• invalid-0

    You certainly see more and more medical research that reaches the same conclusion. However, there are other external forces at work. A few years ago our local hospital quit offering VBACs because their insurance company insisted they quit offering this service. The decision was made by the MBAs, not the MDs or the women involved. Shouldn’t we be after the lawyers and insurance companies as well?

    • invalid-0

      how many can i have. c setion

  • http://momstinfoilhat.wordpress.com invalid-0

    Not only was this study reviewed in US News & World Report, but it was published in this month’s issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which is the journal of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).

    This is not the first article with significant evidence supporting VBAC that they have printed recently.

    What is a shame is that hospitals, doctors, and as noted above, insurance companies are refusing this option, even though all the evidence points that it is a safer and better health decision and the intervention of cesarean is more dangerous. This happened to a friend recently, and she showed up in labor the day before her scheduled repeat section. And they still forced her to have a cesarean, even though that flies in the face of the evidence even more.

    What is ironic is that it is ACOG’s own position statement on VBAC, recommending that a team be available for immediate cesarean, is part of the justification for refusing VBACs.

    PS The formatting on these comments is awful. I clicked on formatting options the first time I attempted to reply, and I lost my comment. I even added line breaks as directed, and I still have no formatting.

  • invalid-0

    Thank you for writing this, Amie. This is a case that sorely needs to be made. When biomedical practitioners claim the weight of science is on their side, but it is clearly not, how can women access true informed choice? They can start here, at RHRealityCheck.

    Thank you again.

  • invalid-0

    1. just because a newborn ends up in the NICU doesn’t mean it is worse for the patient. Most likely they are admitted for TTN (transient tachypnea of the newborn) which is wet lungs which is a result of not having its lungs squeezed out of the liquid while it passed through the birth canal.

    same for needing oxygen after c-section. It’s just an expected consequence of C-section. I don’t think this results in any long term consequences for the baby.

    2. the statistics do show double the risk of going to the NICU, but again, this is small percentage increase. from 4.9 to 9.4 or 4.5% difference.

    3. There is definitely an increased cost, but for those of us who have had c-sections, I think it is obvious why we have repeat c-sections, because it is so much better than going through labor, worrying about episiotomy and risking 3rd degree vaginal/anal ripping/laceration. and you get to stay in the hospital for 4 days instead of 48 hrs.

    also you can avoid possible perinatal transmission of herpes, HPV and HIV

    what is the risk of uterine rupture with VBAC? if you are the one with the rupture, that risk is then 100%. What is the risk of rupture with c-section…?

    As a pediatrician, I cannot recommend c-section. but as a woman to another woman, I would strongly recommend a c-section. I see the c-section as a liberation of women from having to risk damage during childbirth and look forward to the future of artificial uteruses.

  • invalid-0


    re: your point #2. From 4.9% to 9.4% is not a small percentage increase. It’s almost double. The absolute numbers are still not large, but almost double is not trivial.

    re: your point #3. Speak for yourself. I’ve had repeat c-sections, because my doctors bullied me into them, including using threats to withdraw care if I didn’t do what I was told.

    “Getting” to stay in the hospital longer was not a plus. Being in the hospital with a new baby sucks.

    There was no possibility of transmitting herpes, HPV or HIV to my baby, because I don’t have any of those things to transmit. (I also wonder if swallowing blood, as my third child did during his section, could pass those on.)

    It’s true that I don’t have to worry about an abusive doctor cutting an unnecessary episiotomy, which is good. However, major surgery to avoid possible tears/lacerations doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Four years out from my third section, I still can’t feel my bladder, due to nerve damage – from my completely uncomplicated surgery.

    I’ve had trouble with infertility and miscarriage since my first section. I face increased risks of stillbirth and miscarriage in all future pregnancies. My future birth options are GONE. I also do have some increased risk of rupture, despite planning a repeat section. The risk comes from the scar, not from the VBAC.

    As a woman to other women, I strongly recommend avoiding a primary section, if at all possible. Mine has been screwing up my physical and reproductive health for over 16 years.

  • invalid-0

    Unless absolute needed, I would never deliver a baby via c-section.

    The vajayjay comes back to normal after six weeks anyway.

  • invalid-0

    Did you say you look forward to artificial uteruses?

    Seriously, major surgery is being sold to women as a convenience. Get the facts- make informed choices!

  • http://www.firstbathrooms.co.uk invalid-0

    thanks for writing this blog. there is a lot of information contained which i wasnt aware off.

    i think natural birth all the time.

    jen x

  • http://strongandfit.net invalid-0

    I heard somewhere that many doctors do c-sections because of lawsuits–they are afraid of complications that may occur during vaginal deliveries. Seems this article would at least help to challenge the notion that c-section is safer.

Mobile Theme