Working mothers and C sections

[argypargy]

If your stomach is cut open during a C-section then something has gone horribly wrong.

That was my first thought, reading this. I think you mean the abdomen is opened up, Lori, not the actual stomach.

[changemanagement]

Lori's ignorance is just spectacular. Wow.

[Nothing2CHere]

At the hospitals in our area, all c-sections have a medical review if they are scheduled. Obviously emergency sections don't have time for a review beforehand but are looked at afterward. Doctors who perform questionable emergency sections get counseling and may lose their privileges. "Elective" sections don't exist here now if they ever did. There has to be a medically justifiable reason or the hospital will not admit the patient or schedule the OR. They also will not schedule them before 39 weeks without a lot of additional justification.

Ahh, this may be why my c-section was scheduled at 39 weeks. With my gestational diabetes and the rapid rate my baby was growing (7 lbs around 34/35 weeks) I was told that I was not carrying my baby the full 40 weeks. My options were either be induced at 37 weeks (assuming an amniocentisis showed that LBN's lungs were formed enough) or, if I wanted a c-section, that would be done around 39 weeks. I never knew why the time difference; I just assumed that if they were going to pull him out instead of me push him out, it didn't matter how big he was getting and to just leave him in there until 39 weeks.

Afraid I'd end up with an emergency c-section anyway if we tried the (scheduled) induction, I opted for a scheduled c-section. Even though there were justifiable medical reasons, it was still considered an "elective" c-section because my big baby wasn't being estimated as over the weight limit for for what my hospital deemed a medically necessary c-section; his measurements were right on the borderline so the decision was mine to make. And even then, I did not get to pick the date for the c-section, my OB told me, "If you want a c-section, this is the date it's going to be done."

As for c-section recovery, I know it varies for every women, but for me, I was up and about in a matter of days. I think I stopped taking my pain meds within a week of the surgery. If all Lori knows of c-sections are the stories she's read online, no wonder she thinks they're so horrendous. I made that mistake, too, shortly after finalizing my c-section arrangements. And then I talked with actual family members and friends who had gone through c-sections who all reassured me, "Nooooo, it's not as bad as all those horror stories you just read! NOw stay off the internet!" It is major surgery, but they're not all horrible with the mother laid up in bed for weeks and weeks, missing out on her newborn. And Lori obviously does not realize just how LOW that cut is made for a c-section; my scar (which I can hardly even see any more) is no where NEAR my stomach.

[Full enough quiver]

Yeah, vaginal birth is totally better. I know I recovered super duper after my vaginal delivery at a "christian" hospital. Sure, my daughter was a month overdue and weighed 10lb 15 oz, had meconium aspiration and shoulder dystocia and had to be rescusitated and ended up in nicu. And I only need 4 transfusions and 15 stitches for my 3rd degree perineal tear. But what's 2 weeks in intensive care and never having any more children? It must be awful to have a c section. Good lord, just when you think she can't get stupider.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Lori's ignorance is just spectacular. Wow.

And she's mean, too. Ignorance and meanness is a truly vile combination.

[Koala]

And she's mean, too. Ignorance and meanness is a truly vile combination.

She's pure bitter.

[GiGi_41]

I think mammograms are very dangerous and greatly increase a woman's risk of getting cancer. Dr. Marshall believes they will be outlawed one day because they are so harmful.

This is like saying that if you X-ray a child's arm for a break it greatly increases the risk for a broken arm.

Let's try logic.....

We use mammograms to help diagnosis breast cancer, so yes the likelihood that cancer might be found is going increase. It does not mean that mammograms cause cancer.

[bananacat]

I'm highly suspicious of these claims of women inducing early or electing C-sections early just for convenience. I doubt that most doctors would be on board with that, and most of these stories probably have more background to them. I can see choosing a time that's convenient within a few day window, and there's nothing wrong with that. But a doctor who scheduled it more than a week before a due date purely for convenience or at the request of the mother is probably bordering on malpractice, although I don't know the details of the law. The doctor that induced a fundie-lite's birth 4 weeks early that louisa05 mentioned was almost certainly malpracticing unless there is more to that story and there were other reasons. I also don't think most doctors are ok with C-sections simply because the woman prefers that. Usually there is some other reason, and while the woman might be allowed to choose there's still some risk with vaginal birth for her to even have that option.

[Cheetah]

Several friends of mine had scheduled C-sections for their 2nd or 3rd kid after needing an emergency C-section for the 1st. In these cases, the date of the C-section was chosen to be late enough for the baby to be fully ready, and early enough that there wasn't a big chance of going into natural labor, so usually around the 39 week mark, and beyond that, at the convenience of the doctor and the mother. So there's a grain of truth that the mother's schedule is sometimes taken into account... but it's generally lower priority than all these other factors.

I personally had 3 inductions for late babies... 2 were born at 42 weeks and 1 at 41 weeks... and in all of them I was scheduled after the weekend was over (at the request of the doctor, not me). With my last kid I had some say in the date of the induction (pretty much any time after 40 weeks) and I didn't want to have the baby on or just before Halloween so I put it off until Nov. 2 :-).

[Koala]

Lori:

http://www.cancer.org/healthy/eathealthygetactive...

The Cancer Society states that fruits and vegetable lower your risk of cancer. Where do you get your facts from?

Report

OMG, she can't be this thick :pull-hair:

[louisa05]

The doctor that induced a fundie-lite's birth 4 weeks early that louisa05 mentioned was almost certainly malpracticing unless there is more to that story and there were other reasons.

Grandma was a close friend of my mother. She was initially worried about the idea as it was so early, but got on board when the doctor agreed to it. Doctor was a member of the family's church and the father was principal of the Christian school affiliated with the church. They wanted the baby to be born at the beginning of the father's month off in the middle of summer break rather than a couple of weeks before school started and talked the doctor into it who agreed for the "good of the school". Screw mom and baby. Because that is how that world often works. I think the doctor was damn lucky nothing went wrong because they could have turned around and went after him for malpractice. Baby was very low birthweight (about 4 1/2 lbs, I think) but otherwise everything was functioning. It could have been much different and we thought they were incredibly stupid for demanding it. Not too mention the absurdity of my cousin, pregnant at the same time, who should have been induced and was not, plus was denied an emergency c-section to deliver a nearly ten pound baby in distress. She had substantial tearing and broke her tailbone in the delivery. Difference between Medicaid and private insurance.

[chopstix]

I had a scheduled c-section with my third (and last) child. I had a c-section with my oldest after a failed induction, then a vaginal birth with my second. I decided to schedule the c-section with the third due to health reasons, and also as a way to be able to arrange for care for my other two kids while I was in the hospital.

[splork]

Love this from the comments:

Lori:

So who is Dr. Marshall? Is that what she calls her dad? Her neurosurgeon? Her Black Salve supplier?

I can see how someone who was nuts (like Lori) and not very bright (Always Learning, my ass) and had a weird anti-medical establishment agenda (again, Lori) could cherry-pick a couple of sentences out of these abstracts and arrive at the conclusion that mammograms were dangerous.

A couple of statistical models estimate whether radiation from a yearly breast cancer screening might affect the risk of breast cancer. They're based on this risk analysis. It looks at breast cancer risks in women who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima or through medical procedures at different ages. Higher doses and earlier exposure are riskier.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=12105993

Here's an early model. It suggests more deaths are induced than lives saved if you start having mammograms at age 20 or 30. The assumption about radiation exposure is higher than what you'd get with a mammogram today. Even so, the risks are outweighed by the benefit of earlier detection in women over 40.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21081671

(That's what those ladies get for leaving their homes unattended when their children are young to go have mammograms, right?)

This model estimates that, per 100,000 women screened annually from 40 to 55 years and biennially until age 74, 136 woman-years would be lost due to radiation-induced cancer and 10,670 woman-years would be saved due to earlier detection of breast cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=16136033

(The 11 DEATHS part in the abstract sounds super scary, doesn't it?)

Neither of those models are applicable to women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. This study specifically looks at the risk of early mammograms in that group suggests a combination of mammograms and breast MRI.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=22956590

(Just kidding, it really says for them to just eat vegetables.)

[EmiGirl]

I was told by my doctor and the radiologist who did a mammogram on me a couple of years ago (due to a lump. I was only 25 at the time) that the mammogram was a last resort to investigate my lump because mammograms can alter the breast tissue in a younger person's body which on very rare occasions causes cancer to start forming.

[Chicken bones]

I actually did walk into my OB's office and ask for a c section. I had had a rough five years of fertility treatments and wanted to have a quick, easy birth in the fear of something happening during labor. My dr had no problem with that, and insurance covered it. Turned out I actually needed the c section, with onset of pre-eclampsia, but even if I had not needed it, it's still my and my doctor's decision about how I treat MY body.

[LadyBlue]

According to the Listening to Mothers survey, patient choice cesareans are the next thing to non-existant:

The first national data from women themselves clarify that demand from women for a planned initial (or "primary") cesarean with no medical reason is infinitesimal. Despite some professional and mass media discourse about "maternal request" or "patient demand" cesarean when there is no medical indication, just one woman (0.08%) among 1314 survey participants who might have initiated a planned primary cesarean without medical reason did so. Just that one woman (0.4%) out of 252 survey participants who actually had a primary cesarean initiated a planned cesarean without medical reason. Two other women with a primary cesarean said that it was scheduled ahead of time without medical reason and initiated by a health professional. All others (98% of women with primary cesareans) believed that there was a medical reason for their cesarean. The most common reasons cited were concerns about fetal distress, position of baby, size of baby, and prolonged labor.

How is this reflected in the total population of women giving birth? Among all survey participants, 0.06% had a planned first cesarean birth by maternal request and understood that there was not a medical reason. Applying this to the most recent national figure for annual births, an estimated 2,606 women out of about 4.1 million who gave birth in 2005 had primary no-indication maternal request cesareans.

As for the discussion on mammograms, there is no safe dose of radiation and it's effects are cumulative, so every mammogram (& other x-ray) does increase your risk, by about the same amount as 6 chest x-rays per mammogram image, depending on the rad level of the machine. This increased risk has been shown to be even greater in women with the BrCA and A-T genes, but breast tissue in general is sensitive to radiation. There's a reason screening is slowly moving to things like thermography, ultrasound and MRI. All 3 show indications of detecting cancer earlier (possibly far earlier) as well as in breasts which are difficult to get good mammography images, and without the radiation.

[Mommy22alyns]

Lori needs to just eat shit and die. Wonder what her answer is to a medically necessary C-section then? More fruits and veggies? Fuck right off.

[MyName]

Lori=Dumbass

My Csection was so that my baby and I wouldn't die trying to vaginally deliver.

And I'm a "non-working" mother.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

(AFA the pain killers...I wasn't on anything stronger or longer than with my vaginal deliveries. Her argument is invalid. :hand: )

[Blahblah]

My two planned csections were because I have a bicorneate (banana shaped) uterus and my babies were wedged transversely (sideways) with their backs flat against my cervix. No way they were coming out by themselves. Yet it is still described as "elective". Definitely time to add the third category of "medically required".

Not sure how fruit and veggies would have helped.

[infooverload]

I had a C-section with my son and it was because they had induced labor and it was not progressing at a quick enough rate even with the Pitocin which was horrible. As far as the drugs I was in the hospital for 2 days took the pain pills there and never filled my prescription. Once home the strongest thing I took was Aleve, so her argument of extra drug use is crap. The comment about the mammograms was a little distressing. I mean I have what doctors call "naturally lumpy" breast so I don't trust myself to catch oh this is just a benign lump I've had forever versus something serious. On a side note I had a doctor once say I have a cigar ridge of dense tissue in one breast and that was just a moment where I went :? okay.

[DistantStar]

Essentially any surgery that isn't done as an emergency procedure is defined as "elective" even if it's still medically indicated, so all those "elective" c-sections aren't done just for shits and giggles. A lot are done to avoid an emergency situation. Personally - while I have no real voice in the c-section fights - I am all for avoiding emergencies and having a healthy mom and baby at the end of it all, however that is accomplished.

My mom could have given birth to me in a cave and would have been fine at the end of it. She didn't much like preganancy but had easy labors with both her kids. An awful lot of moms wouldn't be. Let's hear it for modern medicine.

[salsa]

C-sections are done more often than necessary.

But NO ONE would schedule SURGERY for convenience. Induced labor - yes. But not surgery, for heaven's sake.

[Three and Done]

After 26 hours of labor, and with severe tearing on my part, my first child was born almost 4 weeks late, and the doctor told me that she might have to break her shoulders to deliver her ( Oh, HELL, NO!), due to her large size and "big" shoulders (she was 8lbs, 4 ozs, and I have a very small frame).

My second child was induced due to ultrasounds that placed her at the same size (or larger than) her sister. She was 8 lbs 8 ozs (on her due date) and quite literally got stuck in the birth canal - she had to be assisted by vacuum removal, and I went on to hemorrhage so severely that my OB wanted to perform a blood transfusion because I lost an extreme amount of blood during the delivery (which I refused out of fear - this was 1995, after all).

When my third child was due in the spring of 2000, and my OB said "Well, she (we knew she was a girl) is likely going to be at least 9 lbs, and you could "try" a vaginal birth if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it"... I said, "NO WAY, lets do a C-section!!!"

The recovery from that Cesarean was actually much easier than the recovery from either of my prior girls' birth. I am VERY thankful that the insurance we had at the time allowed us to make the best choice for myself and my babies.

[AmyP]

The argument that a planned C-section would be desirable to a "working mother" doesn't even make sense. A C-section has a longer, more painful recovery than an uncomplicated vaginal birth. A woman in a hurry to go back to work wouldn't be likely to sign up for that, would she? (Recovery from a C-section is definitely easier than recovery from a birth with complications- this comment isn't meant to contradict the previous post.)

[August]

C-sections are done more often than necessary.

But NO ONE would schedule SURGERY for convenience. Induced labor - yes. But not surgery, for heaven's sake.

Not no one. Few people, but not none.

And I'm very very surprised you could have surgery and no painkillers afterwards. That's amazing.