to each their own

pickupyourwill

...

rr165892

Not every women is into the "Magic" of the experience.Some drug up,some numb up others want to drop the baby in water.Some births are all natural with midwives,others traditional with a Dr.
It's kinda like the choice issue for me.Live and let live.If it feels comfy for one family (woman)doing it how they think will best suite their personal needs...then more power to them.If you can have a choice of having your baby's birthday not fall on 9/11 or Christmas for example I totally get that.

dignin

My wife and I just had our first child 6 weeks ago, natural birth. Pretty wild experience.

Here in Canada I think you need a medical reason to have a c-section. At least that is what our impression of the process was.

My sister had a c-section for her first child and a natural birth for her second. Her first labour was particularly rough lasting over 24 hours before the baby was showing signs of stress and the decision was made to have the c-section.

C-sections are more expensive, result in longer hospital stays and longer recovery time. Scientists are also starting to find a lot of evidence of the benefits of vaginal birth. Such as beneficial bacteria from the vagina to the baby during birth, believed to help in healthy bacteria in babies guts (prevention of gastrointestinal problems later in life), reduced incidence of celiac disease and allergies in babies.

I guess in my mind people who schedule c-sections for non medical reasons are idiots. It makes no sense.

oftenreading

Even in the US, with its very high C-section rates, they are still not the majority, even if it might seem like it from all the hype. Unless you really need it for medical reasons, you are just trading one set of potential problems (with vaginal birth) for another set of potential problems (with C-section). No free lunch with childbirth

hedonist

If it's a matter of your personal sense of magic, or numbers...then who's to say that choosing the date of birth isn't also, in some way, destined or natural? What if a glass of wine, or a certain meal, or smoking one cigarette, even a fit of rage, has an effect on the birthdate?

I don't know...just opens the door to other questions.

My sister had a C-section with her first child by necessity, and chose to do the same with her second. I've read where there are benefits as well as risks to both options, so as rr said, to me it's about choice and what seems best for the woman in that position.

Frankly, the thought of giving birth no matter the means - let alone carrying another life within my body (it's enough to handle my own!) - scares the hell out of me.

dignin

Lets not pretend that having a planned c-section or vaginal birth have the same risk/rewards.

"Hemorrhage: There's some evidence that you're less likely to hemorrhage if you plan a c-section than if you plan a vaginal birth. (Remember that some women who plan to have a vaginal birth end up with an unplanned c-section, which tends to be associated with more blood loss than a planned c-section.)

On the other hand, when it comes to the risk of hemorrhage leading to hysterectomy, what little evidence there is shows no difference between first-time moms planning a c-section versus those planning a vaginal delivery. And as mentioned earlier, there is good evidence that having multiple c-sections increases your risk of life-threatening hemorrhage and hysterectomy.

Length of hospital stay after delivery: Women who deliver vaginally go home sooner after birth than women who have a c-section, regardless of whether it's a planned c-section or one following labor. What's more, women who have a c-section are more than twice as likely to be readmitted to the hospital during the postpartum period as women who have a vaginal delivery.

Breathing problems: Babies born by planned c-section are more likely to end up in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) with breathing problems than are babies who are born vaginally, although this number is still very small. In the womb, a baby's lungs are filled with fluid. The labor process signals the baby's lungs to stop producing fluid, and the lungs then either reabsorb or remove the fluid – but this natural process doesn't occur as efficiently without labor.

Babies delivered by c-section before 39 weeks are particularly prone to this problem. They're also more likely to have problems adapting in other ways, too, such as regulating their blood sugar and body temperature. For these reasons, experts agree that no c-sections should be scheduled before 39 weeks unless there is a medical reason to deliver earlier."

dignin

"Most healthcare providers say cesarean deliveries should be performed only when medically necessary.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement in 2013 advising women to plan for a vaginal delivery whenever possible. Unless the health of the mother or baby is in danger, the risks associated with a c-section usually outweigh any short-term benefits, the statement said, particularly for women who may want to have more children in the future. It also cautioned that concern about pain management is never a sufficient reason for a c-section.

In addition, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics guidelines state that because there's no hard evidence of benefit to the patient, performing a c-section for nonmedical reasons is not ethically justified. Finally, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, Lamaze International, and the International Cesarean Awareness Network argue that birth is a natural physiological process that should be allowed to unfold naturally unless there's a medical reason for intervention."

http://www.babycenter.com/0_c-section-by-choice_1498696.bc

oftenreading

Thanks dignin for posting this. I was intending to post something of the sort, but you've said it better than I could have. I agree - medicine is not and should not be a consumer-driven exercise. Just because you want an intervention is not sufficient grounds to get it if it is not medically indicated.

hedonist

dignin - no pretending here or saying the (dis)advantages of either are on equal ground, just relaying what my sister experienced (neither her nor her daughter - or son - went through what was described in your post).

As an aside and apologies for a semi-derail, but if this is frowned upon, how are other procedures considered elective greeted with open arms - for those who choose them as well as those who perform them?

dignin

To your first post hedonist I understand. I was just trying to reiterate my point from my first post.

As to your second, I am curious as to what elective procedures you are thinking of? Do those elective procedures have two options, one letting nature take it's course, the second being surgical intervention? I can't think of any right now.....but I blame that on lack of sleep do to the new baby.

hedonist

Well first, congratulations! I hope the sleep times increase

My first thought went to how accepted cosmetic surgery is, even things like the lap-band, botox (when not used for migraines). Or preventive procedures vs more extreme measures if the prophylactic route isn't taken.

Just kind of ties into the choice factor, where some are seen as OK and others not; I'm not sure where the line (if any) is drawn.

rgambs

Lap-band/gastric bypass is a biggie. Very dangerous procedures, no medical necessity.

oftenreading

Certainly people debate long and hard around the necessity or otherwise of things like gastric bypass surgery. If people have proven themselves unable/unwilling to lose weight by other means and are having, or at high risk for having, serious medical consequences for obesity then it is argued that it is medically necessary. Could people have taken another course for weight loss? Is it simply will power, or not? Lots of opinions, often based on personal values.

And I won't even try to get into the ethics around cosmetic surgery; maybe later, if I'm feeling up to it .

rgambs

oftenreading said:

Certainly people debate long and hard around the necessity or otherwise of things like gastric bypass surgery. If people have proven themselves unable/unwilling to lose weight by other means and are having, or at high risk for having, serious medical consequences for obesity then it is argued that it is medically necessary. Could people have taken another course for weight loss? Is it simply will power, or not? Lots of opinions, often based on personal values.

And I won't even try to get into the ethics around cosmetic surgery; maybe later, if I'm feeling up to it .

I'm sure it can be argued, but from an ethical as opposed to a medical or scientific standpoint. From a strictly scientific/medical standpoint there is no need to reduce the capacity of a person's stomach. If a person were truly unable to lose weight by reducing caloric intake, the procedure would be useless! Food addiction is a nasty beast, I am not trying to deny that, but addiction is the real issue and the treatment for addiction isn't invasive surgery. I am proud to say my 2 best friends (huge PJ fans BTW) lost 100lbs each! They didn't do it on a fad diet or with surgical intervention, it was accomplished with good old fashioned exercise, and lots of it!

oftenreading

rgambs said:

oftenreading said:

Certainly people debate long and hard around the necessity or otherwise of things like gastric bypass surgery. If people have proven themselves unable/unwilling to lose weight by other means and are having, or at high risk for having, serious medical consequences for obesity then it is argued that it is medically necessary. Could people have taken another course for weight loss? Is it simply will power, or not? Lots of opinions, often based on personal values.

And I won't even try to get into the ethics around cosmetic surgery; maybe later, if I'm feeling up to it .

I'm sure it can be argued, but from an ethical as opposed to a medical or scientific standpoint. From a strictly scientific/medical standpoint there is no need to reduce the capacity of a person's stomach. If a person were truly unable to lose weight by reducing caloric intake, the procedure would be useless! Food addiction is a nasty beast, I am not trying to deny that, but addiction is the real issue and the treatment for addiction isn't invasive surgery. I am proud to say my 2 best friends (huge PJ fans BTW) lost 100lbs each! They didn't do it on a fad diet or with surgical intervention, it was accomplished with good old fashioned exercise, and lots of it!

I'm not taking a stand on it either way, but I agree 100% that if the person can lose weight without surgery that is by far the best way.

Leezestarr313

If I could avoid it, I would not go for a c-section when giving birth. I am on the "magical things happen" side as well. I would not even want to know the gender of my child before it was born. My mom is a gynecologist and brings babies into the world the whole time. She once said something like "the gender of the baby that you have in you is one of the last big miracles humans can have, why would you want to destroy the anticipation?", and I agree. Having a planned birth with a planned c-section kind of is the same to me. But I have not given birth to a baby and can only imagine the tortures women have to go through. So to each their own

riotgrl

How much of these procedures mentioned are REALLY necessary? Hedonist, you mentioned botox for migraines and my dad has begun getting those shots to help him with chronic headaches. It works for a shorter and shorter time each time he gets an injection. However, I suffered from chronic migraines/headaches as well and saw great relief after a change in diet. How much of the elective procedures/magic pills are necessary and how much is the easy way out? Make no mistake, I know that sometimes it is medically necessary to have some intervention (Type I diabetes for example) but how much is refusal to change the way you eat/exercise?

hedonist

I think we're mostly on the same page, riotgrl. I'm trying to understand where both sides come from, as some seem by choice or even as you said, a less difficult path, vs another road that may take more time and effort but ultimately is healthier.

Leeze, I'll agree that there's much to be said for anticipation (cue Carly Simon ) and while I'm not sure gender itself is magical, that "wow" moment when the little one (in my case, as an aunt) makes that entrance...a lovely, powerful and unforgettable time.

Leezestarr313

I didn't mean that gender specific, just the fact that you don't know in advance what you're gonna get. I have been to cemeteries here and seen tombstones where names of people who are still alive were already engraved. Other people get all excited about buying all blue or pink stuff or need to have a "theme" for the bay room. Everybody likes things like that in a different way. I would prefer not knowing what gender it is and would not try to manipulate the birthdate if I can avoid it. That is what I meant

Leezestarr313

Oh and I would also prefer not having my whole family and friends in the room when the baby comes out. I have seen that in movies and tv shows and it seems not too uncommon here. I'm totally German with that. I want the blood, pee, poo and torture screams all for myself and the clinic team and my hubs. No need to share that with everyone.

dignin

Interesting turn in the discussion with the elective vs. natural path. Thanks for that and the congrats Hedonist. I like it when a topic expands and evolves like that, gives me more to ponder.