Death twice as likely by caesarean

[AussieSim]

SMH article

Before I get flamed for posting, the study referred to is in the US and is only of births which were low risk i.e., no good reason why a C-section was required other than maybe perceived 'convenience'/'too posh to push'. It does have some interesting information on the positive effects of a vaginal birth on the newborn, which I haven't seen in too many other places.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. I know a HECK of a lot of women who had CSs and only one who had it for 'no' reason. And even she was 39 when she had her first child. Is it really that common?

I was just wondering though, does anybody know (personally, as in they at least heard from a freind, NOT through the papers) of a woman that died in childbirth. I have never heard of it.

I totally agree and am not disputing for a single second that in a perfect world a natural birth is better, but I suspect the MAIN aim of this article is to disuade mothers out of elective caearians (which they usually have their own reasons for).

All my friends and I were a bit apprehensive about childbirth, but none of us went so far as to demand (or get) a CS.

How common is this?? Sorry if this is hi-jacking your thread.

Just thinking that in 2008 women dying in childbirth is not common. It is on the news if it happens.

this is not about the mother dying madamecholet - it's about the baby dying.

But - I do agree, I don't think so called elective cs is elected by the mother, just the circumstances

Elective just means planned - so it covers C-sections advised by obstetricians. And they are more common in the US where birth is more medicalised, I understand.

There's already evidence that C-section babies are more likely to have breathing difficulties so all the more reason for obs to tread very carefully. But maternal preference might be well-founded.

I reckon it is pretty common in the more affluent suburbs of Sydney at least. I know quite a few women - friends of friends, who had an elective ceasar in an attempt to avoid the 'trauma' of childbirth, or so their DH could insert the birth neatly into his busy schedule.

I know of someone who died in chidbirth. She was in my friend's antenatal group. She had a vaginal delivery, had a problem with the placenta, lost too much blood, had an emergency hysterectomy and still died.

It is incredibly rare (at least in the developed world), whichever method of delivery you have

"The study, which involved more than 8 million births in the US over four years, is the first of its kind to focus on full-term babies born to women with no medical reason for choosing a caesarean over a vaginal delivery, an increasingly common phenomenon in Australia"

How many 'normal' women choose to have an elective c-section in the UK though? at least those that do not have private medical insurance (oh maybe thats it, the private medical insurance phenomonem)

but in eg Switzerland, where we have private medical ins, you can only have a c-section paid by ins if it's deemed a medical necessity by the doctors. If you choose to have one 'for no good reason' then you have to pay yourself, so that wouldn't be any different to eg in UK where private isn't the norm.

I think it's more of a cultural thing than cost thing.

is this the same study? there is no date on the australian one.

argh, see this is the prime reason I do not want another

"The researchers found that the risk of death ? from blood clots, infection or complications from anaesthesia ? was 3.6 times higher for women who had Caesareans"

I panicked this was what was going to happen last time. I dont know why anyone would choose to have a csection for no reason. They must be mad

(and ernest I think you may be right)

I reckon it is an earlier study, but with basically the same results.

The private insurance companies in Australia don't care why you have a Caesar.

I am paying particular attention as I am 35+ with DC3 and she is breech/transverse and I have had normal vag deliveries with my first two and would rather not have a Caesar if I could avoid it.

I nearly died following an emergency caesarian . Had had 3 normal deliveries when I was induced with DD3 after going 10 days overdue. I had had a placental bleed during pregnancy and thus closely monitored.However I then had an abruption during labour and was rushed to theatre with dd's heart rate plummeting.
DD was ok,but I bled and bled and required rescue fluids but that wasn't enough and I arrested on the operating table.
Fortunately due to the marvellous NHS(which comes into its own in a real emergency) I survived.
Looking back, a acombination of thankfully reasonably rare circumstances resulted in this situation,but let us not forget a caesarian is a major abdominal operation with all the associated risks that that entails.

Strangely enough, there is a comment type article in the DT that states caesarians are safer in this country.

This isn't the article but may be of interest: "NHS: The fatal lottery of childbirth in Britain www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2007/09/25/hmidwife125.xml"

Here we are: Women choosing caesarean have low death rate

I think it is an important study.
no, it isn't often a free choice but when weighing up the risks of whether to induce/augment/continuously monitor/have pethidine/have an epidural/have a hospital birth/get on the bed, it is important that the health care professionals have in mind and inform the woman that this will increase the risk of a C section, which will increase the risk of death and illness for the mother and baby (also other risks too e.g. infections, reduction in fertility/still birth in future pregnancies).
ditto when deciding on a VBAC versus another section.

too often the section is regarded as the risk free/low risk option. it isn't.

This study isn't about the death of mothers following C-Section, but babies. But for either party I think normal vag birth would be generally safer if it is medically advisable given individual circumstances.

sections increase the death rate for women too.
hardly surprising tbh.

Gosh, your story made the hairs on my arms stand up, SilentTerror. Glad you and your daughter were ok.

the study looked at gestation periods of 37-39 weeks.

Pre-39 week CSs are loaded with probs as baby isn't ready to be born, and this will skew the data. I'd love to see the data reanalysed from 39-41 weeks.

Study also only quoted mortality stats, and said 'less than 1 in 1000' for VBs. What is the actual figure?

Where are the morbidity stats? VBs are not totally safe either!!

sorry for poor typing, BFing ds2

Harpsi makes a good point about the ELCS being cited as the risk free option.
I'm having an ELCS tomorrow, not something I want, I've put it off from the advised 38weeks to 41weeks but all along have been told that the CS is safer for my baby.
When actually discussed with anyone though it was agreed the best option would be for me to go into labour naturally before term so obviously the CS isn't necessarily the 'safest' option.

I also nearly died in childbirth after ds2 got into difficulties and I had to have an emergency cs.
I had similar circumstances as silentterror and needed a blood transfusion after I lost almost 4/5th of total blood.
I was told by a very distressed midwife the next day that she had never been through anything like that and that both me and ds2 were very lucky to be alive.

An ex-work colleague of mine lost both his child and wife in child birth and another colleague lost her baby when he got into difficulties and should have had an emergency cs but the midwife let her carry on with vb (in my opinion)

I hope it goes well VS I had my third c section last september and it wasnt something I relished at all

fwiw having a real emergency section is much different from having a planned c section but I too (even after 3) get pissed off it is seen as the easy option, it seldom is. Maybe if you are rich/famous/very wealthy/have lots of help it ^might6 be ever so slightly easier. I dont know. It certainly isnt easy when you are on your third and have to go home on day 2 to cope with your severely disabled 8 year old because no-one else can

My babies and me would all be dead is I hadn't had c-sections. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the fact. My second section was down as elcs, but I didn't have any choice. My in laws all made too posh to push comments both times, but they are just being a bit ignorant. I'm heading for my third section and I can't say I'm relishing it, but I am glad to have the opportunity to have more babies.
Good luck for tomorrow, VS!

MadameCholet, dh's cousing died in childbirth last year. She was mid 30's.

Are we talking emergency or planned here ? Becasue the 2 are quite different aren't they ?

Well, for me they were different in that for DS it was an emergency because it wasn't until after they delivered him they realised I would not be able to give birth naturally, so subsequent dd was planned. DS and I were both at considerable risk until the decision to have the section was made. My consent form for DD's elcs said the risks were the same as for vaginal delivery, is this not true then?