I wound up going to this site:
because it was linked from another story on how women are not prepared for surgical adhesions or informed of the risks. (See that story HERE)
After about five seconds on the site, I decided to search for Cesarean.
The section on cesareans brought me to angry in about five seconds flat.
Where to start?
"The rate of cesarean section in this country has never been higher. Part of the reason is that more women are requesting elective cesarean to avoid the pain of labor. Another is that doctors are more reluctant to let women who had a previous cesarean attempt a vaginal birth, for fear of rupturing the uterus (although the risk of uterine rupture is extremely small). Regardless, there are times when a cesarean is necessary. For instance, if labor has slowed, you experience complications, the baby is in distress or the size of your baby compared to the size of you makes a vaginal birth unlikely."
1. So, let's blame the mom. It's her fault. She wanted it.
2. Let's not blame the doctors for doing the first cesarean, after all, that was mom's fault. And let's let them off the hook for giving moms surgery to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. After all, we're back to the "it's ok to cut moms if I don't have higher premiums" defense.
3. The doctors have the right to cut every woman out there (1 in 3 in a "best case" scenario in the US) and btw, they have the right to cut you all AGAIN to keep your less than .5% rupture from happening. You don't get a say so.
4. Since when is "labor slowed down" a medical indication?
5. A vaginal birth "unlikely"? wait..so "wow, you have a big baby" is a medical indication because someone gave Dr Swami, OB, a crystal ball?
6. A baby stands a lot less chance of being in distress if mom is supported and taken care of during labor rather than induced, drugged, refused food and water and forced to lie in a bed for the good of the practitioner.
Never mind, I just can't do it. I thought I could blog about this and it's hideousness, but today, I'm just so angry that we can write these things and call them journalism or blogs or even "good information". I went to this site looking for good information on women not being aware of their risks of adhesions and yet the most common surgery done to women in the US today doesn't even have adhesions listed as a RISK? Wait. It does say "scar tissue", doesn't it? This is their idea of a factual list of risks? It doesn't even mention wound infection. This is informing women of the potential risks? A woman can't even go and google search for "scar tissue" because you will notice it's not worded as what it is, adhesions.
And since I don't want to discuss this site any further on a point by point breakdown of it's awfulness, I'll mention the last of them on the page.
"But don't worry; the delivery room staff will rub the baby to restore color and movement and/or provide some supplemental oxygen to help it pink up."
It. Yes. We'll Pink It Up.
Somehow, that doesn't do justice to either the baby or the lifelong risk of asthma and allergies IT carries because IT was born by cesarean. Or the fact that in many cases, that same sweet baby will be parked in a NICU for the first few days of life or spend some time next week in the PICU because some OB thought it was more important to not get sued than to attend a trial of labor.
But, this site has the USA TODAY seal of approval: "USA Weekend Magazine recognizes HealthyWomen.org as "a website to trust," ranking it as a top women's health resource! so I guess I should just believe everything it says.