Danger in delivery: Despite technology, U.S. trails entire western world in saving mothers

What other outcome can be expected when we turn from nature to appease a doctors pocket book, a vain woman's image, or a hospitals convenience? Women have been giving birth for some time now, I think we know the right way to do it. It should only be used in emergency situations to save a life.
I personally know two women who chose c-sections for both of their children- 4 c's between them, for no physical reason, simply because they opted to.
A friend once suggested that something primal happens during birth and the struggle for life that helps start the child off on the right foot, without that struggle do children of c-sections gain that needed bit of their psyche?

We live in a society that is all too eager to sue for that extra money needed. Think about he woman who won in the McDonald's case where she sued because her coffee was "too hot"! That, in my opinion is a major factor in our lives today. If it was not so easy to sue & bring in money that way, would our doctors have to worry so much? Would mothers have so much pain and be so scared if she was in great shape, weight wise, nutrition wise & educated properly how to breathe to reduce & even eliminate pain in childbirth?

Personally, I wonder about many contributing factors here. Did the pregnant woman get enough exercise before and during pregnancy? How well did she eat? Is she overweight? Did she smoke or subjected to second hand smoke? Did she drink ? Did she use street drugs? Did she self medicate? Did she use herbs & herbal supplements? If so, does she know & use the safety rules of using herbs during pregnancy?

There is a lot of education that needs to take place for our childbearing age women. When and where should this education take place? Should she wait until she is pregnant to start learning about the affects these will have on her &/or her baby?

I gave birth to 8 children. The first 3 were typical vaginal births. # 4 was a C-section, # 5 was a repeat C-Section, # 6 was scheduled as a C-Section, but she came so quickly, there was no time, changing the OB's ideas of whether or not a routine C-Section is needed. Number 7 was a home birth! No complications. In fact her cord had tied into a “true knot” & had she been delivered in a hospital, both her life & mine would have been in jeopardy due to the medications & how they react.

There is so much I can say here, but so little space to do it.

I think it's ignorant to say that C-sections should be used in only emergency situations. I strongly believe that family history should be taken into account when deciding. My Dr.'s and I argued my whole pregnancy. We argued about when my son was due, we argued about tests and vaccines and, and we argued about his delivery. The last five generations on my mothers side of the family have been girls of three (short of my brother). In the last five generations, the hips and pelvis bones do not allow an infant to pass. We have had cases where the mother has died or the child has died. My older sister was an emergency section and both her and my mother almost died as a result of enforcing a vaginal birth. My mother did not labor well until her 44th week. The same thing happened with my sister. My grandmother lost her first child bc of a forced vaginal. Then my mother and aunt were sections. My great grandmother suffered post partum after the loss of her first and finally fourth children. She almost lost her life with the other two. Resussitation has been a common occuran e during all these births. My grandmothers youngest sister doed in child birth as did the baby. My grandmothers eldest sister also lost a child and then had two children via sections. My great great grandmother lost several children and of the two surviving she almost bled to death. My aunt Vera lost 1 child and decided never again. My Aunt Jan is the first in 5 generations to have a natural birth with no complications. But her two daughters both had sections as they followed in line with family history. My Dr. knew all of this and was still against a section. In the end, I was in labor for anweek before my doctor agreed to a section. I was unable to dilate more than 2 centimeters, I lost my mucouse plug and they still waited 5 more days! By the time they sectioned me, my contractions were 50 seconds apart, my son had already begun to efface but was stuck inside my pelvis.

In the OR hey had to adjust the table twice so that they could pull him out. I literally had my butt in the air! My son had a ring around his head and to this day you can still see it. I had 4 nurses tell me how lucky I was because if the Dr. had waited more than a day longer I would have lost my son. Not only was I right about the section but I was right about when my son was due. My Dr. had given me a later estimation. I told her I knew when I got pregnant. I was in the middle of a divorce and knew what day I had had sex. Furthermore, I wanted my pregnancy to be as unscathed as possible. No needles, no tests, no vaccines. My child would be born the way God made him. I already knew that a natural birth was not realistically in my cards, so I wanted everything else to be as natural as possible. I ate what I wanted, I didn't take any pre-natals and bc of the divorce I was forced to work 60 hours a week roughly. I believe that for millions of years women all over the world have eaten differently, taken no suppliments, had no formal pre-natal testing, and still turned out geniuses among our generations. My son is consistently right on target or else ahead of the game. And of course, I breastfeed. I know that if I ever have more children, I must have a section. My right hip has never been the same. But my son is worth all of it. I just wish that the Dr. would have taken me seriously and saved us all the grief. She thought like many others that I was afraid of childbirth. I told her that neither a natural birth or a section made a world of difference to me from the pain spectrum/physical aspect. If I knew without a doubt that I could have a natural birth, I would have stayed at home. But I knew that wasn't the case and she had to learn the hard-way. In the end, I'm just glad my son is alive.

Mistletoe Lady, As I read your post I couldn't help but think you are quite possibly what I call a "naturalist", one who believes everything should be as natural as possible, and hey, that's OK with me, but the line of thinking that out of the ridiculous amounts of c sections that are preformed you suggest that they must all have had some type of dysfunction going on is amazing!
Believe it or not, there are many,many women who choose c sections for various reasons, none of which are a medical necessity, and yet they don't drink, smoke, and they exercise, they take their prenatal pills, and see their doctors as scheduled- it was kinda what the article was about-THE AMOUNT OF C's THAT ARE BEING CHOSEN RATHER THAN NEEDED IN AN EMERGENCY!
There are factors that should be taken in to account for each pregnancy, but the numbers don't lie, we are losing mothers because of this ridiculous slam on nature that we insist on perpetrating, only when we align intelligence WITH nature will we see improvement.

This article is filled with blatant falsehoods.

1.Maternal mortality has NOT doubled in the past 20 years.

In 1999 and again in 2003, the standard birth certificate was redesigned to capture all maternal deaths by expanding the maternal mortality criteria. Not surprisingly, maternal mortality appeared to rise as a result. There is no evidence that it actually rose; indeed, no less an authority than the CDC has established that it did not rise.

From Deaths: Final Data for 2008: "Research done on this issue indicates that this increase represents an improvement in identifying maternal deaths."

2. The author writes: "Experts blame the high death rate partly on the heavy reliance the United States places on technological intervention ... and then fails to quote any experts.

Melissa Cheyney is NOT an expert on maternal health. She is a lay homebirth midwife, and lacks the education any training of a US certified nurse midwife or the midwives in ANY first world country.

3. A woman is NOT three times more likely to die from a C-section than a vaginal delivery.

Most women who die in childbirth have pre-existing medical problems or complications of pregnancy. Because of these problems, they are more likely to have a C-section to save their lives. It doesn't always work, but it is not the C-section that causes the death, it is the underlying heart problem, kidney problem, bleeding disorder, etc.

4. The Amnesty International report is a political document and is filled with medical inaccuracies.If C-sections were leading to an increased maternal mortality rate, we would expect to see C-section complications, such as hemorrhage and embolism increasing disproportionately. But that's not what the data shows.

The author should been more diligent in fact checking. She has written an article based on blatant falsehoods instead of accurately addressing the real issue of maternal mortality.

Lyzvon, thank you sooooo much for your long medical history, and your relatives for the last 300 years! I was looking for something to read to make me tired. I'm sorry that your family has had such hard times delivering children. I have had 2 kids. One each way and I gotta tell you for me, I would rather have 25 vaginal births than have to have 1 c section.

SC- if there was a like button for your comment.... I'd like it.

AmyTuteurMD- so says you.
This is NOT the first Rticle to address this issue, it's all over the Internet right now, all saying similar info. Are they all wrong? Should we be looking to you for all our medical stories?
While I won't assume the article is 100% correct, I will say that considering there is a going theme AND when my children were born years ago this was a hot topic, I can say there is CERTAINLY some validity.
Regardless of the FACTS, should we be insisting that women undergo c sections for no medical reasons? Are vaginas in the wrong place now, should we have them moved?

@AmyTuteurMD

"The rate of women delivering by c-section had increased to 31.8 percent by 2007, with a further increase to 32.3 percent in 2008, according to a study by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This marks a stunning 50 percent increase just since 1996.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030755_C-sections_doctors.html#ixzz1kZi4clqw "

And thats then...Now it's probably exploded!

Aside from the actually statistics I bet we could all use GOOGLE to find the answer rather then listen to you and come up with a better answer. And not to use your government websites like WHO, CDC. or even compartmentalized text books they feed you in school. And yes I did check out your linked website, and I'm not a obstetrician gynecologist , But it does not take a rocket scientist to do a bit of alternative research to find the information you may deem to be false.

You also have an article about vaccinations which you claim advocates of vaccine rejection are uneducated. The listed effects on the vaccines inserts are not a clear sign for you? Nor do you ever see a doctor tell a patient, "H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Inserts known reactions are, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Vasculitis, Paralysis, Anaphylactic Shock And Death"
The insert for Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine manufactured by Novartis.
Instead fear you into vaccination by saying, clearly..your baby can be hospitalized or even die without, maybe even try yo make you think it's illegal, or perhaps mandatory to go to public schools!(It's NOT)

I'm sure you would claim Vaccines don't cause autism, Yet Vaccine manufacturer Merck Payed out Millions for Brain Injured and autistic children!! MAINSTREAM NEWS EVEN!(Fox)
Everyone ask yourself when the last time your doctor gave you a Vitamin deficiency test, or suggested you take a vitamin supplement, Most would believe even 5,000IU of vitamin D3 Is toxic.
Instead I urge you specifically Amy, Wake up!

Edit: The First quote was linked in error, for not paying attention.

"In March, Amnesty International released their shattering report, Deadly Delivery. According to their analysis of US statistics, maternal mortality ratios have increased from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006. The United States spends more on health care than any other country in the world, and the highest percentage of those dollars (about $86 billion) is spent on maternity care; yet, two to three American women die per day of pregnancy-related causes, making women in the United States - particularly minorities - more likely than their counterparts in 40 other countries to die having a baby. "

How does it increase as we increase the money spent on maternity care?
Disinformation taught to those pursuing the medical field at a college.

Mistletoe Lady,

I would suggest you educate yourself on the woman who sued McDonalds for the hot coffee. Her name is Stella Liebeck and she was a 79 year old grandmother who sustained third degree burns from the incident. You can learn some facts and view pictures of the injuries she sustained here... http://ugotthejuicenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/frivolous-lawsuits.html

@ AmyTuteur

According to literature published by NIH and The dept of US Health and Human services the risk of maternal death from a c-section IS three times greater, four vs. thirteen deaths per 100,000 live births.

If our maternal mortality rate is so poor compared to other countries (undisputed by statistical resources) and increasing (also undisputed), while the c-section rate is also increasing, doesn't that lead one to think that maybe it's more than just correlation, and possibly some causation? Isn't the fact that mortality rate is higher for c-section part of the push by ACOG, NIH, and the Department of Health to start encouraging TOLAC instead of repeat c-sections, because they are inherently more dangerous?