The LA Times has a long article on the increasing popularity of C-sections in general and scheduled C-sections in particular. Although the complications, risks and benefits of various types of birth are still being studied, the Times generally makes the case for the pick-a-date approach, and it does it in a way that Angelenos can really understand: by comparing it to a boob job. "I think if somebody can decide to step into a plastic surgeon's office and have her breasts enhanced [says the medical director of UCLA's perinatal unit,] she can have an elective C-section."
After all, it's the complications you know, right? The fact that 80% of birth complication-related malpractice suits involve physician-driven C-section decisions--like opting against it and waiting too long for it--is just a coincidence.
[If you're still on the fence, they trot out that greatest of all LA fears: old age. Because while there's not really definitive evidence, some urogynecologists believe that vaginal births are the cause of... anal leakage in women in their 50's and 60's. But only when they laugh. And then they stop exercising [and, presumably, watching funny movies.] Your call.
When 'natural' seems too risky [lat]
I just went through this and think this article is great. I had an elective c/s and had a great experience. Thanks for posting this.
Stories like this drive me crazy. It is unbelievabe to me that women are so vain now that they won't endure a vaginal birth? Pull-ease.
[I felt they stuck that "Too posh to push" line in there purely as flamebait. they'll be glad to know it worked. ;) -ed.]
it doesn't really make sense to play down the fact that you are in pain for soooooo long after a c-section. from what i've heard your organs are bruised, and your bladder is pulled out and then put back in to make room to get the baby out. that seems like a lot more damage than vaginal delivery.
i agree with greg: it just seems like OB's have gotten together to try to lower their medical insurance and raise their profits by selling this to their patients
Personally, I just can't imagine purposefully seeking out a doctor who would be willing to slice open your abdominal muscles and render you practically an invalid for 6 weeks. No lifting, no driving, no housework. Maybe a lot of these women have drivers, housekeepers and nannies.
As reported in the NYT, vaginal birth does NOT increase a woman's risk of urinary incontinence.
Umm...let me start by saying that I went through a natural birth (and pretty damn crunchy granola by today's standards...no drugs and a tub of water...mind you it was a $30,000 jacuzzi tub that every birthing suite in the hospital I chose had) and my sister-in-law went through a C-section (not elective) seven weeks later.
I don't know if this is worth looking a but I was up and around and taking hour-long walks a week after having my daughter and had little to no pain six weeks later and have no ill effects (except for a little bit more pooch in my belly) two years later. My SIL on the other hand, still feels a tingling in her abdomen and some pain at the incision site almost two years after having her daughter. To me, that's a pretty good reason not to get a C. That, and the fact that she has a scar from her experience and I don't.
As far as I'm concerned, a woman's body is designed to give birth naturally. Babies come when they're ready and only if there is a problem should medical intervention be provided. I'm not advising skipping prenatal appointments or not doing everything you can to ensure a healthy pregnancy and child, I'm just saying it's time to examine why things like elective Cs are considered 'natural' when they're so far from it.
Something funny just occurred to me...it's as if these women think that giving birth is the hard part. HA!