Check out this article on C-sections...

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Check out this article on C-sections...
5
Tue, 11-15-2005 - 7:34pm

I just read this article in Yahoo News and thought I would share. Just out of curiosity, How many moms on this board have had a C-section and how many times? My dd was an emergency C-Section at 37 weeks but my ds was VBAC at 41 weeks.

By MIKE STOBBE, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 36 minutes ago
The rate of Caesarean sections in the U.S. has climbed to an all-time high, despite efforts by public health authorities to bring down the number of such deliveries, the government said Tuesday.

Nearly 1.2 million C-sections were performed in 2004, accounting for 29.1 percent of all births that year, the National Center for Health Statistics reported. That is up from 27.5 percent in 2003 and 20.7 in 1996.

The increase is attributed to fears of malpractice lawsuits if a vaginal delivery goes wrong, the preferences of mothers and physicians, and the risks of attempting vaginal births after Caesareans.

The C-section rate increased for all births, even those that involved healthy, first-time pregnancies with a full-term, single child. In 2000, the government announced a national public health goal of reducing the C-section rate for such births to 15 percent by 2010, but the actual rate now is about 24 percent and rising.

The government also reported that more than a half-million infants were born preterm — at less than 37 weeks' gestation — in 2004, which is another record. And the proportion of infants with a low birth weight rose to 8.1 percent in 2004, from 7.9 percent the year before.

Increases in multiple-fetus pregnancies and in pre-term C-sections seem to help explain the preterm and low birth weight numbers, said Joyce Martin, an epidemiologist who co-wrote the report.

A C-section is major surgery: A doctor cuts open a women's abdomen to retrieve the baby. The risks include infection and, in rare cases, death, and recovery time is longer than with a vaginal delivery. Doctors often perform a Caesarean when the fetus lacks oxygen or is in some other kind of life-threatening distress.

For decades, C-sections were done in only a small fraction of births. In 1970, the national rate was 5 percent. Then it rose, surpassing 20 percent by the mid-1980s.

Experts say many factors drove the rate: Mothers increasingly preferred the convenience of C-sections, which could be scheduled. Technological innovations let doctors better see problems before birth.

The trend temporarily reversed in the early 1990s, partly because HMOs pressured doctors to curtail unnecessary procedures. But by the late 1990s, health insurers had cut back their C-section control efforts.

Also, doctors became worried by studies that showed that women who deliver vaginally after having a C-section earlier suffer a ruptured uterus — a potentially lethal complication for both mother and child — in about 1 percent of such cases.

Some hospitals have banned vaginal deliveries after C-section, or VBAC, said Tonya Jamois, president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, an advocacy organization.

"Women are struggling to avoid unnecessary surgery, but the medical system has abandoned them. For many, they have to submit to major surgery in order to get medical care," she said.

The VBAC rate has dropped to 9.2 percent of births after a previous Caesarean in 2004, compared with 28.3 percent in 1996.

The rate of Caesareans among women who have not previously had one has shot up, climbing to 20.6 percent of such births in 2004, compared with 19.1 percent in 2003 and 14.6 in 1996.

Dr. Sarah Kilpatrick, head of a practice committee for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that 20 years ago, virtually no women asked for C-sections. But nowadays, she said, "the public gets the sense that it's like a zipper — they open you and then close you back up."

Some women believe they have a lower chance of becoming incontinent if they opt for a C-section, though the evidence to support that is not complete, Kilpatrick said.

___

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 11-15-2005 - 9:36pm

Jacob was born via c-section. My doctor said I had a 50/50 chance of having a c-section because my pelvis was very narrow. I went in to be induced but was already 3cm dilated when I got there, so I stayed overnight, then the next morning they started pitocin. By 8 pm that night I was in full force labor and had pushed for 2 hours, but he was not moving down, so they had to do the c-section. He was big too, 9lbs 1oz and long, 23 inches! I will probably have another c-section next time, unless my pelvis decides to widen up some! lol And this time no 24 labor for me and 2 hours of pushing, that wore me out, it took me forever to recover from the surgery. That was not fun.

Jenny & Jacob(7/28/04)

 baby

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-21-2004
Tue, 11-15-2005 - 11:14pm

In my opinion I think a lot of c-sections now are unnecessary. In my opinion some of this is the fact that medicade is very good at paying bills and it is a guarantee extra money for some of these doctors. I wonder if anyone has done any research between the correlation of c-sections and the amount of these women that are on medicade. I feel that doctors are very much taking advantage of these people with low incomes and are willing to endanger them to line their own pocketbook. With my first son I had a different doctor who accepted medicade and I noticed that some of these women had ultrasounds every month. I realized that it was because medicade would pay for these extra services.


I also believe like in the article that doctors are afraid of letting women's bodies do the work they were meant to and allow nature to take it's course.


Now don't get me wrong, I love the fact that technology has come so far and I am one of the people benefiting from this. When my first was born he was in distress and his heart rate dropped suddenly. There was no doubt he was in trouble and needed to get out right then. I had him by c-section and thank goodness that we had that option. With my second I also feel a c-section was necessary because I had gestational diabetes and he was very big. They were afraid of a uterine rupture and I think that was the right call. I will also be having a c-section with this baby since I will almost more than likely have the gestational diabetes again...I find out this Friday.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Image hosting by Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 11-16-2005 - 8:55am

Hannah was born at 37 weeks by c-section. I was having ketones in my urine so they decided to induce me. I was in labor with pitocin for 14 hrs before they decided to do a c-section. With Logan they wouldn't even consider a VBAC because my hospital wasn't equipped enough to do an emergency c-section. So my doctor didn't listen to me when I told him Logan was big. Turns out he was 10lbs. 14 oz. so maybe it was a good thing. LOL

But I agree that c-sections are too widely used in my opinion.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com


readers
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-01-2005
Wed, 11-16-2005 - 9:40am
Both of mine have by c-sections. If i had to choose i would do c-section over VBAC.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b274/mommybug77/pregnantsiggy.png
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-26-2004
Wed, 11-16-2005 - 2:59pm
All 3 of my girls were c-sections. I would have loved a vaginal delivery, but with Elise my amniotic fluid was way too low and after a 28hr induction I was still only 1cm dilated and she needed to come out. My doctor doesn't do vbacs so I had another c/s with Olivia and of course a 3rd with Ava.
Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Lilypie Baby Ticker
Lilypie First Birthday tickers