Thanks to the replies to my request for the natural cesarean article.
Mary, I can understand your concerns.
Though I liked the article and think it would be a great concept to try for
a 'natural c-section' when possible, what I would really like to achieve with
showing others this article is to show people a different perspective.
My true current 'mission' is to push for having mom and baby spend more time
together immediately post c-section, and for longer than a brief, cursory kiss
on the cheek and off baby goes to be bathed.
I think the article shows how things can be done differently, and opens the
door for dialogue about what current practices could be altered somewhat.
Thanks for your input!
Casey Clubb, RN, IBCLC
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:03:42 -0400, Mary Jozwiak BS, IBCLC, RLC
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hmmm. Interesting, but I have some concerns.
>
>Being a C Birth mom, this option did not seem very appealing to me. My first
>labor was 57 hours, with then, 3 hours of second stage, and Sarah did not
>even reach the 0 station. I then had a C Section. The Second baby,
>Rebecca, 26 months later, 26 hour labor, 2 hours of pushing, baby almost
>reached +1, but no further. (I have an android pelvis.) My third baby, 13 and
>11 years after the first two, respectively, was a planned, section, based on
>my body signs and evidence that Hannah's lungs were mature and she was
>near term.
>
>Quote from the article: Why, for example, did they need to be done so
quickly,
>when slowing them down would give the parents more chance to participate
in
>their child's delivery and might give the baby a gentler experience of coming
>into the world?
>
>My response: I didn't want my babies to get any more of the medication from
>the epidurals with the first two section, nor from the Spinal (much stronger,
>IMO) with the third. I felt the morphine and fentanyl hit me like a ton of
>feathers, and told my OB, "Please, get the baby out, I don't want all that
>morphine getting into the baby's system." He agreed, (I was already on the
>table and prepped) and Hannah was out in about 2 minutes. She had no
signs
>of drug exposure. A regional anesthetic is necessary during C Section, but I
>think most mothers really don't want all those drugs getting to the baby. I
>know I didn't. The drugs do eventually get to the placenta, the cord and
then
>to the baby, so getting the baby out quickly is a concern.
>
>
>Article Said: Why, too, was it so important for the parents to be screened
off
>from the mother's abdomen? And was it really essential for the baby to be
>whisked off for an immediate medical examination, rather than delivered into
>the arms of his mother?
>
>My response: There was a screen. My doctor put a mirror up, so I could see
>my children born, though. But, my husband was free to stand up and look
over
>the screen, and with the last baby, invited to come around to cut the cord,
>after Hannah was born. Keeping a sterile field IS still important.
>
>The article said: "What I realised was that caesareans were done a certain
>way because they've always been done a certain way, but in fact they can
be
>done differently - and in a way that parents love," says Fisk. Other doctors
>are sometimes shocked when they hear what he is doing. "They say, but
>surely you have to get the baby out fast so she can get oxygen straight
>away? And I say, when the baby is being born she's still attached to the
>umbilical cord and is still getting oxygen from the placenta.
>
>My response: None of my children were put on O2 "right away" in fact, they
>weren't put on O2 at all. They were placed next to my cheek, quickly
>examined at the Peds table, and then handed to my husband. (We found out
>after Hannah nursed, about 20 minutes after the birth, they didn't even
waste
>time putting a diaper on her. She got my dh with the first stream!) As for the
>U Cord, yes, the baby is still getting O2 through it, with a prolonged C
Section,
>as well as any drugs that Mom is getting through the IV, the Spinal or the
>Epidural.
>
>My babies were born wide awake, aware and pretty happy. Perhaps this
>method may be for some, but I do have reservations. When C Section was
>inevitable, I wanted my babies then out of my body ASAP, so they would be
>safe, and so my husband and I could hold her, and so I could nurse them.
>Also, I react rather unfavorably to regional anesthetic. My BP bounces
around,
>I get terribly nauseous, I would not want the experience to last any longer
>than it already does.
>
>Also, many sections are done due to distress, either in the baby, the mother
>or both. I can't see prolonging a C Section in any of these cases. Also, if
there
>isn't distress, there is rarely reason for a C Birth.
>
>IMO, this Method would have very limited use. A C Section is not a "normal"
>way of giving birth. It happens to save lives. (If done for the right reasons.)
In
>many cases, there is simply no time to spare.
>
>Your mileage may vary. Just my view, having been there three times.
>
>Mary Jozwiak IBCLC, RLC, LLLL
>Private Practice
>
> ***********************************************
>
>Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
>To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
>Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
>COMMANDS:
>1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set
lactnet nomail
>2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
>3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
>4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
