Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doctors warn of alarming C-section 'epidemic'

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 194 posts

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

#181

Post by tptacek »

eridius wrote: post #172
tptacek wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the link you're providing says is that uncomplicated C-sections are less risky than complicated ones. Sure, that sounds right.

Direct quote from the very first paragraph of the article: > The Birth Trauma Association found that mortality rates are lowest for women who have elective caesareans. The context is comparing maternal death rate for vaginal delivery vs caesarean. Here's a Telegraph article that goes into more detail, including giving actual numbers: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584671/Women-choosi... From the Telegraph a…

I read the Guardian article differently than you did but concede the Telegraph article makes the comparison plainer.

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

#182

Post by e40 »

lostlogin wrote: post #157
e40 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the birth of my son, we switched obgyn's because she basically told us it was pretty certain we'd have a c section, because she didn't have time to wait. We switched doctors and it was the first question we asked when interviewing prospective doctors. This was in 2000.

I had no idea that interviewing doctors for delivering your child was a thing. Do they charge for it? Is it common?

We had a Doula, and she recommended that we ask a bunch of questions on our initial visit. It wasn't a separate interview. We knew we'd move on to the next on the list, should we not like some of the answers (the c section one was the primary issue).

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

#183

Post by ng12 »

isostatic wrote: post #179
ng12 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then it's her choice Well, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a choice between two roughly equivalent options. C-Sections are invasive surgeries and come with added risks. I would argue a healthcare provider's duty is to advocate against them unless there is an appropriate medical reason.

That would be the discussion of the pros and cons.

Exactly. I don't know what your experience has been but generally the pressure from medical professionals is because C-section risks outweigh the benefits most of the time.

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

#184

Post by nickwalton00 »

jaclaz wrote: post #122

In 2015 the WHO has issued this [0] [1]: >Conclusions Based on the available data, and using internationally accepted methods to assess the evidence with the most appropriate analytical techniques, WHO concludes: 1. Caesarean sections are effective in saving maternal and infant lives, but only when they are required for medically indicated reasons. 2. At population level, caesarean section rates higher than 10% are n…

Well said, I think where all things indicate it will be healthy normal births should be the default, but when medical risks indicate otherwise than c sections can provide life saving help.

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

#185

Post by jaclaz »

nickwalton00 wrote: post #184
jaclaz wrote: post #122

In 2015 the WHO has issued this [0] [1]: >Conclusions Based on the available data, and using internationally accepted methods to assess the evidence with the most appropriate analytical techniques, WHO concludes: 1. Caesarean sections are effective in saving maternal and infant lives, but only when they are required for medically indicated reasons. 2. At population level, caesarean section rates higher than 10% are n…

Well said, I think where all things indicate it will be healthy normal births should be the default, but when medical risks indicate otherwise than c sections can provide life saving help.

Yep, if you think about it, the above advice is nothing but "common sense" and good medicine practice.

The point is that the decision between a normal birth and a C-section is to be taken on a case by case basis by a (hopefully) competent doctor and not "planned" (one way or the other) in advance or decided because of other reasons.

Anecdata, my uncle was a surgeon and he always repeated us that "if it is really-really, and I mean really needed, than go for it, but otherwise never let anyone cut through your body".

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

#186

Post by blincoln »

oculusthrift wrote: post #170
Angostura wrote: post #71

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.…

and that’s why we don’t want socialized healthcare in the US. because it shouldn’t be other people’s business

In the US, we still make it other people's business. It's just that here, those other people work for insurance companies whose goal is to turn a profit (even if they claim otherwise by getting themselves classified as non-profit organizations), in part by paying out as little as possible to healthcare providers. Yes, it's theoretically possible to pay out of pocket, so one has a "choice", but doing that for e.g. a C-section would bankrupt most of our population.

I've lived in a country with socialized medicine. It's not perfect, but at least they don't have a huge chunk of the population walking around with easily-treatable conditions that slowly destroy them because normal people don't get decent health coverage.

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

#187

Post by AlexandrB »

landryraccoon wrote: post #161
AlexandrB wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vaginal delivery is associated with better outcomes for the child too. IMO that makes it not strictly the mother's choice. Strongly disagree. The mother's freedom is not subservient to the child's wellbeing. Stable families are also associated with better outcomes for children, does that mean a man should not be allowed to divorce his spouse after they have children? What about second hand smoke or the psychologica…

You’re kidding right? The fact that parents are legally required to care for their children for 18 years throws a wrench into the theory that the freedom of parents is paramount. I don’t think there’s any precedent in culture or our legal system that puts freedom of parents at a higher priority over well being of children - nor should it. Children have no choice whether they are brought into the world, potential pare…

> The fact that parents are legally required to care for their children for 18 years throws a wrench into the theory that the freedom of parents is paramount.

Except they're not. It's called adoption.

> I don’t think there’s any precedent in culture or our legal system that puts freedom of parents at a higher priority over well being of children - nor should it.

I just listed several including divorce and the freedom to choose to vaccinate (or not). I never said that the freedom of the parents is paramount, but it's also not fully subservient to the child's wellbeing. It's a balance. And my larger point is that mandating that someone go through a painful and potentially physically scarring natural birth for a dubious improvement to the child's development does not make the grade by this standard.

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

#188

Post by jsoc815 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #5
jsoc815 wrote: post #2

Find it interesting that the article seems to place the blame on the women, when it's long been said that the docs and hospitals, ever in search of time compression and profits, were encouraging c-sections versus vaginal birth. That, to my knowledge, is the likely cause of the procedure appearing "fashionable" and "modern."

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…

> The only way to schedule the birth...

Wow! Hadn't considered that at all. But, yeah, I guess, that would align w/ some other things I've heard(, but never actually experienced). Yikes!

> We think we are in control.

Yeah. (Thriller laughs)

(edit) Btw, one of my college profs used to send a lot of time in rural India. He said women there would go into labor while in the field, leave and give birth, and then pretty much return to work immediately.

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

#189

Post by jsoc815 »

cellis wrote: post #6
DoreenMichele wrote: post #5

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.

> I’m convinced that farming actually set humans on the path towards this very suffering.

I would say this more often, but it doesn't generally play well w/ much of the bell (or tails) crowd. But yes, most of our advancements (agricultural and "medical") actually exacerbate problems more than help them. Occasionally, a doctor will agree w/me.

Ah well... back to chasing "money."

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

#190

Post by acjohnson55 »

sambe wrote: post #45
acjohnson55 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would an epidural have to do with tearing and episiotomies?

Higher rate of complications during birth, more interventions (instruments), which in turn are associated with tearing/episiotomy. The implication that this never happens without an epidural is wrong of course.

Gotcha, makes sense when I think about it. But it's tough to say MN a given case whether complications wouldn't have occurred without the epidural. Sigh, it's a tough call.
Post reply on HN