Live data from Hacker News

Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

dw.com

11–20 of 194 posts

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#11
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think it is probably more insidious than that. We have a lot fewer full-time homemakers. Women are much more likely to have paid jobs. The only way to schedule the birth is by scheduling a C-section. Waiting for the baby to show up when it decides to do so is a very organic, let nature take its course, humble thing to do and it is pretty alien to how most people live these days in developed countries. Hist…

Actually historically, we foraged and hunted. After reading Sapiens I’m convinced that farming actually set humans on the path towards this very suffering. Large scale war, famine and pretty much every post agrarian revolution ill, is a direct consequence of having food surpluses.

Sapiens is a great book!

We became domesticated by wheat.

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#13
post #7

My sister-in-law just had her first baby, and got very into all of these statistics and the "medical industrial complex take on childbirth" I believe the WHO recommends around 10-15% of births should be C-Section in a healthy population, but the figures in first world countries are at least 3-5 times that. There are about 3 million stories of ladies "booking in" their birth a month or three in advance. I.e. I want my…

"natural" like half of women dead in childbirth natural?

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#14
post #8

Ok so no mention of the health implications of so called "natural" childbirth, which aren't trivial and have an increasing risk as your age. No mention of the rising age of mothers in wealthy countries. No mention of different trade offs for fit 19 year olds and less active 35 year olds. A lot of 30+ women decide they don't want to piss their pants and have painful intercourse for the rest of their lives. Word gets a…

In Thailand a lot of woman prefer C-section in order to choose a lucky day for the birth of the child [0].

---

[0]: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30355415

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#15
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think it is probably more insidious than that. We have a lot fewer full-time homemakers. Women are much more likely to have paid jobs. The only way to schedule the birth is by scheduling a C-section. Waiting for the baby to show up when it decides to do so is a very organic, let nature take its course, humble thing to do and it is pretty alien to how most people live these days in developed countries. Hist…

Actually historically, we foraged and hunted. After reading Sapiens I’m convinced that farming actually set humans on the path towards this very suffering. Large scale war, famine and pretty much every post agrarian revolution ill, is a direct consequence of having food surpluses.

If you've never watched James Burke's series Connections [1], you'd probably enjoy it. I binge watched it years ago on youtube, and walked away with the distinct impression that our path to calamity started with the plough.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)#Connec...

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#16
post #8

Ok so no mention of the health implications of so called "natural" childbirth, which aren't trivial and have an increasing risk as your age. No mention of the rising age of mothers in wealthy countries. No mention of different trade offs for fit 19 year olds and less active 35 year olds. A lot of 30+ women decide they don't want to piss their pants and have painful intercourse for the rest of their lives. Word gets a…

Women have been giving birth since creation with minimal enough problems for humans to survive and succeed as a species - it absolutely is natural, no idea why you put that in quotations. Why stop at C-sections? Raise them in test tubes a la Brave New World, skip the biological process entirely. After all, it's much safer, quite possibly even zero risks on the woman's part.

The thing with C-sections is that until fairly recently, children weren't inoculated with the mother's vaginal canal microbes. Now they know better and do a smear, but that means many children failed to receive a proper immune boost when they needed it most. There's an growing body of evidence that suggests early microbial exposure is required for proper immune development and function, and that the lack of this exposure is linked to allergies and other self-inflicted immune diseases. I can't speak of any data off the top of my head, but perhaps the doctors recommending against C-sections are aware of decades of data on C-sections and childrens health?

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#17
post #8

Ok so no mention of the health implications of so called "natural" childbirth, which aren't trivial and have an increasing risk as your age. No mention of the rising age of mothers in wealthy countries. No mention of different trade offs for fit 19 year olds and less active 35 year olds. A lot of 30+ women decide they don't want to piss their pants and have painful intercourse for the rest of their lives. Word gets a…

Women have been giving birth since creation with minimal enough problems for humans to survive and succeed as a species - it absolutely is natural, no idea why you put that in quotations. Why stop at C-sections? Raise them in test tubes a la Brave New World, skip the biological process entirely. After all, it's much safer, quite possibly even zero risks on the woman's part. The thing with C-sections is that until fai…

> Women have been giving birth since creation with minimal enough problems

This bears no resemblence to the actual history of childbirth.

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#18
post #8

Ok so no mention of the health implications of so called "natural" childbirth, which aren't trivial and have an increasing risk as your age. No mention of the rising age of mothers in wealthy countries. No mention of different trade offs for fit 19 year olds and less active 35 year olds. A lot of 30+ women decide they don't want to piss their pants and have painful intercourse for the rest of their lives. Word gets a…

If we perfect the art of surgery to a point where it's painless/seamless/benign it won't even be a question, it seems so much more efficient and clean. Open, extract, close.

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#19
post #10
post #8

Ok so no mention of the health implications of so called "natural" childbirth, which aren't trivial and have an increasing risk as your age. No mention of the rising age of mothers in wealthy countries. No mention of different trade offs for fit 19 year olds and less active 35 year olds. A lot of 30+ women decide they don't want to piss their pants and have painful intercourse for the rest of their lives. Word gets a…

"A lot of 30+ women decide they don't want to piss their pants and have painful intercourse for the rest of their lives." Not specifically only for those reasons, my wife always wanted a c-section birth due to the risks with vaginal birth and recovery times.

I would imagine the recovery times for c-section are longer

Re: Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

#20
post #4

I wonder what its correlation with induction is. Artificially inducing labor does not tend to give the body enough time to adjust and progress.

I don’t think c-section after successful induction is common. There are some number of failed inductions (i.e. nothing happens) which result in c-section. Bear in mind that this is generally done - like the original induction - because “giving enough time” after 42 weeks costs lives.

This review finds the rate is actually lower after induction, contrary to popular claims:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4049989/

Post reply on HN