Scheduling a c-section three weeks in advance?!

[Inchworm]

How long has this been going on?

I have a neice whose baby wasn't "in position" as of late last week and is "due" mid-February. The doc scheduled a c-section. It is her 1st baby. I always thought the baby and mom decide when the actual time for birthing is to be.

Just seems weird. She is now saying .. we'll that's a good day.. Hubby off work.. etc.

What happened to the mystery?

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

1. My daughter was born 14 years ago that way.

We picked her birthday - been going on for awhile. If there are medical reasons for a C-section it makes sense to plan.

[Inchworm]

14. That is pretty cool

And yes, if it's medical it just makes sense.

[Statistical]

2. C-section doesn't require labor to begin.

Given it is surgery it makes sense to schedule it like any other surgery.

If your niece trusts this doctor not scheduling could be a mistake. He could end up getting other surgeries scheduled when she needs the C-Section.

There really isn't anything different about C-section than any other routine surgery.

[Inchworm]

15. I see your point

I'm more curious about so soon ahead when the medical reason is that baby hasn't dropped yet. Give the chicky time. It's a big world out here :D

[Statistical]

23. If conditions change they can always cancel the surgery.

This way the doctor, staff, and operating room are ready if they need it.

[Inchworm]

38. True and good point

Derrr, why didn't I think to mention that to neice lol

:)

[LeftishBrit]

3. There can be very good reasons for scheduling in advance

If there are problems that can make labour dangerous to the baby or mother, then it's best to schedule so that the mother doesn't go into labour.

E.g. if the mother has a full placenta praevia, or other condition that can result in he placenta detaching at birth, then letting her go into labour could kill the baby and possibly the mother. In some cases of abnormal position, letting the mother go into labour could risk the baby getting stuck or asphyxiated.

So often people schedule carefully, to reduce the risk of going into labour when it's dangerous on the one hand, or having a premature baby on the other.

It's not a good idea to arrange it purely for mother's or doctor's convenience - not because of the 'mystery', but because there is the slight risk that you could underestimate the dates and end up with a premature baby. But if a caesarian hadn't been scheduled in advance for my mother, I'd probably not be here to post now.

[pipi_k]

5. Yep...my son and his wife did the same thing...

My DIL was in non productive labor for over 12 hours during the birth of their first child 9 years ago. They had to do a C section.

When their second child was born they scheduled a C section in advance of her due date so the same thing wouldn't happen.

[woodsprite]

41. Ended up with a c-section after 19 hours of unproductive labor.

Was about 3 wks early with my first and the hospital said they would only let me labor a total of 20-22 hrs after the water broke before they labeled me 'emergency c-section', knocked me out and did the surgery. I opted to go early and have the epidural so I could stay awake through the procedure. My regular docs had been away and were not happy with how the staff had directed my case.

Now, for my 2nd we planned a repeat c-section at 38 wks. Unfortunately, our son decided HE had a different idea and at 35 wks 1 day was born by a fast, unmedicated VBAC. Go figure! ;)

[pipi_k]

57. Yep, sometimes babies have plans of their own....

:7

[shanti]

60. so which birth

did you prefer? c-section or vbac?

[Inchworm]

17. Yea, if it is needed it is needed

Thanks for your knowledge. :)

[lukasahero]

4. The 'mystery' died when we decided women's lives mattered

:shrug:

C-sections often save lives.

[Iris]

7. um.....

There are a lot of unnecessary c-sections performed. People think it's easier but forget that it is surgery.

[cleanhippie]

11. But are MORE often used to expedite the birth so turnover is greater.

More patients = more profits. Besides, when a c-section is performed, childbirth automatically becomes a true "medical procedure" and the costs skyrocket. Its really not about saving lives so much as it is about saving time and making money.

[Sal Minella]

48. . . . and convenience in scheduling for the attending doc. n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

85. Plus, surgery pays more - for the provider and the agency.

We had one doc in our hospital (he's moved on) that we would literally hide patients from. He was a cesarean enthusiast in the extreme.

[uppityperson]

72. Having a c-sect doesn't increase turnover. There are only so many pg women and whether they

give birth vaginally or by c-sect, there are the same number of patients.

I agree it is often about saving time and making money since c-sect turns it into surgery vs "just" obstetrics.

[laundry_queen]

13. You do realize

that the maternal mortality rate is something like 4X worse with c-sections?

I have the opposite opinion actually - that c-sections sometimes put the baby's health above that of the mother's. Of course, that should always be the choice of the parents, whatever they decide, and I dislike doctors pushing c-sections, since, as I mentioned, the risks are FAR greater to the woman.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Correlation isn't causation

It's likely that a greater incidence of C sections coincides with health problems in the mother.

[laundry_queen]

56. Nope.

Studies have been done on it and it IS causation - studies done on low risk mothers who have either had planned, uncomplicated cesareans or uncomplicated vaginal births show that c-sections drastically raise the maternal mortality rate EVEN in low-risk pregnancies/mothers. Did you know on average, a woman who has an uncomplicated c-section loses twice as much blood as one who has a vaginal birth? They have a far greater chance of dying from infection also. Yes, c-sections save lives. Unnecessary ones can cost lives as well.

[Maru Kitteh]

86. +1 well said. n/t

[jbnow]

64. Unless there are other factors c-section is worse for babies too.

They are more likely to have respiratory issues for issues. The pressure during labor helps clear their lungs,
But of course there are times they need to get out pronto or that labor would be dangerous for them,

The babies position 3 weeks ahead if time usually isn't one of those reasons and there are maneuvers specialists can do that change the position. Hey I use to watch medical TV, I know these things!
But of course I know nothing about this case

[Inchworm]

20. I understand that if it's nessesary

I'm more baffled by the.. hmm.. boldness of it all?

It just seems like mother and child determine due date, etc with hormones and stuff. Three weeks is a long time ahead to say that according to the due date we decided on things aren't going precicely to plan so we'll schedule an operation to keep on our schedule.

I'm just a curious uncle.

[enlightenment]

34. Very curious, imo.

There is still time for the fetus to decide to turn on its own - and do they never deliver breech babies vaginally anymore? Has the doctor attempted a manual rotation? Suggested that your sister 'encourage' the fetus to turn (there are positions she can put her body in that sometimes work - basically sticking her rear in the air so the fetus decides to turn 'right side up')? There may be a lot more to this than you are saying, but it sounds very dubious as is . . .

30+ years ago, my sister was induced because her OB was planning his golf vacation around her due date. He SWORE that he had gotten the due date wrong and she was actually ready to pop. The result was a traumatic labor that resulted in an infant that weighed barely five pounds and looked as unfinished as raw bread dough. The pediatrician was livid - he estimated gestation at 35 weeks. Fortunately, no harm came from it for the child or mum.

I think you have a right to be curious - and concerned. C-sections may be routine but they are major surgery and pose great risks - not to mention increasing the chance that your sister will have to undergo the same thing for subsequent pregnancies.

[monmouth]

6. Considering I was at bingo no less when my water broke with #2, a

warning of sorts is always a good thing. I wish her and baby well.

[Inchworm]

22. I can't wait!

Babies all over around here lately :)

[SidDithers]

33. Did you stay to finish the round?...

:hi:

Sid

[monmouth]

45. OMG, yes I did. It was a "Round Robin"..LOL Priest (friend) walked me

out while everyone gave me good wishes and a little applause...LOL...

[KittyWampus]

88. that's a sweet memory. Thanks for sharing! How old is your 'baby' now?

[monmouth]

93. He's 48!!

[Xithras]

8. My sister delivered all four of her kids that way. Scheduled in advance.

Her oldest kid is now 15, so this isn't exactly a new thing.

[Inchworm]

24. I've been out of the baby game for a bit

thanks :)

[Renew Deal]

9. C-Sections mean higher profits for everyone involved.

So of course they push women down this route.

[Inchworm]

26. Heh- cynical Inchworm's hair stood up a bit

when I heard this news. I was thinking more a control thing. It would be much easier to just schedule and follow that protocol than for doc to interrupt supper and head to hospital when labor starts.

That's why I posted. To see if this may be the way baby delivering is often done now.

[jtown1123]

47. This is also a reason for inducing labor. You'll notice many births are done

during a certain time period of the day. This is to make things easier for docs.

[handmade34]

50. while I understand

the need for a c-section at times... it is very troubling how causual it all has become. I know that I was VERY fortunate but I still believe childbirth as a medical procedure is something to avoid. ((My 5 children were born at home -with awesome midwife - labors from 1 hour to 3 days))

"...The national U.S. cesarean section rate was 4.5% and near this optimal range in 1965 when it was first measured (Taffel et al. 1987). In more recent years, large groups of healthy, low-risk American women who have received care that enhanced their bodies' innate capacity for giving birth have achieved 4% cesarean section rates and good overall birth outcomes (Johnson and Daviss 2005, Rooks et al. 1989). However, the national cesarean section rate is much higher and has been increasing steadily for more than a decade. With the 2007 rate at 31.8%, about one mother in three now gives birth by cesarean section, a record level for the United States..."

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456

[laundry_queen]

10. *sigh*

Very common, unfortunately. Most doctors would rather do a c-section anyway. Many OB's just shouldn't be OBs. They like to schedule things and make excuses "baby's too big" "baby's too small" "baby's not in position" I will say as to that last excuse - it depends what he means by not in position. If the baby is transverse (ie not up and down, but side to side) and it's her first, then yes, they would be more concerned. If he just means the baby hasn't dropped or isn't anterior, then he's just trying to find an excuse to do a c-section.

This bothers me, as c-sections are not without large risks. It is MAJOR surgery. I have had 1 unplanned c-section, 1 vaginal birth and 2 planned c-sections. I would pick the vaginal birth ANY DAY over a c-section. It takes weeks and weeks to recover from a c-section. After my vaginal birth I was home within 12 hours (my choice, signed out ama) and within a week I didn't even feel like I'd had a baby! A week after my c-sections I was still shuffling around in pain, trying to stand up straight. And trying to take care of a baby. Not fun.

And yes, I didn't care for the 'planning' of my last 2 c-sections. It was odd. I didn't get to pick the day though, it was picked for me. It was good for planning childcare of my other kids at any rate. In the end, it was still a momentous occasion, even if you know everything in advance. Knowing in advance didn't make it any 'worse' or 'ruin the surprise'. It was still an amazing experience either way. I'm sure your niece will find that also.

[Inchworm]

27. The baby just hasn't "dropped" yet

That's my worry as well. Doc just looking for an excuse for easier.

We'll see. Thanks for the info.

PS: I can't wait! :woohoo:

[JuniperLea]

67. You would have loved the convo I had with the doc during my 3rd pregnancy...

Oy... He had a list, and I had my own experience with two much larger babies. I was right. Number three baby was born after a scant 20 minute labor... no rips, to tears, no errors... and I was back to picking cotton and plowing fields the very next day!

JK about cotton and fields, but I was fit as a fiddle!

[Horse with no Name]

70. In my experience with the majority of our OB docs that I worked with

women would come in at 5 am to start the "labor process".

If they haven't delivered by 6 or 7 that night--a c-section was almost always called for the nifty little term "failure to progress".

FWIW, I think it is excessive too.

[Matt_in_STL]

12. Very common

We just had a baby a month ago (via c-section after 17 hours of labor...ouch). When we were at one of our appointments at the OB, the OB sharing his office was scheduling a c-section for another expectant mother - for July 2011. Our OB actually told us that if we were to request a c-section be scheduled rather than attempting a vaginal birth, he would have to respect those wishes.

Now, whether or not the insurance company accepts that is a different story. When we first found out my wife was pregnant our insurance carrier called and assigned her a pregnancy assistant at the insurer's company. They seemed nice enough, went over options, discussed breastfeeding, etc. They called a couple days ago to close out the file and had a ton of questions on why she had a c-section. My guess is they were trying to determine if it was elective so they could cut back on what they would pay.

[Inchworm]

30. Ahh, yea I forgot about that angle

Insurance.

I hope you two and your baby are doing well! :woohoo:

[Dappleganger]

16. It is a surgical procedure...

they have to reserve the room, the doctor, etc.

BTW, my first was a c-section (unplanned, she was stressed and I wasn't dilating at all). The other 3 subsequent births were all natural. We had a fit trying to find an OB who would do a v-bac but we finally did (we had moved to another town by then). Each of my labors were no less than 23 hours each.

[Inchworm]

32. Makes sense

:)

[madmom]

18. My daughter was born that way 27 years ago. Our family has a history of

BIG babies, and I had my first by c-section because he was too big to be born normally by me, so they thought it was a precautionary thing.

[Inchworm]

35. I've heard that before

baby too big or mother too small. That makes good sense to me.

:)

[TBF]

19. Nothing new -

I wanted to do that 8 years ago when my daughter was born because my husband was working out of town & only home on weekends. My OB didn't want to do it unless necessary and the insurance wouldn't pay for an elective c-section, so I was left to my own devices. Thankfully I went into labor Friday night so it all worked out.

Many women have been doing this for quite some time.

[Inchworm]

36. Glad it worked out for you guys

:woohoo:

[TBF]

43. My girlfriends told me to take long walks Friday morning to encourage

the baby - and what do you know it worked! The 2nd child I had was an emergency C and after going through that I was very thankful for the natural birth I had the first time around. Surgery is never pleasant I guess, and the recovery took much longer.

[Cleita]

21. When Lucille Ball had her son, the

C-section she had was scheduled to coincide with the TV birth of little Ricky on the "I Love Lucy Show", which means there was advanced planning. I always thought that it was creepy for them to do this.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Why? "Little Ricky" turned out just fine.

What, Lucy didn't suffer the pain of childbirth as Gawd intended?

[enlightenment]

39. No - just the pain of recovering from a major surgical

procedure.

But she didn't have to worry about sweating or stretching her vagina, eh?

I'm sure 'Big Ricky' appreciated that . . .

geeze.


edited to add a word

[Cleita]

42. Well, nobody did back in those days.

Women were knocked out with drugs and kids not born by C-section were pulled out of them with forceps. Somewhere people started realizing the babies had dents in their skulls because of the instruments used to grab them and they too were born drugged.

[Maru Kitteh]

89. Studies show consistently that V-births involve less pain than cesareans do.

Use the Google if you need to.

[Inchworm]

37. Odd indeed

:)

[jtown1123]

25. Doctors make more money, it's more convenient for them and relieves them

of some medical liability since they took all the necessary precautions. C-sections are dangerous and unnecessary for most women yet it's a practice that has rised alarmingly for fairly dubious reasons. Read the book Pushed.

[Inchworm]

40. Thanks to the book tip

:)

[TBF]

44. They do, but not all doctors push it. Both my OB's were against it -

the first time I had natural birth, and the second time it ended up an emergency C. Neither pushed it, in fact when I asked they didn't recommend it and pointed out that insurance typically doesn't cover elective C's.

[jtown1123]

46. You are lucky. There are always exceptions. The U.S. still has a high rate of C-sections compared

to other countries. It's definitely something that should be looked into. Some hospitals really push it and others don't. Depends on the Doc.

[AtomicKitten]

29. There are many valid reasons for scheduling a cesarean section in advance.

1) Unstable lie including persistent breech presentation (failed version).
2) Cephalopelvic disproportion.
3) Prior C-section with abdomen closed in one layer.
4) Uncontrolled gestational diabetes.
5) Pregnancy-induced hypertension.
6) Prior myomectomy for fibroids.

etc.

[Lord Helmet]

54. interesting

thanks 4 the info

[msanthrope]

49. It's a room reservation at this point--if the baby turns, she can elect

to go vaginal.

[Inchworm]

53. Gotcha

I didn't even think of that until someone above mentioned it :dunce:

I got a lot of questions answered here though. My curiosity is satisfied :)

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Why

do you think it's any of your business?

[Inchworm]

52. Why

do you?

[Warren DeMontague]

61. I

Don't.

I just notice a trend where people seem increasingly concerned with the choices other people make about their lives. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's always been there.

Maybe I don't have the gene for it, or maybe I just have other hobbies, but I generally don't worry about other peoples' personal choices if they don't impact my life.

Edit: FWIW, I think the scheduled c-section rate thing is regional. When we had our kids in Northern California, it was not a popular thing to do, but my wife has a bunch of friends in the midwest who all did it. So from a purely sociological standpoint, maybe there are relevant trends in that regard.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

55. I Have 3 Sons, The Last 2 Were Scheduled C-Sections

My wife is a very small woman, and I am a very large man. My boys take after me. My wife tried for 30 hours to get my first son to pass through naturally. It wasn't going to happen. From that moment on, we knew that all of our children would be scheduled C-Sections. I don't see what the big deal about it is. Why the stigma?

[Inchworm]

58. No big deal or stigma

I was just curious. And since my daughter is preggo as well, I try to keep up.

On a weird sidenote.. I read somewhere about hormones and such that are related to mom and baby. This also peaked my curiosity.

[laundry_queen]

59. It's more about risks v benefits

And also, mismanagement of labors by hospitals that can actually cause a need for c-section. My grandmother was tiny, 4'11" and had 8 kids vaginally, none of which were under 8.5 lbs. (the biggest was 10 lbs). Size doesn't have much to do with it - how a labor is managed, mobility and support of the mother are far more likely to be factors in whether she will have a vaginal birth or not. I guess the 'stigma' is that many doctors make shit up so they can schedule c-sections for more money and for their convenience, often scaring the crap out of the parents in the mean time (your pelvis is too small, you will put your baby at risk if you attempt a vaginal birth, your baby's in a position which means you will have a long and painful labor etc - I've heard them all). Most of the time what they say isn't true. I had a 30 hour labor that ended in a c-section with my first and was told my 'pelvis was too small'. I had a vaginal birth with my next baby in less than 17 hours. My exhusband was a large man also. Again, size has nothing to do with it. That is a myth.

[NotThisTime]

62. She has the right to say no if she wants to wait up until the time she goes into labor naturally..

I did that with my 2nd, they'd scheduled a c-section because #1 didn't go well, I scheduled it, called the day of the section, said I wasn't coming in I was going to wait. In the end it was a bad decision on my part, I had the same problems and #2 had worse problems because she was bigger.... My doctor knew what he was talking about but as the patient I had the final word..... #2 was okay by the way, just became an emergency EMERGENCY c section... wouldn't recommend it.

[Inchworm]

63. Thanks

For some reason, when I thought to ask in GD to satisfy my curiosity I'd forgotten that things can change between now and then :silly:

[JuniperLea]

65. I refused a c-section... twice...

And I'm glad I did. All three of my kids were born via natural child birth. The first two were 9 and 10 lbs., and the OB wanted to do a c-section even though I was strong and healthy and there was no sign of stress at all. They were fine; I was fine. We all went home the next day with nary a worry.

I had been reading up on birth trauma and how many psychiatrists and psychologists felt it was a natural and necessary thing. That was 30 years ago, and a quick Google tells me more and more are agreeing.

[Inchworm]

69. I wasn't so worried about c-section if it is actually needed

It just seemed odd to schedule niece's so far ahead because the baby hasn't dropped yet. It makes a bit of sense now. You know, reserve the room just in case nothing changes by time she goes into labor.

And I'm 99% sure daughter will stand up for herself in her case. Hehe, that's a WHOLE 'nother can of worms. She is considering a doula just so she isn't talked into anything she doesn't want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doula

:P

[JuniperLea]

81. I considered getting into midwifery...

I come from a family of nurses and it seemed like a natural calling. Too much red tape! However, it couldn't hurt to have another educated person in the mix! One who doesn't have a golf or sailing schedule.

Doula is a funny word! I'm surprised I've never heard it before. Thanks for the edification!

[Inchworm]

82. Hehe

When daughter mentioned doula I was like... that's just silly, then what will husband say?

Then I remembered their first being born. Hubby was.. hmm.. in a happy daze :P

[JuniperLea]

87. Mine turned a whiter shade of pale...

And looked about to faint... no help at all! :D

[Inchworm]

90. I was there annoying docs/nurses with a zillion questions

It is a hobby I have... seeking knowledge. :rofl:

Of course I was told several times by wife.. "SHUT UP and FOCUS!!"

:D

[cbdo2007]

66. Don't ask us, ask your neice. It's up to her.

Sure, the Doctor has his recommendation but there are plenty of docs out there who will save the c-section for a last resort.

Sounds like your neice is relieved to have it planned so she doesn't have to worry about it.

[Inchworm]

73. It's kinda new to her

That's why I asked here.

[cbdo2007]

94. Oh ok....well if she doesn't....

want a c-section she should call around to some other doctors tomorrow (in her insurance network) and tell them the situation, unless she has some special connection to the doctor she is using.

My wife had a baby last year and we were very relieved to hear that our doc actually has the lowest number of c-sections in the entire state. It is more likely that if the doc wants it "scheduled" like if they are going to be on vacation during the due date week, that they'll do an induction rather than a c-section, but yeah there are many docs nowadays that just go straight for the c-section. Not all though, but its definitely worth asking if that's what she wants. It's up to her, and if they do a c-section this time it makes it more difficult in the future to have a natural birth.

Good luck to her!

[Horse with no Name]

68. Nowadays everything is scheduled

In most places anyway...even vaginal births.
There is an occasional one that slips through and has the nerve to be born before their scheduled day...but it is now the exception and not the norm.

[Inchworm]

74. That's the vibe I'm getting for sure

Seemed odd to me.

[Horse with no Name]

77. It isn't normal

and I will also say that we ship more babies for complications than we ever have.:(

[Doremus]

71. I had a friend who had all 3 of her kids at the doctor's convenience.

Some induced, some c-sections ... all scheduled for the doc's convenience.

Why the hell she went along with it I'll never know, but she did.


Forgot to add that her youngest is 20 years old.

[Inchworm]

76. I'm leaning to think

"scheduling" is more normal than not. I guess that's ok and all. It just seems weird to me a bit.

Hehe, it isn't like popping out babies is a new fad :D

[Doremus]

95. I think it all depends on the doc. Mine delivered our breech girl vaginally.

She was a frank breech (butt first), which can be safely delivered vaginally ... but good luck finding a doc willing to do it. Our OB, bless her heart, was brave enough to allow it and everything was fine. No "scheduled" deliveries, c-sections or otherwise, for us!

Seeing 100 sets of eyes in the operating room glued to my nether regions was a bit unnerving tho, lol!

[Ilsa]

75. I hope the baby turns, drops, and she goes into labor. Vaginal birth is usually

A lot easier on the body. There are high rates of complications with c-sections. Unless, of course, no one knows anything about delivering babies vaginally anymore.

[Inchworm]

79. Me too

Thanks :)

[AngryOldDem]

78. My sister's sister-in-law had a scheduled C-section.

Doctor wanted to deliver before he left for vacation.

[Inchworm]

80. That is a thought I had too

heh, that the doc had other plans. I'm sure all will be fine however it all turns out.

[RoadRage]

83. I did it that way too...

My son was breech, and I really wanted to have him "natuarally". In order to do it, we scheduled a C-Section, and I got an epidural. My doc then tried to do a "Version" which means she tried to get him to flip around in Utero. After 45 minutes of her & 2 other very strong doctors pushing on my stomach - they decided he wasn't going to flip, so they needed to do a C-Section.

If I would have just waited to see if he would flip on his own and had gone into labor and he hadn't flipped - I would have had a C-section anyway.. once you're in labor they can't try to "flip" the baby because the Uterus muscles are contracting to much.

I ended up with a C-section anyway.. but at the end of the day, I have a happy & health baby boy and to me that was by far the only thing that mattered.

[Inchworm]

91. Yay!

Yup, the important part is happy and healthy :)

[Maru Kitteh]

84. For the vast majority of women and babies, vaginal delivery is healthier, short and long term

For a systematic, scientific review on the subject see here: http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10271

Excerpt:
Review results
The review identified dozens of adverse effects that appear to differ by mode of birth. Documents listed in the box, above, provide full details.

Overall, results strongly favored vaginal birth. Harms that differed and favored vaginal birth included

* shorter-term harms of cesarean in mothers, such as infection, surgical injury, and more severe and longer-lasting pain)
* social and emotional harms of cesarean on mothers, such as less early contact with babies and poorer overall functioning
* ongoing physical harms of cesarean to mothers, chronic pelvic pain and bowel obstruction
* harms of cesarean to babies, including accidental surgical cuts, respiratory problems, failure to establish breastfeeding, and asthma in childhood and adulthood
* harms of cesarean for women's future reproductive capacity, including infertility, ectopic pregnancy, placenta accreta and placental abruption and many serious consequences of this class of effects
* harms of cesarean to babies in future pregnancies, including stillbirth and malformation.

You might send her a link, many first-time moms aren't very well informed about the risks of C-sections. They sometimes just go along with it when an OB suggests one. Apprehension about dealing with labor pain, being eager to please their doctor, and a lack of information can all contribute.

[Inchworm]

92. I'm pretty hands-off

And allowing neice to do what she feels is right. She knows who to call for opinions/articles/etc though hehe. That is how this thread started. She called with a question, I said I'd get back to her. I read and read, got curious, posted in GD, and have been on it since :D

Thanks for the article. Someone upthread also linked an article from this site. I gots some studying to do.

[Maru Kitteh]

96. Allow me to give you a PubMed link to a freely available retrospective systematic review from Canada

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.library1.unmc.edu:2048/pmc/articles/PMC1800583/?tool=pubmed


Results
The planned cesarean group comprised 46 766 women v. 2 292 420 in the planned vaginal delivery group; overall rates of severe morbidity for the entire 14-year period were 27.3 and 9.0, respectively, per 1000 deliveries. The planned cesarean group had increased postpartum risks of cardiac arrest (adjusted odds ratio 5.1, 95% confidence interval 4.1–6.3), wound hematoma (OR 5.1, 95% CI 4.6–5.5), hysterectomy (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.2–4.8), major puerperal infection (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.7–3.4), anesthetic complications (OR 2.3, 95% CI 2.0–2.6), venous thromboembolism (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5–3.2) and hemorrhage requiring hysterectomy (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2–3.8), and stayed in hospital longer (adjusted mean difference 1.47 d, 95% CI 1.46–1.49 d) than those in the planned vaginal delivery group, but a lower risk of hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.8). Absolute risk increases in severe maternal morbidity rates were low (e.g., for postpartum cardiac arrest, the increase with planned cesarean delivery was 1.6 per 1000 deliveries, 95% CI 1.2–2.1). The difference in the rate of in-hospital maternal death between the 2 groups was nonsignificant (p = 0.87).