Want The Unnecesarean in your inbox? Enter your email address:
Reader Emily scanned this page from the current issue of Parents Magazine and wondered if the tides are turning.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Pardon my French, but HELL YEAH!
Things *have* to start changing sooner than later....
I have had 4 VBAC's now and really hope that successes like mine help to convince folks that VBAC is safe! My last two were home births...and the last one in January of this year was an 11 pounder...if I can do that safely at home, then others can, too! OB's, insurance companies and hospitals need to realize this and make VBAC the FIRST option woman are given!
Is that the entire article? If so, sounds good, but I wonder if it's one of those bait-and-switch things? Sometimes by the end of an article like that you are left with the feeling that VBAC is an option for *some* women, IF their OB thinks it's a good idea, and only if they are so against RCS that they are willing to take on the **RISKS**, KWIM? Kinda back-handed.
^^ I can vouch for the 11 pounder. He is a sight to behold, and his mama truly is an inspiration.
So happy to see this in the EPITOME of mainstream parenting magazines - turning of the tides indeed!
Wow, how wonderful to see this in such a mainstream publication! Now if we can just get them to stop saying VBAC is "high risk," which naturally implies that the alternative is "low risk" or at least less risky. I think recent publicity surrounding rising maternal mortality, along with the overall positive outcome of the NIH conference, is combining to bring VBAC back into public view. I'm very hopeful that we'll start seeing the pendulum swing back toward VBAC, and, yes, as Justine said, start making VBAC the *first* option.
I read the article just yesterday. While it is great to see VBAC getting some mainstream press, the full article does tend on the "doom and gloom" side. The sub-headings in the rest of the article talk about who are the best candidates for VBAC and include such great ones as "You Watch those Pounds" - here's what it says:
"If you were slim when you became pregnant and haven't gained a lot of weight since, your chances of a problem-free VBAC are higher. "Being overweight doesn't rule one out, but the increase of soft tissue around the pelvis may make it harder for a baby to come through the birth canal.""
Now I'm all for VBAC awareness (especially as I am hoping to have one in just 4 weeks!) but seriously, what kind of a comment is that? Sorry I don't have the capabilities to scan in the article.
Oh man: " but the increase of soft tissue around the pelvis may make it harder for a baby to come through the birth canal."
I suppose they don't provide ANY cite for that?? I mean, whoever put this in--do they know that fat is *outside* the uterus, in fact, right where a surgeon would be cutting...? Which actually seems to argue for a VBAC and NOT a c/sec if you're overweight at all.
I was thinking the same thing as Michelle. I think I already tossed this issue. I just read the crafts and the "It Worked For Me" then throw it out. I've read too many articles that seem good, but then end up spreading misinformation. Reading the articles is bad for my blood pressure.
I have been listed as a top rated Doc in parent magazine so BEWARE the misinformation! That said, let's look at this. Vbac shold be the first option for most and not at all for some. Providing the c/section was necessary (sorry, gotta say it) and the factors that were present then are resolved, why not? The risks are low but since the chances of rupture are above baseline it is considered high risk - sort of. After the first vbac I have never seen a rupture. Find the stats on that Jill! Would I let a repeat vbac deliver at home. Can't say yes (PC), won't say no. I have seen two vbacs rupture, both first vbacs and both poor candidates but not contraindicated. I could go on for ever on the good/bad candidates but it might seem like teaching. That's what Jill's for. And since when did the Doc accept the risk? I talk to you, you sign the permit. It is the moms choice/privelege/bain to accept the risk. I get to sit around a monitor and watch TV. If it was the old days I would probably go kill small animals with sharp sticks.Yes obesity can create a soft tissue dystocia but it is of the birth canal. Nothing to do with the uterus. Usually does not stop dilation but can halt descent. Where normally if you give time, edema will compress and allow delivery, swollen adipose tissue only gets worse and is a bitch to sew up. The vagina exerts about 90mmHg pressure (primip, for Mrs. Duggar - zero) on the fetus. This supposedly increases with morbid obesity but I'll be damned if I can find where it was tested (and I absolutely do not want to know how!!!). Obesity should have nothing to do with vbac choice and I find it odd it was mentioned in this article. Now, tilt 90 degrees and remember, obesity = elevated risk diabetes, macrosomia, soft tissue dystocia, increased bone/muscle attachments (spines) and more android pelvis occurance (hard tissue dystocia) so maybe they were just vectoring into a la la land but actually got close. Again beware the "lay" publication. H**l, beware the non-lay ones. Jill invited me.