Live data from Hacker News

Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

dw.com

101–110 of 194 posts

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

#101
post #94

This really seems like one obvious way in which we are effecting our own evolution and would not be surprised if in a short time (on an evolutionary scale) that humans will require c-sections for successful birth. This may not be a bad thing, the reason child birth is so difficult for humans vs most other animals is our head size vs the female pelvis. C-sections bypass the evolutionary constraint allowing more large…

Do babies with too-big heads regularly die at birth if C-section isn't available?

Yes, and it can kill the mother as well.

I don't have statistics, but my wife and/or son wouldn't have made it without a csection.

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

#104

This really seems like one obvious way in which we are effecting our own evolution and would not be surprised if in a short time (on an evolutionary scale) that humans will require c-sections for successful birth. This may not be a bad thing, the reason child birth is so difficult for humans vs most other animals is our head size vs the female pelvis. C-sections bypass the evolutionary constraint allowing more large…

I think it's more likely that it's a bad thing. Babies are supposed to get seeded with microbes, which probably affects the immune system.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110651/

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

#105
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.

Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks results in a lower c-section rate than expectant management (waiting to see if labor will start naturally).

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/induced-labor-...

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

Normally though, induction happens because there is some problem or because the pregnancy has gone past the due date, and in these cases your risk of a c-section is already elevated.

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

#106
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.

[citation needed] induced labour happens in so many different ways, that broad statement is not going to fly. Also there are many way to induce labour, none of them are quick. Some take a few hours, others days. For example a "sweep" is where someone goes in and stretches the cervix, with their hands. There are pessaries too. None of it is quick.

Sorry for not being clear, I was specifically talking about pitocin level induction.

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

#107

Women feel enormous pressure (at least here in the UK) to give birth naturally, from both their peers and health professionals. How a baby is delivered is none of anyone's business but the mother herself. My wife (an epidemiologist) deliberated for months over having our second by VBAC (vaginal birth after csection) and opted to go for it, due to the overwhelming expectation from everyone around her that she should d…

I’m very sorry for your loss - my wife and I went through this and it was very difficult and awful, especially when you rationalize or question choices presented to you.

In the US, there are a couple of tiers of pressures and thought process. People make these choices from reasons varying from the medically advised, to cosmetic, to schedule based, to something else. Some people make choices for trivial reasons that are disturbing to the doctors who are placing people at risk, at their direction.

I think the medical concern is that there are more complications, the less informed people tend to correlate to folks who are less able to care for themselves afterwards in recovery and overall risk of anesthesia and other things.

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

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How a baby is delivered is none of anyone's business but the mother herself. I'm sorry for your loss. Caesarian's costs the NHS around £1,700 a time compared with £750, for a normal childbirth and women also stay in hospital for twice as long on average. There is a general presumption in the UK that avoiding what is an invasive operation is preferable for both baby and mother alike, in the absence of other factors.…

Vaginal delivery is associated with better outcomes for the child too. IMO that makes it not strictly the mother's choice. Indeed surgical procedures should never be entirely elective.

No, you don't get to make major body and life decisions for a mom because maybe infant outcomes are 1% better in certain circumstances. Somehow I doubt you donate 90% of your income to children in need, which would actually drastically improve outcomes for 1000s of babies.

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

#109
post #67

Interesting article. I also thought that encouraging cesarean sections was something obstetricians did often to avoid the time spent waiting for delivery. However, in my training I witnessed quite the opposite. My resident and attending physicians were very cautious with going forward with cesarean sections, and would do whatever they could to continue with vaginal delivery when the mother wanted that, and also encou…

With the birth of our daughter, we had a different, and more complicated experience.

Pre-delivery there was no pressure to do a c-section. None at all. My wife definitely did not want one.

At the time of delivery, though, there was very much pressure to do a c-section. Although the admitting resident didn't seem to pressure my wife, care was quickly transferred (because of shift reasons) to other physicians (resident and attending) who did.

The way this manifested, though, was sort of subtle. For example, my wife had a procedure done to speed up the delivery; however, as we found out later, we were definitely not sufficiently informed of the consequences of the procedure, one of which was increased likelihood of a c-section. They tried to talk my wife into a c-section, and then when she declined, they tried to talk her into other procedures that would speed up the delivery, and would omit mention of the fact that they were associated with increased likelihood of c-section. Overall, even if c-sections weren't being explicitly mentioned, they were kind of relied on or assumed, for time and convenience reasons. The discussion was sort of like "Oh you don't want a c-section? Ok, then how about X to speed things up? Oh--I forgot to mention that now we probably have to do a c-section? Oops!" It came across as manipulative to me.

My wife did not have a c-section, but this was probably only because the nurses there (who were phenomenal) were actively arguing with the physicians to not do one, and to wait. We weren't really in the hospital that long either.

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

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think this is true, but the mortality rate for c-sections tends to be higher because they are often performed in the presence of other extreme complications that contribute to the higher mortality rate. The mortality rate for non-complication (elective) ceasarian is actually lower. The Birth Trauma Association found that mortality rates are lowest for women who have elective caesareans. [0] https://amp.theg…

>The mortality rate for non-complication (elective) ceasarian is actually lower. Lower than popping the kid out the pre-existing hole that is there specifically for that purpose under similiar conditions (i.e. in a hospital)?

Let’s not call the anatomy of females “holes.”
Post reply on HN