Huggies Forum

Huggies® Ultimate
Newborn Nappies

Learn More
  1. home
  2. Baby Forum
  3. Pregnancy & Birth
  4. Caesarean Births
  5. Mums Being Pushed into c-sections?

Mums Being Pushed into c-sections? Lock Rss

I had my baby in a public hospital and i felt that if it hadnt been for the amazing midwives i had that the doctor would have pressured me into a c-section. he came into the room maybe twice during the entire labour (which was 19 hours long) and had me put onto a synthetic hormone drip. It did not do me any good at all, contractions became harder to handle and bubs heartrate began dropping. The midwives informed the doctor that the drip was making things worse and he told them to leave it in, got to the point where they began to prep me for a c-sec (something i really wanted to avoid) when the midwife decided to remove the drip off her own back and i went back to normal and gave birth naturally about and hour later. I felt like the doctors really didnt listen and just went for the last opition before trying anything else. Im just glad she was there to help me and i was able to have my little man naturally
I had an emergency c section in 2008 then when I saw the same obst in 2009, he told me that I would have to have another c section because my last had been a c section.
I got a second opinion and gave birth naturally in October 2009 no problems whatsoever.
The obst who did the c section in 2008 saw me the day before my due date (Oct 2009) and told me I was carrying terribly and that if I ever went into labour spontaneously, it would be a horror birth, long and painful because she was posterior and urged me to book in for a c section.
I'm so glad I didn't listen and went with the other doctor's opinion that I would have no problems at all.
Thanks to a good doctor and midwife, baby came out the correct way too, she turned easily during labour.
The reason I had to c section in 2008 was put as CPD but I gave birth to the same size baby in 2009, naturally, so CPD is used just because it is a convenient excuse!


So, ALL private patients are urged to have c-sections??? That is so not true.

Also, choice is a great thing to have. I have also heard of awful stories where women are in great pain, enduring 24 hour plus labours, where an c-section would have been performed if it was a private patient. Public patients don't seem to be allowed these choices, and I don't think that is right. I do know of 1 doc in WA who has an obscenely high c-section rate, and has been known to do a rush of them before he is due for holidays,

As for the 34 week born by c-section for 'no reason'. There has to be more to this story. A friend with an awful history of having stillbirth babies, wanted her child out as soon as possible. Even in her case, her doc woud not do it before 38 weeks.



Never did I say that c-sections aren't needed. Many c-sections save the life of mum and/or bub. The argument is NOT about superiority over whether natural or c-section is better -- it was just a question as to whether private patients who have c-sections really needed them in every case.

It is obvious that there are many cases of necessary c-sections, private and public. I was talking about the unnecessary ones, and the fact that there really shouldn't be any. I don't necessarily agree that women who have had nightmare labours should just be given a surgery to alleviate the suffering. I agree it is unfair that some suffer more than others, however epidurals are available and the medical world cannot remove all suffering from all ailments. Also, surgery has more complications and the mum may end up worse off for this choice to give her a c-section. So the argument that a long labour should end in a c-section is just not that simple. Sometimes it may be the best option, but the discomfort alone should not be the deciding factor (as you have suggested).

As for the 34 weeks example, my friend is the one who told me there was no reason and she just asked the doctor to do it early as she was desperate (her first was a c-section so that is why the 2nd was going to be a guaranteed c-section). He then said "okay have you had any Braxton Hicks this week?" When she said yes he wrote down unexplained contactions and scheduled the surgery for that evening. It couldn't be done straight away as she had to have the steroids injections as the baby was going to be prem.

Private obs will generally do what the mum wants, whether that be natural or c-section. Often with some suggestions that a c-section would be best (ie the pushing argument). Wasn't this the original argument?
I think women are pushed into or forced to have a c-section these days. Midwives are just not trainned like they use to be and everyone (doctors, midwives, "specialists" etc) just do not trust themselves anymore and rather than actually trying everything before a c-sec, they just 'cover there arse' by thinking well, i KNOW a c-sec will get this baby out alive.

My aunty was very lucky to have a midwife who had been in her job for 57 years! Her baby was stuck, and if her midwife had been a normal "todays variety" one, she would have been rushed in for a c-sec. But because of this midwives knowledge and training, she was able to manipulate baby inside my aunty and my cousin was born, naturally, healthy and happy!
No one seems to trust their skills anymore and no one want to get sued so they take the easier option.
I and my baby would be probably dead without my c section so best to look at each c secton individually. they are done for a reason, not as simple as asking for one and people counting stats. on the other hand had i been in the public system without an obs - my complication would likely not have been picked up and i and my bub would have been in serious trouble. so yes i am thankful for my obs and will be going private again. worth every penny.

Babies are classed as full term at 38 weeks. Yes they can go a bit longer than 38 weeks but they can be born healthy and without complications at 38 weeks. And I believe the PP said that she was booked in at 38 weeks as the baby hadn't turned by 37 1/2 weeks. I could be wrong but that's how I read it.

Who's to say that she would have even gone 43 weeks or even past 38 weeks? Aren't there complications and risks involved in delievering a baby vaginally when they are breech? I don't know much about it obviously and maybe I'm all sunshine and lollipops but I figure the OB's know their sh!t and they offer c-section for a reason other than to make more money.



term is considered 38-42 weeks. given that the due date is an estimate and can be out by a week or 2, inducing or giving someone a c/s at 38 weeks can potentially mean the baby is only 36 weeks. 36 weeks and before is prem. there is a much greater risk involved with babies born early, rather then babies born after 42 weeks. they should only be induced/c/s early due to an actual medical reason. babies can'tbe rushed. Its the first lesson in parenting. patience. as for the medical industry, they need to stop basing their policies on potential litigation and start basing it on the safety of the mother and child. Each case should be looked at individually.
[quote name='~Ruby~Gloom~' date='14 June 2011 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1308019626' post='3006801']
40weeks is only an average time. The only reason not many would go that long is because drs and hospitals won't allow it. Rather than take it on as case by case it's just 40+10=times up!

[url=http://www.mysmiley.net][img]http://serve.mysmi...]
[/quote]

I agree Ruby! All babies are different sizes and the GUESS the amount of weeks pregnant by the babies size. They could be off by 2-3 weeks gestation so a baby that apparently has hit 42 weeks could really be 40 weeks or one that's 36 weeks could actually be 39 or 40.
I wasn't pressured into a c section at all. I was a public patient who saw the same FEMALE OB & midwife for every visit I had. Due to complications, it was BEST for both of us that DS was delivered via c section. So I never went into labour. The section was booked & DS would not be here today otherwise. There was never any pressure.
I don't think women are being pushed into c/s as such. I think they are making the best choice out of the information they are given. If your dr says you are at risk of this this and this if you don't have one in the midst of labour women are hardly going to shop around for a second opinion. So many women believe their lives have been saved because x was prevented and in many cases it is true. The problem lies with what is perceived as a risk. Many complications occur due to the interventions that are now procedure. (inductions, limited movement due to monitoring/antibiotics etc)
Things that some obs would deem as a risk such as going past 40 weeks, twins, breech etc are just variations of birth. You will have some spout that it is too risky and your lives will be in danger and you will have others disagree.
This isn't even including the opinion of traditional midwives who have the knowledge passed down. The risks for them are less again.

The high rate of c/s is all about being in control. Its all about preventing. Its all about litigation. You are much less likely to sue if they appear to have done something. What isn't considered or acknowledged is that you and the baby are both at much higher risk of death and injury then most of the things they are trying to prevent.

Don't get me wrong. C/s can be life saving in many circumstances. The high rate though is totally caused by the medical industry. Women aren't being pushed into it, they are being scared into it by only being presented a few facts. If you are told your babies life is at risk - who will argue it?
[quote name='OC1246' date='17 June 2011 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1308304880' post='3009002']
I don't think women are being pushed into c/s as such. I think they are making the best choice out of the information they are given. If your dr says you are at risk of this this and this if you don't have one in the midst of labour women are hardly going to shop around for a second opinion. So many women believe their lives have been saved because x was prevented and in many cases it is true. The problem lies with what is perceived as a risk. Many complications occur due to the interventions that are now procedure. (inductions, limited movement due to monitoring/antibiotics etc) [/quote]

And this...

[quote name='OC1246' date='17 June 2011 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1308304880' post='3009002']Don't get me wrong. C/s can be life saving in many circumstances. The high rate though is totally caused by the medical industry. Women aren't being pushed into it, they are being scared into it by only being presented a few facts. If you are told your babies life is at risk - who will argue it?[/quote]

[url=http://www.mysmiley.net][img]http://serve.mysmi...]
Sign in to follow this topic