Mom fights, gets the delivery she wants (hospital was insisting on Caesarean section)

[The Straight Story]

Mom fights, gets the delivery she wants

(CNN) -- Seven months into her pregnancy with her fourth child, Joy Szabo's obstetrician gave her some news she didn't want to hear: Because she'd had a previous Caesarean section, the hospital where she planned to deliver was insisting she have another one.

Szabo wanted a vaginal delivery, and argued with hospital executives, but they stood firm: They refused to do vaginal births after Caesareans (VBACs) because they have a slightly higher risk for complications.

After they lost that fight, Szabo and her husband, Jeff, made an unusual decision. About three weeks before her due date, Szabo moved nearly six hours away from their home in Page, Arizona, to Phoenix to give birth at a hospital that does permit women to have VBACs.

In the end, the Szabos got the birth they wanted. On December 5, their son Marcus Anthony was born in Phoenix via an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, weighing seven pounds and 13 ounces.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/17/birth.plan.tips/index.html

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Good for her.

Depending on the reason for the first C-section, and the way it was done, often the next delivery can be a normal vaginal one.

These women need careful assessment, and a thorough history obtained, but the decision should be between her and her doctor.

NOT as a pronouncement from the hospital, who does not necessarily have her wishes in mind.

Good grief.

When hospitals do that sort of thing, it's like the insurance companies saying you can't have that surgery, or treatment.

[msongs]

2. gee, which delivery generates more profits for the doctors n hospitals? nt

[iamjoy]

4. No, It's Hospitals Avoiding a Lawsuit

I don't think we can ignore the fact that hospitals do this sort of thing to avoid the potential for a lawsuit. It's good that there were no problems in this case, but the "common wisdom" now is that VBACs have a higher risk of complications. The hospital is concerned that if a woman has this and something goes wrong, they will get sued for not properly explaining the risks.

Of course, you are right that the hospital doesn't have the patient wishes in mind, but I do believe they have her well-being in mind, however misguided and silly their rules seem. Although it is also about covering their asses in our litigious society. When insurance companies deny treatment it is all about their bottom line - not your health.

[janx]

7. That's it! Been there and done that twice.

You are correct. :toast:

[CTyankee]

3. While I understand this woman's own personal decision, I must say that my daughter's experience

has persuaded me that in some cases women should NOT have VBAC. My daughter had pre-eclampsia (HELLP Syndrome) with her first pregnancy. It turned out well...a near term emergency C Section was done. But had she had a second pregnancy (she decided against it as she is older), she would have wanted a VBAC. I am not a big fan of surgery but I feared for her decision on a number of levels. I don't think it is this easy.

I have had family history with women agonizing through very long labors and ending up with C sections. I myself did not, but I could really understand that their suffering with no progress toward birth could be an important factor in their choosing the section.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. Excellent! I had a vbac 19 yrs ago.

[TNDemo]

6. Doctors have to qualify the reason before doing a section

so they don't make the decision lightly. I was in tears at the suggestion I might not get a section and my husband went nuts since my first two deliveries were so bad. Got the section with the third one and what a walk in the park compared to the other way. It was like going on a cruise.

[CTyankee]

9. Don't say that too loud here on DU! You might get a big argument.

It's a difficult situation for many women. But some women do consider it a personal convenience issue. Personally, I don't pretend to know what women's reasons are, other than purely medical.

Sounds like you had a bad situation. Surgery is a pretty drastic step. Did you have epidurals with the first two deliveries?

[TNDemo]

12. I had an epidural with the first one.

Thought I could get one with the second one at this particular hospital but turns out I couldn't. That was the really bad one that ended in ICU. If babies can come the normal way, that's the best way, but mine were too big (I was not diabetic - at least not then) and it was horrible. Funny thing is the third one came a month early (others were late) and that is the only one I had scheduled a section. Good thing she came early since she had a true knot in her cord but ironic I got the section for the smallest one. The vast majority of the time the normal route is best but there are times (like mine) where it would have been much safer for me and the baby to have a section.

[Odin2005]

8. Require that a WOMAN BE CUT OPEN because of a slightly higher risk to the baby? WTF?

[Celebration]

10. slightly higher risk for the mom, too

The uterus could rupture (supposedly). It is rare, though, but could be life threatening for the mom (I hear).

[Betty Karlson]

11. The Uterus can rupture in any and all women

even the ones who never had a ceasarean.

The risk of a rupturing uturus are only higher after a ceasarean if
a) the woman already had a predisposition to uterus ruptures
b) the woman has a condition wherein any and all scar tissue remains more than usual fragile.

The hospital; is just over-carefull to avoid claims. - Another thing about US health care in need of a change. Stop claiming and start healing. That way, life threats can be avoided without lumping all women into one big pile of rupture risks.