The Battle!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2008
The Battle!!!
80
Sun, 02-17-2008 - 5:17pm

Well it appears my last post really got quite a bit of discussion started. So lets see if I can get another debate fired up. Ladies you know us men we often open our mouths when we shouldnt.............oh well

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
In reply to: theliving
Mon, 02-18-2008 - 8:38pm

I am not saying they are all needed but that they are preformed because of a complication. Just because that complication could often be dealt with in other ways does not mean it does not exist.

The amount of C-sections being preformed for non medical reasons is quite low. The amount being preformed for inadequate medical reasons is a lot higher




Photobucket
Photobucket
*
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
In reply to: theliving
Mon, 02-18-2008 - 8:45pm

"The amount being preformed for inadequate medical reasons is a lot higher"

This is why I was ecstatic to hear that my hospital has a CS rate of 8%-10% for first-time mothers. My OB said they don't just do CS at the drop of a hat.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
In reply to: theliving
Mon, 02-18-2008 - 10:36pm

I agree with some of what you say, but I see some subtleties.

The way I'd describe what I think you're trying to say is that our American system doesn't do a very good job at promoting health, only at responding to emergency. And sadly, that creates a system that is oriented towards emergencies, and sees them in every shadow. This is particularly true of the way we manage childbirth. If you are genuinely sick with something rare or traumatic, this is a great nation to be in. But if you are dealing with some kind of common chronic illness or common health issue that shouldn't be a big deal (such as pregnancy) we don't do as good of a job as other developed nations do.

Also, the art of treating an illness is being taken over by the insurance companies. Physicians are having their hands tied by HMOs, being told what to do, what medicines or diagnostic procedures they may prescribe according to "diagnosis code". It's sad and frustrating. I feel like the system is so badly broken that the public has finally started to get behind serious reform of the system, which is great. Things must change. It's a rather exciting time to be starting out in the field, actually.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2008
In reply to: theliving
Mon, 02-18-2008 - 11:50pm

I can agree with that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-11-2005
In reply to: theliving
Tue, 02-19-2008 - 12:20am

"<>


Id' fight to my last breathe to make sure women keep the same rights as every other adult citizen in this country."


Hear hear!

~~Sam stitches well with others, runs with scissors in her pocket. Cheerful and stupid.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
In reply to: theliving
Tue, 02-19-2008 - 8:57am
So what do all these advocacy groups think the rate SHOULD be at?

.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
In reply to: theliving
Tue, 02-19-2008 - 9:06am

<>

Exactly. And since my pelvics bones wouldn't move for a 7 pound baby and those bones were molding his skull considerably as his breathing decelerated dangerously, I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on even if they were privvy to those records. And since those same bones wouldn't pass the 7 pounder, there was no conclusive evidence they would pass the 7½ pounder the next time around, nor the 7¾ pounder the third time. And by the 5½ pounder, 3 previous s sections were reason enough.

<< I t would be very hard to determine which cesareans were actually unecessary one by one, but many people consider that our population is pretty similar to Europe and many other developed nations that have cesarean section rates 10-20%. Which would suggest that many American sections are in excess of what seem to be required in other nations.>>

And I maintain that a 10-20% (as opposed to28-33% depending on the source) risk makes NO DIFFERENCE to the foundation that those risks for eac woman's right to choose bodily risk.

<< As I've heard it - the OB never gets sued for taking her to the operating room.>> You got it. And to be honest, if I support choice for risk for each woman in gestational choice, I certainly support her choice in delivery if there's any indication that the c section would be a safer route. It goes BOTH directions.

<>

Precisely. And it makes NO MATTER whatsoever to me if tha risk is as low as 10% or as high as 33%. It forms substantial risk to each and every woman and is part of the cornerstone of the right to choose her risks. I will add that nugget to my future PC position file. Unless the c section rate becomes a total 0%, it stays in.


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
In reply to: theliving
Tue, 02-19-2008 - 10:01am

In my opinion, the idea that a woman may be talked into an unnecessary cesarean surgery is in some ways a more horrifying risk of pregnancy than the idea of a necessary cesarean surgery. The sequelae are the same, the benefits are not. And whether or not they are necessary, the stats show that they happen.

Either way, and at whatever rate, exactly as you said it is an important part of the calculus of the risk of remaining pregnant.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2007
In reply to: theliving
Tue, 02-19-2008 - 10:52am

I would have to say that elective C-sections are commonplace in today's society, just take a look at Hollywood celebrities.


I think it's probably much easier to sign up for an elective C-section than it would be to want a VBAC.


I'm not at all saying that C-sections are not necessary in some cases, they certainly are.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
In reply to: theliving
Tue, 02-19-2008 - 1:51pm
Sounds good to me. I would be happy to hear that. If I ever decide to try for another my hospital is going to have their hands full as I refuse to have another without valid medical reason and I know they are gonna want to schedule me as I already had 2.



Photobucket
Photobucket
*

Pages