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

41–50 of 194 posts

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

#41

Post by DoreenMichele »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #27
jobigoud wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are a number of factors which make natural childbirth better, the mother recovers much quicker, a day or two vs weeks. There are things that happen during vaginal childbirth with hormones released by mother and child which do not happen with c-sections, like the bacteria which transfers from mother to child which is essential for gut function. The baby is also prepared for birth during the process and is more a…

You are describing some idealized optimum vaginal birth. Those are not the norm. I've spoken to one woman who indicated she recovered rapidly from one birth. It was her first child. She attributed it to youth. Subsequent births were harder on her.

I've had two children. Both births were relatively uncomplicated vaginal births with episiotomy. It took me 5.5 weeks to stop bleeding after the first one. It took me six months to regain the weight I lost while throwing up for 8 months. Etc.

I had unusually good medical care. I was relatively well educated for a young woman. Etc.

I did have an undiagnosed serious medical condition complicating things. Medical staff came to get me off the floor after people in the waiting room harangued them about ignoring what a terrible state I was in and I got an admission of error on the part of staff to some degree. They had dismissed my complaints as "You don't know what pain is. You have another 8 hours to go." without checking me. No, I did not have 8 hours to go.

Although I have also read that vaginal flora may be good for the baby, you are conveniently overlooking the fact that it can also be bad for the baby. C-sections are sometimes recommended to protect the baby from the mother's STD -- for example, if she goes into labor while having an active herpes flare.

I'm pro vaginal birth. I'm not thrilled at the high rate of C-sections. But I don't think you do any good by so completely distorting the facts.

Women need substantial support to successfully birth a healthy baby with minimal complications for mother and child. We still tend to fall short on giving women adequate support. So, in essence, I'm not willing to argue that any particular woman was wrong to choose C-section for herself.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264473.php

https://www.cdc.gov/std/pregnancy/the-facts/std_pregnancy_br...

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

#42

Post by DoreenMichele »

marmaduke wrote: post #34
DoreenMichele wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly not always true. Women are fairly frequently given episiotomies. This is intended to prevent vaginal tearing, which is far more harmful than a clean cut and much harder to repair and much more likely to leave a bad scar. Scars in the genitals can be pretty unpleasant. Scar tissue in female genitals tends to not want to cooperate with that whole sex thing. Furthermore, sutures in the genitals make it impossib…

Is an epidural assumed in all this discussion? The mothers I know who didn’t have the epidural didn’t have these nightmare symptoms, while those who did or had a C section were worse off. (I’m assuming competent medical staff and follow up, but I realize that’s a difficult one in the US and elsewhere)

I have had two vaginal deliveries. They both involved an episiotomy. I have never had an epidural. Both deliveries were completely drug free.

Episiotomy: A surgical cut to the vaginal tissue to prevent tearing.

Epidural: Spinal pain block.

Totally unrelated procedures.

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

#43

Post by laythea »

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 haven't had my first coffee in the morning yet, so it may be me, but I'm struggling to see the link between food surplus & farming and war?

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

#44

Post by sambe »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #24
vladgur wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Possibly not always true. Women are fairly frequently given episiotomies. This is intended to prevent vaginal tearing, which is far more harmful than a clean cut and much harder to repair and much more likely to leave a bad scar. Scars in the genitals can be pretty unpleasant. Scar tissue in female genitals tends to not want to cooperate with that whole sex thing. Furthermore, sutures in the genitals make it impossib…

The rate has fallen a lot in some countries, so there are large differences (https://patient.info/doctor/episiotomy-and-tears).

The main reason it has fallen is that there’s little difference in short or long term consequences, and non-selective use of it is associated with higher incidence of severe trauma.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&ur...

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

#45

Post by sambe »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #40
marmaduke wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is an epidural assumed in all this discussion? The mothers I know who didn’t have the epidural didn’t have these nightmare symptoms, while those who did or had a C section were worse off. (I’m assuming competent medical staff and follow up, but I realize that’s a difficult one in the US and elsewhere)

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.

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

#46

Post by DoreenMichele »

sambe wrote: post #44
DoreenMichele wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly not always true. Women are fairly frequently given episiotomies. This is intended to prevent vaginal tearing, which is far more harmful than a clean cut and much harder to repair and much more likely to leave a bad scar. Scars in the genitals can be pretty unpleasant. Scar tissue in female genitals tends to not want to cooperate with that whole sex thing. Furthermore, sutures in the genitals make it impossib…

The rate has fallen a lot in some countries, so there are large differences ( https://patient.info/doctor/episiotomy-and-tears ). The main reason it has fallen is that there’s little difference in short or long term consequences, and non-selective use of it is associated with higher incidence of severe trauma. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=full&ur...

Perhaps I wasn't clear: Some percentage of vaginal deliveries will involve either vaginal tearing or an episiotomy. Both of these involve trauma and sutures.

When a woman has sutures in that area, bowel movements can rip them out. Both bowel movements and urination can contaminate the wound with bodily wastes.

So a woman having any stitches at all between her legs for any reason whatsoever is highly problematic.

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

#47

Post by iforgotpassword »

harry8 wrote: 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…

OTOH, you seem to argue that since you couldn't find any papers on that, doctors and media must be lying and c-section is just better. That sounds an awful lot like the typical conspiracy theorist.

> A lot of 30+ women decide they don't want to piss their pants and have painful intercourse for the rest of their lives.

I heard of that child once that died after it got the flue shot. We all should stop vaccinating now.

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

#48

Post by iforgotpassword »

KaiserPro wrote: post #38
Synaesthesia wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When there are problems, you operate. Otherwise it’s preferable for natural birth for mother and baby, for reasons mentioned above.

no. There are a whole host of reasons for having a c-section. The risk of having a massive tear (ie vag to arse(4c tear), or literally tearing a new arsehole) is 1 in 4. This has long term life altering consequences. An "elective" c-section is not the same as "booking in". The less "identity politics" that are wrapped up in this, the better.

No.

> The risk of having a massive tear (ie vag to arse(4c tear), or literally tearing a new arsehole) is 1 in 4.

Yes and it usually heals very well. The tissue there is made to deal with that. My sister had that happen 5 years ago, it even continued into her gut for a few cm. So that was a very bad case, but it still healed perfectly, although it took about 3 month.

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

#49

Post by Synaesthesia »

colechristensen wrote: post #32
Synaesthesia wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of factors which make natural childbirth better, the mother recovers much quicker, a day or two vs weeks. There are things that happen during vaginal childbirth with hormones released by mother and child which do not happen with c-sections, like the bacteria which transfers from mother to child which is essential for gut function. The baby is also prepared for birth during the process and is more a…

A lot of that seems like unsupported woo which appeals to the sort of people wishing to rebel against the science / chemical / medical mainstream. That doesn't make it true or untrue. It reads exactly like someone who has decided what is true went to find evidence to share to support the claim. You can pick any position at random and find a wealth of evidence to support your claim. From a source in the above article:…

My wife is in the medical field, and she’s the one who explained the advantages to natural birth. There are definitely advantages which have been proven, fewer complications and quicker recovery. I think patients should still make the choice given the information.

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

#50

Post by jayalpha »

harry8 wrote: 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…

Sorry for being naive but:

"A lot of 30+ women decide they don't want to piss their pants and have painful intercourse for the rest of their lives. "

Is this a real risk of vaginal child birth? And how risky is it?

Post reply on HN