Could medical assistance during childbirth end up harming us

[Saoszuc]

The rose in spring

The only reason to do a C-section is if there is a complication in the birthing process. Just be aware that there are other things. Obesity has climbed up as well as chemicals in our food. Poor health in the population can easily account for that.

Because there is totally no such thing as an elective C-section, and doctors totally do not offer C-sections as solutions to minor problems. (Bonus cynicism: And internal surgery procedures totally do not make more money for physicians and hospitals.)

I'm not sure what you're saying with obesity, unless you're trying to use the increase in obesity as an indicator for the increase in C-sections. confused Unless what you mean is that overall health hasn't improved since the advent of the modern medical model, which therefore means it's labor on one's back and invasive procedures which have lowered the infant mortality rate?

Infant mortality is most often caused by disease or accident post-delivery, or by a congenital disorder which was present before labor. Medical delivery procedures have no effect on these issues, except in the rare case where an infant is exposed to a pathogen during the delivery procedure.

Recall also that infant mortality is measured by survival to age 1. Vaccines are the big flag for this one, not insane birth procedures.

The presence of nurse midwives is strongly correlated to a decrease in IMR.

[OUR UNIVERSE IS AWESOME]

I believe in situations that the mother's health is at risk, medical assistance is necessary for the health of the infant and the mother. Birth is a very complicated and dangerous process, it was actually the leading cause of female death before modern medicine.

Here is a nice way to look at it. Our large brains are the reason for our painful birthing process. But with these large brains, comes the intelligence to assist the birthing process with incredible efficiency. We have fixed our birthing problem by using our birthing problem.

[XVNekioVX]

For the humor: Umm... you do realize that within the last few weeks of pregnancy the mother's hips start getting like flexible to detach to deliver the baby, right? Yeah, I know it's completely gross. They call it round ligament pain or some bs like that.
I had an emergency c section. Why? My son thought it was hilarious to hold on tight to his umbilical cord then wondered why he couldn't breathe. His heartbeat kept dropping. I'm a small person, but the only reason I had to have a cesarean was because he was having problems. I fully believe if I had not had a c section, I would have had a still birth or he would have been brain damaged.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Saoszuc

Are you telling me that a third of women in labor require emergency, life-saving surgery?

No. Are you telling me that an actively dying patient is the only one who should be eligible for surgery?

[dxnobodyx]

XVMikoVX

For the humor: Umm... you do realize that within the last few weeks of pregnancy the mother's hips start getting like flexible to detach to deliver the baby, right? Yeah, I know it's completely gross. They call it round ligament pain or some bs like that.
I had an emergency c section. Why? My son thought it was hilarious to hold on tight to his umbilical cord then wondered why he couldn't breathe. His heartbeat kept dropping. I'm a small person, but the only reason I had to have a cesarean was because he was having problems. I fully believe if I had not had a c section, I would have had a still birth or he would have been brain damaged.

The secretion of relaxin hormes remodels the pubic symphysis to be more flexible, if it does seperate its called a diastasis. Speaking of brain damage in the ye old days they used to crush the babies head to fit it through.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Not all things are genetic so no.

[Saoszuc]

Mooby the Golden Sock

Saoszuc

Are you telling me that a third of women in labor require emergency, life-saving surgery?

No. Are you telling me that an actively dying patient is the only one who should be eligible for surgery?

No. The point is that doctors should not be pushing major, unnecessary surgeries in order to make life more convenient / profitable for themselves.

I guarantee that if C-sections weren't being pushed, you'd find a bit of a dip in demand.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Saoszuc

Mooby the Golden Sock

Saoszuc

Are you telling me that a third of women in labor require emergency, life-saving surgery?

No. Are you telling me that an actively dying patient is the only one who should be eligible for surgery?

No. The point is that doctors should not be pushing major, unnecessary surgeries in order to make life more convenient / profitable for themselves.

I guarantee that if C-sections weren't being pushed, you'd find a bit of a dip in demand.

And my point is that there's a difference between emergency intervention, medical necessity, and medical indication.

There is a huge amount of space between "emergency surgery" and "convenience" where I think you'll find most C-sections actually take place.

[Saoszuc]

Mooby the Golden Sock

And my point is that there's a difference between emergency intervention, medical necessity, and medical indication.

There is a huge amount of space between "emergency surgery" and "convenience" where I think you'll find most C-sections actually take place.

A C-section is usually unnecessary except in emergency situations.

There is no excuse for a 30%+ Cesarean rate. Just as there's no excuse for using most other unnecessary medical model procedures during labor.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Saoszuc

A C-section is usually unnecessary except in emergency situations.

False. The list of indications for C-section is a long one, and most are not true medical emergencies.

And the multiple births I've participated in where the woman is begging the doctor to perform a C-section and the doctor is refusing because it is not medically indicated leads me to doubt your convenience claim.

[Saoszuc]

Mooby the Golden Sock

False. The list of indications for C-section is a long one, and most are not true medical emergencies.

That's because the demarking line between "high risk" and "low risk" has been periodically lowered for the past thirty years to allow for classification of more women as "high risk".

Mooby the Golden Sock

And the multiple births I've participated in where the woman is begging the doctor to perform a C-section and the doctor is refusing because it is not medically indicated leads me to doubt your convenience claim.

Nice anecdote. I've got a hundred more from doulas, midwives, and women who have experienced childbirth which contradicts it. I'M RIGHTER LAWL

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Saoszuc

That's because the demarking line between "high risk" and "low risk" has been periodically lowered for the past thirty years to allow for classification of more women as "high risk".

1. This contradicts what you said earlier about it being about convenience.
2. And this is a bad thing because...?

Quote:

Nice anecdote. I've got a hundred more from doulas, midwives, and women who have experienced childbirth which contradicts it. I'M RIGHTER LAWL

You made an unsubstantiated claim, I replied that from personal experience I see anecdotal evidence that contradicts it. Hence, my default position is to be skeptical of your claim.

If you want to ignore that experience because anecdotal evidence is a weak form of evidence, that's fine, but your claim is still unsubstantiated, and that is enough grounds for me to not accept it. Since you are advancing the claim, and trying to convince me of its veracity, you will have to supply some sort of evidence to change my mind. Preferably evidence stronger than anecdotal, since you've implied that anecdotal evidence is not strong enough for this discussion.

[Saoszuc]

Mooby the Golden Sock

Saoszuc

That's because the demarking line between "high risk" and "low risk" has been periodically lowered for the past thirty years to allow for classification of more women as "high risk".

1. This contradicts what you said earlier about it being about convenience.
2. And this is a bad thing because...?

I see no contradiction. Doctors complain about how women are "problem" patients because women want to have some input on the birth process. The easiest way to get control of the situation is to declare women "high risk" in order to remove their wishes from the equation. Bonus: convenience and extra billing.

I am completely floored that you would think it's a good thing that women are being declared "high risk" unnecessarily.

Mooby the Golden Sock

You made an unsubstantiated claim, I replied that from personal experience I see anecdotal evidence that contradicts it. Hence, my default position is to be skeptical of your claim.

If you want to ignore that experience because anecdotal evidence is a weak form of evidence, that's fine, but your claim is still unsubstantiated, and that is enough grounds for me to not accept it. Since you are advancing the claim, and trying to convince me of its veracity, you will have to supply some sort of evidence to change my mind. Preferably evidence stronger than anecdotal, since you've implied that anecdotal evidence is not strong enough for this discussion.

Patients of nurse-midwives have lower Cesarean rates. Obviously this is because women are conspiring to make it look like medical interventionism is harmful. Those bitches.

"One recent retrospective study of over 7,800 births from a large hospital (Ehrenthal et al., 2010 ) found that of the 43.6% of labors that were induced during the time period of the study (2003-2006), 39.9% were elective inductions, that is, inductions that are carried out without any medical indications for induction." What's that you said about necessity again?

This landmark study is wonderful; it is completely transparent about methods, sources, and evidence. By all means, peruse at your leisure.

I can always access more if you need.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

Saoszuc

Doctors complain about how women are "problem" patients because women want to have some input on the birth process.

Source?

Quote:

The easiest way to get control of the situation is to declare women "high risk" in order to remove their wishes from the equation. Bonus: convenience and extra billing.

Source?

Quote:

I am completely floored that you would think it's a good thing that women are being declared "high risk" unnecessarily.

I responded to this:

That's because the demarking line between "high risk" and "low risk" has been periodically lowered for the past thirty years to allow for classification of more women as "high risk".

Find the word "unnecessarily" in that quote.

Quote:

Patients of nurse-midwives have lower Cesarean rates.

I see nothing in this article supporting the claim that C-section is largely done for physician convenience.

Quote:

"One recent retrospective study of over 7,800 births from a large hospital (Ehrenthal et al., 2010 ) found that of the 43.6% of labors that were induced during the time period of the study (2003-2006), 39.9% were elective inductions, that is, inductions that are carried out without any medical indications for induction." What's that you said about necessity again?

You and I are engaged in a discussion about C-sections, not inductions. A study on inductions is irrelevant to the claim that C-sections are done for physician convenience. In fact, it implies the opposite: that the raise in C-section rate is due to a rise in necessity.

Quote:

This landmark study is wonderful; it is completely transparent about methods, sources, and evidence. By all means, peruse at your leisure.

Let's see, the study does not say anything about doctors performing C-sections for physician convenience. The most it says is that ACOG gave an opinion supporting non-indicated C-sections, but does not elaborate on the context in which these this might occur. It concludes that vaginal delivery is generally safer than C-section, and then goes on to recommend educating women for informed consent.

It does not say C-sections should only be used in emergencies, nor does it conclude that doctors are offering them due to laziness or greed.

[Saoszuc]

The discussion as a whole is not simply about C-sections; if you like, I can get linky on that as well. "You and I" are not having a discussion about anything; you came into the middle of my diatribe, which I am still having. razz

I challenge that moving the bar of "high risk" into low-risk territory is by definition unnecessarily categorizing women into high-risk pregnancies. Can you state the nature of your disagreement?

Can you, further, demonstrate that more interventionism in the labor process - including more C-sections - reduces risk to women or otherwise is super-awesome fun-time happy?