Should I have an elective c-section?

[jennzo]

I guess I'm thinking about this a bit early but I'm 33 weeks pregnant with my second child. 1st was a c-section due to lying transverse (sideways) due to funny-shaped womb. If baby's head down this time (I'm having a scan on Tuesday) I get a choice of whether to go for c-section or try for vaginal birth. But if I do go for latter I'll have to be constantly monitored and may end up having c-section anyway. I'm thinking a planned is better than an emergency but really don't know what to do... any thoughts?

Well I am a big fan of VBACs (I am a birth doula).... and I think most are successful if they are properly supported!
The trick is to know when to transfer to hospital and therefore minimise continuous monitoring.
BTW - you are totally within your right to decline continuous monitoring and I know MWs who are happy no to do it!

this is simliar to my dilemma. although i had it on my mind this time round would rather have elec/c/s - em. last time. just think that is wont be so stressful for self and baby as would for emer/c/s, nor rushed. obviously they have to get baby out fairly quick but perhaps not as rushed as in em//c/s.

thats what i think and way i see it anyway.
im booked in for 16 march. 6 days b4 due date. but consultant did not object in any way. was very calm and got on wih booking me in. plus i didnt want to go thru what i did 1st time round - full blown labour, whole day or more, pethidine made me sleep most way thrgu, couldnt push baby out then given spinal block to try ventouse then ready for em/c/cs anyway.

You can still be out of bed even if you are monitored jennzo. We ahve women sitting on pezzi balls and standing at the side of the bed in labour, you do not need to be immobile. I think women get confused about the terms emergency and elective section. Emergency C/S sounds worse that it is for most occasions. Although it can be a fast procedure because the baby is distressed, for previous C/S women it is most often done because of lack of progress in labour. In that instance it is no more rushed than an elective C/S. The word emergency makes women think that it is a mad rush. Decisions are made sooner in previous C/S women to avoid that scenario. If you baby lines itself up correctly for birth it is always worth giving labour a go IMO.

I had an elective (breech), then an "emergency" (waters broke, head didn't engage, had had weeks of moderate contractions with no progress at all) - the "emergency" one was very mellow and easy, and went much better than the elective. Also, because DS2 was fully cooked, breastfeeding and so on went a lot better.

You can say "I will try for X hours and then see". There is a whole spectrum of "emergency", from crash sections (very rare) to mine - the docs were debating whether to do it at 6am or 9am. 6am was very nice, the hospital was very peaceful and quiet.

I had a breeched baby and had to make a similar decision. I was desperate to have a vaginal delivery adn really didn't want a C Sec. The consultant was recomending an elective CS whilst midwives were happy to support a trial of labour. I was well monitored but this was not prohibitive (midwife worked around me). As it was I ended up with an emergency CS which was calm and relaxed (most definitly not an emergency).

I would definitly try for a trial of labour as I did not find the recovery from CS pleasant and struggle to come to terms with it.

Dophus, I would have loved a trial of labour, too ... unfortunately, for footling breech, even my midwife was opposed.

The whole elective/emergency distinction is misleading, certainly. I had a dreadful elective c-section with DS1, and I think I only really got over the trauma when I had a very good emergency c-section with DS2.