• RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I care, because C-section is much more dangerous for both mother and child, much harder to recover from major abdominal surgery than vaginal birth, reduces chance of successful breastfeeding, and because, since it wasn’t so high in other places, does imply they were routinely doing something to cause labor to stall. Which they were. And no, no way is 50% reasonable.

    My youngest is 18, oldest 30. So this was not recent. They are down to 37% now, which is still out of line with hospital standards.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Caesarian is absolutely not ‘much more dangerous’ for mother and child, cite some evidence. 32% of all births in the US are caesarian, about the same in the UK, and over 50% of those are emergency c-sections after natural childbirth has proven impossible and the doctors have had to step in to save the mother and baby from death or lifelong injury or disability.

      “Delivering a baby via cesarean section is generally considered safe, and in some instances is medically necessary and safer than a vaginal birth”

      https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/how-many-c-sections-can-you-have

      “The data shocked the study’s head author, Darine El-Chaâr, a perinatal researcher at the Ottawa hospital. In the planned vaginal birth group, there was a higher percentage of negative outcomes compared with the MRC [maternal-request, non-emergency c-section] group, driven by serious vaginal tears and babies admitted to intensive care. “I myself am challenged by the data,” she says, underlining that she believes vaginal birth is natural. “I wanted it to be the other way around.””

      https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/feb/13/caesareans-or-vaginal-births-should-mothers-or-medics-have-the-final-say