What's less dangerous for baby? Cesarean or vaginal birth?

[Lalla525]

So - this whole giving birth story was not really well though through by the designers.

The hole is small, the cord can get anywhere, baby can get distressed and so on.

I had the cord around my neck when I was born and the risk was high.

A number of stillbirth happens because of some problems during VB.

Now - aside from the recovery, which I appreciate is horrible with a CS, what of the two is less dangerous for the baby?
Is the C-section dangerous at all for baby? I'm not quite sure.

Thanks

I had two c-sections 15 months apart and elected to have the second one. I can hand on heart say, my recovery both times was speedy. But maybe I was just lucky.

To answer your question, I personally feel a vaginal birth carries with it more risks- anything can happen vs a c-section where you've got an entire team of doctors at your bedside who are ready (and prepared) for any eventuality.

Under normal circumstances vaginal births are safer.

Babies born by CS are more likely to have allergies or asthma. Then there is the link with obesity, leukaemia, diabetes and autism.

I also think you need to frame the question, 'whats more beneficial for the baby?'

Theres some evidence to say that vaginal microbes can aid gut digestion in newborns. Also, studies have shown that more women experience problems with BF who have had a csection as the hormonal cycle get disrupted.

I guess you just have weigh up whats right for you, and solely focus on the negatives on vaginal birth vs positives of csection

For the actual birth process, CS is safer for baby, and riskier for mother, and VB is safer for mum and less so for baby.

Depends on the alternative — my son and I would have died without a section.

In very general terms, a CS is safer for the baby, a VB safer for the mother.

I had two emcs and the recoveries were easy as pie. There's a spectrum of experience. It isn't automatically awful.

In normal circumstances, without risks and etc, it's better for both a vaginal delivery.

There are cases where because of medical reasons either of baby or mum, it's safer a c-section.

There is also to consider that for some ladies a vaginal delivery might be really triggering their anxiety and some might really struggle to come to terms with it.

For others, having a c-section might be really scary and traumatic.

You also need to take into consideration your desire or possibility of future pregnancies.

So there is no answer that fits all. Each person needs to inform themselves and talk this through with their midwife or consultant.

My personal opinion is that vaginal is better, but I am open minded that it might be safer in certain circumstances to have a c-section. I had one vaginal, one emergency section and one VBAC. Now I plan for my second VBAC.

Way too many variables to give a one size answer.

When I researched it for my DTs a section is safer for the baby but less so for the mother although mothers tend to lose less blood during a section than a VB.

For me personally, the section saved my life (severe pe) and my DD’s (dt2) who was born 4 minutes after my DS not breathing properly. I shudder to think what could’ve happened if I’d not had the section. As it was, the room filled up with medics who whisked her away and she was absolutely fine.

I read one research paper which looked at mothers over 35 and compared elective c section to attempted vaginal delivery (including vaginal deliveries that ended in emergency c section). The elcs babies were slightly less likely to have to be treated in NICU. The elcs mothers were slightly more likely to have a significant hemorrhage. The differeces weren't huge though. I can dig the paper out if it's relevant to you.

Normal vaginal birth decreases the probability of lung issues at birth as it squeezes amniotic fluid out of the lungs. It also coats the baby in bacteria which jump starts the immune system and reduces the risk of eczema, asthma and allergies etc. And some babies do get cut by mistake in a c section. So if you're comparing a normal section with a normal vaginal birth, I'd say the vaginal birth is the best for baby. Obviously, that changes if something goes wrong in the process of the vaginal birth and there's no way to know if that will happen, realistically. If, due to pre-existing circumstances or conditions, problems in vaginal births are more likely than usual, then a c section would be safer.

@TKAAHUARTG can you link to any research that shows the autism link?

Huh. That's really interesting BadCat. I did not know this.

logo
SEARCH
NEWS
OPINION
FEATURES
TOPICS
AUTISM 101
ABOUT
SUBSCRIBE
NEWSSEE ALL
NEWS
Cesarean sections tenuously tied to autism
BY ANDREW WHITEHOUSE, THE CONVERSATION
29 AUGUST 2019
DOWNLOAD PDF
REPUBLISH THIS ARTICLE
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE
Woman looks at her newborn from under the operating tent of c-section surgery
mustafagull / iStock
A new study that combines data from more than 20 million births has found that a cesarean section delivery is associated with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).*

However, the study does not indicate that cesarean section deliveries cause autism or ADHD. The truth is much more difficult to decipher, and it provides an excellent case study for the old adage that correlation doesn’t equal causation.

www.spectrumnews.org/news/cesarean-sections-tenuously-tied-to-autism/

So they are linked but one probably doesn't cause the other. Still really interesting.

Whoops, sorry. Copy and paste fail there.

OP you will really only be getting anecdotal evidence here.
But here's my two cents anyway.

Have had both. Vaginal for me was not pleasant and ended up with an emergency delivery, cut and forceps and baby not breathing properly (thank god we are both fine).

Second was a planned section and by far the better experience. I actually found it a lovely experience and had a very easy recovery, I count myself lucky.

My consultant said to me that planned sections are safer for baby and just as safe for as a vaginal delivery for mothers.
He said the reasons given for it being other wise are that the stats bunch emergency sections with planned ones which skews it, as obviously something has already gone wrong in a vaginal delivery for you to need an emergency section.
Electives are general safer in most ways.

Utter rubbish about about links to autism etc.

@BecauseReasons that is interesting, thanks. I don't think I'm going to factor in the autism issue when I weigh up my birth options..

Thanks all for the replies.

My current feeling is that, as a pop said, if VB goes perfectly, then it is much much preferred compared to a cesarean. However, many things can go wrong and no way to know it beforehand. A cesarean sounds to me the safest option for baby.

@TKAAHUARTG where did you research this ?

Doesn't have to go perfectly, OP, just has to not be a total trainwreck. The majority of vaginal births occur without complications.

@Elliesmommy, which part? JAMA is a good start. I thought a lot of these links were widely known?

And some babies do get cut by mistake in a c section.

They cut me when they broke my mum's waters during her vaginal birth.

It's essentially a gamble either way. Attempting a vaginal birth for dc1 almost killed me. He ended up being born by emcs and needed NICU (because of the labour, not the section) and I had a psychotic break. On the other hand I know women who had horrendous electives.

Plus of course, I've had an amazing 2nd emergency section and I know plenty who had lovely vaginal births.

Also my section recoveries were quite literally walks in the park, not "horrible" in the slightest.