I believe the World Health Organization says rates of 5-10% are optimal and once you get over 15% you start to see more harm than good.
This is false. The World Health Organization officially withdrew its previous recommendation of a 15% C-section rates in June 2010. Here's the WHO's statement about c-sections: "There is no empirical evidence for an optimum percentage. What matters most is that all women who need caesarean sections receive them."
A "good" section rate is whatever leads to the best outcome for mother and baby. And I say that having had two vaginal births.
This is false. The World Health Organization officially withdrew its previous recommendation of a 15% C-section rates in June 2010. Here's the WHO's statement about c-sections: "There is no empirical evidence for an optimum percentage. What matters most is that all women who need caesarean sections receive them."
A "good" section rate is whatever leads to the best outcome for mother and baby. And I say that having had two vaginal births.
Very true.
I feel judged sometimes for having had a c-section. This one dude at work keeps talking about how women were having babies for hundreds of years without c-sections.
I finally said "and my baby and I would have been dead in previous times."
I have an android pelvis, ain't no babies coming out of here.
Amen.
People tend to overlook the extremely high mortality rates back in the day.
Post by hannamaren on Aug 25, 2012 20:04:31 GMT -5
I would have lived, she would have died. The cord was wrapped around her neck. I have never heard of anyone having a csection for the fun of it. Why are we always so worried about caection rates? Everyone always seems to have a decent reason. Team save the baby and the mother however you can.
Why are we always so worried about caection rates?
I worry about it because for a while there (like, the 70's through 2010), rates just kept going up and up and up. Mortality rates didn't improve because of that. Surgery has some risk. And it makes it challenging if you want more than 2 kids, as the risks climb with repeat c-sections.
No one should feel bad about needing a c-section. I just wanted to be in a situation where if I had one, I had total confidence it was what I needed.
I would have lived, she would have died. The cord was wrapped around her neck. I have never heard of anyone having a csection for the fun of it. Why are we always so worried about caection rates? Everyone always seems to have a decent reason. Team save the baby and the mother however you can.
This boggles my mind. Of course c/sec should be available when needed! Does anyone ever say they shouldn't? People who want a natural birth, however, can look at the c/sec rate as an indication of whether the policies of the hospital and the individual care providers are natural birth friendly or not.
With the possible exception of research hospitals and/or whatever hospital in the city has the best nicu, the c/sec rate should not be at 30 or 40% or more, especially for first time moms and not vbacs.
There is a lot of stuff some hospitals do that is not evidence based practice, like continuous fetal monitoring, that increases the risk of a c/sec. Yes they can and do save moms and babies lives, but they are major abdominal surgery, and IMO, the risks are downplayed, and moms are often bullied, and the dead baby card is played. No one is ever judging the mom who got the c/sec, but yes, the care providers do piss me off. ::steps off ICAN soapbox::.
I would have lived, she would have died. The cord was wrapped around her neck. I have never heard of anyone having a csection for the fun of it. Why are we always so worried about caection rates? Everyone always seems to have a decent reason. Team save the baby and the mother however you can.
This boggles my mind. Of course c/sec should be available when needed! Does anyone ever say they shouldn't? People who want a natural birth, however, can look at the c/sec rate as an indication of whether the policies of the hospital and the individual care providers are natural birth friendly or not.
With the possible exception of research hospitals and/or whatever hospital in the city has the best nicu, the c/sec rate should not be at 30 or 40% or more, especially for first time moms and not vbacs.
There is a lot of stuff some hospitals do that is not evidence based practice, like continuous fetal monitoring, that increases the risk of a c/sec. Yes they can and do save moms and babies lives, but they are major abdominal surgery, and IMO, the risks are downplayed, and moms are often bullied, and the dead baby card is played. No one is ever judging the mom who got the c/sec, but yes, the care providers do piss me off. ::steps off ICAN soapbox::.
So if the rate is high, are there examples of people getting sections that didnt need it? Not accusing, just curious.
And maybe I read it here, but isnt there an argument that the increase in csections over the years is a factor of more people having children that may not have had chidren before or may not have carried to term, etc but due to advances in science. That is coming out wrong, but I think/hope you know where I am going.
I have never heard of anyone having a csection for the fun of it.
"For the fun of it" is probably exaggerating, but I know a handful of people who feel like they were pushed into a c-section for reasons that were not as black & white as the cord being wrapped around the babies' necks. Situations like pitocin not bringing on labor progression quickly enough (and when they questioned being induced in the first place), breech babies, overall "slow" labors and other reasons I can't think of right now. In a few of the cases I can think off the top of my head, these friends went on to have successful VBACs and were highly motivated by the thought that they wanted to avoid another unnecessary c-section.
Just for the record, cord around the neck is not a reason for an automatic c-section. Many babies (around 25%) are born that way. It can be serious, but it isn't serious every single time.
Just for the record, cord around the neck is not a reason for an automatic c-section. Many babies (around 25%) are born that way. It can be serious, but it isn't serious every single time.
Well, in my case, they didnt know what was wrong. Her heart rate dropped with each contraction. When they gave me drugs to help my labour (i wasnt progressing) they had to stop because she was doing so poorly. 8 hours later and me lying on my side to keep her heart rate up, they did a section. They guessed cord around the neck. They were right.
I doubt there are ultrasounds done right before birth that determine cord around the neck. I assume csections are done based on the baby's and mothers health
Post by karinothing on Aug 27, 2012 7:14:55 GMT -5
I don't think anyone on here thinks that c-sections are horrible 100% of the time. Everyone recognizes that they have saved many many lives that would have been lost in the past. However, I think it is important to recognize that some of them may be unnecessary. Now, this doesn't mean that people are being rushed off willy nilly to have c-sections for the fun of it, but it does mean that there could have been some other technique that would have worked just as well and be equally or more safe than a c-section that could have been used instead.
Like Token mentioned, the evidence supporting an automatic c-section for breech births isn't there, but a lot of doctors aren't even taught how to do a breech vaginal delivery anymore, so most women don't have a choice but to have a c-section in those cases.
Or for example, there are many positions that could help move a baby down that some hospitals are hesitant to do (like hands and knees position, I know some providers find it hard to catch a baby in this position since they are "upside down"), so instead of trying a multitude of alternative positions they may move for a c-section.
What a lower c-section rate says to me, is not that the hospital is inexperienced or not capable but rather that they are willing to try a variety of methods before jumping to a c-section. For me, this would be important.
This is false. The World Health Organization officially withdrew its previous recommendation of a 15% C-section rates in June 2010. Here's the WHO's statement about c-sections: "There is no empirical evidence for an optimum percentage. What matters most is that all women who need caesarean sections receive them."
A "good" section rate is whatever leads to the best outcome for mother and baby. And I say that having had two vaginal births.
Very true.
I feel judged sometimes for having had a c-section. This one dude at work keeps talking about how women were having babies for hundreds of years without c-sections.
I finally said "and my baby and I would have been dead in previous times."
I have an android pelvis, ain't no babies coming out of here.
Yes, women have, most that had issues either died themselves, or both baby and the woman at the same time. As a csection baby due to breach/complications, and someone that will be have a csection with future child, I have no problems telling people that. You do what is right for you, your body and the baby. Natural birth does not work out for everyone. Place I will use is at 45%- but most mothers are older 30+ out of this doctor, have issues and the doctors are careful for these reasons.
Its modern days, I tend to think we should use the resources we have in order to make things easier for ourselves. This is not a race by no means.
My hospital's rate was in the 40%s. But it has a top NICU and is one of only a few hospitals in the area that is really equipped to deal with micro-preemies and high risk patients. I wouldn't deliver at the hospitals in my area that have low rates - they just aren't nearly as experienced in dealing with issues that I face.
I sit on the side of prefering slightly too many C-sections compared to slightly too few. We will never get to the point where only women who absolutely need them will have them. Childbirth isn't as simple as that. These are complicated issues of morbidity and mortality and what it really comes down to is trusting your doctor's judgment.