Hellobee Boards

Login/Register

WSJ Article on Vaginal Delivery of Breech Babies

  1. Happygal

    pomelo / 5000 posts

    I don't think it's even an option at my hospital. Breech = c-section.

  2. Adira

    wonderful pomelo / 30692 posts

    @MoonMoon: @Arden: I'm not sure where you guys are seeing something that indicates a vaginal birth is less risky for the baby... Here's a few quotes from the article:

    "Vaginal breech births overall are more dangerous for babies than caesarean sections. Studies in recent years, however, have shown that a vaginal delivery can be safe under certain circumstances..." <-- CAN be safe - not SAFER

    "...cited studies that showed breech birth under certain protocols is no riskier than a planned C-section." <-- this doesn't mean it's less risky than a c-section, just equal to

    "A well-publicized study in 2000 initially found C-sections to be safer than vaginal deliveries for breech babies..."

    As far as I can tell, a vaginal birth is safer for the MOTHER, but NOT the baby.

  3. singingbee

    pomelo / 5073 posts

    My baby was complete breech. My dr's policy was breech baby=c-section. If we hadn't had one, it would have ended badly for both of us. She was so big and I'm so short, there was no way she was come vsginally. I didn't attempt to turn her because I felt her flip head down and then she flipped back. I had the mindset that she flipped for a reason and I wasn't missing with that.

Reply

You must login / Register to post

© copyright 2011-2014 Hellobee