The only thing about the Jolie-Pitt baby hoopla that interested me enough to irritate me was the statement by their apparently famous and accomplished doctor (so hand-picked that they flew him all the way to Africa to deliver their child), something along the lines of: 'The baby was delivered by a planned cesarean due to a breech presentation.'
Good grief! You'd think these people would be rich enough to afford a skilled enough medical team that could handle delivering a breech baby naturally! To be sure, many in the medical establishment believe that a breech presentation means an automatic cesarean, but many other skilled and experienced doctors and midwives are adept at working with the mother to turn the baby, and even - as long as there is no danger, such as risk of the cord being wrapped around the baby's neck, which should be evident from a quick sonogram - delivering a breech baby.
But then, we weren't really counting on celebrities to set good examples and be sterling role models for the rest of us, were we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Actually, it's weird. The last four celebrity births I've heard/read about included caesarian not natural. You'd think they wouldn't want to scar their bodies with unnecessary surgery, but then I guess with today's plastic surgery they figure they have a better chance than that of natural birth (i.e. pushing hips wider, etc.). It's rather disgusting IMO.
Sometimes its necessary.
I read recently that women are more often planning c-sections instead of natural labor simply to avoid the pain, time, and effort. And that's without a breech baby.
And speaking as one who had a c-section, the resulting scar is very discreet.
-- SJ
I guess I just have a bad opinion of them because of the scar an inexperienced doctor left on my mother. Then there's that story about a co-worker's mother, who no longer could get pregnant because of a botched c-section. Talk about botching a job!
C, of course C-sections are necessary sometimes, but what I take exception to is the propagation of the common misconception that they are automatically required in all breech births, because they're not.
I guess the scar doesn't frighten me so much, SEM and SJ, but what would scare me is the notion of being chopped wide open and having goodness knows how many layers of skin and muscle sliced open (many of which will never quite regain full elasticity) - this is major surgery! If it were a choice between that and dying, of course I'd take the C-section - but I'd want to be sure that the odds were pretty stark before I made that choice. =)
I haven't had a C-section...just in case you were wondering. ;-)
Anybody who does a C-section to get out of the pain of labor is seriously misinformed. Not only was the resulting spinal headache way worse than labor, the area still hurts eight months later. (Though the scar is indeed quite discreet.) They say it can take a year to heal, but still, it worries me when I stop to think about it. I only found out what was really involved afterwards (there really was not time when it happened, it was a true life-or-death situation without warning), and then it freaked me out. I sure hope they didn't put anything back wrong!
I guess I didn't walk away with the impression that they were advertising C-sections for breech births. My mom had 4 c-sections. I know of one lady from my church whose third baby was breeched and decided if that had happened again, she'd go for the C because it was so miserable and I know other people who have had c-sections for good reasons and it saved their lives. So I take exception to people slamming C-sections across the board because it's saved the lives of a few of my friends - and my mother. Knowing my mother's struggles makes me realize that -hey- I can't place bets!
Also, I think the general public reacts to what their doctor tells them is normal. Mine, for instances, has a 2% c-section rate while most others in town have a 28%+. Mine simply doesn't like them and explained all the reasons why. So I think a great deal of the percentages have to do with doctors who are willing and encouraging towards them. I'm sure people ASK about the possibilities due to stories like Spears & Jolie, but I can't see those two women as advertisements on "how to" deliver a baby.
Some doctors just do that to be safe. Some don't. Some women need them desperately. Some don't. It could happen to me! Hopefully it wno't but I'm not going to argue the point if it becomes necessary.....
But if you're planning to have only one, possibly two, children, then you can afford to recover from major surgery. In my case, it was necessary for my health by that stage of things; but I'm very nervous that I'll have to have another section, since I have the idea that each one complicates further births.
But if that's not a consideration -- see first sentence -- then it's pretty much a 'why not?' question.
-- SJ
I just found it interesting that Angelina made this big deal about giving birth in a third world country and then brought along her own Hollywood doctor for the event.
Speaking of babies, would you ladies mind praying for my mother in law who is expecting baby #12 in September? Technically, this is baby #14. Baby #12 miscarried right before our wedding. Baby #13 was still born 3 weeks before term a year ago. I can’t imagine that it is easy to go through pregnancy after a still born.
Hey Carrie, thanks for the clarification. I hope I didn’t offend you with my original remark; I'm certainly not trying to slam C-sections across the board, and of course there are times when one is necessary.
My basic contention is as follows:
1) A C-section is major surgery. By its very nature, this is going to be hard on the body.
2) All other things being equal, a natural delivery is generally easier on the body (for both baby and mother) than a C-section.
3) Therefore, a C-section should be avoided if at all possible unless the risks from NOT having one outweigh the risks of having one.
4) This means that elective C-sections are generally NOT a good idea.
5) But when there is compelling reason to believe that harm will come to mother or baby from NOT having a C-section, then it is certainly the next best thing.
6) And we should all be very grateful to live in an age where such medical marvels are possible.
I think most of the conflict surrounding this issue in the medical community is a disagreement over the danger of not performing a C-section, i.e. how ‘necessary’ it was. Some doctors believe that breech presentation, previous C-sections, the mother’s hips being too small, etc., are all sufficient reasons for automatically ordering a C-section. Others disagree. For more information on this topic, I’d recommend reading Silent Knife: Cesarean Prevention and Vaginal Birth after Cesarean, by Nancy Wainer Cohen and Lois J. Estner. This is a landmark book, well researched and thorough, full of great resources on the topic.
Well, I'm trying to ignore all things related to actual labor and birth at present but maybe when I'm done having children I'll read that book. ;D ha!
It DID come across rather strong in your first post, but I heartily agree with your explanation. I wouldn't propose it as "the thing to do!" Karen is just another person who has said after the fact that it can be harder to recover from a c-section than a natural birth. I think the way planned C-sections come across to most is, "Hey! Numb me, take it out, and I'll recover later!" Which, that brief, sounds incredibly appealing. =) But then there's the long term....
My mom had 4 because the first ones complicated natural birth. But you know everyone is just different! And I think that's ok. So long as mommy and baby are both present and accounted for afterwards - and everyone is cute and happy - I've no complaints.
Also, my "its ok to do it" attitude comes from knowing people who needed one and hearing so many lectures about "what should and/or should not be done" from other people. From cotton sheets and breast feeding. It gets old. Esp. when there are often things going on behind the scenes that prompt a person's particular decision. I don't know why Jolie decided to do what she did. But she did it and the baby is here. I doubt she's going to have too many more babies naturally so..... =D
(Bet you never thought you'd crank out this many comments with your post, eh?!)
I am one of those women who actually talked the doctor out of a c-section while in labor. I had some extreme circumstances but Ben's heartrate was solid and I am thankful the doctor listened to me. I have adverse reactions to anaesthesia and living through the whole thing was pre-eminent in my mind. The doctor (who was a good guy) was frankly tired of coming in and trying to get the baby out every hour or so. So, if absolutely necessary, cut. Otherwise, try to turn that baby or deliver breech, I say. -rlr
Post a Comment