Sentences with phrase «elective c sections»

There will be women who prefer natural birth and those who prefer elective c sections.

I ended up having an elective c section due to breech baby, and I really believe the arnica assisted my recovery.

Who rallies against elective C section?

Not exact matches

I have such conflicted feelings about elective C - sections.

Another article I wrote a post about the increase rate in elective c - sections.

API's position in this regard is not to judge mothers» decisions in choosing an elective caesarean, but rather that mothers and fathers be given accurate research - based information on the risks and benefits of elective c - sections in order to make an educated and informed choice.

But I've just been amazed that whenever I tell someone he was C - section I ALWAYS have to explain why - because so many people assume that it was elective!!

From elective C - section because babies «run big» in the family, to not breastfeeding because someone's breasts are too small... It's just appalling how little many women know about their own bodies.

Each C - section was a repeat elective, although I have been researching for years about safety in all different environments and with all different interventions and assistants.

Of note to EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE fans out there, the authors discuss exclusionary factors in the 39w0d studies that OVERESTIMATED the risk of iatrogenic prematurity and UNDERESTIMATED the risk of still birth in the 38th week and fetal / maternal morbidly / mortality arising from converting an elective C - section to one that is urgent / emergency.

There are ob's arguing that the risks of vaginal birth are such that an elective c - section, particularly for an older mom who my be having only one birth, offers better outcomes.

Why then, does she not also have the RIGHT to have her elective repeat C - section schedule in the 38th week after an appropriate informed consent discussion?

Indeed, there has been an uptick in complications (ie a DECREASE in safety) by iatrogenically converting elective repeat C - sections to urgent ones.

While C - sections can be a necessary and sometimes life - saving procedure for mothers and babies, the wide use of them as an elective is of concern to some health organizations.

No one had told her that having a (elective, in her case) c - section might very well complicate things and cause supply issues without additional support (fenugreek, domperidone, pumping, etc.) She had no idea - she'd blamed herself for years.

Clearly many of those c - sections are either elective or become necessary because of the choices families / doctors make during the pregnancy and labor.

On the other hand, if you consented to an elective repeat C - section, everything would be covered and you would not lose any insurance benefits.

Those rights include access to a doctor, access to pain relief and even access to an elective C - section.

I think that nowadays, such women should be offered the option of an elective C - section for their next baby.

There's been a lot of debate in the pregnancy world lately concerning elective c - sections.

Our family's mental health bills since then are equivalent to one and a half elective c - sections a year, times 5 years so far.

Had the mother had an elective repeat C - section at term, the baby would definitely be alive today.

My daughter's hospital costs for 12 hours of life were 10 times the total cost of my elective c - section.

It's one thing to plan for an elective C - section, but it's a whole other thing to have to do TWO labors on one day.

There is a lot of discussion about the birth of a baby via elective cesarean, or c - section.

If your practitioner agrees to perform an elective c - section, it should not be perform until you are past 39 weeks of pregnancy to reduce the risk of preterm delivery of your baby.

It is also important to note that your insurance company may not cover elective c - section for no medical reason because of the added risks of complications to you, your baby and future pregnancies.

They the complete gamut of births from freebirthing, homebirthing, hospital to elective c - sections.

Most importantly, that number represents 630 sets of bereaved parents who would have had a healthy baby had they opted for elective C - section.

My first 3 were vaginal births (with interventions), the next 4 births were c / sections (after «failure to progress» diagnosis) 2 of those c / sections were attempted VBACs (vaginal birth after cesarean), 1 was a «forced» elective.

Considering that half of all C - sections are elective, I'd say we could trim down a bit!

We did great and while I do not condone elective c - sections for scheduling or non-medical reasons, I also think they can be a beautiful and wonderful experience for the family.

I too think that the time and energy would be better spent educating woman on the benefits of natural, vaginal birth and the true risks of elective c - section rather than re-branding c - sections as «natural».

I think your concern is completely appropriate because I don't think it will help a woman who is choosing an elective c - section (though she certainly has that right) to feel even better about it because there is an emphasis on how mother - friendly aspect of the procedure.

I think there are a lot more nutso's in the cohort who want a planned home birth than in the cohort who requests a planned (elective) C - section — no birth is «elective», but the cohort who wants to preserve perineal strength and function while avoiding the pain of labor and the risk of labor on the baby should have their autonomy acknowledged.

I think when you say elective c - section, you are thinking of maternal request c - section.

When things aren't fine I don't want an expert in «normal birth» (things are fine) I want an expert in 1) proactively making sure things will be fine [so, someone who might suggest I reduce my risk of c - section by choosing an elective induction and then supporting my choice either way] and 2) reactively getting the baby out NOWNOWNOW if that turns out to be needed.

And you know, if your local kingdom has trouble with any usurping regicides, it's only the elective c - section babies who are properly qualified to deal with the problem!

When the time came for my second, The OB and I had long conversations about a repeat vaginal birth vs. elective c - section.

If preserving sexual function is a concern for a woman she would do well to consider an elective c - section before labor starts.

«Elective» c - section it was for that baby, and the next — who are both also healthy and awesome.

If not for the recovery issue, I'd actually rather have an elective c - section regardless of baby's size.

Well in the purist sense I would define elective c - section as one that is not medically indicated.

I did opt for the elective c - section and it went very, very well.

But since it appears that SOME kind of justification can almost always be found, I would say that a c - section that a physician recommends largely because they are attempting to protect themselves from possible litigation (as per Dr. Amy's first post in this blog)... I would also consider those «elective.».

Why should a doctor discourage a woman from an elective C - section?

I may also have set a record for the shortest interval between scheduling and incision for elective c - section on a woman not in labor: two hours!

I am curious, Matt, since based on your comments you are interested in the documentary and in debate tactics, what exactly do * you * consider «elective c - section»?

So the doctors decided to do an elective C - section 3 weeks before the expected date of delivery.

Midwives are telling this mom that she will probably have difficulty breastfeeding post an elective c - section.