way, and that's okay with me. But isn't it okay if I don't *get* that? Being in a medical setting at all, for me, with other people doing things to me, yeah, I would be focused on dealing with all of that rather than focused on working with my body to make things happen. Not being able to *feel* my body? I can't imagine! Yes, it is important to me to *feel* my baby coming into the world, through my body, both physically and spiritually. I would choose an epidural if I felt I had to in order to get the baby born, but yes, it would be a loss of experience.

I know that people who have experienced both (all natural vs. medicated) are the only ones who can truly compare, and I know I have only seen one side of this personally. So I don't mean to be insulting. What I experienced (twice!) was just so sublimely awesome that I hate the thought of anyone missing out on that if there's any possibility they could've had it. It's the same reason that religious evangelists come across as obnoxious and insulting a lot of the time. They have seen God and they want you to experience what they "know." LOL By my intention is not to insult or diminish anyone.

Yes, how we give birth comes with choices, and those choices should belong to to woman herself and be treated with respect. Nobody should tell her what the best choice for her is, it's true. I totally agree with you there. But here's the thing. Women in this culture *are* undermined and *are* trained to fear birth, to maximize the fear of childbirth pains and to minimize their healthy distrust of anyone messing with their bodies in invasive ways, at least when it comes to giving birth. The HUGE majority of women in our culture don't study pregnancy and birth. Most women in our culture have never seen a natural birth, many may not even know anyone who's had one. Most are ignorant about the natural process and how interventions can impede it. The huge majority *do* just assume their doctors know best, even when the majority of doctors do not practice evidence-based care. So when you are making an uninformed choice, how much of a choice is it really? Would you make a different choice if you really knew all the facts?

If someone decides the benefits of an epidural outweigh the risks for her, that's great. She knows what she wants, more power to her. When someone isn't aware that there even *are* risks, and the "benefits" are blown out of proportion in her mind, that is not an educated choice. Seeing friends you love make uneducated choices that may mess things up for them, well, it's hard. That doesn't mean you can't support them and respect them. It doesn't even mean they aren't making the best choice for *themselves.* It's just hard.

This info can be found in Chapter 8 of Henci Goer's Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth:

Epidurals slow labor, which results in increased use of Pitocin, and usually results in higher rates of episiotomy, forceps and vacuum extraction, and c-sections, especially in first-time mothers. Epidurals require electronic fetal monitoring and a precautionary IV. You are more likely to need bladder catheterization and more likely to develop a fever.

Electronic fetal monitoring increases the odds of a c-section. IVs, especially when given in large amounts over a short time, as they are when administering an epidural, can cause fluid overload, which leads to fluid in mother's and baby's lungs, maternal anemia, and blood chemistry disturbances in mother and baby. Bladder catheterizations can cause UTIs.

Oxytocin can lead to overly forceful contractions and fetal distress. Forceps and episiotomy increase the probability of anal tears, which can have long-term effects on sexual satisfaction and fecal incontinence.

C-section has both short and long-term risks. Maternal fever may stress the baby during labor. And because fever may signal uterine infection, the baby is more likely to be separated from you after birth for observation and subjected to blood tests, a spinal tap, etc. Some data suggest that epidurals increase the probability of actual infection in the baby.

The procedure itself, apart from the drugs involved, can cause problems. An epinephrine test dose can cause fetal distress. Using air to locate the epidural space can cause neurological and other complications. The catheter can injure blood vessels and irritate nerves.

Potential postpartum complications include temporary urinary incontinence, nerve injury, a blood-filled swelling, and an excruciating, incapacitating headache which can last for days (spinal headache.) In the newborn, epidurals may cause adverse physical and behavioral effects.

I don't want to type out the whole book, but it goes on to describe potentially life-threatening complications as well (life-threatening to both mother and baby) including a dangerous drop in blood pressure, drop in baby's heart rate, convulsions, respiratory paralysis, cardiac arrest. Respiratory paralysis and cardiac arrest occur as commonly as 1 in 3,000. To give you some perspective, drugs causing serious adverse reactions in this range have been withdrawn from the market or forced into restricted use.

It goes on to describe adverse physchological effects of having a medicalized birth.

Recent innovations in technique have not reduced the incidence of problems.

I personally can't understand why someone would take that amount of risk to themselves and their child if they didn't *have* to. I admit that I usually conclude that the person is unaware of the risks--because it just seems so illogical to me. Maybe I am missing something. I do understand why so many women have such an irrationally high fear of birth, as pregnant/birthing women in our culture are not seen as the badasses they are. They are pathologized, infantilized, disrespected and acted *upon* when really they are the ones who should be in charge. It seems most people don't question the flaws of their culture and are more willing to see flaws in themselves.

Again, I don't have to *understand* what someone is thinking/feeling to be able to still *respect* them. And I will continue to agree with all of you that it's the woman's choice and as her friend, you should be supportive of her.

But that does not mean I have to be supportive of practices that harm and disempower people, and it does not obligate me to just shut up, when I think I have information that may help others.


----------



## Buzzbuzz (Aug 27, 2011)

As a mother who has homebirthed and most recently had (by choice) a hospital birth with an epidural, I noticed that many of my friends who were more invested in natural childbirth really struggled with my choices as the OP seems to be doing.

Basically, what I observed was that it was very threatening for some of them that I had effective pain relief and a healthy, wonderfully bonded baby that breastfed beautifully -- simply because it made them question the value of the pain they themselves had experienced having natural childbirth. Somehow, my birth choice became a judgment on their birth choice, if you know what I mean. So given the minefield that this sort of thing became for me, I would suggest that the OP tread with caution with her friend and make sure she is not coming coming from a place of self defense but rather true support.


----------



## StudyingStones (May 16, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> Why is choosing not to feel pain the same as failing to see strength in one's body, though? My agonizing menstrual cramps are all natural, but I choose not to writhe in pain - I use painkillers. Does this mean I do not see the strength in my body? What's the difference?
> 
> ...


Poogles, I was speaking from personal experience only. I had an epidural because I was terrified of the pain, and I didn't know whether or not I could push a baby out. My mom had two labors and two c-sections due to failure to progress.. she just didn't dilate for either my brother or myself, despite 24+ hours of labor. I was never trying to be insulting, just putting it out there that I'm sure there are other women in the world that share the fears that I had.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Full disclosure, for those of you who don't know me, I'm one of the women who gave my all to a natural birth and ended up with a 33-hour labor and a c-section, for reasons that are unfathomably complex. So threads like this tend to be a bit of a trigger for me. However, I will risk putting in an answer.

I really hate the phrase "birth is normal." Normal is just such a bland, everyday, middle of the road, average sort of word. Pregnancy and birth for me were NOT normal. They shook me to my foundations. They transported me so far out of "normal" reality that it has taken me years to find my way back. I guess for some women, birth is "normal"...that is, it just happens without a major reorganization of one's self, like a million other normal things that we do in life. That's great for those women, but I'm not one of them, and I can't relate to that sentiment.

I didn't have perfect confidence in my body, and it wasn't clear to me that a "natural" birth was something I should automatically expect. It wasn't just about my fear of pain, it was about a thousand other things...my own birth and adoption, my relationship with my mother who died of ovarian cancer, my history as a dancer, my long journey with infertility, my deeply complex feelings about becoming a mother, my lesbian identity...to name just a few. In spite of this complexity, I decided to give my all to a natural birth. I was pretty well informed. I wasn't able to make a perfect set of choices, but I did the best that I could. I am one of those for whom the best wasn't good enough. I made the wrong gamble. I probably would have benefitted from more interventions earlier in my labor. I might have avoided my c-section that way. I might have at least avoided some of the suffering that came with having a grueling long labor before my surgery.

There is no question that part of my "going for" a natural birth was my conviction that to do otherwise would be uninformed and cowardly. I very much wish that I had gone into labor with a less rigid standard for myself. It has been a tough and valuable spiritual lesson to be compassionate with myself for what I did not and could not know about birth before I went into it.

For some women, trust in your body means turning away from medical interventions and letting your body find it's way alone. For other women, trusting your body is knowing yourself and your history well enough to know that you need to ask for help and having the courage to ask for it. To assume, based on a brief remark that a woman says, that we can know what her relationship to birth and its complexities is, seems very presumptuous to me. Can we really know where another woman's strength lies, where her wisdom resides, what will shake her to the core, and what is "normal" for her? Can we even know it for ourselves?

I prefer the phrase, "birth is a mystery." Each of us has to decide for ourselves how we want to approach that mystery.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CI Mama*
> 
> Full disclosure, for those of you who don't know me, I'm one of the women who gave my all to a natural birth and ended up with a 33-hour labor and a c-section, for reasons that are unfathomably complex. So threads like this tend to be a bit of a trigger for me. However, I will risk putting in an answer.
> 
> ...


I like this. Thanks.


----------



## Alenushka (Jul 27, 2002)

The dangers of epidurals are overstated all the time.

Anecdata....I know many women whose bodies and babies were hurt during homebirth. I do not know a single one who was hurt by an epidural.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
> 
> The dangers of epidurals are overstated all the time.
> 
> Anecdata....I know many women whose bodies and babies were hurt during homebirth. I do not know a single one who was hurt by an epidural.


Really? I have heard lots of women talking about spinal headaches and nerve damage and how something still physically bothers them years after.

And it's not the epidural itself that is the most scary thing (although even just the needle is admittedly slightly scary.) It's the cascade of interventions--which I KNOW does not always happen, but happens frequently enough to be serious--that terrifies me.

Also the fact that being forced to be lying down, immobile, strapped to machines, and monitored by other people--it is quite a stretch to say that is a psychologically empowering position to be in.

I suppose you surrender to the process when giving birth no matter what, and some people surrender to medicine and interventions while others surrender by trusting their own body. And in the end it's all the same.

But still I just can't wrap my mind around why someone would willingly choose the medicalized version unless she was forced, or very uninformed.

Alenushka, you seem as much invested in medicalized birth as I am in natural birth. If you have had great experiences with the medicalized version, then that is really wonderful and brings me hope that it can be that way for more women. I just have too many friends who've had *terrible* experiences--I mean like, horror stories, in the hospital with an epi, to believe that a positive empowering hospital experience is anything but an anomaly.

I witnessed one of my best friends birth in the hospital with an epidural, before I had my kids. It was such a shockingly horrible ordeal, took all her power away and hurt her so badly. I am still traumatized by the memory--I can only imagine how she feels.







It was a major factor in choosing natural birth for myself later.

I know my friend is just one person. And yes, I know those positive stories exist, just like homebirth-gone-wrong stories exist.

I really do agree with the "birth is a mystery" sentiment.


----------



## McGucks (Nov 27, 2010)

I am glad I had an epidural with both my children and have no regrets about my second child being born via c/s.

DS1: I still have residual pain (almost 17 years later from my first epidural). Just between the vertebra and not often, but it's there.

DS2: Two and a half years after my c/s, my abdomen still feels weird and sometimes hurts. I don't have the money to do acupuncture or massage for what I suspect are adhesions.

I kinda liked the dad's perspective with the analogy regarding the root canal. No, a root canal is not "natural," but if a tooth was rotting, would anybody look down on Novocaine for an extraction?

Bottom line for me is: whatever works for you works. I don't believe in gold medals for pain tolerance. If you are okay with the path you chose, dandy. That's really all that matters.


----------



## Alenushka (Jul 27, 2002)

Why people always talk about cascade of interventions?

What about cascade of non interventions?

The effect of c-cestion not being done when it should have been done are father graver than c-section done when is should have not been.

Loss of perfect birth experience vs loss of the baby and maybe mother.

Birth is natural...so is cancer and kidney stones


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
> 
> Why people always talk about cascade of interventions?
> 
> ...


Oh geez, give me a break! Nobody (certainly not I!) is suggesting anyone choose not to get a c-section if they need one, or an epidural if they need one, for that matter. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that we are truly grateful the miracles of modern obstetrics are available to us.

Nobody is denying that things can go wrong in birth and that mothers and babies lives are saved by interventions.

I am not saying any of that, and I'd appreciate you not putting those words in my mouth.

People talk about the cascade of interventions because it is REAL. It is documented. It is not a figment of the imagination of a bunch of wackadoodle hippies. It actually does hurt people, and cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

In the U.S. the c-section rate is around 33%. The Farm Midwives c-section rate is 1.5%. Will you not admit there's something wrong with that picture??

What we are talking about here is a first-time-mom jumping straight into the interventions without even being aware of the possibility she might not need them, or that they might cause her harm.

Maybe that IS the right choice for HER. Sometimes it's the right choice. But when almost everybody in the population takes that approach, there is something wrong with the culture. That is a public health issue.

"Baby Friendly" hospitals are those whose practices support a good start to breastfeeding. At this time only 6% of U.S. hospitals are doing this! It's crazy.

That's what all the upset is about. Nobody wants to turn down needed medical care or deny it to anyone, or make anyone feel bad for needing it when they do. This is about wanting to make things better!


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *McGucks*
> 
> No, a root canal is not "natural," but if a tooth was rotting, would anybody look down on Novocaine for an extraction?


Key words here: "IF a tooth is rotting!" Epidurals are great *when needed.* It's reasonable to assume you don't need an epidural, until you do. Not the other way around.

And epis should be approached with much more caution. As far as I know, Novocaine is unlikely to cause your root canal to go awry, causing you to lose other teeth for example, or risk possible life-long pain every time you chew. (Which can happen when an epi increases chances of an episiotomy, for example.)

Root canal--birth: not an accurate comparison. Epidural--Novocaine: not an accurate comparison.

BTW comparing birth to disease (cancer/kidney stones) is completely ridiculous. Birth is its own beast. It sometimes has complications and does not always go smoothly. But it does not equate to an injury, a disease, or a malfunction by its very nature.

McGucks, in case it needs to be said: I am not saying your birth interventions weren't needed, and I'm not making any judgement on you. I'm glad that you did what you needed to do and that you have no regrets.


----------



## homeschoolingmama (Jun 15, 2007)

Thank you Sympathetic Dad. I had two of my children with epidurals. For my third I thought, hey I can do this. I was induced and then went natural. That is the most traumatic birth by far. I was so out of it it was unbelievable. I was scratching my face and flipping out. I focused on a spot on the ceiling and did fine until closer to the end. I kicked the doctor out of nowhere. It was awful. I cried and cried after that birth. My next two I had epidurals. My last one I got one right at the end so went through heavy birth like my 3rd for a while. Not everyone feels the same way as you all. My births with the epi's were beautiful! I could feel them coming down, look at the expressions on people's faces and it was plain wonderful. I love those births. I hated my other two births. I am not a wimp. I didn't flinch getting a tattoo around my arm. I know my body was made to do this but MY body does not do well.

I finally realized that it is because of my SPD. There is no info on this but I know this is what it is. I have an extremely hard time nursing too. The sensation is unbearable. I literally rub my toes together so they are bleeding so I can concentrate on that pain instead of the nursing sensation. All of my friends have home births and that is wonderful. I have come to terms that not everyone thinks birth is beautiful if it is pain free and natural. FOR ME, I have a different way of achieving beautiful. Your BF has already been exposed to home birth and I am sure has heard all of its benefits. I think this is a time for support and encouragement for HER birth plan. It took me a lot of years to get out of the guilt of getting epi's when everyone around me wasn't and hopefully your friend won't feel that way. Every birth can be beautiful whether they are born at home, at the hospital, with pain meds or not.


----------



## suchende (Jul 10, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> Really? I have heard lots of women talking about spinal headaches and nerve damage and how something still physically bothers them years after.
> And it's not the epidural itself that is the most scary thing (although even just the needle is admittedly slightly scary.) It's the cascade of interventions--which I KNOW does not always happen, but happens frequently enough to be serious--that terrifies me.
> ...


Woah @ bolded.

I am constantly amazed at how many people engaged in this particular discussion cannot see that it's an area where reasonable minds can differ. I personally am still on the fence, after reading extensively on both sides of the discussion (and having an educational and professional background that helps make me a relatively sophisticated consumer of scientific literature).

Many women choose medicalized birth after a natural birth. Hard to think of a more informed decision maker than a S+TM, IMO. Other mommas do the opposite. I am wondering what information you think moms who have done both are missing, when they say they'd go medical again?


----------



## SympatheticDad (Jun 26, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> BTW comparing birth to disease (cancer/kidney stones) is completely ridiculous. Birth is its own beast. It sometimes has complications and does not always go smoothly. But it does not equate to an injury, a disease, or a malfunction by its very nature.


I have to disagree here with you on a few points. This may make me a little unpopular. I apologize in advance.

First off,_ in terms of the pain caused or not caused_, it's perfectly valid to compare childbirth to other potentially painful procedures or trauma that can happen to a human body. I'm aware that we all like to get misty-eyed about the incredible beauty of this miraculous event blah blah - I did it a little myself a few posts ago. But if you step away from it and just look at what's happening physiologically, you're passing a huge object out of an opening that (in a primipara) has to stretch to a size it's never been before, and to make matters worse orient it in such a way that it passes through the MOST STUPIDLY-SHAPED HIPBONE IN THE NATURAL WORLD. Childbirth is beautiful, yes. It is also hugely traumatic, in the dictionary sense of the word. If the analogy between childbirth and a root canal fails it is only because childbirth is more dangerous (according to several thousand years of human experience) and more painful (according to my wife).

Second, a few people on this thread have made reference to women's bodies being not just natural but 'designed'. This is a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Over hundreds of thousands of years (and probably tens of thousands of generations), evolution has blindly stumbled, through random mutation, on a geometry for human bodies that allows huge-headed babies to come out of the womb (barely) while still preserving the ability of women to run, upright, presumably to avoid being eaten by bears. The _only_ thing that this means is that more women with this body geometry managed to reproduce than women with other body geometries. For all we know, there were mutations for women with much larger hip-bone interiors that gave birth more easily, and more successfully, but then who were devoured by bears moments after birth, or sometime thereafter. The only thing that matters, evolutionarily, is that enough women were able to reproduce. A huge number of women could (potentially) die during childbirth, and evolution would happily skate on, blissfully unaware, as long as those who lived could reproduce. This is why whenever I see the word 'design' in these threads, my eye twitches. According to the best studies I could find, the 'natural' maternal death rate is estimated at about 1500 per 100,000 births. That's a death rate of over 1%. That's a pretty lousy design. If there was a 1.5% chance you'd die every time you got in a car, you'd never get in it.

Fortunately, thanks to modern medicine, the actual modern Western death rate is more like 9 in 100,000, according to the WHO. In Sub-Saharan Africa, which is rich with folk-wisdom and midwives, but lacking in medical supplies, the death rate is 900 in 100,000. Let me say that again in another way: when modern medicine isn't available to assist with childbirth, the death rate is two orders of magnitude higher. So although we can all agree that "birth isn't a sickness!" I actually don't agree with the assessment that "birth isn't a medical event", because we have good statistics, gathered today, that tell us that without medical expertise - which doesn't necessarily mean provided by an O.B., mind you, Certified Nurse Midwives have great results in studies, for example - it's a hugely risky medical event.

Lastly, I need to say something about the "cascade of unnecessary interventions". The problem is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding, in this country at least, about what the job of a doctor is. We all think (and I used to think this way too) that a doctor is a woman or man in a white lab coat who runs a lot of tests and then figures out what is wrong with you by looking through a microscope. Maybe there's something completely new wrong with you - that's ok! The doctor will figure it out! Likewise, if you're pregnant, the doctor will look at you and just be able to tell "A-ha! Your blood-pressure is X, and your skin tone is Y, this means that you are just beginning to go into pre-eclampsia! TO THE HOSPITALMOBILE, we will save you!"

I'm here to tell you that you are wrong about what doctors do.

What doctors know is statistics and how to use them.

With many syndromes in pregnancy, by the time there are obviously visible symptoms, it is often too late to save the baby; pre-eclampsia is a great example of this (disclaimer: i am not a doctor, and i don't actually know anything about pre-eclampsia. I'm just using this as an example of the sort of analysis you'd prefer to do before there is an acute problem). The analysis is statistical. Does the patient have risk factors for pre-eclampsia? Well, let's see. Her mother had pre-eclampsia in a pregnancy. This is her first pregnancy, and she's 18, obese, gets frequent migraines, and has gestational diabetes. Based on the totality of those factors, this patient has X% of developing pre-eclampsia.

In walk two patients, Alice and Betty. Alice and Betty, let's say, present with the exact same medical histories and yield the same statistical chance of developing pre-eclampsia. Let's make it easy and say it's a 50% chance. Either one (or neither) of Alice or Betty might get pre-eclampsia and lose their babies or their lives. No doctor in the world can tell which one of them it will be. All they can tell you is that, statistically, half of the patients with these symptoms end up in pre-eclampsia. Thus, since 50% is a really, really huge chance when lives are on the line, the doctor will probably recommend extremely frequent examination coupled with early induction or c-section at the first wisp of trouble.

The thing about statistics and probability is that the statistics are only meaningful before the outcome is revealed. This is super-hard for non-mathematicians to understand, but it's true. If you flip a fair coin, you have a 50% chance of getting heads. If you look at the coin, and it's tails, it's nonsensical to say "well, I might still get heads half the time I look at this coin." Once you've looked at that coin, the chance of it being tails is 100%, and the chance of it being heads is 0%. A proper statistical analysis is about future events.

The 'Unnecessary cascade of interventions" language is all about proving, after the fact, that the coin was tails so therefore the interventions were not needed. But just because the coin happened to turn out to be tails does not mean that before we knew the outcome the 50% chance of it being heads didn't exist. Analogized a different way: just because you arrived at your destination safely doesn't mean that there wasn't risk from being in the car with a drunk driver. Yes, sometimes a doctor can look at an X-ray, and say "Welp, your arm is broken. Let's put a cast on it." But more often, particularly in pregnancy, all they can do is say "Other women with your presentation had this good outcome X% of the time, and this bad outcome Y% of the time. My medical opinion is that we should do (some intervention) to try to avoid the bad outcome, because I think Y is a big number."

Anyway, I've gone far afield from the topic here. But I just wanted to address some of these points because I see this language all the time, and I think it does everyone a disservice when we fail to remember that medicine is, by and large, about understanding and applying probability and statistics. Mothers (and, more generally, patients) always have the right to make their own decisions about whether to accept or refuse treatment. But I think it's important to do that from a position of knowledge, based on data and an understanding of probability and statistics, rather than a position of weakness, based on intuition and superstition.


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

SympatheticDad,

What I am saying is that the experience of childbirth is not necessarily painful. Your wife experienced pain, so do many other people. I told myself that birth would either be so painful I wanted to die, be orgasmically wonderful, or somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. I happened to have a labor that was a lot of hard work but was an overall amazing enjoyable experience. Not because I was misty-eyed, but because I was working hard to do something important and I liked it and had interesting sensations. There were moments that hurt a bit but then I would just recognize that and try to relax more. It worked for me. Everyone's experience is different. Please don't discount my experience and the possibility that a woman could be missing out on this type of experience if they choose a more medical birth.

Maybe another woman would try to "go natural" and find it so bad that they needed pain relief or a c-section. That's cool, they have that available to them here in the U.S. and that's great. I think it's also great that a woman can choose to do whatever she wants for birth, and that she can decide ahead of time or in labor. Whatever works for her. But to have a culture that only talks about how painful birth is, is missing a lot to the discussion.

I believe birth isn't a medical event until some specific problem presents itself that makes it a medical event for that particular birth. Until then, women are just doing the best they can to get the baby out of them. And the body has a really impressive way of doing that. It's not like a baby just squeezes itself out of a regular everyday uterus, cervix, and vagina. Things happen in the body to get it all prepared to birth. Penises change shapes and sizes every day, then go back to how they were. That seems pretty wild to me.


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

I'm one of thos lucky people who have fast and manageable births. Manageable as in hurts for maybe 20 seconds of a 60 second long contraction, fast as in 86 mins with #1. 61mins with #2.

I fully accept my births are so "abnormal" that there's no point in me telling other people anything other than "my story" - i can't say it doesn't hurt, only that it doesn't really hurt me. I can't tell them it's not exhausting, only that it doesn't really exhaust me.

The thing that would really worry ME in your friend's plans is what will happen if.... I'm in the UK. You're not going to get an epidural the second you want it. Not unless you're pretty lucky, there's not that many anaesthetists and those there are are split between theatre and labour ward, so you really might have to wait for 1-4 hours for that epidural. So for that reason i'd be encouraging her to think of how she'll cope if the epidural isn't immediately available. In addition it only partially works for A LOT of women. It doesn't work at all for very few but many have partial relief or windows of no relief, so a pain free birth isn't in any way guaranteed, even if she DOES get her epidural right away.

Birth, like the rest of life, is not perfect. Contingency planning is only sensible.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *suchende*
> 
> Woah @ bolded.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, you are right. I meant, and should have said, not just "someone," but specifically, a low-risk, first-time mom. I specifically had the OP's friend in mind when I said that, and did not mean to make a blanket statement. A low-risk first-time mom should give herself the greatest chance for the least amount of stress/danger/damage/etc. Moms who have done both (home/hospital, or whatever...) clearly have more insight into themselves and what their available options can offer them. Someone with no insight, when everything is a huge great unknown, should prepare for the worst but expect the best--meaning, have your "Plan A" be smooth sailing, simple, no interventions--because hey, chances are good it will go down that way, especially if you take measures to increase your chances, by carefully choosing your care providers and arming yourself with knowledge and confidence in yourself. With medical interventions only being used IF necessary, as "Plan B." That is what I was trying to say.

I understand that this is an area where reasonable minds can differ. I even acknowledge that for some low-risk first-time moms, the medical route is the best decision, because when it comes down to it, the best circumstances for a mother to birth in are often those where she feels safest. If those circumstances also open her up to additional risk, it *still* may be the best decision given all the factors.

What I am just wishing is that more women had the option to FEEL safe, and BE safe, at the same time. This won't happen until the majority of practicioners switch to an evidence-based midwifery model of care. And/or the majority of the population becomes more informed and demands better options.


----------



## trimommy2009 (Mar 22, 2012)

I've really loved reading all of the responses to this post, they have all given me new insights into looking at birth differently for different people. I had two wildly different births, the first being an unnecessary c-section, the last one being a home birth almost 5 months ago that still has me on cloud nine and I've unfortunately fallen into the trap that my birth is best. Reading these replies has helped me learn how to be a better friend and support her decisions regardless of what they might be. I may still spout some solid research studies when she asks my opinion though (just recently she asked about induction at 40 weeks and I sent her some info on bishops scores), but only if she asks. I think a lot of times doctors still leave out the "informed" in informed consent.

That being said, I will forever feel birth is a natural and normal experience that should not be treated as a medical event in MOST situations and I will continue to speak openly about the joys of natural childbirth that I myself experienced.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SympatheticDad*
> 
> I have to disagree here with you on a few points. This may make me a little unpopular. I apologize in advance.
> 
> ...


First I would like to thank you for the good discussion, Sympathetic Dad.

I do not share your wife's experience, not even a little bit. I did not find either of my births to be hugely traumatic, either during or after, and certainly not more painful than a root canal. When breastfeeding my first baby for the first month, we had problems getting a good latch. That painful latch was by FAR more painful than my labor or birth of said baby. Like I mentioned earlier, the pain of labor, for ME, was very very intense, but so far removed from any other type of "pain" I've experienced in my life that I'm not even sure that "pain" is the right word. With my second baby, I did not experience pain, at all. Well, it was a little painful after she was born, waiting for the placenta to come, but that was it. (Hypnobabies FTW.) Obviously this is a highly subjective experience.

I do not deny that birth is an uncertain event, and some scary things can happen. I don't deny that it's a major physical event that there's really no other comparison to, in the scope of all other human physical events. I don't deny that some women will require medical assistance when giving birth, and I'm not suggesting those women should forego it and just let themselves or their babies die. I think it's interesting that you found the rate of maternal death in nature to be about 1%, and The Farm Midwives' c-section rate is about 1.5%. It seems they are doing it right, then. The rate of maternal death in nature is certainly not 33%, can we agree on that?

I find your implication that I (and others) don't understand what doctors do, or how they use statistics, or how the application of statistics works in real life, very insulting. In fact, I arrived at my very strong feelings on these matters through extensive research and reading about birth-related statistics, and through my studies developed an understanding of what factors contribute to successful birth outcomes. In the U.S. (I assume you're in the U.S. like me?) OBs as a whole do NOT base their practices on what is likely the best thing for the mother and baby. It's not because they're malicious.

It's because most of them do not even have an understanding of the natural process of birth. Most of them are not shooting for the goal of "most straightforward, complication-free birth." Because OBs do not specialize in birth, they specialize in *surgical* birth. They are also covering their own asses, so are not willing to wait and see if the woman is fine on her own before intervening--they think it safer, certainly for themselves, and I think they often *believe* for the mother/baby, to practice "defensive medicine," using interventions as preemptive measures rather than as *necessary* measures. It's an important distinction. Even the slightest *possibility* of risk means they will take action immediately. Trigger-happy doctors hurt women and babies.

Most first-time moms in this country get epidurals because 1) they are scared because they assume the pain will be unbearable, 2) they are probably unaware of the very real risks of an epidural and 3) most doctors love epidurals because it makes it easier for the doctors. As the OB, when you take away the unpredictability of a woman's natural labor, you also take away your risk of malpractice suit--at least, that's what they're thinking. When you monitor the woman and baby excessively--never mind that by doing that you may *cause* things to go wrong--nobody can claim you didn't do everything in your power. As a side bonus, you don't have to wait around if she's taking too long and inconveniencing you. You can just label her as "failure to progress" and apply more interventions until you force that baby out on your own terms. (I'm sorry if I sound cynical. Don't dismiss everything I'm saying just because I have a 'tude.)

Add to that the fact that the majority of OBs arrived at certain practices NOT because they have looked at the statistics and probabilities but simply because that's what they were taught and what everyone else does. Episiotomy is a case in point. Totally unnecessary close to 100% of the time. Almost *always* causes more damage than the *hypothetical* *possible* natural tear that would have happened. Often results in long-term complications and suffering. Seriously, nobody should practice this anymore. But they still do, in huge numbers. Just one reason amongst many that hospitals are not currently a safe place for low-risk women to labor and birth.

What you described: coming "from a position of knowledge, based on data and an understanding of probability and statistics," is EXACTLY what I did when making decisions about my children's births, and it is THE main reason I chose natural birth.

Of course I used my intuition as well--I think dismissing the value of one's intuition about what is happening in one's own body is extremely foolish. Listening to your intuition about your body does not equate to superstition or weakness.

Something that most people in our culture do not understand, especially men (understandably so, as they have no first-hand experience being pregnant or birthing) is how extremely important the mind-body connection is during pregancy and birth. I mean, it is an absolutely crucial factor, one of the primary factors, in how a woman's birth plays out. Please don't misunderstand me--I am not suggesting that the other factors are not also crucial (like whether her particular body is able to give birth unimpeded, or whether unforeseen complications arise, or whether those around her are providing support or causing her extra problems.) But how fearful you are, how much your guard is up, whether or not you believe you can do it, all those things have a HUGE effect on how you enter the experience and on your outcome. If you feel you are prepared, and if you feel you are safe and supported, all the energy you would've put towards worry and fear is now available to put towards inner focus. If you think inner focus has nothing to do with labor, it's only because you've never been in labor.

Are you familiar with "sphincter law?" Even just having a stranger in the room can impede a woman's labor significantly.

If you are interested in learning more about how a woman could come to be strongly in favor of natural birth through rational information-seeking, intelligent behavior (as opposed to "weakness and superstition") I suggest you do some more research. Michel Odent, Ina May Gaskin, and Henci Goer are a good place to start.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SympatheticDad*
> 
> I have to disagree here with you on a few points. This may make me a little unpopular. I apologize in advance.


No need to apologize. It's a discussion!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SympatheticDad*
> 
> Fortunately, thanks to modern medicine, the actual modern Western death rate is more like 9 in 100,000, according to the WHO. In Sub-Saharan Africa, which is rich with folk-wisdom and midwives, but lacking in medical supplies, the death rate is 900 in 100,000. Let me say that again in another way: when modern medicine isn't available to assist with childbirth, the death rate is two orders of magnitude higher. So although we can all agree that "birth isn't a sickness!" I actually don't agree with the assessment that "birth isn't a medical event", *because we have good statistics, gathered today*, that tell us that without medical expertise - which doesn't necessarily mean provided by an O.B., mind you, Certified Nurse Midwives have great results in studies, for example - it's a hugely risky medical event.


I only have time to respond to this part of your post.

Bolding mine. You are wrong with this. You are assuming that accurate information is collected & kept w/ regards to mothers who die from childbirth related causes. Like many other instances in this society, we are terribly short sighted when it comes to the tracking of the after effects of what we do to other humans (treat them as guinea pigs really - vaccines, circumcision, formula feeding, c-sections, etc.) The fact is, that in America, if these records are kept at all, they are far from comprehensive. There is not a space on the death certificates in most states that asks if the mother gave birth recently (or within a time frame that would be appropriate). If you would like to learn more about how this impacts the statistics, you can read up on Ina May Gaskin. She has been working for a long time (since before 2007 when I heard her speak on the topic) to get accurate information collected & compiled so we can know the true maternal morbidity rate in the US. Since it was five years ago, I don't recall much of the information, but I do remember enough to know that relying on this information to make an argument is shaky at best.

Sus


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *salr*
> 
> SympatheticDad,
> 
> ...


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

Yep- Thanks, SymapatheticDad for the conversation.







I love having gentlemen on MDC.

Welcome!


----------



## EcoConsciousMom (Aug 23, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SympatheticDad*
> 
> Childbirth is beautiful, yes. *It is also hugely traumatic, in the dictionary sense of the word*. If the analogy between childbirth and a root canal fails it is only because childbirth is more dangerous (according to several thousand years of human experience) and more painful (according to my wife).


I've gone through both and neither has been painful. Teeth pulled with medication wearing off too, still not that painful. You sound as if you are stating facts, which in your case might be true, but this is not the case for *every* woman and certainly not every birth experience. That is what it sounds like and I feel extremely disrespected by this blanket statement.

I must say, however, that a father coming on here saying that birth is *hugely traumatic* also makes me angry as I did not have a traumatic birth in any sense. It's like if I assumed all men will go bald, because I know one man who did. I know this is a horrible metaphor, but I think you get the idea. You are a man and, therefore, do not know what birth is like. Your wife had a traumatic experience and that is unfortunate, but that is just one mother's experience. Sorry to repeat myself, but you shouldn't state it as fact that all women will experience a birth that is *hugely traumatic*. (This might have been written in the *heat of the moment* so I will try to assume you didn't mean it as fact for all birth being traumatic.)

Dictionary:

*trau·mat·ic/trəˈmatik/*


Adjective:



Emotionally disturbing or distressing.
Relating to or causing psychological trauma.




From this own website (http://mothering.com/pregnancy-birth/midwifery-in-the-united-states):

The *U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the modern world, ranking about thirtieth among developed nations*, and the rate is higher for infants of color. Although the U.S. maternal mortality rate has improved over the past century, it has not improved at all since 1982 and appears to be increasing.

Sources:

38. World Health Organization. "The World Health Report: Make Every Mother and Child

Count," 2005. Available at: <http://www.who.int.whr/2005/en>.

39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics,
Accessed Dec 2009. <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm>.

40. World Health Organization, "The World Health Report", 2005.

41. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Maternal Mortality-United States, 1982-
1996", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 47.34, 1998.

42. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Safe Motherhood, Promoting Health for
Women Before, During and After Pregnancy", 2008. Accessed December 2009. <http://

www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/pdf/drh.pdf>.

Overall this thread has been very enlightening to read everyone's posts and the discussion in general.

Personally I had a wonderful home birth experience, completely natural without pain medications and really without much pain. Hardly 7 hours of labor, which felt like menstrual cramps and 20 minutes of pushing without tearing. *I know this is not the case for all women*. A friend, with tiny hips, tore horribly in a natural birth as it progressed so fast. My mother had me naturally at home with pain for a few hours and a c-section for my twin brothers. The doctor *messed up*. She was cut wrong and in pain for months afterwards, and still has a weird pooch thing for her lower belly. Today she still regrets she was *scared* into it by her doctor, literally. The doctor said if you tried naturally one baby would die. That was obviously not true as many women, even though not all, deliver twins naturally today. So obviously different women will have different experiences.

However, the most saddening thing about this discussion is that society deems birth needs to be hospitalized for a safe delivery, as if it was a disease or something. Movies show women in birth screaming in pain and on their backs (which is worst position as the tailbone gets in the way). Even on the show Bones she wanted a natural birth, outside a hospital. She still gave birth on the show on her back. From her supposed background as an anthropologist it would have made more sense for her to squat or something.

I think the problem with our society is that the majority of women are ignorant (dictionary: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular). This is part in fault by the media, part by the doctors, and part by the woman herself. We should be well informed and educated on the different options available so we can make the best informed decision for us. The OP's friend has had experience with natural births and chooses a hospital birth. She obviously has some information and I wish her the best in her decision, it is *her* decision.

The problem, and I think many will agree, is the ignorance of people.

For example, let's say that a woman is in the hospital giving birth and the labor is taking a little long. The doctor comes in and says they can give a drug/medication to speed it up. If that was all the information given to them, then yes, many women would choose that route. This would be more likely if the drug allowed the pain to go away too. The problem is the doctor not explaining all the reasons why, the possible side effects and other problems that might come up. The problem is also women trusting their doctor's opinion so much that they don't question it or ask any questions, even if they have them.

Instead the doctor should be giving more information. Maybe say the labor might take a few more hours, OR it could be sped up with this drug. Women will still choose the drug many times. What if the doctor said labor might take a few more hours, OR it could be sped up with a drug... BUT that drug doesn't always work for *all* women (even though many it does), might cause us to give you this other drug for this reason, or might cause this problem. At this point the woman is fully informed and can make a better decision. Sure some women will choose the drug, but not all of them. This is the underlying problem. We are simply misled or misinformed. For now we are, unfortunately, the ones responsible in learning what the best decision for us would be and how to continue.

I hope that makes sense. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to doctors (even though I don't respect someone simply for being a doctor as that just requires schooling - they need to earn my respect just like anyone else) as not all are misleading or misinformed, or women for that matter. Just that we should be treated with enough respect to be given the information so we can make the most informed decision for us and our bodies. After all, birth is on us, it's our body's job and many women are fortunate enough to have uncomplicated and natural births. Others (like my cousin with type 2 diabetes) will need to be in a hospital as she is high-risk.

To each their own. If they choose something, hopefully it was an informed decision, and it goes well for them. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every woman is the same, so why are we usually treated as if we were?


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> Someone with no insight, when everything is a huge great unknown, should prepare for the worst but expect the best--meaning, have your "Plan A" be smooth sailing, simple, no interventions--because hey, chances are good it will go down that way, especially if you take measures to increase your chances, by carefully choosing your care providers and arming yourself with knowledge and confidence in yourself. With medical interventions only being used IF necessary, as "Plan B." That is what I was trying to say.
> 
> I understand that this is an area where reasonable minds can differ. I even acknowledge that for some low-risk first-time moms, the medical route is the best decision, because when it comes down to it, the best circumstances for a mother to birth in are often those where she feels safest.


I think you are really trying to be very open-minded about this, and that's awesome 

I'm glad you realize that the type of birth where a mother feels safest is often the best (as long as it is actually a safe option - not all birth choices are safe, regardless if the mother feels it is the safest or not); may I point out, though, that you're still basically saying that women "should" choose natural, unmedicated birth, while also paying lip-service to actual choice? I think that seems disingenuous, though I don't think you neccesarily mean it to be.

I fully admit this probably rubs me the wrong way partially because I hope to have a Maternal Request CS (I would be a first time mom); I have looked at the risks and benefits of both modes of delivery (vaginal v. cs) and feel much, much more comfortable with the controlled environment of a CS than taking my chances that I'll have an uncomplicated vaginal delivery. To hear over and over that this is somehow "less than" a vaginal delivery and a poor choice....well, it irritates after awhile ;-)


----------



## Lynann (Jul 29, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> I think you are really trying to be very open-minded about this, and that's awesome
> 
> ...


OK I'm just curious and mean no disrespect, but WHY would you choose to have major abdominal surgery to deliver your baby without a medical reason for it? I had my first son that way, but not by choice, and then had a vaginal birth for my second son, and hope to continue having vaginal births with any future children. I honestly don't mean to be disrespectful, but every other mama I've met who has had a c-section had it for medical reasons at the time of birth, and I've just never met someone who would choose to go through such major surgery by choice for no medical reason.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Over the years, I've changed my POV on c-sections quite a bit. I know women who choose not to VBAC because they just don't want to deal with the stress, women who don't want to put up a fight for their right to have a vaginal birth, women who choose not to birth vaginally because of emotional reasons (such as assault, rape, or negative pain associations) and women who have breech or transverse baby that they are just letting work on his position and if by the time 40 weeks comes, if baby hasnt turned then they opt for the section. I understand all of those choices- It's hard to be pregnant, and sometimes we just dont care- we just want the baby to come out.

I do have a hard time understanding why someone who is a first time mom, without much reason, would just opt for a scheduled section. It is major surgery. One thing that surprised me recently, was finding out how much the maternal mortality rate has risen in the past 100 years. We have an insanely high maternal mortality rate in the united states. I recently read this quote from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology:

Quote:


> *"C-section or caesarean section risks are roughly fewer than 1 in 2,500, significantly more than the one in 10,000 risks for vaginal birth.*
> 
> *About 36 women per 100,000 die while undergoing a Caesarean section, or C-section, compared with 9.2 deaths per 100,000 vaginal deliveries."*


I'm at a higher risk for a csection this time, and have thought and thought about just scheduling it and not dealing with vaginal birth right now- I've been through a lot in the past year and I honestly do not feel up to a big fight with doctors about it right now. But these statistics really make me realize that Im putting myself at a greater risk by avoiding something that I know my body can do. (because I've had two successful vaginal births)


----------



## kristah1000 (Jun 2, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lynann*
> 
> OK I'm just curious and mean no disrespect, but WHY would you choose to have major abdominal surgery to deliver your baby without a medical reason for it? I had my first son that way, but not by choice, and then had a vaginal birth for my second son, and hope to continue having vaginal births with any future children. I honestly don't mean to be disrespectful, but every other mama I've met who has had a c-section had it for medical reasons at the time of birth, and I've just never met someone who would choose to go through such major surgery by choice for no medical reason.


How do you know she has no medical reason? Why does she have to explain herself? If it's all about the mother's choice, why does she have to justify that on here? She says she is informed, why isn't that enough?


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> I think you are really trying to be very open-minded about this, and that's awesome
> 
> I'm glad you realize that the type of birth where a mother feels safest is often the best (as long as it is actually a safe option - not all birth choices are safe, regardless if the mother feels it is the safest or not); may I point out, though, that you're still basically saying that women "should" choose natural, unmedicated birth, while also paying lip-service to actual choice? I think that seems disingenuous, though I don't think you neccesarily mean it to be.
> ...


Bolding mine. Though, for some women it is less than because it was what they tried really to avoid. I feel so grateful for myself & my children that I have not had a c-section. I was born via c-section though (I'm 38) & to think that the risks of cesearan section are only to the mother and/or during the surgery/immediately after is terribly short sighted (which is an affliction that most Westerners face :-(). My current health issues & those or my children are directly related to the fact that I was born that way (but that is not the only thing that contributed to my/our problems). Feel free to PM me for why.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lynann*
> OK I'm just curious and mean no disrespect, but WHY would you choose to have major abdominal surgery to deliver your baby without a medical reason for it? I had my first son that way, but not by choice, and then had a vaginal birth for my second son, and hope to continue having vaginal births with any future children. I honestly don't mean to be disrespectful, but every other mama I've met who has had a c-section had it for medical reasons at the time of birth, and I've just never met someone who would choose to go through such major surgery by choice for no medical reason.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kristah1000*
> How do you know she has no medical reason? Why does she have to explain herself? If it's all about the mother's choice, why does she have to justify that on here? She says she is informed, why isn't that enough?


What did *Poogles0213* write that makes you think *Lynann* should *know* that this person has no medical reason? What did anyone say that makes you ask why she has to explain herself? What did Lynann say that makes you ask why there needs to be justification?

One way people learn is by asking questions. I, for one, am glad she asked because I am curious also. Anyone who doesn't want to answer questions does not have to.

Sus


----------



## Lynann (Jul 29, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kristah1000*
> 
> How do you know she has no medical reason? Why does she have to explain herself? If it's all about the mother's choice, why does she have to justify that on here? She says she is informed, why isn't that enough?


 I didn't say it wasn't enough. I did make it clear that I was simply curious about why anyone would make that choice? I also made it clear that I meant no disrespect, nor did I try to change her mind. I was simply curious, and that is all. Poogles0213 is quite within her right to ignore my question if she wants to, nobody is going to make her answer it.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> I think you are really trying to be very open-minded about this, and that's awesome
> 
> ...


Not all women "should" choose natural birth, of course not. But yes, most low-risk women really should--that is, of course, in a better world, where all women are confident and well-read. (I am NOT saying you're not these things, to be clear, just that if all women were, more of us would choose natural birth as "Plan A.") In a better world, safe birth options would also be available to all women, and they are not. In the world we live in, however, I realize that medical birth for many women seems a more rational choice than it really is. It's more complicated than just choosing the most rational thing based on facts, because 1) facts can be twisted and even fabricated, and you have to be very motivated to find the closest thing to actual truth and 2) emotions are involved, for many women emotions around birth trump knowledge about birth, and emotions actually do have a profound effect on birth outcome. It becomes further complicated when you look at each individual person, as people are SO widely varied in what options are available to them, everything they know to be true, in their physical limitations, and in their own personal fears, etc. That is why I can't say for certain what would ever be the best choice for anyone else, and why I concede that medical birth in the absence of medical need is definitely the best choice for SOME people. I respect women's right to choose that, but in most cases, I really do think the choice would be a different one if women just had a teensy bit more education and support. **Again, not a personal judgement on you.

You say you have looked at the risks and benefits of elective c-section vs. vaginal birth. I believe you. But just for the benefit of others reading this, here is a bit of info, again from Thinking Woman's Guide, not because it's the only source of this info but just because it happens to be on my desk:

Quote:

Benefits & risks of cesarean section:

Benefits: A c-section delivers the baby when vaginal birth would put mother or baby at risk or when the mother cannot deliver the baby vaginally (**might I say, a seriously huge benefit, IF the c-sec is legitimately NEEDED**)

Risks:

Intrinsic to cesareans are pain, debility, and a longer recovery period, all of which interfere with bonding with the baby and breastfeeding. In one study, 1/4 of the women reported pain when interviewed 2 weeks after their c-sections, and 15% still reported pain at 8 weeks. More than 15% reported difficulties with normal activities such as getting out of bed, walking, bending, lifting, and tending the baby at 2 weeks. 1 in 10 still reported problems at 8 weeks.

Some cesarean complications relate strictly to the surgery and never occur with vaginal birth. Of those associated with both, all occur much more commonly with cesarean delivery.

During the operation, women with an epidural or spinal anesthetic may experience breathing difficulties if the anesthetic goes high enough to affect the breathing muscles. In some cases, women may have areas where there is no anesthesia. Hemorrhage and anesthesia complications may occur. According to one medical literature review, 1-6% of women lose enough blood to require a transfusion. Hemorrhage may sometimes require a hysterectomy. Accidental surgical injury to the bowel, bladder, uterus, or uterine blood vessels occurs in 2% of cases, although a 10-year review at one hospital reported that uterine injury occurred 10% of the time.

Postsurgical complications are also a problem. According to the same medical literature review, infection occurs 8-27% of the time after cesareans, 1% of women experience a paralyzed bowel (ileus), 6-18 women per 1,000 experience blood clots in their legs, and 1-2 per 1,000 experience clots that lodge in the lung (pulmonary embolism). The 10-year hospital review reported a 4.5% incidence of major complications--that is, severe hemorrhage, need for repeat surgery (generally to investigate bleeding), pelvic infection, blood clots, pneumonia, septicemia (blood poisoning), or clotting dysfunction (a result of severe hemorrhage). Nearly 1/3 of cesarean mothers experienced minor complications, including fever; hemorrhage; blood-filled swelling (hematoma); urinary tract, wound, or uterine infection; leg clots (phlebitis); or paralyzed bowel or bladder. In addition, long-term and chronic complications from scar tissue adhesions include pelvic pain, bowel problems, and pain during sexual intercourse.

Cesareans cause more maternal deaths than does vaginal birth. A 1989 analysis in Great Britain revealed that women were 550% more likely to die of an elective cesearean than a vaginal birth (9 vs. 2 per 100,000). A Dutch study found that between 1983 and 1992, c-sections caused 700% more deaths than vaginal births did (28 vs. 4 per 100,000). Obviously some factors that lead to c-section also threaten the mother's life. However, the British study compared elective cesarean, where there was no medical indication for the surgery, to vaginal birth to minimize that possibility, and the Dutch study investigated the exact cause of death. The numbers in the British study may also be low. Studies have found that data culled from vital statistics undercount cesarean death rates by 40-50%.

A cesarean poses risks to the baby as well. The baby may be cut, a complication that occurred in a little over 1% of head-down babies and 6% of breech babies in one hospital and in 1% of babies in the 10-year review. Cesarean-delivered babies are more likely to be in poor condition at birth. When researchers looked at 700 normal-weight babies born with low Apgar scores after healthy pregnancies, they found they were nearly half again as likely to be elective cesareans as vaginal births. Cesareans also increase the likelihood of breathing difficulties. Researchers compared outcomes for over 800 babies born by c-section for reasons unrelated to the baby's condition with 10,900 low-risk vaginal births. Babies born by cesarean were over 3 times as likely to be admitted to intermediate or intensive care (2.6% vs. 8.7%) and 5 times more likely to need assistance with breathing (0.3% vs. 1.5%). Another study compared elective cesareans--again, a situation where complications must be attributed to the cesarean, not the baby's condition--to women having trial of labor after a previous cesarean. It also documented more newborn breathing problems and more jaundice as well.

...Yadda-yadda phychological fallout/negative feelings/postpartum depression/nightmares/flashbacks, etc. (Skipping this part because maybe it doesn't apply as much to elective c-sections, I'm guessing...although who knows...) ...The trivialization of cesarean surgery compounds the situation. While it has long been recognized that major surgery has adverse psychological consequences, a recognition that enables medical staff to help surgical patients and their families expect and cope with those consequences, doctors and nurses rarely extend that acknowledgement to cesarean mothers.

Finally, the scar tissue poses considerable risk to subsequent pregnancies and births. Cesarean section increases the risk of infertility and ectopic pregnancy, a life-threatening complication in which the embryo implants outside of the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube leading to the ovary. Because the scar tissue interferes with placental attachment, cesareans increase the risk of the placenta detaching before the birth (abruptio placentae), growing over the cervix (placenta previa), or growing into or even through the muscular wall of the uterus (placenta accreta or percreta). The odds of placental complications soar with each succeeding cesarean, and the hemorrhage that results from placental attachment abnormalities or ectopic pregnancy can threaten the life and health of both mother and baby. The scar can also give way, causing massive bleeding and possibly expelling the baby into the abdominal cavity, an event that occurs in 4 per 1,000 women with horizontal scars and more often in women with vertical scars. In addition, pelvic scar tissue makes subsequent cesareans more technically difficult and injuries to other organs more likely.

End quote.

And that's just the basics of what is known. It seems like every other day now I'm seeing a new article finding more and more benefits related to vaginal birth (the intestinal gut flora thing is the big one that comes to mind right now.)

I have lots of friends who have had c-sections, and I can tell you, witnessing what they went through in recovery was truly shocking and horrifying to me, especially when compared to my own experiences. Having a newborn is hard enough without having to recover from abdominal surgery! I have one friend who was very happy with her c-section, and bragged about how quickly she healed. She was saying, "I was back to my normal self after 3 weeks!" and part of me was thinking "good for her, I'm happy that she's happy" but part of me was thinking, "three WEEKS! OMG! That's awful!" since after my vaginal births, especially the second one, sure I was a little sore, but I was walking around feeling great like, the next day. I know that some women have difficult vaginal births and difficult recoveries, but with a c-section, those difficulties are a given!

I'm not saying c-sections don't save lives, but it seems to me that any reasonable person would avoid having one that isn't saving a life. Elective cesarean is perhaps the most irrational thing I've ever heard of. I simply cannot conceive how someone can decide to choose a c-section when it is not conclusively necessary in order to get the baby out safely. That doesn't mean it's not a valid choice sometimes, for some people. It's just so far from rational decision-making, from my point of view, that I can't understand that choice.

That said, I definitely do believe in actual choice--I am truly not just paying lip service. In your case, based on what you wrote anyway, your reason for choosing the massively riskier option (elective c-section) is that your discomfort with the other option (i.e. vaginal birth as Plan A with *necessary* c-section as Plan B) is massive enough to balance that out and tip the scale in favor of the c-section. I respect your choice, and you need to do whatever you feel is the best thing for you.

But with that in mind, may I respectfully give my point of view? If my amount of discomfort at the idea of the uncontrolled nature of birth was massive enough that I'd be willing to take on medically unnecessary risk to myself and my child just to avoid it, I'd want to deeply examine and work through my fears, and re-evaluate everything just to make absolutely sure that I was making a sound and rational choice. You may just come to the exact same conclusion, but with some added confidence. Or you may change your mind. (Perhaps, our assertions that at least an attempt at natural birth is the most rational choice would not "rub you the wrong way" if you didn't on some level realize that we have a point?) If you are confident that your choice is the absolute best one for YOU, then nothing anyone else says will be able to bother you.

You could choose an elective c-section with eyes wide open, knowing it's the best thing for YOU, while also acknowledging that because it comes with unnecessary medical risk and consequence that YOU are okay with, taking on those risks and consequences would be a terrible choice for most other healthy women.

Regardless, I wish you the best. If you go through with the unnecessary c-section, I hope it goes as smoothly as possible, your baby is healthy, and you recover quickly.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kristah1000*
> 
> How do you know she has no medical reason? Why does she have to explain herself? If it's all about the mother's choice, why does she have to justify that on here? She says she is informed, why isn't that enough?


She said so herself. A Maternal Request CS, as a first time mom--by its very definition its reason is "maternal request," NOT "medical reason."

It isn't just about the mother's choice. Informed choice is really, really, important. So, it's also about making sure mothers are informed when they make the choice. I actually feel is is a moral imperative, after seeing so many people I care about harmed because they made uninformed birth choices. The downside of feeling like morally, you have to make SURE women know things about birth choices, is that you can often come across as condescending and/or disrespectful even though you don't mean to be. So be it--by speaking up and questioning maybe we will make a real positive difference for somebody.

She clearly stated that she "feels much, much more comfortable with the controlled environment of a CS than taking her chances that she'll have an uncomplicated vaginal delivery." It seems obvious to anyone aware of what research is out there that the "chances" of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery are really quite high when the process is not tampered with. And it seems that Poogles thinks the "controlled environment" factor of a c-section is much more important than the "risks to mother and baby" factor or the "recovery from major surgery" factor, which seems illogical to me. But I suppose I get it, in a way. Giving up control is something everyone has to do when giving birth, and it's very difficult for some of us to do.

Electing to have an un-needed c-section probably does bring more "control" to the situation, although I'd argue even that is mostly an illusion. But the thing is, it doesn't bring a better outcome for the mother or the baby, in MOST cases.

As an aside, electing to have an episiotomy is a good comparison. You do have more "control" over the situation, as you are 100% certain your taint will be sliced open. Whereas if you choose not to get an episiotomy, you are very much "taking your chances"--you may tear naturally, or you may not, and you do have some control over that through pushing technique and preparation beforehand, but your control IS limited. Therefore you must mentally surrender to the process and stop trying to control things that can't be controlled. Life=Risk, always. The difference is, c-sections are sometimes necessary while episiotomies almost never are, but it's still a good comparison. By choosing the option that gives you more control, you are choosing the WORSE option of the two!
























Nobody said she has to justify anything. Just that we are honestly curious about how someone could arrive at that choice. It flies in the face of reason. (From our *outside* perspective, that is.)

Poogles, your reasons are your reasons, and I hope I have not offended you.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lynann*
> 
> OK I'm just curious and mean no disrespect, but WHY would you choose to have major abdominal surgery to deliver your baby without a medical reason for it? I had my first son that way, but not by choice, and then had a vaginal birth for my second son, and hope to continue having vaginal births with any future children. I honestly don't mean to be disrespectful, but every other mama I've met who has had a c-section had it for medical reasons at the time of birth, and I've just never met someone who would choose to go through such major surgery by choice for no medical reason.


I'm probably only having one child, two at most, so risks to future pregnancies don't factor in at all really. I feel the risks associated with a CS without labor (a truly "elective" CS) are more controllable and preferable (to me) than the possible risks associated with a vaginal delivery. If I could somehow be guaranteed an uncomplicated birth with no (or very minor) immediate or future problems for either myself or the baby, I would go with that, no problem. Without that guarantee though, I'd rather take my chances with the CS (not that I think a CS is a guarantee, btw).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> I do have a hard time understanding why someone who is a first time mom, without much reason, would just opt for a scheduled section. It is major surgery.


Now, to be fair, just because you don't know/understand/agree with my reasons does not mean I am making this choice "without much reason" 

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> 
> Though, for some women it is less than because it was what they tried really to avoid.


I can absolutely understand that, the same as if I had to have a non-medicated birth, when that was what I was trying to avoid - I would find the experience "less than" what I had desired. My irritation and objections come from the blanket statements and implications that natural, unmedicated birth is always better than CS, regardless of the mother's desires or expectations.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> As an aside, electing to have an episiotomy is a good comparison. You do have more "control" over the situation, as you are 100% certain your taint will be sliced open. Whereas if you choose _not_ to get an episiotomy, you are very much "taking your chances"--you may tear naturally, or you may not, and you do have some control over that through pushing technique and preparation beforehand, but your control IS limited. Therefore you must mentally surrender to the process and stop trying to control things that can't be controlled. Life=Risk, always. The difference is, c-sections are sometimes necessary while episiotomies almost never are, but it's still a good comparison. By choosing the option that gives you more control, you are choosing the WORSE option of the two!


This is a big assumption to make. Just because YOU feel something, such as an episiotomy, is almost never necessary doesn't make it right. Regardless, the only person who can decide what the worse option is is that person, not an bystander who assumes he/she is more educated through research.

One of the things MDC encourages is educating oneself about pregnancy and birth. Considering the OP has been a member here longer than a majority of posters on this thread I think it's safe to assume that she isn't lying when she said she has researched her decision. Do you have to agree with that decision, of course not, but she deserves the same consideration & respect that a mom who were to announce that she had decided to have a UC for what may seem to others as a high risk pregnancy.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> You are wrong with this. You are assuming that accurate information is collected & kept w/ regards to mothers who die from childbirth related causes. Like many other instances in this society, we are terribly short sighted when it comes to the tracking of the after effects of what we do to other humans (treat them as guinea pigs really - vaccines, circumcision, formula feeding, c-sections, etc.) The fact is, that in America, if these records are kept at all, they are far from comprehensive. There is not a space on the death certificates in most states that asks if the mother gave birth recently (or within a time frame that would be appropriate).


I can't speak for "most states," but I have personally filled out death certificates in three different states and all have had a section where it asks if the decedent was pregnant in the year preceding death.


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


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


1. No assumptions here. I don't "feel" episiotomies are unnecessary. They ARE unnecessary. If you have ANY evidence that routine episiotomy is a necessary, evidence-based practice, I would love to see it!

2. Poogles0213 is not the OP. The OP was frustrated because a first-time-mom friend of hers said that birth is not normal, therefore she'd be going the medical route.

I never accused Poogles0213 of lying about her research--in fact I specifically said that I believed her.

I also believe that I spoke with consideration and respect. Giving consideration and respect is not mutually exclusive with questioning someone's line of reasoning. You can do both.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

artekah, I will have to reply to you later - I started to but I do not have the time right now *







*


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WildKingdom*
> 
> I can't speak for "most states," but I have personally filled out death certificates in three different states and all have had a section where it asks if the decedent was pregnant in the year preceding death.


And, as someone who has given birth twice in the past two years and has gone to the doctor and dentist for numerous other reasons, every single piece of paper I have had to fill out asks when the last time I was pregnant was. And upon going into the appointment, when the doctor said, "I see here that you have had two children. Were they c-sections or vaginal deliveries." Even my therapist asked me that. Maybe that's just Kentucky- but I feel like everywhere I go Im having to give out way more information that I thought I needed to.

And Poogles, you are right, I don't know your reasons. I should have phrased that "without any medical reasons". Sorry.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> I have lots of friends who have had c-sections, and I can tell you, witnessing what they went through in recovery was truly shocking and horrifying to me, especially when compared to my own experiences. Having a newborn is hard enough without having to recover from abdominal surgery! I have one friend who was very happy with her c-section, and bragged about how quickly she healed. She was saying, "I was back to my normal self after 3 weeks!" and part of me was thinking "good for her, I'm happy that she's happy" but part of me was thinking, "three WEEKS! OMG! That's awful!" since after my vaginal births, especially the second one, sure I was a little sore, but I was walking around feeling great like, the next day. I know that some women have difficult vaginal births and difficult recoveries, but with a c-section, those difficulties are a given!


 I would not assume that a CS = difficult recovery. As you mentioned, easy and difficult recoveries can happen after a vaginal delivery and they also can for a CS. It is definitely possible to be back to normal or feeling great less than 3 weeks after a CS, even some as early as a few days after, just as it is possible to still be in pain and healing from a vaginal delivery weeks or months later. I will freely admit that a quick, easy recovery is more probable after a vaginal delivery, and I weighed that in my decision-making.

Quote:


> Orginally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> I'm not saying c-sections don't save lives, but it seems to me that any reasonable person would avoid having one that isn't saving a life. Elective cesarean is perhaps the most irrational thing I've ever heard of. I simply cannot conceive how someone can decide to choose a c-section when it is not conclusively necessary in order to get the baby out safely. That doesn't mean it's not a valid choice sometimes, for some people. It's just so far from rational decision-making, from my point of view, that I can't understand that choice.


Remember that there are many times when you cannot know if a CS was "conclusively necessary in order to get the baby out safely" until after the fact, and sometimes even then you can't know for sure (when a CS is done and the baby comes out pink and screaming - was it unecessary or was the baby, thankfully, gotten out in time to avoid being compromised/damaged?).

Quote:


> Orginally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> That said, I definitely do believe in actual choice--I am truly not just paying lip service. In your case, based on what you wrote anyway, your reason for choosing the massively riskier option (elective c-section) is that your discomfort with the other option (i.e. vaginal birth as Plan A with *necessary* c-section as Plan B) is massive enough to balance that out and tip the scale in favor of the c-section. I respect your choice, and you need to do whatever you feel is the best thing for you.


That's not exactly it...I do not see elective CS as the "massively riskier option". Both vaginal delivery and CS delivery have their own risks, I simply prefer the risks associated with the CS, for both myself and my (as yet hypothetical) baby. The "discomfort" I have with a vaginal delivery is mostly due to the possible risks of vaginal delivery for both me and baby. I have personal reasons, as well.

Quote:


> Orginally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> But with that in mind, may I respectfully give my point of view? If my amount of discomfort at the idea of the uncontrolled nature of birth was massive enough that I'd be willing to take on medically unnecessary risk to myself and my child just to avoid it, I'd want to deeply examine and work through my fears, and re-evaluate everything just to make absolutely sure that I was making a sound and rational choice. You may just come to the exact same conclusion, but with some added confidence. Or you may change your mind.


There are no fears that can be "worked through" per se...I've looked at the risks and decided which set looked better to me for the health of myself and my baby. Fear doesn't really play too much of a part in it, other than the "fear" I have about the risks associated with childbirth - though I'd probably rather term that "healthy respect".

Having originally assumed all babies were born in the hospital, vaginally if possible, to wanting a homebirth, and then wanting a UC, then deciding to go to the hospital "ready to push" for an unmedicated birth, then deciding I would get an epidural and cEFM for birth at the hospital, then finally deciding on a Maternal Request CS (if I can get one) - I feel quite confident I have explored all my options, and the arguments on all sides, and have come to my decision rationally and it is very unlikely to change at this point.

Quote:


> Orginally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> (Perhaps, our assertions that at least an attempt at natural birth is the most rational choice would not "rub you the wrong way" if you didn't on some level realize that we have a point?) If you are confident that your choice is the absolute best one for YOU, then nothing anyone else says will be able to bother you.


If you were suddenly in an area or time where the prevailing message was that formula was much better for babies, and moms could choose to breastfeed, but it was "irrational" and "riskier", would that irritate you or rub you the wrong way?

How about when pro-circ people talk about all the reasons baby boys should be circed? That not circing is putting them at risk for more UTI's or STD's or what-have-you? Does that irritate you or rub you the wrong way (or maybe even piss you right off







)?

Would you then assume it must be because they have a point, and you must just not be confident enough in your own choices? I would assume not. Just because something irritates someone or rubs them the wrong way does not mean it is because they are insecure in their decisions.

Quote:


> Orginally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> You could choose an elective c-section with eyes wide open, knowing it's the best thing for YOU, while also acknowledging that because it comes with unnecessary medical risk and consequence that YOU are okay with, taking on those risks and consequences would be a terrible choice for most other healthy women.


I understand it seems an irrational choice to you, and most other women. Most women would rather avoid a surgery if given the choice. I am not one of those women; doctors, hospitals, surgery, medications....none of that stuff freaks me out. It is only a terrible choice for other women if they are forced into it and do not desire a purely elective CS, otherwise it is a completely legitimate choice.

Quote:


> Orginally Posted by *artekah*
> Regardless, I wish you the best. If you go through with the unnecessary c-section, I hope it goes as smoothly as possible, your baby is healthy, and you recover quickly.


Thank you, though I'd appreciate if you'd consider not repeatedly including the word "unnecessary". I would not refer to home births or UCs as "unecessary", even though I, personally, believe they introduce a ton of risk into the situation for no "medically indicated" reason; just the desire and wishes of the mother/parents, coupled with their interpretation of the risks and benifits of different birth choices - which are the same things that factored into my decision for a CS.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> She clearly stated that she "feels much, much more comfortable with the controlled environment of a CS than taking her chances that she'll have an uncomplicated vaginal delivery." It seems obvious to anyone aware of what research is out there that the "chances" of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery are really quite high when the process is not tampered with.


Again, we will have to just disagree about what the research shows regarding the risks and benefits of various modes of delivery. Overall, most vaginal deliveries result in healthy baby, healthy mom, this is true. It's the percentage of births that will go wrong that concern me - it is a gamble I do not wish to take.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> And it seems that Poogles thinks the "controlled environment" factor of a c-section is much more important than the "risks to mother and baby" factor or the "recovery from major surgery" factor, which seems illogical to me.


No, you misunderstand - the controlled environment is what lowers the risks that I am concerned about; I would NOT choose an option that I thought was riskier to my baby. Recovery is not too much of a consideration, honestly - to me it would be worth it and a most likely nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

Quote:


> But I suppose I get it, in a way. Giving up control is something everyone has to do when giving birth, and it's very difficult for some of us to do.
> 
> Electing to have an un-needed c-section probably does bring more "control" to the situation, although I'd argue even that is mostly an illusion. But the thing is, it doesn't bring a better outcome for the mother or the baby, in MOST cases.


I absolutely admit that even in a purely elective, pre-labor CS there are possibilities of complications, up to and including death (just as there is for vaginal delivery) - I just prefer those particular complications and risks to the ones possible in vaginal delivery.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

> I absolutely admit that even in a purely elective, pre-labor CS there are possibilities of complications, up to and including death (*just as there is for vaginal delivery*) - I just prefer those particular complications and risks to the ones possible in vaginal delivery.


The maternal death rate is 246% higher for women during a csection than during a vaginal delivery.

What are the risks associated with vaginal delivery that concern you?


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Poogles0213: Fair enough.

I would not want that start in life for my baby. I think it is introducing trauma to your child unnecessarily--cold room, bright lights, being yanked away from you and cord cut immediately, fluid still in their little lungs--the image just makes me sad. The 1% (maybe more) risk of the baby being cut by a scalpel, that alone makes me cringe. All the c-section mamas I know IRL, even planned c-sections went through that because they believed they had no other choice. It's just not ideal for the baby, compared to being born normally. So I don't get your idea that it is just fine for the baby...

But I know that some people are happy with their c-section experiences. I hope you choose your hospital, surgeon and birth team very carefully to ensure you hold your baby immediately and breastfeeding is supported. Doulas are awesome for that.

A planned c-section before you go into labor (although bad for the baby if it's not done cooking) is indeed the safest choice if you are dead-set on a c-section.

I don't think I am able to think of surgery without medical indication as anything but "unnecessary"--it's elective. By it's very definition it's medically unnecessary. This cannot be compared to home birth or any other birth choices--it's unnecessary surgery, period. You may consider it "necessary" because it is your personal preference, but that still doesn't make it necessary, sorry...

Anyway. You sound like you are confident and know how to advocate for what you need and want, which puts you ahead of the curve already. I do really hope you and future baby have the best possible outcome!


----------



## artekah (Apr 26, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> If you were suddenly in an area or time where the prevailing message was that formula was much better for babies, and moms could choose to breastfeed, but it was "irrational" and "riskier", would that irritate you or rub you the wrong way?
> 
> ...


Oh, and I just wanted to respond to this part quickly before I leave you alone. The difference here is that when people spout off about how great formula/circumcision/(fill in the blank) is, I am irritated with them not for being arrogant or whatever, although that's a little annoying, I admit.

I'm irritated with them for being completely ignorant of the subject they feel so strongly about, I mean, they know next to nothing, yet still thinking they are able to hold an engaging debate with others who have actually researched ad nauseum. Yet they are completely dismissive of actual facts and information presented to them. There's no point--it's like banging your head against a wall sometimes. It's annoying when people say "circ just looks nicer!" because it's so painfully evident that they're blithering idiots who aren't remotely interested in real information. I'm irritated with those people for their smug, willful, ignorance.

If someone is actually arguing with "facts," (i.e. the circ/UTI thing) it's easy enough to tell them when they're quite simply wrong. For example, if someone says "breastfed babies fail to thrive if you don't introduce rice cereal at 8 weeks," I can come up with tons of research to completely debunk their "facts" on a moment's notice. Same thing if someone is saying ignorant things about circ. They're not necessarily willfully ignorant, they just don't have all the facts. No, I don't get irritated by those people, because it's possible to just fill in their missing facts and make the world a slightly better place because now they aren't spreading that particular misinformation anymore.

Not the same thing here. The difference in this case is that all these women who are arguing the benefits of natural childbirth, and/or the risks of unnecessary medical intervention, actually have something intelligent to say, whether they're coming to the correct conclusion or not, they are talking about information and facts...even our "opinions" are still somewhat educated opinions, you have to acknowledge that much. I actually took the time to type out many paragraphs listing the known risks of c-sections. I'm not just coming from an ignorant, purely emotional stance. If I said something like "I had me a dream about a C-section and it scared me good! C-sections is the devil!" or even something true but that could be conceived as hooey, like "The baby's spirit is disrupted by medical birth and the trauma of interventions lives in the mother's body forever," I mean, yeah, I can see how that would be very annoying. But that is not the case.

I think all the women here who have questioned you or doubted you about this actually have valid things to say. And you have not really responded to those concerns at all, except to say that you're aware, you've weighed the facts in your mind and simply come to a different conclusion. As I said, fair enough. But I don't think that others presenting information is anything to get irritated about. If we are wrong about something, (like maybe the risk of dying from a c-section is NOT actually higher than from vaginal birth, and we just have our facts wrong?) you are free to jump in and provide the missing information. The fact that you just feel irritated by what we're saying yet you're not disputing our actual information, makes me believe you may not be coming at this whole thing from a logic-based place.

Yet you claim you are. So I guess I'm just confused. And maybe I shouldn't say anymore because it doesn't make any difference, your mind is made up, and it really is none of my business. I know with every word I type I am risking making you even more irritated. But, just so you understand, that's why I don't think you have good reason to be so irritated.

ETA: And, I still respect your decisions for your own future birth.


----------



## trimommy2009 (Mar 22, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> No, you misunderstand - the controlled environment is what lowers the risks that I am concerned about; I would NOT choose an option that I thought was riskier to my baby. Recovery is not too much of a consideration, honestly - to me it would be worth it and a most likely nothing more than a minor inconvenience.


I have absolutely no research studies to backup my own observation that recovery from a c-section is far more then an inconvenience, except my own personal experience. I realize that there are many stories of painful vaginal birth recoveries as well, however I would like to state that my unplanned c-section resulted in the doctor cutting my bladder causing me to pee blood for weeks post surgery and he leftover placenta debris which caused a raging infection throughout my whole body that landed me in the hospital for 3 days of antibiotics and a possible other surgery for blood clots. The OB that delivered my 1st was considered one of the best in the state and even he stated that it occurs about 10 to 15% of the time post c-section. I'm not at all surprised by the previous posters statistic of increasing the maternal death rate at 246% higher.

Another thing to keep in mind when you state you would "NOT choose an option that you thought was riskier to your baby", it has been reported over and over that babies are twice as likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care, and more likely to have breathing problems requiring oxygen when born by c-section. I would say that is more of a risk then an inconvenience.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> <snip> I would NOT choose an option that I thought was riskier to my baby. <snip>


You said you would not choose an option that you *thought* was riskier to your baby. Are you saying you think vaginally delivery, the way we've been being born for the majority of the time humans have existed, is riskier to your child? How do you suppose, then, we've made it this far?

Maybe if you spent a day or a week living with me & my allergic kids, you'd think vaginal delivery was safer. Or if you spent a day or a week living w/ a child who has asthma. Or spent a day or a week w/ a child w/ another immune issue? All of these things are more likely to happen w/ a c-section, whether that c-section happens because it was to save the child's life (like a woman I know who had an undiagnosed vaginal cyst that was blocking her child from coming through the birth canal), the mother's life (same story), or because someone chooses it (the doctor who wants to deliver the baby before he goes on vacation ((which happened to a friend)) or the mother who wants to control the uncontrollable).

Yeah, I'm a little annoyed by all this. As I said, my children's issues (as well as my own, which created my children's issues) are directly related to my being born via surgery (but again, it's not the only reason). It is upsetting to me to think of someone choosing this option when I live every day w/ the consequences of my mother having a c-section.























All the best to you,

Sus


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> 
> Yeah, I'm a little annoyed by all this. As I said, my children's issues (as well as my own, which created my children's issues) are directly related to my being born via surgery (but again, it's not the only reason). It is upsetting to me to think of someone choosing this option when I live every day w/ the consequences of my mother having a c-section.


Just curious, how are you certain that your children's allergies are directly a result of being born by c section. There really is no way of knowing if their health issues would be the same or not if they had been born vaginally since its impossible to turn back time.

Please don't think I'm trying to doubt you - just an honest question.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> The maternal death rate is 246% higher for women during a csection than during a vaginal delivery.
> 
> What are the risks associated with vaginal delivery that concern you?


Was that figure arrived at by comparing the maternal death rate of low-risk vaginal deliveries compared to the maternal death rate of planned, purely elective, pre-labor CS? When you look at the death rate for all CS, you're including all the women who were getting the CS because they were seriously ill (e.g. infection), those that have been laboring for hours and are now in a state of exhaustion (as is the uterus, making the risks of hemorrhage higher), and other high-risk situations (like Placenta accreta) that make maternal death more likely, even (or sometimes, especially) if the CS hadn't taken place. My reading and investigation has shown that the maternal mortality and morbidity between these two groups are not significantly different, with the CS rate being slightly higher, such as is shown in this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17296957 (Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS; Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System.)

Risks of vaginal delivery that concern me (please note, I am not claiming CS eliminates all these risks, but they do at least reduce the risk):

For me: trauma from instrumental delivery, tearing/episiotomy, vaginal/rectal trauma, pelvic floor trauma, tailbone trauma, incontinence, fistula, loss of vaginal tone, pelvic organ prolapse, uterine rupture, hemorrhage due to placental abruption, exhaustion and hemorrhage due to prolonged labor, sexual dysfunction, emergency CS (which has much higher risks than an elective, pre-labor CS)

For baby: cord prolapse, dystocia, trauma from instrumental delivery, brachial plexus injury, brain bleeds, skull/facial trauma from being squeezed through the birth canal, complications from true knots in the cord, complications of tight nuchal cords, infection, asphyxia, HIE, cerebral palsy, encephalopathy, stillbirth

I may have left some out, but I think that covers most of it.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> I would not want that start in life for my baby. I think it is introducing trauma to your child unnecessarily--cold room, bright lights, being yanked away from you and cord cut immediately,


That's fine, and I hope you have/will have the start you want for your baby. These things are not "traumatic" in my opinion, and so I do not worry about them.

Quote:


> fluid still in their little lungs--the image just makes me sad. The 1% (maybe more) risk of the baby being cut by a scalpel, that alone makes me cringe.


Babies born vaginally can still have fluid in the lungs, though I realize this is more likely in CS babies. It is easily dealt with and is very unlikely to cause any long-term harm or damage. Babies can also have injuries from instrumental vaginal deliveries (cuts, bruises, scrapes), as well as unassisted (not instrumental) vaginal delivery (head/facial bruising and swelling, brain bleeds).

Quote:


> It's just not ideal for the baby, compared to being born normally. So I don't get your idea that it is just fine for the baby...


I disagree, the preponderance of evidence shows that, overall, planned, pre-labor CS involves less risk to the baby. You will likely never agree. I feel it would be futile to list studies or sources, because we will likely go round and round, with neither of us changing our minds, and probably just getting frustrated in the process. Plus, I already feel bad that I've inadvertently hijacked the OP's thread, and I'm trying to not leave too many people's questions or concerns dangling while trying not to drag this on forever in someone else's thread









Quote:


> I don't think I am able to think of surgery without medical indication as anything but "unnecessary"--it's elective. By it's very definition it's medically unnecessary. This cannot be compared to home birth or any other birth choices--it's unnecessary surgery, period. You may consider it "necessary" because it is your personal preference, but that still doesn't make it necessary, sorry...


I am not claiming it is "necessary" - I was simply requesting that you re-consider repeatedly throwing the word "unnecessary" into the conversation, because it serves no purpose, other than, possibly, trying to invoke guilt or shame for a decision. The same way a HB or UC is never "necessary" but simply a choice in birth, I would likewise not continue to refer to someone's HB or UC as "unnecessary" - it's just not needed.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artekah*
> 
> [...] I'm irritated with them for being completely ignorant of the subject they feel so strongly about, I mean, they know next to nothing[...]
> 
> ...


My point was simply that just because someone is irritated about someone else's stance or argument on something does not mean it must be because the other party has a point, and they must just not be confident enough in their own choices. That was all. And, apparently, you agree.

Quote:


> I think all the women here who have questioned you or doubted you about this actually have valid things to say. And you have not really responded to those concerns at all, except to say that you're aware, you've weighed the facts in your mind and simply come to a different conclusion. As I said, fair enough. But I don't think that others presenting information is anything to get irritated about. If we are wrong about something, (like maybe the risk of dying from a c-section is NOT actually higher than from vaginal birth, and we just have our facts wrong?) you are free to jump in and provide the missing information. The fact that you just feel irritated by what we're saying yet you're not disputing our actual information, makes me believe you may not be coming at this whole thing from a logic-based place.


As I just mentioned, I don't want to turn this thread into a huge back-and-forth discussion complete with sources and references, because it's not my thread. Further, my original intent on this thread was to simply question some assumptions people were making in regards to why a person would choose to avoid an unmedicated delivery - and it's those types of assumptions that irritate me, not others simply presenting factual information about risks etc. I've always searched out information for and against almost any decision or stance I take - which, btw, is how I decided against a HB or UC after having wanted them.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trimommy2009*
> 
> [...]my unplanned c-section resulted in the doctor cutting my bladder causing me to pee blood for weeks post surgery and he leftover placenta debris which caused a raging infection throughout my whole body that landed me in the hospital for 3 days of antibiotics and a possible other surgery for blood clots.[...]


I am sorry that you had complications in your unplanned CS. The rates of complications (especially like those you experienced) are significantly lower in a planned, pre-labor CS.

Quote:


> Another thing to keep in mind when you state you would "NOT choose an option that you thought was riskier to your baby", it has been reported over and over that babies are twice as likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care, and more likely to have breathing problems requiring oxygen when born by c-section. I would say that is more of a risk then an inconvenience.


Those higher admission rates are usually for those (usually minor) breathing problems that resolve quickly with treatment and without long-term damage, especially when the planned CS is done after 39 weeks gestation (which mine most certainly would, unless I went into labor before that). The preponderance of evidence shows that, overall, planned pre-labor CS is safer for babies, even with the increase in breathing problems; I know you do not agree.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> 
> You said you would not choose an option that you *thought* was riskier to your baby. Are you saying you think vaginally delivery, the way we've been being born for the majority of the time humans have existed, is riskier to your child? How do you suppose, then, we've made it this far?


Yes, I do think vaginal delivery is riskier for baby than a planned, pre-labor CS. We've "made it this far" because evolution and nature only care about enough women and babies surviving to ensure the survival of the species, which is not the same as being without serious risk of death. You can have quite a high mortality rate and still have a thriving species (ever read about birth for spotted hyenas? Massive death rate for first-time moms, but the species is still able to continue on).

Quote:


> Maybe if you spent a day or a week living with me & my allergic kids, you'd think vaginal delivery was safer. Or if you spent a day or a week living w/ a child who has asthma. Or spent a day or a week w/ a child w/ another immune issue? All of these things are more likely to happen w/ a c-section, whether that c-section happens because it was to save the child's life (like a woman I know who had an undiagnosed vaginal cyst that was blocking her child from coming through the birth canal), the mother's life (same story), or because someone chooses it (the doctor who wants to deliver the baby before he goes on vacation ((which happened to a friend)) or the mother who wants to control the uncontrollable).


All of the evidence I've seen put forth for a link between allergies (or asthma) and CS has been weak at best. I do not believe a link exists (though, obviously, I am open to changing my mind if more conclusive evidence were to come out - and it would certainly cause me to re-assess my choice in light of that information).


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TCMoulton*
> 
> Just curious, how are you certain that your children's allergies are directly a result of being born by c section. There really is no way of knowing if their health issues would be the same or not if they had been born vaginally since its impossible to turn back time.
> Please don't think I'm trying to doubt you - just an honest question.


I don't think you're doubting me at all - but thanks for clarifying!









My determination of the above is from 8.5 years of researching food allergies, what contributes to them, what makes a healthy gut & person, what can heal them, etc.

My children were born vaginally - I was born via c-section. C-section babies do not get their mother's flora on the way out; they get other flora (I'm thinking that which is prominent in the OR, but can't recall so I won't say). My start did not include the bacteria that is necessary to develop a healthy gut. Therefore, my gut hasn't developed properly (in addition to not getting what it needed after that). I have leaky gut/candida overgrowth & probably more. I've passed that onto my children. This has resulted in a number of things, including for my youngest, severe food allergies/sensitivities so extreme that at three years old, I'm his main source of nutrition (he nurses - yes, it is very tough). My strategies so far to help him have failed. I'm just grateful for the two of us that he nurses; he'd be much sicker than he is otherwise.

Is what I said what you thought I'd say? Or did you think it'd be something else?









Sus


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> I am not claiming it is "necessary" - I was simply requesting that you re-consider repeatedly throwing the word "unnecessary" into the conversation, because it serves no purpose, other than, possibly, trying to invoke guilt or shame for a decision. *The same way a HB* or UC is *never "necessary"* but simply a choice in birth, I would likewise not continue to refer to someone's HB or UC as "unnecessary" - it's just not needed.


Just FYI, my first labour was 1 hour and 24 mins, my second was 61 minutes. Because of where i live in relation to the hospital HB is the best option for me and planning a HB is actually NECESSARY. I won't make it to hospital on time and it would be fairly foolhardy of me to think i will.

So HB is the necessary option for me. Either i consent to have my baby forced to be born on a day it didn't pick itself (and add all of the risks associated with that the the risks already inherent in any birth) or i choose to have my baby in the car en route to hospital. The baby i'm carrying now is due in mid-January. I am yet to meet ANY medical staff who think my planning another HB in this instance isn't necessary, the obstetrician thoroughly agreed that HB is our safest option.

I am lucky to have an excellent HB midwife who lives 15mins away, and who should manage to reach me even in mid-January (i'm in the UK, she's a qualified UK midwife) in time. It is interesting that you think everyone having a homebirth is making a social and not medical decision. The medical facts actually support my "choice" - it is the safest way for ME to get my babies born, because i have such fast and unpredictable labours. I am very grateful i planned a HB for my first ("unnecessary" because i'd never laboured and didn't know i would do so fast) because even WITH midwives on call they were so relaxed about it all (telling me literally until her head was crowning that i wasn't in "real" labour yet) she was almost born unassisted into a toilet. That experience prompted me to find better care, in the shape of my current midwife who delivered my 2nd with me in 2010.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> Yes, I do think vaginal delivery is riskier for baby than a planned, pre-labor CS. We've "made it this far" because evolution and nature only care about enough women and babies surviving to ensure the survival of the species, which is not the same as being without serious risk of death. You can have quite a high mortality rate and still have a thriving species (ever read about birth for spotted hyenas? Massive death rate for first-time moms, but the species is still able to continue on).
> 
> All of the evidence I've seen put forth for a link between allergies (or asthma) and CS has been weak at best. I do not believe a link exists (though, obviously, I am open to changing my mind if more conclusive evidence were to come out - and it would certainly cause me to re-assess my choice in light of that information).


I am quite stumped by those (not specifically you) who look to studies for things like this. To me, it's like those who don't breastfeed (whether as a choice or due to one/some/multiple obstacles) & say that the studies don't convince them. Why do you/anyone need studies? Why isn't the way we're designed to do it enough?

I don't want/need answers to these questions, they're just ones that come to mind w/ all of this. I think but don't know that it may be related to the lack of personal responsibility most people take for their choices/actions/lives. If you can look to a study & decide that you are going to do something/not do something based on a study, then you are putting the choice outside yourself. If you rely on what you have to make your decisions, then you are taking responsibility for what you do.

Not criticizing anyone. These are just my thoughts.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
> Just FYI, my first labour was 1 hour and 24 mins, my second was 61 minutes. Because of where i live in relation to the hospital HB is the best option for me and planning a HB is actually NECESSARY. I won't make it to hospital on time and it would be fairly foolhardy of me to think i will.
> 
> So HB is the necessary option for me. Either i consent to have my baby forced to be born on a day it didn't pick itself (and add all of the risks associated with that the the risks already inherent in any birth) or i choose to have my baby in the car en route to hospital. The baby i'm carrying now is due in mid-January. I am yet to meet ANY medical staff who think my planning another HB in this instance isn't necessary, the obstetrician thoroughly agreed that HB is our safest option.
> ...


I think the above story goes under the category of you don't know what you don't know. I'm guessing that poogles has never heard of a person like you before. Therefore, she's always assumed that having a birth at home was a choice, when in reality, it is not a choice for everyone. Again, not criticizing, just observing.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation now.







This is all too close to home for me right now. Each day is a struggle & to have someone say they don't believe that c-section contributed to my current struggle, well, it's too hard for me to deal with.









All the best to everyone.









Sus


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
> So HB is the necessary option for me. Either i consent to have my baby forced to be born on a day it didn't pick itself (and add all of the risks associated with that the the risks already inherent in any birth) or i choose to have my baby in the car en route to hospital. The baby i'm carrying now is due in mid-January. I am yet to meet ANY medical staff who think my planning another HB in this instance isn't necessary, the obstetrician thoroughly agreed that HB is our safest option.


Well, I could play Devil's advocate and say that HB is not the only option available to you (elective CS, elective induction, staying near the hospital around term) and thus, not "necessary", in the same way many want to tell me my CS is not "necessary" (ie not needed to save you or your baby's life). That's the point though - I would not pass the judgement of whether or not it is necessary, and only ask that others consider doing the same







Also, I feel the UK system is much, much better set up to accommodate HB, and thus, makes it safer.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> I think the above story goes under the category of you don't know what you don't know. I'm guessing that poogles has never heard of a person like you before. Therefore, she's always assumed that having a birth at home was a choice, when in reality, it is not a choice for everyone. Again, not criticizing, just observing.


You would be guessing wrong. I have heard of many moms who give birth very quickly. How they deal with it varies - some HB, some schedule a CS, some schedule an induction, some stay at a hotel (or with family and friends) near the hospital...there is more than one choice and different women will choose different ones depending on their own values, beliefs and risk/benefit analyses.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama24-7*
> 
> I am quite stumped by those (not specifically you) who look to studies for things like this. To me, it's like those who don't breastfeed (whether as a choice or due to one/some/multiple obstacles) & say that the studies don't convince them. Why do you/anyone need studies? Why isn't the way we're designed to do it enough?
> 
> ...


I look to studies for these things (and all things that can be studied scientifically), because I believe that the scientific method is the best way humans have for understanding our world and our actions/choices.

I am an atheist, so I don't believe we were "designed" to do anything - and evolution is rarely perfect, so I wouldn't expect things to go well just because that's the way evolution "designed" things either.

Our minds are very good at fooling us into seeing connections that aren't there, or missing connections that aren't obvious - that's why we need science to help us filter out all the "noise" and see what is actually happening, not just what we think is happening. I also believe that using data and studies is part of "rely(ing) on what you have to make your decisions" and in no way impedes my ability to then take "responsibility" for the choices I make based on that.

Also, by the way, I rarely ever look at a singular study to make decisions - that's not how science works. You have to look at the whole body of evidence, analyze where the strength and weight of the evidence lies, and then make your choice based on all the data currently available to you.


----------



## Buzzbuzz (Aug 27, 2011)

"I think it is introducing trauma to your child unnecessarily--cold room, bright lights, being yanked away from you and cord cut immediately, fluid still in their little lungs--the image just makes me sad."

What makes you think vaginal birth is a gentle process to the baby?

In fact normal vaginal birth is sufficiently traumatic as to cause brain bleeds in a significant number of babies:

"A brain development study in newborns revealed intracranial hemorrhages or bleeding in and around the brain, affects 26 percent of babies born vaginally, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan07/neonates013007.html

And this, of course, does not take into account that chances of the trauma of oxgyen deprivation (head entrapment, shoulder dystocia, cord prolapse) would be virtually negligable in a c-section by maternal request.


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

But is there a difference between the trauma a human infant has evolved some abilities to deal with and the trauma it has not? 26% of vaginally born babies do NOT sustain long lasting brain damage after all.

If you had to choose for your baby, either a brain bleed which has no long-term measurable impact or a permanent scar on their face from the surgeon's scalpel, which would you pick? Or a brain bleed as delineated above OR 4 days in SCBU with wet collapsing lungs being intubated and resuscitated periodically. Or a brain bleed as stated OR 4 days in SCBU just unable to be held and nursed by you as much as they need?

I agree that evolution is far from perfect, and that its aim is only to continue the life form we are or might have to become to survive. But i also have to acknowledge that my newborn babies ARE the result of the evolutionary process, and are set up to be optimally able to cope with what the normal process might throw up. Sure, there are risks, and they could be avoided if i elected surgery. But the baby is helpless in the face of the surgical risks in a way that they are NOT in the face of the inherent risks.


----------



## mamaharrison (Aug 31, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buzzbuzz*
> 
> "I think it is introducing trauma to your child unnecessarily--cold room, bright lights, being yanked away from you and cord cut immediately, fluid still in their little lungs--the image just makes me sad."
> 
> ...


If you go on to read the article based on the study it states,

"Obviously, the vast majority of the 26 percent of us who were born vaginally and had these types of bleeds are doing just fine. Our brains probably evolved to handle vaginal birth without major difficulty."

and

"These findings suggest intracranial hemorrhage is a fairly common consequence of a normal vaginal delivery, the authors said. "I would say that bleeds during vaginal birth are very common and have been happening for a very long time," Gilmore said. "This not something prospective mothers need to be concerned about."

So, just because it 'osunds' bad doesn't make it so. This study actually proves the point you may have been trying to disprove. Also, the three things you list--head entrapment, cord prolapse, and shoulder dystocia--do actually occur in cesarean sections, too and cause damage in those scenarios as well. A surgeon can easily miscalculate the size of the baby or position and make the incision too small leading to these issues during the extraction which can lead to pulling the baby and severe traumatic injury. Elective cesareans without medical necessity are not safer than normal vaginal birth. period. and never will be.


----------



## Buzzbuzz (Aug 27, 2011)

My point is that any process that causes some 25% of individuals to suffer brain bleeds (even though those bleeds resolve without noticeable harm) can hardly be described as "gentle".


----------



## mamaharrison (Aug 31, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buzzbuzz*
> 
> My point is that any process that causes some 25% of individuals to suffer brain bleeds (even though those bleeds resolve without noticeable harm) can hardly be described as "gentle".


That just isn't true. As a licensed Massage Therapist, I can inflict great bodily harm on people without alerting them to it with any kind of pain during the process. I mean, gentle is a subjective term anyway and only the person experiencing the process could really identify whether they felt it was gentle or not. Traumatic is also subjective, this is why we should just allow everyone their won experience without trying to impose our own paradigms on them--for some women vaginal birth is a gentle choice, for some it would be horrific {history of sexual abuse as an example} and for some women cesarean would be a gentle choice while for others it would be very traumatic. Why the need to label either method?? It is for each mama and baby combo to decide for themselves.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

I totally agree. Some births are traumatic and some are not. That's a separate issue from some births being vaginal and some being c-section.

I would just add that the birth can be very different for mama than it is for baby. I consider my daughter's birth traumatic for me. As far as I can tell, it was far less traumatic for her, though she may tell me otherwise someday.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaharrison*
> 
> That just isn't true. As a licensed Massage Therapist, I can inflict great bodily harm on people without alerting them to it with any kind of pain during the process. I mean, gentle is a subjective term anyway and only the person experiencing the process could really identify whether they felt it was gentle or not. Traumatic is also subjective, this is why we should just allow everyone their won experience without trying to impose our own paradigms on them--for some women vaginal birth is a gentle choice, for some it would be horrific {history of sexual abuse as an example} and for some women cesarean would be a gentle choice while for others it would be very traumatic. Why the need to label either method?? It is for each mama and baby combo to decide for themselves.


If you want to be completely accurate the baby in your mama/baby combo is not making any decision for him/herself, and I don't think traumatic, when describing the physical process of birth for the newborn, is really subjective. Honestly, the journey down the birth canal can be a rough one, babies born quickly come out bruised, shoulder dystocia can cause some pretty painful injuries to a baby, cord compression due to tight nuchal cord wraps, all things that are possibly unknown during labor but certainly complications that could have been avoided through a c/s. Does that make the risk that comes with a c/s worth it in every case - absolutely not.

Chances are very good that my 1st dd would have avoided her 4 day NICU stay and a few thankfully minor birth complications if she had been born via c/s instead of vaginally. Of course there was no way to know this is my case and honestly, I did feel some guilt over my desire to avoid a c/s if at all possible.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
> 
> If you had to choose for your baby, either a brain bleed which has no long-term measurable impact or a permanent scar on their face from the surgeon's scalpel, which would you pick? Or a brain bleed as delineated above OR 4 days in SCBU with wet collapsing lungs being intubated and resuscitated periodically. Or a brain bleed as stated OR 4 days in SCBU just unable to be held and nursed by you as much as they need?


These "choices" seem a little disingenuous - it's not like the chance of a brain bleed with no long-term morbidity is the only risk to a vaginal birth, and a CS is not a guarantee of NICU/SCBU time for the baby. All the risks on both sides have to be acknowledged and weighed.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
> I agree that evolution is far from perfect, and that its aim is only to continue the life form we are or might have to become to survive. But i also have to acknowledge that my newborn babies ARE the result of the evolutionary process, and are set up to be optimally able to cope with what the normal process might throw up. Sure, there are risks, and they could be avoided if i elected surgery. But the baby is helpless in the face of the surgical risks in a way that they are NOT in the face of the inherent risks.


I'm not quite following how a baby is better able to deal with say, oxygen deprivation during a vaginal birth, than they are able to deal with minor breathing problems after a CS, for example. In either case the baby is "helpless". Also, saying that evolution is "far from perfect" and then saying babies are "optimally" able to cope with birth seems a bit contradictory to me. There are many babies who are not "set up to be optimally able to cope with what the normal process might throw up", but enough that our species survived until we got to the point where we figured out how to save almost all babies, whether evolution had set them up optimally or not.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaharrison*
> 
> Also, the three things you list--head entrapment, cord prolapse, and shoulder dystocia--do actually occur in cesarean sections, too and cause damage in those scenarios as well. A surgeon can easily miscalculate the size of the baby or position and make the incision too small leading to these issues during the extraction which can lead to pulling the baby and severe traumatic injury.


A cord prolapse only causes damage when it is compressed for a significant amount of time, thus depriving the baby of oxygen - this would be practically impossible with a CS. For one, how would the cord come out first, unless the OB pulled it out first (which would be extremely unlikely), and second, how would it become compressed for a long enough period of time to cause damage?

I could see how, technically, head entrapment and shoulder dystocia could occur with a CS, but again, I can't imagine how damage could be caused in these situations - it is simply too quick and easy to resolve in the setting of a CS for there to be time for damage to occur. I am certainly open to being proven wrong however - just provide me with the stats showing how many babies in elective CS suffered injury/damage due to cord prolapse, head entrapment, or shoulder dystocia.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaharrison*
> Elective cesareans without medical necessity are not safer than normal vaginal birth. period. and never will be.


Sorry, just because you say it is so, does not make it true.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaharrison*
> 
> only the person experiencing the process could really identify whether they felt it was gentle or not.


Unfortunately, we can't ask the babies if their birth was gentle or traumatic for them.


----------



## j and js mommy (Jun 4, 2012)

My first birth i was neutral regarding having an epidural or not. ended up i arrived at the hospital 7-8 cm dialated and NO TIME for an epidural. Natural all the way, all 7lbs 12 oz (mind you im 108 lbs normally-small person). i have a high pain tolerance and told the midwife & husband that "W e can have another" 20 minutes after my son's birth. I had 2 tylenol my entire stay. It is one hell of an accomplishment to go natural but with that being said i dont think it is for everyone.

My second son i thought i might have an epidural (and get to the hospital sooner) but he was full-term stillborn & i decided, the hell with ADDED pain ontop of this loss. I had the epidural which was no big deal. (my only big regret is that i could not walk with my son or really sit up with him and even lean up and this was the only time i ever got with him-stuck in a bed). i do think that if i went natural i would not want to TTC right away due to the reminder of the pain...

i pray i get the chance to have another living baby and now that i have epxerienced natural and epidural, i still dont know what I would choose. i will just be happyenough getting to the point where i get to make that decision.

PS with a loss so far along, i will never attempt a home birth.


----------



## SmtmsAlwys (Jan 31, 2008)

For what it's worth, I had essentially an elective cesarean with my oldest. I was told I needed to have a cesarean due to a lovely forever present from my ex and was told I needed to schedule the surgery. I had a lot of incontinence afterward, yet I had been under the impression that it wasn't supposed to happen with cesareans. Yeah, they lied. I also now have a nine year old that - based on some new study that came out that showed that even two weeks early may be premature - may have actually been born too early, which would go a long way into explaining some of the behavior issues we deal with on a regular basis. Following that, I had one very medicalized birth which included pitocin and - finally - an epidural. It was the most traumatic experience of my life. I wound up with PTSD and was just all around miserable. Oh, and did I mention that I was left with yet more incontinence?? Very shortly after that I had a natural hospital birth that was so much better, but not as wonderful as my next birth, a home water birth, in which I barely tore at all - it was so minimal they didn't even stitch me. According to my husband, who admittedly was concerned about such, there was no difference in my vagina. It's amazing what kegels will do. LOL

ETA: I forgot to mention that my youngest was 10 lb 13 oz. No change in anything.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SmtmsAlwys*
> 
> For what it's worth, I had essentially an elective cesarean with my oldest. I was told I needed to have a cesarean due to a lovely forever present from my ex and was told I needed to schedule the surgery. I had a lot of incontinence afterward, yet I had been under the impression that it wasn't supposed to happen with cesareans. Yeah, they lied. I also now have a nine year old that - based on some new study that came out that showed that even two weeks early may be premature - may have actually been born too early, which would go a long way into explaining some of the behavior issues we deal with on a regular basis. Following that, I had one very medicalized birth which included pitocin and - finally - an epidural. It was the most traumatic experience of my life. I wound up with PTSD and was just all around miserable. Oh, and did I mention that I was left with yet more incontinence?? Very shortly after that I had a natural hospital birth that was so much better, but not as wonderful as my next birth, a home water birth, in which I barely tore at all - it was so minimal they didn't even stitch me. *According to my husband, who admittedly was concerned about such, there was no difference in my vagina. It's amazing what kegels will do. LOL *
> 
> ETA: I forgot to mention that my youngest was 10 lb 13 oz. No change in anything.


Yup. We've had the same conversation, and I got the same response.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SmtmsAlwys*
> 
> For what it's worth, I had essentially an elective cesarean with my oldest. [...] I had a lot of incontinence afterward, yet I had been under the impression that it wasn't supposed to happen with cesareans. Yeah, they lied.


Yeah, elective CS does not prevent incontinence, but it is generally less likely and less severe with an elective CS (but not always!). I already have a urinary incontinence issue (I have had the issue for as long as I can remember....fun times, let me tell you), so if there is any way of lessening the chances of further damage/problems, I am all over it









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SmtmsAlwys*
> 
> Following that, I had one very medicalized birth which included pitocin and - finally - an epidural. It was the most traumatic experience of my life. I wound up with PTSD and was just all around miserable. Oh, and did I mention that I was left with yet more incontinence?? Very shortly after that I had a natural hospital birth that was so much better, but not as wonderful as my next birth, a home water birth, in which I barely tore at all - it was so minimal they didn't even stitch me. According to my husband, who admittedly was concerned about such, there was no difference in my vagina. It's amazing what kegels will do. LOL
> 
> ETA: I forgot to mention that my youngest was 10 lb 13 oz. No change in anything.


I'm glad your last birth went so well and you got what you wanted









While there is no way of knowing for sure, births tend to get easier as you go (all other things being equal!), which could at least partially account for why the last birth was so much easier with less damage.

I wish I could do kegels, they would probably help, but alas I have personal issues making it extremely difficult to do so. I am planning to see a PT about the issue though, since I want to avoid a bladder sling/vaginal mesh if I can.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Yeah, I'd have to say that if I couldnt physically do kegels I would probably schedule a c section. (not sarcasm- totally honest).


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trimommy2009*
> 
> She said when her OB asked what kind of birth she wanted, her OB was thrilled when she stated an epidural because she see's too many things go wrong with natural births.


This confuses me. I get that people have different levels of comfort with birth interventions, and I get the feeling that one needs a hospital, in case things go wrong. I get all that.

But, what complication can possibly happen, because a women doesn't have an epidural? I just don't get it.


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> But, what complication can possibly happen, because a women doesn't have an epidural? I just don't get it.


Maybe something along the lines of her being in too much pain to relax, and labor being prolonged, and mom getting exhausted, and all the various stuff that goes with that? There's an argument for epidurals that is along the lines of yeah, they may prolong labor sometimes, but the moms also aren't in pain and so the prolonged labor isn't as big a deal for them.

OTOH, maybe that OB has seen a few trainwreck unmedicated births and is biased.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

OB's often like their patients to have an epi because they are then prepped for a section. The issue may be that the doctor has seen things go wrong because of the need for an emergency section when the mother did not get medicated quickly enough? At least that is what the high risk doctor told me about why I "just had" to have an epidural with the twins.


----------



## trimommy2009 (Mar 22, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> This confuses me. I get that people have different levels of comfort with birth interventions, and I get the feeling that one needs a hospital, in case things go wrong. I get all that.
> 
> But, what complication can possibly happen, because a women doesn't have an epidural? I just don't get it.


So...my friend had her beautiful healthy baby a couple weeks ago...via C-Section and I've been meaning to update this thread because I'm hoping to get some insight here. What is crazy about your comment is her OB forced her to labor for 12 hours on pitocin with NO epidural and eventually the C-Section. My friends water broke (small leak and they said there was meconium, so she was immediately plugged into a pitocin drip). Because she wasn't dilated at all and the babies station was relatively high they were concerned an epidural would slow down her contractions...so 12 hours later my friend hadn't even dilated to 1cm and into surgery she went. She is pretty sad about the c-section and is having a hard time recovering and breastfeeding now but otherwise doing well and working through the BF issues.

Here's where I am confused...I would think giving someone who was terrified of the "pain" of labor an epidural, that maybe she would have relaxed enough to dilate and have a shot at a vaginal birth. There is after all a compassionate use of pain relief, isn't there. I don't know, I'm not a Dr, Midwife, doula or anyone else that has been around many births, just my own experiences...but geesh. Her experience sounded awful. I've never had pitocin, but Ive heard it makes regular contractions seem like nothing and I can't imagine.


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> But, what complication can possibly happen, because a women doesn't have an epidural? I just don't get it.


My epidural didn't prevent any complications, but it may have saved me some, if that makes sense. My DS was posterior, and labor got extremely painful very quickly. The epidural turned off the pain, and I napped while I was getting to fully dilated. It took me about eight hours to go from 3 cm to 10 cm, but he was still posterior. I had really good control of my pelvic muscles - I could feel and individually contract and relax them, I was pushing hard - but the kid wasn't coming out. I got him down to an outlet position, and then the epidural meant that I could still have a relatively not torturous vacuum delivery.

My epidural wasn't perfect - it developed a window, so I felt a fair bit of pain anyway - but it meant I was able to participate coherently in conversations about my care all night, it allowed me to rest and conserve energy for the pushing phase, and it made instrumental delivery much easier on me then it otherwise would have been. If I hadn't had the epidural, I think I absolutely would have needed a c-section.


----------



## SmtmsAlwys (Jan 31, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trimommy2009*
> 
> So...my friend had her beautiful healthy baby a couple weeks ago...via C-Section and I've been meaning to update this thread because I'm hoping to get some insight here. What is crazy about your comment is her OB forced her to labor for 12 hours on pitocin with NO epidural and eventually the C-Section. My friends water broke (small leak and they said there was meconium, so she was immediately plugged into a pitocin drip). Because she wasn't dilated at all and the babies station was relatively high they were concerned an epidural would slow down her contractions...so 12 hours later my friend hadn't even dilated to 1cm and into surgery she went. She is pretty sad about the c-section and is having a hard time recovering and breastfeeding now but otherwise doing well and working through the BF issues.
> 
> Here's where I am confused...I would think giving someone who was terrified of the "pain" of labor an epidural, that maybe she would have relaxed enough to dilate and have a shot at a vaginal birth. There is after all a compassionate use of pain relief, isn't there. I don't know, I'm not a Dr, Midwife, doula or anyone else that has been around many births, just my own experiences...but geesh. Her experience sounded awful. I've never had pitocin, but Ive heard it makes regular contractions seem like nothing and I can't imagine.


Pitocin is made by the devil himself. Just sayin'.


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeepyCat*
> 
> My epidural didn't prevent any complications, but it may have saved me some, if that makes sense. My DS was posterior, and labor got extremely painful very quickly. The epidural turned off the pain, and I napped while I was getting to fully dilated. It took me about eight hours to go from 3 cm to 10 cm, but he was still posterior. I had really good control of my pelvic muscles - I could feel and individually contract and relax them, I was pushing hard - but the kid wasn't coming out. I got him down to an outlet position, and then the epidural meant that I could still have a relatively not torturous vacuum delivery.
> 
> My epidural wasn't perfect - it developed a window, so I felt a fair bit of pain anyway - but it meant I was able to participate coherently in conversations about my care all night, it allowed me to rest and conserve energy for the pushing phase, and it made instrumental delivery much easier on me then it otherwise would have been. If I hadn't had the epidural, I think I absolutely would have needed a c-section.


A friend of mine had hours and hours of back labor with her son and ended up with an epidural and Pitocin, but was able to have him vaginally. Same thing with her--having the epidural helped her conserve a little energy. I'm sure she would have ended up having a c-section otherwise.


----------



## loveandgarbage (Feb 5, 2008)

I also know moms who, despite previously thinking they never would, had epidurals during long/painful births and it helped them relax and they were able to deliver vaginally. Would most of them still delivered vaginally without the epidural? Of course. But it certainly made the process more doable for them.

I've had, and grappled with since, a difficult labor that had me question whether or not I or the baby would still be alive or damaged in some way if I didn't have a c-section. But I go back and forth on it. He was almost 12 lbs and was in a "sunny side up" position and his (16") head was stuck sideways pressing on my cervix. It was a hospital birth, and there was pitocin involved to try to get me contracting more and dialating more, so I'm not sure what would've happened if the birth had been completely natural. And I'll never know. I always hate to be the person who's like "but my birth was unique and I NEEDED a c-section" but I'm honestly about 50% convinced that I did.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeepyCat*
> 
> My epidural didn't prevent any complications, but it may have saved me some, if that makes sense. My DS was posterior, and labor got extremely painful very quickly. The epidural turned off the pain, and I napped while I was getting to fully dilated. It took me about eight hours to go from 3 cm to 10 cm, but he was still posterior. I had really good control of my pelvic muscles - I could feel and individually contract and relax them, I was pushing hard - but the kid wasn't coming out. I got him down to an outlet position, and then the epidural meant that I could still have a relatively not torturous vacuum delivery.
> 
> My epidural wasn't perfect - it developed a window, so I felt a fair bit of pain anyway - but it meant I was able to participate coherently in conversations about my care all night, it allowed me to rest and conserve energy for the pushing phase, and it made instrumental delivery much easier on me then it otherwise would have been. If I hadn't had the epidural, I think I absolutely would have needed a c-section.


Yeah - I get that kind of thing. I just find the way the OB put it (if it didn't get garbled by the "Telephone" effect) really, really strange. It sounded as though the OB was saying that not having pain meds creates complications.

Mind you, I don't see any reason why someone can't change their mind and get an epidural if they really need to rest or something. It's not like you have to "get the epi in the parking lot" or refuse all pain medication, no matter what.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> OB's often like their patients to have an epi because they are then prepped for a section. The issue may be that the doctor has seen things go wrong because of the need for an emergency section when the mother did not get medicated quickly enough?


This is basically what I've always heard - that having an epidural already in place is preferable (especially in a high risk pregnancy, where the chances of CS are already higher) since if a CS is called for, an epidural can just be "topped up" and the CS started. If there is no epidural already in place, and a crash CS needs done, the doctors have no choice but to put the mother to sleep under general anesthesia - which carries much higher risks than an epidural, not to mention the mother can't be awake for the birth of her baby. If there is no epidural and a non-emergency CS is called for, though, it shouldn't be an issue to have one placed before the surgery.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trimommy2009*
> 
> Because she wasn't dilated at all and the babies station was relatively high they were concerned an epidural would slow down her contractions[...]
> 
> Here's where I am confused...I would think giving someone who was terrified of the "pain" of labor an epidural, that maybe she would have relaxed enough to dilate and have a shot at a vaginal birth. There is after all a compassionate use of pain relief, isn't there.


That is ridiculous!







Epidurals have not been found (by more recent, rigorous studies) to slow labor, in general. Even if it does manage to slow labor at all, it is usually only a difference of ~20 minutes; basically, it works out that some women will dilate quickly after receiving one, some women will continue to dilate (or not) at the same speed they were progressing (or not) at before, and some women will dilate more slowly after the epi than they were before.

To deny wanted pain relief under the outdated, mistaken assumption that the epi would slow down her labor in any significant way...I'm very sorry your friend had to endure that.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

I have to disagree that epidurals dont slow labor down. That may be the case in studies that are comparing bed laboring women with and without an epidural, but most people who choose to birth naturally are up on their feet, moving around, and switching positions. Women were not meant to lay down on their backs and labor in a bed, and often times lack of movement does slow labor down dramatically. And, when you get an epidural, that's what is happening- you no longer get freedom of movement.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> I have to disagree that epidurals dont slow labor down. That may be the case in studies that are comparing bed laboring women with and without an epidural, but most people who choose to birth naturally are up on their feet, moving around, and switching positions. Women were not meant to lay down on their backs and labor in a bed, and often times lack of movement does slow labor down dramatically. And, when you get an epidural, that's what is happening- you no longer get freedom of movement.


Not really sure if there are any data/studies to back up what you're saying about the effect of moving around upright on the speed of labor, but I did want to point out that not all epidurals keep you completely confined to bed.

In the particular instance of OP's friend, she may have already been "confined" to bed due to the pitocin drip (especially if they had her on the monitor), so even if you're right about being up and moving around, I don't think it would've applied in her case.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

ive never met a woman who was able to walk around during an epidural. Have met plenty that couldnt feel their legs, though


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> ive never met a woman who was able to walk around during an epidural. Have met plenty that couldnt feel their legs, though


Yep, I ran a new mother's group for many years and we all talked about our births. The epi often gives terrible post partum headaches and backaches. Not okay for the new mom when she's dealing with so much!


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> Yep, I ran a new mother's group for many years and we all talked about our births. The epi often gives terrible post partum headaches and backaches. Not okay for the new mom when she's dealing with so much!


The incidence of post dural puncture headaches is ~1%, which I wouldn't describe as "often", but yes it is a side effect to be aware of, especially since they can be quite severe and debilitating until they resolve. For many women, the quite small chance that they will get a PDPH afterwards is very much worth the almost guaranteed pain relief given during labor. For others, it is not. And that's ok


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> The incidence of post dural puncture headaches is ~1%, which I wouldn't describe as "often", but yes it is a side effect to be aware of, especially since they can be quite severe and debilitating until they resolve. For many women, the quite small chance that they will get a PDPH afterwards is very much worth the almost guaranteed pain relief given during labor. For others, it is not. And that's ok


I don't trust that figure. I ran that group 7 years, helped about 500 moms and had way more than a handful tell me about the debilitating headaches they endured after birth.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poogles0213*
> 
> The incidence of post dural puncture headaches is ~1%, which I wouldn't describe as "often", but yes it is a side effect to be aware of, especially since they can be quite severe and debilitating until they resolve. For many women, the quite small chance that they will get a PDPH afterwards is very much worth the almost guaranteed pain relief given during labor. For others, it is not. And that's ok


Yes - that's okay. If they know. I clearly remember my sister smiling her way through labour and telling me how much she loved the epidural. I have equally clear memories of her hobbling around, tears running down her cheeks, for most of the next three days, due to a debilitating backache.

She had two more pregnancies (three kids) after that, and refused the epidural. She told me she'd have never consented if she'd known it could cause that kind of pain. I don't really care if a woman decides the risk of the headache/backache is worth the pain relief - that's her business. But, a woman who doesn't know the epidural could give her a headache/backache isn't making that decision. She's having it made for her.

It's also not guaranteed pain relief. I've talked to quite a few women who have experienced either complete failure of the epidural (rare) or "windows" of pain. Several of the women who experienced windows said it was worse than the pre-epidural pain, because of the asymmetrical nature of the pains.


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Yes - that's okay. If they know. I clearly remember my sister smiling her way through labour and telling me how much she loved the epidural. I have equally clear memories of her hobbling around, tears running down her cheeks, for most of the next three days, due to a debilitating backache.
> 
> She had two more pregnancies (three kids) after that, and refused the epidural. She told me she'd have never consented if she'd known it could cause that kind of pain. I don't really care if a woman decides the risk of the headache/backache is worth the pain relief - that's her business. But, a woman who doesn't know the epidural could give her a headache/backache isn't making that decision. She's having it made for her.


I'm sorry to hear your sister fell into that 1%. I definitely agree she should have known about the risks, whether by looking them up herself beforehand or because her HCP informed her (which they most definitely should have). My guess is that it was in the written informed consent she signed in order to get the epidural. Since practically no one ever actually reads those things before signing them, she could have easily signed a form saying she knew and understood those risks and consented, without ever actually knowing the risks. I personally think every consent form should be gone over verbally, but I don't know how feasible that is.

Quote:


> It's also not guaranteed pain relief. I've talked to quite a few women who have experienced either complete failure of the epidural (rare) or "windows" of pain. Several of the women who experienced windows said it was worse than the pre-epidural pain, because of the asymmetrical nature of the pains.


Right, I understand that. Which is exactly why I said "*almost* guaranteed"


----------



## Poogles0213 (May 18, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> I don't trust that figure. I ran that group 7 years, helped about 500 moms and had way more than a handful tell me about the debilitating headaches they endured after birth.


Well, you are certainly free to look up the studies yourself - the exact rate or percentage varies between studies, but they mostly fall around 1%. Also, please realize that anecdotes are not data; your experiences running your group cannot tell us anything very useful about the actual rate of PDPH in the population, especially since we have scientific data to rely on.


----------



## Alenushka (Jul 27, 2002)

I think normal is meaningless word actually. It was normal for 20% of mothers to die in 18th century. So, we now longer want this normal.

In my first labor I went without epidural until last 4 hours and I will always regret it. I was tired and traumatized by pain and non of those things that were promised to work "relaxation methods, mediation, changing positions, walking and having my acupressure skilled dola with me worked. Plus I felt like a failure for not doing it naturally. I spend agonizing 2 weeks blaming myself.f

Second time around I said "Start the epidural and crank up the pitocin". I was in control and felt happy and pain free. My recovery was faster emotionally speaking. I felt very healed and it was easier to take care of my second baby. The breastfeeding went easier too because I was not so tired and overwrought with emotions.

My SIL had all natural labor in hospital. She did all the hypnobirthing classes with her MW. She drunk all the RLT . Etc etc etc. The hospital had tub, balls, supportive staff who let her labor in peace.

She felt that it was the worst pain of her life and and she had hard time processing how did it happen to her because every class led by her MW kept telling her that fear creates pain and my SIL was not in fear and very prepared.

My other friend just had a baby. She was terrified of labor and actually dreamed of c-section. She has an epidural form the starts because she had to me induced for medical reason. She LOVED her labor. She said it was like being in a spa and she feel really well cared for by nursling's. She had practically zero pain.

She is home, happy and very bonding to her kid who she is nursing on demand.

I do not know what normal is. I think pain and death during labor is normal but I am not surprised that many women do not want that normal.

I do not think pain creates better bonding either. I loved both of my kids to no end and as the time passes by, I really do not care whatever I had a birthing experience or not, all I care about is that they are alive and not brain damaged thank to the expertise of people around me at that time. To me, healthy child and healthy mom is the physical and spiritual and normal outcome of labor and delivery. If someone wants the pain as part of their spiritual journey, they can have it.


----------



## erigeron (Oct 29, 2010)

I just think that all women should be informed about the risks and benefits of their various choices in labor. There are risks to not using pain relief... like, duh, being in pain for longer, being in so much pain for so long that you're too exhausted to push, etc. There are risks to using pain relief as well. There are risks to a C-section as well as to a vaginal birth. If we were all fully informed and supported by our care providers, we could make decisions based on our personal views and our own levels of comfort with various risks, and we wouldn't all necessarily make the same decisions and that's okay. It's the lack of information that really bugs me. If a mom has all the information about her options and picks the epidural or C-section, that's a valid decision.

Oh, and I don't see what pain has to do with bonding either. I just have the one kid, and had a natural birth, but I'm pretty sure I'd still love her if the birth had gone differently.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Erigeron, I agree with everything you've said...we should all have access to good information and should be supported by our HCPs and should be able to make informed choices.

I also know that I adamantly did NOT want pitocin, an epidural, or a c-section. I felt I understood the risks very well and was very opposed to using those interventions. There came a point in my labor, however, where my choices ran out. My labor did not follow a normal pattern. Things that are "supposed" to help get things moving did not. Resting and replenishing were out of the question. I chose interventions reluctantly, unwillingly, with my back against the wall. I can't blame anyone for the path that labor took. I had an excellent doula, a hospital team that was very supportive of me doing things naturally, and I had a lot of tools that I drew on to help things go the way I wanted them to go. I just had to accept that at some point, my wishes, efforts, and plans didn't matter. My labor wasn't fully in my control, and I had to shift gears mentally in order to get through. It was definitely traumatic, and it has taken me years to process and heal from that experience.

So, yes, let's help women be informed and supported in making the best choices. AND let's be compassionate towards ourselves and others, because this thing called "birth" (and for that matter, this thing called "life") is not fully under our control.


----------



## mindfulmama3 (Oct 13, 2012)

This has been such an interesting and meaningful thread. It has been an honor to read all of your stories, feelings, passions, and opinions.

I want to start by saying that ALL BIRTH IS NATURAL. Unmedicated births can be more gentle, but CS births are still natural. Women will still transform into mothers on the operating table, they still have to recover, they still have to go through the postpartum period, they still have to navigate motherhood. To shun a women who has had a CS birth, is to shun a massive transformation in any women's life. Women who adopt a baby are no less of a women because they did not birth their own child.

I have been a birth doula for 10 years, and have 3 children of my own. I am also a Craniosacral therapist, I specialize in seeing babies, new mothers, and children. I have my own opinions about birth, and parenting. Watching mothers go through the birth process in hospitals, birth centers and at their homes, has been one of the most amazing jobs i have ever had. Not one birth I have attended, including my own 3, have been the same. No two women will EVER have the same perspective about their bodies, their abilities, or similar life stories (even if they are twins).

I will disclose that I had one hospital birth, one birth center birth, and one home birth. All births were unmedicated, special, difficult, and memorable in their own ways.

I am slightly saddened to see that so many people believe that there are no physical or emotional consequences to the baby after a CS birth, beyond those in statistics. I see babies every week who are recovering from their birth. (I say recovering, because their little bodies go through SOOO much in birth, *no matter how they were born*)

I am acutely aware that CS births are sometimes necessary, I have seen several mothers try every possible way to vaginally birth their babes, still to finally have a CS birth. I came into the world via CS birth, I fully understand. Let me just say that babies who are born via CS birth come a different set of birth related issues. Just because your baby is "healthy" by medical standards, does not mean that your baby is happy, has a healthy bond, is comfortable and pain free, or free of other physiological issues (many develop later in toddler or childhood) I am not implying that babies who are born via CS birth are worse off than babies who were born vaginally, I just mean that sometimes babies can have higher rates of issues, not always, but sometimes.

I believe it was the father in this thread that said that how a person comes into the world does not affect the rest of their lives. I wholeheartedly disagree. This used to be a belief, that babies did not remember anything that happens in birth, we now know that is not true. http://birthpsychology.com/free-article/infantile-amnesia-dead. In my professional work, and as a very mindful mother, I personally know that our bodies remember everything that has ever happened to us or in front of us, everything we have felt, learned or experienced. I know that seems impossible, but I assure you, our human bodies are AMAZING! We store this information to be able to navigate our world through all of our lives. To ignore the idea that a newborn does not take part in this experience, and has no memory of the experience, is a sign of lack of education in this area.

I encourage EVERY mother to read all of the available information, hire a doula, and make *informed* decisions. Stats are useless to be basing your choices by, in any direction. Birth is experiential, not statistical. You need to feel safe, supported, and ready to take part in this massive transformation into motherhood.

There is a difference in birth between pain and suffering. I have seen these two words being used often as the same. Pain is a response of the body, it increases in times of psychological need, and more often in times of fear. Suffering is when pain becomes unbearable, and the person is going to be permanently damaged by trauma (physical or psychologically). It is painful to stub your toe, but chances are you are not suffering. Many women have pain, even excruciating, during labor. How you view your pain is how you determine if you are suffering. In my own opinion, any women who is suffering needs to change her circumstances, if that includes pain relief, so be it. That is why it was invented, to relieve suffering, not to relieve pain.

All of this talk about choosing an medically unnecessary CS birth makes my stomach churn. Most US hospitals and OBGYN's will not provide completely elective CS births. They know that the risks outweigh the benefits. They are all coming to their professional senses and learning that putting a women into surgery is far more dangerous than letting her birth without. (I ONLY speak of low risk, healthy mothers, there are many circumstances to which vaginal birth, at this time,is not safer for high risk mothers).

BTW, the US is not the safest or healthiest place to be a pregnant or give birth. I wouldn't be pouting my life and my baby's life into the hands of much of our medical establishment if possible.

*Though the U.S. spends more per birth than any other nation, maternal mortality is higher here than in 40 other industrialized countries, including Croatia, Hungary and Macedonia, and is double that of Canada and much of Western Europe.*

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/22/science/la-sci-maternal-deaths-20100523

I completely agree with the OP, it is hard sometimes to see my friends disregard their personal power in the face of fear. It is not right or wrong, but it is what it is. I hope her friend is recovering beautifully with her sweet baby.

Thank for your listening ears (well, eyes), and open minds.

Hoping all mothers can find peace within their birth and mothering choices.


----------



## Alenushka (Jul 27, 2002)

One can argue until the cow comes home but for me reality is simple. I would rather have a live baby with whatever real or imagined post c-cestion issues than a dead one.


----------



## babycatcher12 (Dec 11, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
> 
> One can argue until the cow comes home but for me reality is simple. I would rather have a live baby with whatever real or imagined post c-cestion issues than a dead one.


It's important to remember though, that even with a c-section, you're never guaranteed a live baby. Ever.


----------



## Alenushka (Jul 27, 2002)

Of course not, but in cases of many types of issues, the chances are higher.


----------



## kaatya (Jan 2, 2014)

Wonderful quote:

"THERE IS A SECRET ABOUT BIRTH IN OUR SOCIETY:

IT'S NOT THAT BIRTH IS PAINFUL - BUT THAT WOMEN ARE STRONG"


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaatya*
> 
> Wonderful quote:
> 
> ...


What does that mean, though? To me, it reads as saying that if you found birth painful, it's because you're weak. WHich, for the record, I don't believe.

I run long distances and lift and carry heavy things. I found birth quite painful. There appear to be women who find walking and rocking back and forth and sitting in tubs eases contraction pain, but I am not one of them.

Birth is painful. Women are strong. These are not related statements.


----------



## salr (Apr 14, 2008)

I don't agree with the statement as it's presented, but I have always taken it to mean that birth is painful, and even though that is the case, women can survive through the pain.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeepyCat*
> 
> What does that mean, though? To me, it reads as saying that if you found birth painful, it's because you're weak. WHich, for the record, I don't believe.
> 
> ...


I'm not super crazy about the quote, but I don't think it's saying anything about women who find birth painful. I think it's more pointing out that we're constantly hammered with how painful birth is, but the fact that women do get through it (and many go on to have more children) gets overlooked.


----------



## kaatya (Jan 2, 2014)

Sorry, meepy cat, I think you've missed the point here

No-one is denying that birth is painful - me least of all !

What this quote is intended to say is that birth being painful is no secret -

The 'secret' in current western society is our ability to cope with the pain.

So many women form a belief that the pain will be 'too' much' for them to bear before they even experience it. Many women are told that they need/want an epidural before they ever ask for it.

I know women who, having planned to get an epidural when the going got tough, found that they managed to birth their baby before this ever happened!

We are often more capable of coping with pain than we ever believed / anticipated

Most 'natural' forms of pain-relief for child birth are aimed at helping us cope with pain, and women who expect that they will remove the pain usually find them disappointing because they don't.

There is nothing 'weak' about finding birth painful and difficult. There is nothing 'weak' about requiring assistance to birth your baby if things don't go right for you.

But the fact that women can and do birth babies all the time tells you that we ARE strong!

Here's another quote: "If men had to birth babies, they would only ever have one each."

We really do rock, actually!


----------



## fayebond (Jun 16, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaatya*
> 
> Sorry, meepy cat, I think you've missed the point here
> 
> ...


Agreed, except on the latest quote, which you have wrong. Its,

"If men had to birth babies, there would be no babies."

Ask my dad, who insists that guys are too practical and would never even try. He knows how to make a 9 months pregnant daughter feel better . And yep its painful but doable. Its worse when youdon't pay attention to yourself or listen to your birth team (who are usually right that youcan ramp down the pushing until you've actually dialated all the way.... and other obvious things).


----------

