Blogs and Stories
The C-Section Backlash
Nicole Hill / Getty Images
As the rate of C-sections skyrockets, women are fighting back with angry blogs and public protests. Some are even calling it rape.
Last month, after weeks of fighting with her local hospital, a seven-months-pregnant Arizona mom made the personal public when she created a sort of mobile picket sign—declaring on the back windshield of her purple minivan that being forced to have a Caesarean section is akin to sexual assault.
In bright-yellow paint, Joy Szabo wrote: “Page Hospital, enter my body without permission... Sounds like rape to me.” She began driving that minivan around her small, rural town as often as possible—attracting the attention of her local paper, and this week, the country.
The anonymous creator of the haunting Web site Cesarean-Art.com displays images of women gushing blood from their lower abdomens.
For Szabo, 32, already a mother to three young boys, scrawling the message marked a breaking point.
To make a long, complicated story short: In June, Szabo’s hospital adopted a policy prohibiting women who had prior C-sections from delivering vaginally—from having what’s technically known as a VBAC, for “vaginal birth after Caesarean.” While two of Szabo’s kids were born vaginally, her second child was delivered via emergency C-section.
At one time, vaginal delivery was deemed too risky for women who’d had C-sections. Today, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists officially supports VBACs, but stipulates that an OB and an anesthesiologist must be in the hospital during the entire procedure. As a result, many financially strapped or small hospitals—like Szabo’s—can’t offer VBACs. And that has many moms and natural-birth advocates up in arms.
Szabo says that in meeting after meeting with the hospital—the only one within five hours of her home—she pleaded not to be put at risk for complications of a medically unnecessary surgery. She says the hospital’s CEO told her that if she were to arrive during labor and refuse a C-section, the hospital would seek a court order to overrule her. A spokesperson for the hospital declined to comment.
“I was very, very angry—and very, very scared,” Szabo says. She began having nightmares that she was on the surgical table being cut open against her will. That’s when she picked up some lemon-hued acrylic paint and graffiti-ed her van. “I’m not a big whiner, but I really, really wanted everyone to know that I was in emotional turmoil.”
To most people, the notion of a C-section being like a rape is shocking. But lately a growing subculture of women has expressed similar views, opting for blogs and message boards, therapy and support groups. On BirthTruth.org, the author posts raw essays about the emotional trauma following her C-section, with titles like “You Should Be Grateful” and “8 Years Later.” The tagline for BirthCut.com—which features graphic poetry and blog entries—is the African proverb, “The ax forgets, the tree remembers.” The anonymous creator of the haunting Web site Cesarean-Art.com displays images of women gushing blood from their lower abdomens. When Szabo’s story hit the Internet, women like these championed her as a hero.
For many women, having a C-section “feels out of their control—like there’s nothing they can do, and it doesn’t matter if they say no,” says Desirre Andrews, president of the International Caesarean Awareness Network, known as ICAN, an advocacy group that helps moms have VBACs. Over the past six years, the number of ICAN support groups has ballooned from fewer than 30 to 112 chapters, in 43 states. “I think that’s why, to them, it feels like an extreme physical assault.”
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Tackling A Feminine Taboo
Danielle Friedman has worked as a nonfiction book editor for Hudson Street Press and Plume, two imprints of Penguin Group. Her writing has been published in the Miami Herald, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and on CNN.com. She is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Tennis' New All-American Sweetheart
Danielle Friedman has worked as a nonfiction book editor for Hudson Street Press and Plume, two imprints of Penguin Group. Her writing has been published in the Miami Herald, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and on CNN.com. She is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
The Ultimate Ladies Lunch
Liz Goodwin is an assistant editor at The Daily Beast. She has written for the New York Sun, GothamSchools, the Tico Times, and Fodor's Travel Guides.
Danielle Friedman has worked as a nonfiction book editor for Hudson Street Press and Plume, two imprints of Penguin Group. Her writing has been published in the Miami Herald, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and on CNN.com. She is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Wonder if she tried the VBAC and lost either the baby or her life as a consequence, if she would sue. Or if her family would?
Too many c-sections is a problem.
Understaffed, under-equipped, financially strapped small hospitals making medical decisions based on financial resosurces are a worse problem.
Oh, wait - that's what insurance companies do!
A New England Journal of Medicine December 2004 VBAC study of 18,000 women entitled "Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery" by Mark Landon, M.D., found a maternal mortality of 0.02% for VBAC (twice the repeat cesarean rate of 0.04%) and a rate of infant mortality or brain damage of 0.05%. Neither VBAC or repeat cesarean are risk free, but the risk of uterine rupture decreases by 50% after the first VBAC (Mercer 2008) whereas the many risks increase with each cesarean section. Silver 2006 found "Increased risks of placenta accreta, hysterectomy, transfusion of 4 units or more of packed red blood cells, [bladder injury], bowel injury, urethral injury, ileus [absence of muscular contractions of the intestine which normally move the food through the system], ICU admission, and longer operative time were seen with an increasing number of cesarean deliveries.... After the first cesarean, increased risk of placenta previa, need for postoperative (maternal) ventilator support, and more hospital days were seen with increasing number of cesarean deliveries." Learn more at http://www.vbacfacts.com
I think if I hemorrhaged and died while having a cesarean that was medically unnecessary, my family would probably be very likely to find the need to recover damages through a lawsuit.
Statistics and experience are two totally different things. I agree (obviously) that forcing or coercing a woman to have a c-section is unconscionable, but on the flip side my wife and I have been pressured heavily by VBACers who tried to make my wife feel like she would be less of a woman somehow if she didn't go through the "experience" of vaginal birth.
My wife had an emergency c-section the first time and an elective c-section the second time. My first daughter would have died without the procedure because she was in major distress with the cord wrapped around her neck twice, and my wife probably would have ended up having another emergency c-section with our section daughter who was born breech. And from our experience we can say that an elective c-section is far less risky than an emergency procedure.
Would be nice if we all focused on helping mothers make informed decisions about their own health instead of pressuring them one way or another based purely on statistics and group-think mentality.
This story is sad but true. Even after 5 successful VBAC's I too have faced VBAC bans from certain hospitals.
Many women are now choosing to utilize the care of midwives to get their VBACs.
We should not need anyone's permission to have a vagainl birth.
VBAC's carry a lower risk then ANY c-section. Women are not being told the truth about the real risks associated with primary c-sections or repeat c-sections.
I'm not clear what this article is trying to communicate. Is it about selfish mothers, iPod mommies who schedule births between their conference calls and pedicures wrecking it for all the other mommies, poor bed side manners from docs, bad hospital policies???what??!!
Wisehorn, I believe the article is trying to convey the fact that despite being deemed safe by the medical board that oversees these medical procedures, this women is being threatened by her hospital based purely on financial factors. It very nicely parallels the conduct seen hourly by insurance companies.
This is yet another example, among who knows how many cases, of how very very wrong these politicians who just love to tout how we have the VERY BEST medical system on earth.
Let's be clear, if this was a woman of means, she would get the extra supervision necessary to get the natural birth she desires.
As a Father, I am pretty sure that inflicting this kind of stress on a pregnant women could have a significant impact on hers and her baby's health.
The use of the term " rape " but there is no more emotional a bond then between a women and her baby, so it's understandable.
If this was purely a medical decision then these women would be in the wrong, but this seems purely financial, therefore unacceptable.
Of course the term rape is despicable. My first son was 2 weeks overdue and big, the hospital recommended a C-Section. Neither of us are remotely qualified to make the medical determination of what was best. My son was born healthy and my wife made a full recovery. We have since had 2 more sons, both delivered by C-section (Doctor recommended) and both were and are healthy. To state my children were born in an act of rape is offensive and sick.
As to that hospital, the woman can certainly have the baby elsewhere. It sounds like a remote, rural hospital and it is probably a question of access to all 3. Believe it or not, you simply can't conjure these medical professionals out of the air. Small hospitals simply don't have the wherewithal to do so, and it is the height of this woman's selfishness to expect them to do so. And for the record, my second son was a month pre-mature, and we had to travel to a hospital that was equipped to provide for his potential needs. Luckily, he didn't have them, but for me to expect my local hospital to have that expertise is ludicrous.
Everything in this article just went over your head.
You missed the point on this. It is outstanding that your family has had the birth experiences that they wanted. This is not the case with many women. Rape is an accurate term to use when one's body is invaded without consent or through coercion as happens with many c-sections. It is good that your wife does not feel this way, it means she wasn't raped in this manner. However, just like with sex - if it isn't consensual or if it is coerced - it is considered rape. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a hospital to have the basic staffing for births and emergency c-sections. How do you call yourself a hospital - as opposed to a large doctor's office - if you don't have the staff? Birth is not the same thing as tonsillectomy, for example. Birth is a normal, non-medical process that should not be turned into a medical procedure for the convenience of hospital staff planning.
to say that the policy in place, which is to protect the health of the mother and keep the hospital clear of her suit if her uterus were to rupture, means that the U.S. has poor health care is, in a word stupid.
metal meets road at small hospitals when it comes to budgets.
women who end up with c-sections ought to travel to Africa and see what happens when the procedure is not available.
women have certain wishes about how the birth will go and often things turn out differently. But the idea that a medical facility should rack up unbearable costs to allow women to undergo a risky birth is just not reasonable.
For what she demands other will have to pay or worse forgo care altogether. Her option: travel to a city that has a large hospital that can sustain her demand for VBAC. She will be safer and others won't have to give up care and treatment so her wishes can be fulfilled.
@Sadie101, with all due respect here but I believe your missing the point.
The point is not that one needs to visit the health care systems in Africa to appreciate what we have here, but rather that far too many against health care reform claim ours is the very best in the world.
You very easily claim that ALL of these ladies should just go to the nearest big city to find a hospital able to perform these procedures is easier said than done wouldn't you say ?
First off, her current hospital DOES have the know how to handle this procedure, they and most likely her insurance company will not cough up for the specialists. Second, really ? do you really think her insurance company is going to accept her going to another hospital, that might very well be handled by another office of that insurance company ? Lastly, you make it sound so easy that a pregnant woman consider a hospital that might be even 50 miles from her home. You expect her nerves to be calmed by the prospect of her water breaking and then having to make a 50 mile journey to the hospital of choice ?
Have you ever been pregnant ? Forgive the personal question but hopefully you appreciate that I am not being disrespectful here because it really is relevant to the conversation. I, of course, have not, but my wife has.
This once again boils down to a woman right to decide what she does with her own body. if the hospitals only concern is fear of litigation in the event of things going wrong, have the mother and family sign a waiver stating that they know the risks etc. Waivers are signed daily for all kinds of procedures.
In which case, this boils down to one thing...MONEY ! Our system IS broken and this is yet another example of how WE DO NOT HAVE THE BEST SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. I am not saying that there aren't these very same problems in Africa, but this is not Africa and we pay through the nose to protect us from things like this and we are not getting our money worth by a long stretch. When the subject is humanity and lives, it cannot be left to the bean counters.
Bravo! Well Said!
Wrong, it is not money, it is about health care professionals. There simply is not enough. Not every rural hospital can have sufficient staff on call for these type of procedures and they have to budget the time of their staff's accordingly. Would you want some teenager that was a car crash to die because the anesthesiologist was busy? Obviously, you don't know anything about small hospital administration. Do you think it saves money if the anesthesiologist was sitting around drawing a paycheck not working? If she wants special care then she should make the effort to live, albeit temporarily, where she can get it. The purpose of small hospitals are to provide a basic level of care otherwise not available, they simply can't do everything. Do some research before you write.
This comment is for easton. First of all VBAC is NOT a procedure. (do some research before you write) Secondly, if this hospital cannot provide the staff for women to VBAC then they cannot provide care to a teenager in a wreck, or ANY women giving birth there outside of the typical work day of 9-5. An emergency can come in(ie car accident) at any hour. A women laboring through the night can have an emergency and need a c/s within minutes to save her baby's life. Do YOU realize that when a hospital says they do not have the staff for VBAC they are admitting that they do not have the staff for ANY emergency or maternity care?
Sadie101... For one thing -- and I think this is actually the most important piece of information of all -- repeat c-sections carry far more risk for women than do vaginal deliveries after c-section. A second c-section is more dangerous for a woman than is a vaginal birth after having already undergone a c-section. And every proceeding c-section is more and more and more and more dangerous for her.
Refusing to allow women to birth vaginally after c-section has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with what's best for a birthing mother and baby. Nothing.
Notice I did not say there is no place for c-sections and skilled surgeon/obstetricians. Of course there is. But not as a matter of policy, and not as a matter of convenience.
If you want to compare the US's health care system to others on earth, look at the facts: we rank 27th in the world in the quality of our maternal/fetal care. That is horrendous. It's nothing to gloat about. In the countries that rank highest, the rate of c-section is dramatically lower and most births are attended by midwives. And most of them have socialized medical care. Wow.
WHO edicts should be treated with skepticism. One reason for increased Caesarians in developed countries is the number of women having first babies in their late 30s and 40s. Risks of complications in the birth process increase with older primi-para mothers and many will have only one chance to deliver. It is harder for older women to conceive and 1 in 3 pregnancies ends in miscarriage.
A higher rate of Caesarians should not be used to vilify women who choose them or as a political whip with which to beat the wicked Western world.
Most doctors do not lightly recommend Caesarian delivery. It is serious surgery, painful and has a longer recovery time than the alternative.
However, it is safer to plan for a Caesarian than to be forced to perform emergency surgery after the mother has been in labor for 20 hours and is already exhausted.
Instead of making a public fuss about their disinterest in her feelings, Ms Demont should thank her lucky stars her hospital, doctor, anesthesiologist and nursing staff were competent to save her life and prevent injury to her baby.
Ms Szabo should go elsewhere for the birth but she should make sure the facility can deal with an emergency C-Section. The issue should have been sorted out with her obstetrician, hospital and insurance company when the pregnancy was confirmed. It is odd that she waited so long to make her protest when she has been in touch with ICAN since her second child was born by C-Section.
Caesarian delivery saves lives. It is a decision to be made by obstetricians and patients but the positions adopted by both of these mothers seem somewhat excessive.
Isabella,
Most of the countries before us in maternal/fetal care are developed countries in Europe, where the women are well educated and prefer to have fewer children later, as many American women do. Their c-section rates are significantly lower as are their maternal and fetal death rates. A higher rate of c-sections in the United States cannot be soley attributed to our "superior" health care.
Reply to Gibbous:
Thanks. I didn't know that Europe had similar numbers of older mothers but I didn't say our high rate of C-Sections was attributed to "superior" health care. I said one reason for it was the number of older mothers.
"For most women who have C-sections, even if the experience isn't wholly positive, the joy of embracing their baby trumps feelings of disappointment with the birth experience. Yet for this reason, women who feel violated by the notion or experience of a C-section often feel misunderstood-family and friends can't grasp why they can't just get over it and move on."
For those who don't understand this concept or refuse to be open to the idea, here's one way to look at it. In 1970, there were no unnecessary cesareans to speak of, or at least not at the level at which they happen now. With a 5 percent cesarean rate in 1970, every cesarean that was performed was a lifesaving procedure. While a surgical birth might have been disappointing or traumatic, it was clear that it was performed for a valid medical reason.
Now, with a national cesarean rate in the U.S. of 31.8 percent and with about 1.4 million performed in 2007, the cesarean is an overused and highly invasive medical procedure which has not corresponded to a subsequent decrease in maternal or infant mortality rates.
With this in mind, how would you feel if you were told during labor that your baby was in danger and you needed a cesarean, you wait an hour for your "emergency" c-section (very common) and later you find out that the hospital in which you gave birth has a 49% cesarean rate? A hospital with a rate that high requires doctors to lie and coerce their patients into unnecessary cesareans. Would you feel violated? Or would you just be grateful that your birth and your body was totally violated because, like commenter Sadie101 says, they don't have *enough* access to obstetric emergency services in Africa?
Childbearing women find themselves fighting off unnecessary medical procedures performed with no medical indication because their doctors and hospital care providers are shielding themselves from their fears of being sued. To top it off, many hospitals are simply banning vaginal birth after a previous cesarean. In some cases, like Joy Szabo's, they threaten women that if they show up in labor, they will get a court order to have their baby removed surgically. If you choose to defend a doctor's right to place his or her own self-interest (i.e., desire to avoid anything they fear will be a potential lawsuit) before the interest of the health and autonomy of woman in their care, you are condoning a widespread civil rights violation and culturally-accepted breech of ethics by doctors.
So if you are one of those people who just can't understand why a woman cares if she had an unnecessary cesarean, consider what it might feel like for her to learn that she was lied to, coerced, discriminated against and unnecessarily operated on because her doctor felt like she or he needed to use her body as a shield from a lawsuit during this supposed litigation crisis.
Why does it have to be so difficult to let a woman at list try to have a birth as women had done for thousands of years? All this hospitalization and fear and overly control on women giving birth It is just about one hundred year old. Any hospital should be ready to BOTH circumstances. And any hospital big or small should have empathy and compassion written down on top of their directory. Giving birth is not a disease and mothers to be are not patience. I am not surprised that all that a mother to be will want to have some control over the way she gives birth to her baby. Now comparing the USA medicine and/or medical care to Africa is so ridiculous that I can't even comment to it. As far as I know the USA is not a developing country, far from it! And that in a country as rich and develop as yours all that I wrote above should be obvious. Why don't you go and compare it to, let's say England, or Holland, or even Israel. Then you will have an inform comment!
It's okay to try to have a natural birth as long as your birth center can safely perform an emergency C-Section if something goes wrong.
Unfortunately, even in America, some small hospitals cannot afford to have a surgeon and an anesthesiologist on standby 24/7 and they cannot afford to get sued if an at-risk patient insists on giving birth naturally but then has serious problems during the delivery. These mothers should only give birth at a hospital that can perform emergency C-Sections.
"Why does it have to be so difficult to let a woman at list try to have a birth as women had done for thousands of years?"
For thousands of years, childbirth was the number one cause of mortality among women of child-bearing age; is that reason enough for you?
I have the solution . This woman can go at her own expense to a hospital which will follow her orders.
Maybe there could be an add-on to insurance for a room at a sort of Ronald McDonald House-type of facility near the larger hospital for the last month of the pregnancy for women who want to have vaginal births after having had a caesarean.
I'm sympathetic to the small local hospital not wanting to do the procedure and would not want to see that hospital forced to do it. Even without a government insurance plan, insurance is by nature a "socialized" idea; we all pay in and a few of us will need it. The costs are a factor for everyone to consider else we're going to have more onerous restrictions than no VBACs. I'd hate to see people denied the best cancer drugs/treatments while VBACs are mandated.
VBAC is not a procedure actually-its simply giving birth. Surgery is a procedure. I find it interesting that you would not want to see the poor hospital "forced" to allow a VBAC but your comment implies that it is then okay for the mom to be forced to have an unnecessary surgery? Am I confused?
You are a jerk.
I find KarenF444's reply to be clear and to the point, why call her a jerk?
This system is too screwed up to fix quickly. If you are pregnant or going to get pregnant soon look into midwives and homebirth. You don't have to put up with this from hospitals. The stakes are too high. Midwives are trained and homebirth is safe. Do your homework. Let the OBs and hospitals and insurance Co.s figure out why we left and then maybe they will try to become what we need. Back up. We can birth. We just want back up. Midwives should be in charge of normal birth and Obs should back them up. Many women who have decent hospitals and insurance to pay for births still choose homebirth with midwives. Not because they have to settle but because they think it is better and worth paying out of pocket for (some insurance pay for homebirth) what do they know that you don't. Let the lawyers adjusters and CEOs figure out what they are doing. Let your body and your baby figure out birth. They will only mess you up.
Plus, midwives are WAY cheaper than doing a hospital birth!
If I hadn't had a Caesarean for the birth of my son, I would have died and he would have died!!!
By the way...I live in Italy, so everything was FREE at the public
hospital!!!!!
When are Americans going to 'wake up and smell the coffee' about decent healthcare for EVERYONE at little or no expense!!! If you want to call it 'socialised medicine'....then go ahead!!! BUT IT DOES WORK!!!!!!
Stop allowing the insurance companies together with the AMA, the pharmaceutical companies and the hospital conglomerates to control your healthcare and make you pay SO MUCH! Just think how much healthcare could have been given to the American public FREE-OF-CHARGE instead of the TRILLIONS of dollars spent in Afghanistan and Iraq bringing 'democracy' to those poor people the same way we brought 'democracy' to the Vietnamese!!!! The politicians in Washington, D.C. don't care about the health of the American people, only about their own pockets!!!
My wife just gave birth to a healthy baby boy five weeks ago. We were lucky to be in a large city, with a nurse-midwife practice practically within walking distance. The baby was born naturally, and my wife used no painkillers. The hospital staff was often taken aback at this- the assumption was that she was recovering from both a C-section and epidural.
However, we found ourselves between two aggressive philosophies. When we informed our otherwise helpful, reasonable midwife that we were thinking of having her attend the birth at the hospital instead of at their facility, she could barely control her rage. (She also later opined that because we gave our son one or two 4 oz. bottles of breast milk that my wife 'wasn't really breast-feeding.') The fact that our son was one month early meant that he was considered high risk and the midwives wouldn't have us at their facility, so it became moot. The hospital, thankfully, took a very hands-off approach.
@clave54: I totally agree that as a civilization, we've erroneously treated pregnancy and birth as 'illness' instead of a natural process. However, the hard facts are that many, many women died in childbirth in the past. Ultimately, as many letter writers have noted, this is really about insurance companies wanting to maximize profit more than finding a balance between natural and medically-assisted births, and assuring that the soon-to-be mothers can exercise their will.
My heart goes out to the women who get slapped onto the C-section assembly (disassembly?) line. I'm glad to hear that there's a push-back against this dehumanizing trend.
I do empathize with this situation. To me it is another example of government in whatever form dictating to us yet again.
With that said, perhaps they felt it was a safer method in an effort to protect mother and child.
And, if the relationship btw mother and child was soooooo percious, why do we have so many children cast away in foster care.....
It seems like the only children we really care about are those biologically connected...A healthy mother and child should be paramount.....if not, travel to another hospital...
And, calling feelings of anger or extreme dissatisfaction rape is getting old...Try rape and then try the forced C-section..tell me which one you would prefer??? Ok then....
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Perhaps you are the attention whore. You criticize her for making here feelings public, then you publicly criticize her. Pot meet kettle.
You are smart enough, I hope, to realize this is a comment section, right? I made my comment, just as you made yours. I didn't drive around my community with my plight spelled out all over my mini-van - she did - and her stupid comment, I'm not a big whiner, just oozes sarcasm when you read the whole story.
So here's a clue for you, dumbass, it's called a comment section for folks to leave comments. Grow up.
amen, heresaclue is without a clue.
Why are you so mean?
You know people die from surgery right? Anesthesia accidents, hemorrhage, infection, etc. If she died during a repeat c/section would that be any easier on her kids? Would she be less of a whore? What if she wanted a c/section so she could get a tummy tuck at the same time, or she wanted a virginal vagina and then, lets just give a rare but completely possible reason for death, like an allergic reaction to the spinal medication-wouldn't that make her REALLY selfish?
Honestly if you want to be so mean lets just say she is selfish for even getting herself pregnant again because any way she does it-surgery or vaginal- there is SOME amount of risk and she COULD leave her other children motherless. So if she were a good mom and loved her other kids she would never have sex with her husband again.
I M O if a mother can have a child via natural childbirth then they should have the total right. It is not the Dr's body getting the knife for gods sake. C sections have become the norm, and I find this sad and selfish on the part of hospitals that can run you thru a factory because then they dont have to await the normal arrival of the baby! God forbid! Time is MONEY!!
As the danger is higher with c-sections than vaginal births (even after previous c-sections unless medically indicated) women should not be forced into them. For those previous poster who cannot read, she has successfully given birth to a child vaginally since her c-section. There is no reason to force such women to have c-sections and every reason for these women to be angry.
Yes, although I recommend C-Sections as easier on the mother's female reproductive organs, nonetheless no mother should be pressured into giving birth a way she is not desirous of.
I'm confused. How can having a surgical procedure on my reproductive organs be easier on them than having them function the way they were designed to function? Having had both a vaginal birth and a cesarean birth, I'm quite sure that there is no comparison about the ease of healing when my body did what it was designed to do as compared to when it was cut open and stitched back up. Major abdominal surgery is not easier on a woman than having her uterus contract as it was designed to do.
yeah wow OMG! like-mind
You have no idea what you are talking about and I am so worried that women can have that impression of cesareans.
please don't be offended I'm not calling you dumb! I just know their must be so many other young women out there who think that cesareans are no big deal. They are a huge deal. HUGE
your comments represents a problem. women are getting the wrong idea about birth.
go to youtube and look at a film of cesarean delivery. then go to ICAN-ONLINE.org and birthcut.com and then google natural birth homebirth and midwifery.
like-mind, when you do look into it and figure it out... tell people. pass it on to your friends. women need to know the truth before they are faced with making decisions about birth.
Even if the danger was lower, it *still* wouldn't be okay to force a woman to have surgery. Women are people. Like all people, we have the right to refuse medical procedures.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Did you forget a cesarean is major abdominal surgery? Have you ever had a cesarean?
There are many ill effects (in fact I would say many more) from having a cesarean, too. here are a few:
Scar tissue
infertility
higher risk of infection
hysterectomy
placenta acretta
placenta abruption
THATS's the real story.
Not to mention you are 3-4 times more likely to die from a cesarean than a vaginal birth. So you recommend that to women.. so flippantly? Just to "avoid" any possible problems to your reproductive organs? Are you for real?
I have given birth vaginally twice and I have not peed my pants at all or even come close. Not while sneezing, coughing, laughing. I am so sorry that you had to deal with this but its silly to recomend major abdominal surgery that carries many risks in the hope to avoid what you are describing. And by the way, sex is still REALLY good on my end. And I never remember to kegal!
Did you take your Arnica?
I had a 9 lb first born (at-home birth) at age 30, and my second, 8 lb, in birthing center at age 35. No probs after...(this is also posted to help young women.)
I need to intervene here. I am a retired(cince 1997) former ob-gyn doctor who worked as resident, facuklty member, and private practitioner for 40 years. Our group had female members since the early 1980's, had attached midwives, and even had our own perinatologist. we worked at a major medical center in New York State. We still did some forceps and vacuum deliveries as necessary, we had a reasonable cesareann rate for the times, we did VBACS. Several factors have made the Cesaraen rate higher in th e past twenty years and have actually mad eVBACS less common. The first has been the 100% expectation of the parents of perfect results in childbirth. Even as late as the 1970's the reality of the occasional stillbirth or,worse, a damaged baby was accepted. These still occur, but have become unacceptable to parents. Law suits, maternal depression, and attacks on the reputation of the physicians have led to a no acceptable fetal or maternal loss or damage rate. If i were practicing in a small hospital without 24 hour anesthesia or Operationg room availablility I would never accept a patient who would refuse Cesarean Section if I felt it indicated unless that person signed a waiver for all potential risks to her and the baby. Even in the most safe environment i would still insist on my judgement being the factor as to whether a VBAC or Cesaraen Section were the way to proceed. i would be glad to accomodate reasonable peopkle but would always demand the final say. This is a large ,open country. people who live away from major centers indeed are at greater risk for medical disasters not being able to be treated no matter how good the evacuation procedures. that is the way it is, and likly is the way it will always be. If this woman wants a VBAC she shouild move to an area with a major medical center. Few women who have had cesareans really regret them. There will always be dissenters, but we can't run the world for the dissatisfied few. This article probably is just a provocation to stir up a few unhappy people. The rest seem fine with the current practice of OBstetrics in this country.
I know MANY women who regret their cesareans. Of all the women I know, personally and on the web, at least 50% regret them. And that's just those who admit it. Not to mention more than half are unnecessary c/s.
This article is not trying to provoke anyone. It's trying to shed light on this VERY taboo topic. If you did some digging, you would be shocked to see just how many women feel negative feelings towards their cesareans.
I had a c-section...not an emergency, but not planned. And I don't regret it one bit. In fact, most of the mothers I know had c-sections, and none of THEM regret it, either.
I think a lot of you anti-ceaserean women are just angry because you thought childbirth would be this orgasmic, cosmic experience and it didn't happen the way you wanted it to. You feel cheated, and so now ALL women who had c-sections have been 'raped' by the medical profession. Newsflash: not every woman who delivers surgically thinks it is a horrible, awful thing. Some of us are okay with it, and are ready, willing, and able to do it again. It is YOU who has the problem because you cannot fathom how anyone could possibly want to deliver a baby in any manner other than what you deem to be 'correct'.
"Even in the most safe environment i would still insist on my judgement being the factor as to whether a VBAC or Cesaraen Section were the way to proceed. i would be glad to accomodate reasonable peopkle but would always demand the final say."
How utterly, utterly arrogant, and typical of male doctors who don't really see their female patients as people.
Dude, it's not your body. Of course women should be guided by their care-givers - you are the experts - but when it comes down to it, IT IS NOT YOUR BODY. You don't have the right to make a decision for someone else. You don't get the final say, it's NOT YOUR BODY. And people wonder why doctors get sued - arrogant attitudes like this are one of the key reasons.
If you had, say, a tumour, and there were different treatment options available, wouldn't you expect your oncologist to talk you through the different options, outline the risks and benefits, and then make a decision WITH you, rather than claiming it was their right to have "the final say"? Of course you would. Women are human beings. We have the right to the "final say" on our medical decisions too.
shellybelly: How would you know? Have you conducted an unbiased survey? You sound like the women who go on and on about how everyone who has an abortion regrets it and is emotionally damaged for the rest of their lives. While this may be true for some women, it is not true for all, or even necessarily most. I'm not advocating for the automatic, thoughtless use of unnecessary surgical procedures, but I also find it disgusting that women should be manipulated into, or made to feel somehow "inferior" or "damaged" for not, refusing them and insisting on letting nature take its course just because, prior to the advent of modern medicine they had no other choice but to do so. Personally, if my mother had refused a C-section, both she and I would have died in childbirth.
I think that childbirth should be made as safe and comfortable (both physically and emotionally) as possible for both mother and child, rather than be turned into a competition or tool for manipulation; therefore, I think that you should keep your unproven "bathroom" assertions about what's necessary, or what women regret, to yourself.
To VivisMom:
Of course some women don't mind their c/s, or even like them. But, Many do not. I know these women. I am one of them.
No, it's not all about "orgasmic" birth - it's about birth trauma. Totally different - you are way off here. That's the problem, many people think that when someone doesn't like their c/s, they are just upset because the didn't get their orgasmic, incense filled candle lit birth. WRONG. It is MUCH deeper than that.
I am not trying to make anyone feel bad about their c/s. If they feel that way, it's all on them.
to nysecjd:
No I haven't conducted a survey. I have spoken to women in real life, face ot face and otherwise that have told me the same thing over and over again: they did not like major abdominal surgery to give birth and most felt it was unnecessary.
No one can make a woman feel "inferior" or "damaged" about her cesarean-those are HER feelings, nobody else's. If she is REALLY content with her birth, then there would be nothing anyone could say to make her feel otherwise.
I don't care that you feel just because I haven't conducted an official survey that I don't know for a fact there are unbelievable amounts of women who feel the way I do - not only about cesareans either, but the current state of obstetrics. Period. There are grassroots organizations advocating for maternity care reform popping up all over the country - one of which I am heading. I know more than you think.
No, I am not going to keep anything to myself. I am going to keep talking. This subject makes other uncomfortable, and to that I say "too bad". Women who didn't like their cesareans are bashed ALL THE TIME. Why are their feelings not valid? Why should YOU keep talking?
Bear in mind that a C-section is usually done when you are AWAKE. With a spinal block. The one I witnessed in nursing school was on a patient who was not fully blocked. She basically screamed through the whole thing, and it wasn't until after the baby was delivered and she was partly sewed back up again, that it occurred to anyone to knock her out.
Needless to say, she and her husband (who was in the OR for the procedure) seriously considered suing the hospital. I'm not sure how the story ended, but the idea of a C-section has panicked me completely ever since.
i'm not old. i'm very old and i've been hearing about the overuse of c-sections(and hysterectomies) for a very long time .the increase in the percentage of c-sections is disheartening. with the passage of time and the progress in medecine. one would expect the rate to decrease. i wonder if the increased number of women doctors will effect a change for the better.
jojojojasdas dasdasdasdasd
"For most women who have C-sections, even if the experience isn't wholly positive, the joy of embracing their baby trumps feelings of disappointment with the birth experience. Yet for this reason, women who feel violated by the notion or experience of a C-section often feel misunderstood-family and friends can't grasp why they can't just get over it and move on."
For those who don't understand this concept or refuse to be open to the idea, here's one way to look at it. In 1970, there were no unnecessary cesareans to speak of, or at least not at the level at which they happen now. With a 5 percent cesarean rate in 1970, every cesarean that was performed was a lifesaving procedure. While a surgical birth might have been disappointing or traumatic, it was clear that it was performed for a valid medical reason.
Now, with a national cesarean rate in the U.S. of 31.8 percent and with about 1.4 million performed in 2007, the cesarean is an overused and highly invasive medical procedure which has not corresponded to a subsequent decrease in maternal or infant mortality rates.
With this in mind, how would you feel if you were told during labor that your baby was in danger and you needed a cesarean, you wait an hour for your "emergency" c-section (very common) and later you find out that the hospital in which you gave birth has a 49% cesarean rate? A hospital with a rate that high requires doctors to lie and coerce their patients into unnecessary cesareans. Would you feel violated? Or would you just be grateful that your birth and your body was totally violated because, like commenter Sadie101 says, they don't have *enough* access to obstetric emergency services in Africa?
Childbearing women find themselves fighting off unnecessary medical procedures performed with no medical indication because their doctors and hospital care providers are shielding themselves from their fears of being sued. To top it off, many hospitals are simply banning vaginal birth after a previous cesarean. In some cases, like Joy Szabo's, they threaten women that if they show up in labor, they will get a court order to have their baby removed surgically. If you choose to defend a doctor's right to place his or her own self-interest (i.e., desire to avoid anything they fear will be a potential lawsuit) before the interest of the health and autonomy of woman in their care, you are condoning a widespread civil rights violation and culturally-accepted breach of ethics by doctors.
So if you are one of those people who just can't understand why a woman cares if she had an unnecessary cesarean, consider what it might feel like for her to learn that she was lied to, coerced, discriminated against and unnecessarily operated on because her doctor felt like she or he needed to use her body as a shield from a lawsuit during this supposed litigation crisis.
I wonder if the increase in rates of C-section births might, to some extent at least, correlate to an increase in average birthweight (as a result of better prenatal care) which, assuming that women's hips have not on average gotten that much wider, could make vaginal delivery more difficult and risky - or, for that matter, with a lower childbirth and/or infant mortality rate. I don't have the answer to those questions, but it seems to me that before everyone assumes that an increase in C-sections necessarily reflects a corresponding increase in unnecessary procedures, don't you think you should consider whether there is, in fact, also some underlying, medically justified correlative trend?
"Why don't you go and compare it to, let's say England, or Holland, or even Israel. Then you will have an inform comment!"
Have you ever needed medical care in any of those places? I have, and I cannot say I have much confidence in their level of standard care - nor do many of those who live there. When I requried medical care in the UK, my Uncle (who lives there) insisted that I go to his private doctor, who he keeps on "retainer" in order to avoid having to go through the socialized system. What the Michael Moores of this world don't tell you is, both England and France in fact have hybrid systems and those who can afford it typically buy supplemental private insurance precisely because the socialized systems are inadequate and result in people being put on long waiting lists to receive inferior care. And wealthy people who live there have always kept their own private doctors "on retainer" to avoid the public health care systems. I have also heard some pretty bad horror stories from people I know who have lived in the UK, like the 20-year-old whose doctor told her she "had no thyroid gland" and put her on inapproriate steroid therapy, resulting in coma and permanent brain damage. Recently, there was a story in the news about doctors in the UK being outraged because they were informed that certain medications which are widely-used and available both here and thoughout Europe would not be available in the UK because the government health agency decided that they are too expensive.
Socialized medicine may do a better job of providing certain basic care to those who otherwise could not afford it, but it also results in many people who would be able to afford medical care having to wait for unconscionable periods or time for it or not getting the care they need due to rationing; and people often come here from Canada, the UK and other countries where they have socialized medicine for procedures they either won't get or will have to wait years for in their home countries. And, I guarantee you that if allocation of hospital resources was the reason this woman was required to have a C-section, it would be no different in the UK or in most socialized systems.
I'm not saying that our system isn't broken and doesn't need serious reform, but don't assume that socialized medicine is the answer so fast when you've never had to use such a system.
It may sound extreme, but it is in fact true. I was an emotional wreck after my unwanted, and later deemed unnecessary, C-section. I was made to feel selfish and overly emotional because I dared to say I wasn't happy that I had been subjected to a rushed, incompetent OBGYN (male). Until finally an understanding OBGYN (female) went out on a limb and said for some women it is emotionally akin to rape. That's when my healing began. When I confessed that feeling to my husband, he finally understood and we could start working on moving forward together. Our second child was VBAC and it wasn't easy to find a doctor willing to do it at all. Both kids happy and healthy. Forgive me for mentioning the sex of the doctors, I know there are wonderful doctors out there on both sides, but in my case it made a huge difference to open up to a woman.
Boy does this article make my blood boil! I was in labor with my first biological child for 20 hours, the whole time not dilating beyond 4 cm. There was meconium in my water when it broke 45 minutes in. The baby then had a week heartbeat so the delivery team to gave me O2 for the final 10 hours. It was as if the team was determined that I have a vaginal birth, regardless of the consequences to baby's health and mine. When the delivery team finally noticed the obvious: that after 20 hours the labor was not progressing at all and I NEEDED a C-section, a nurse had the audacity to say "that's alright Sweetie, there's no reason why you can't deliver vaginally with your next baby". Well after the baby was born, they determined the problem: pelvic cephalic disproportion (the baby's head was way too large-at 98 % to go through my narrow pelvis). Now my son at age 10 has marked neurological difficulties. Was this the result of a delayed c-section? I'll never know. I can say that I flat out refused to attempt VBAC with the birth of my second child since large heads run in the family. He also has a large head (99%) but no neurological deficits and he had a planned C-section..
First, I'd like to say how sorry I am to hear that you had such a difficult and scary birth with your first child. Second, I would like to mention how wonderful it is that you were able to make the choice to have your second child in the way that you felt was the most safe. Wouldn't it be wonderful if this was the case for all women? Unfortunately, as this story points out, it is not the case for every woman. And, women who make different choices from you are unable to have those choices honored. I think that is the crux of this story, isn't it? Choice. As Americans we value our freedoms and our choices. So, why is it that when it comes to women's health care, those freedoms and choices are so frequently up for debate?
To compare a C-section to rape is just irresponsible.
If ignorance is bliss than this woman is in heaven.
I'm with mom1961. Rape? Please. Grow up. Life happens, deal with it. I had a similar experience as mom1961 only my doctor knew what was wrong and did a c-section before there were any adverse consequences. I am thankful there was a way to help me and our son. Our second child died at birth because of my exposure to fifth's disease early in the pregnancy. That experience will rip your heart in two and for all you whiners out there you have no idea all the things that can go terribly wrong with the birth of a child. Our third child was transverse breach and I had full placenta previa and a woman at pre-school had the nerve to tell me I didn't have to have a c-section. As my doctor says "have you ever seen a placenta bleed?" I agree there are probably too many c-sections and anyone that uses one to fit into their schedule is ridiculous but leave the rest of us out of it. Lose a child and then tell me a c-section is like being raped. I didn't care how they were born as long as they were healthy.
i am unfortunately able to have true perspective on this and I can tell you the two can be very similar. When my oldest was born via cesarean I was not prepared for the survivor issues that birth experience dredged up for me. I found myself postpartum having flash backs. I had gotten to a point after many years where I didn't think about that much anymore but then was thrown into dealing with it all over again with a brand new baby no sleep and no one to confide this in. The reason that happened is because the way my section happened it was very similar.
please do not dare to say these women are offensive to survivors for making the comparison. It's pretty damn accurate.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.