Hellobee Boards

I'm really glad that they're implementing this! I hope that at some point "elective" isn't available at all.

I know that there's the whole aspect of being able to "choose" BUT I think that Doctors also have a responsibility to not take part in their patients taking the higher risk route if it can be avoided, considering they take oath to not harm & to always strive to benefit the health of a patient.

Here in the states we have a VERY high maternal death rate and we're around #40 in the world, meaning that it's safer for moms to have babies in FORTY other countries than it is here. Mind you we also spend more on maternal healthcare than anywhere else in the world...... so don't you think we'd be the best and not worse than 40 others?

A huge part of this rate is the fact that pulmonary embolism is one of the leading causes of maternal death and blood clots from cesareans are the highest independent risk factor for this... blood clots being prevalent with surgery but not with vaginal birth.

I am definitely for medical technology and am glad that it's available to save mommas & babies, but I'm a firm believer in their use on a "needed" basis... otherwise they do more harm than good.

Early c-sections come with some negative consequences that your baby may end up feeling for the rest of his life. I was an earlyish c-section (not elective), and I am hypersensitive to light, noise and touch, to the point that it interferes with my ability to drive and socialize.

Elective c-sections may be silly, in the same way gauged earrings are silly - not generally harmful, but not something I would choose. The risk to the baby isn't significantly higher. EARLY elective c-sections, however, demonstrate a lack of understanding on the effect it could have on the child.

@ecogirl: I think there are two separate issues.

First, there is significant evidence that early c-sections can impact babies for their lifetime. This is a growing concern, because one in three sections in the US are now done before 39 weeks. That's a lot of babies who are impacted by these decisions.

Second, there is evidence that early c-sections end up creating a lot of costly complications, which drive up costs for the whole healthcare system. Because those costs are often born by society as a whole, the ban is a way for society as a whole to push back against these elective decisions.

Given the impact on babies and the cost on society, I think it's a healthy thing that doctors are starting to push back against this huge trend.

Also, on a personal note, Olive was born five weeks early and so we got to see firsthand just how valuable those last few weeks can be to the development of a baby's body. Olive couldn't regulate her body temperature and her lungs were also underdeveloped for quite some time. It was all very scary.

While I understand your reasoning in your individual case, I think there are probably a lot of risky c-sections being done and they need to regulate this.

As a preemie mom, I say this with experience: every week matters. Having a c-section at 39 weeks is a very different issue than having a c-section at 36 weeks though. I don't necessarily agree with scheduling a c-section at 39 weeks simply because it's convenient. I understand why people do it, so I'm not judging, but to me, life is rarely convenient, children and childbirth definitely aren't.

At first, I was so bummed when I found out I had to have a c-section because my baby was breech then transverse. Then I was suddenly ok with it and was looking at all the positives but then the baby turned the right way and then the doc said no c-section. Then I was lamenting b/c I really wanted one by then (labor-avoidance-anxiety.) Now that it's all over, I'm glad I had the opportunity and privilege to give birth without a c-section. So I am glad there is the doctor's discretion as to what is medically necessary, especially because health care insurance exists to cover medically necessary procedures. Heck, I'm still upset that insurance doesn't completely cover Lasik eye corrective surgery.

I had to have an "elective" c-section. I was almost two weeks past my due date and S was not coming out anytime soon. The doctor said she "could" induce me but there was a very high chance I would end up in a c-section anyway so I got one. I think if they take this away I would never have that option and might end up with a emergency c-section because I am just not built for large babies. I want to try for vaginal the net time around but what if life doesn't work out that way?

I think it's great! This isn't something women should be able to choose, frankly. It could greatly affect the baby's well-being, all for a little convenience. It's really wrong.
Obviously they are still allowing early c-sections for women that need them for medical reasons. Just not "just for fun". I completely agree with the ban.

@runsyellowlites: Exactly my thoughts!

@ecogirl: I had an "emergency" cesarean as a result of the other interventions they had done with my first son in trusting my doctor, but was not made aware of many of the risks AND of the things that I would be now dealing with in my current pregnancy because of the cesarean.

As for the early cesareans it definitely has greater negative effects on baby.... BUT with looking at the trends & statistics it's clear that cesareans in general have greater negative effects on momma than vaginal deliveries... And I know for myself, that me being around and well is just as important as baby getting all the time to develop as they need.

You can check out this site for some of the risks of cesarean vs. vaginal. The site covers many different birthing options so I think it's a well rounded site and that way the most well informed decision can be made.... I know atleast in my case my doctor wasn't chopping at the bit to tell me that the cesarean would effect my future pregnancies or things like that... good to know all of those things up front. =)

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10166

I'm not opposed to elective c-sections, just EARLY (before 39 weeks) elective c-sections since there's still so much development that goes on in those last few weeks.

BTW, my husband's birthday is on Dec 26th and while it kinda sucked as a kid, he loves it now cause he can take the whole week off and enjoy it with family.

@ecogirl: I trust my doctor too, but I trust my instincts more. *shrug* It's a personal decision and I do honestly believe that some women endanger their children by acting selfishly in regards to this. I am not saying that ALL women do, I am saying that there are definitely some that do.

I know a girl who started begging the doctor to strip her membranes at 34 weeks. 34 WEEKS. She had no medical reason for wanting it done, the baby was still safely cooking... she was just tired of being pregnant. THAT is what I mean by selfish. That poor baby could have been very premature if the doctor involved hadn't put her foot down.

@ecogirl: You did read that they are banning them before 39 weeks and not banning them altogether, right? AND it's not legislation, it's the hospitals banning it themselves. You can still choose an elective c-section, you just have to wait until your due date now. How is that not letting women choose how they want to birth? You still have a choice.

@zippylef: Exactly.
If you want to have an elective c-section, that's your own business. But having one before 39 weeks when there is no medical reason for it, is wrong! Why would you risk your baby's health for convenience or because you're "tired of being pregnant"?
If you can't wait until your baby is ready, then maybe you have adopted or tried surrogacy. Pregnancy is not about your comfort, it's about the health of your baby. Reserve your "right to choose" between vaginal or c-section, just wait until your baby is ready for the world. If you love your baby which I'm sure you do, then you want what's best for it. And waiting until it's ready to be born is certainly what's best for it.

This proposed ban is also on inductions before 39 weeks. Not just elective c's. Same rationale though.

I work in NICU, and in my hospital that means I attend c-section deliveries. There is a huge difference in the babies born by c-section at 38 vs 40 weeks, and an even bigger difference between babies born without labour, and those who experience labour.
I usually feel terribly bad for babies who are born via scheduled section who don't experience labour, because they almost always come out so stunned and stressed looking. Labour tells the baby to prepare for something to happen, and causes the baby to release hormones to assist that transition, and without experiencing labour they have a way more difficult time transitioning to life in the world outside the uterus.
Our hospital has banned scheduled c-section until 38 weeks, unless medically indicated (ie an issue with mom or baby that necessitates birth before 38 weeks to achieve the best outcome). It was a great decision by the hospital, because though 36 weeks and up is technically "term" you do see a lot more of those 36/37 weekers end up with longer stays or re-admission to the hospital due to failure to thrive/feeding issues/jaundice.