dean Posted December 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 I was wondering about your case, since I believe that you are around 6 feet, four inches and (while not ever having seen you), probably built like a football lineman. I do know that, if I ever had any desire for more children, after this pregnancy, I'll adapt rather than put my wife through 4-5 months of extreme uncomfortableness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 I was wondering about your case, since I believe that you are around 6 feet, four inches and (while not ever having seen you), probably built like a football lineman Oh dear......you have no idea what you have just done.... We will never here the end of this... I agree with you that it is what she is comfortable with but just as long as you are not being rail-roaded for the wrong reasons. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaad Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 Congrats Dean My wife did a C-section on gynaecologist's recommendations. Was planned for Jan '06 but lack of space in the uturus forced her to give birth in Dec '05. C-sections are very common nowadays. There's no real need to go through the pain of a natural delivery. It can cause complications and still turn the delivery into a Caesarean one. Safer for the baby as well. GOODLUCK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 I was wondering about your case, since I believe that you are around 6 feet, four inches and (while not ever having seen you), probably built like a football lineman. I do know that, if I ever had any desire for more children, after this pregnancy, I'll adapt rather than put my wife through 4-5 months of extreme uncomfortableness. Pretty much spot on. But wifey was adamant about NOT cutting unless necessary. And her family are all medicos, so...take that for what it's worth. It did not "ruin" her any more than any other pregnancy/female IMHO... Even tho' both girls were "big," wifey was normally active until a couple of weeks before birth. I think it depends upon the person and the pre-natal care received, really. YMMV. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTO Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 If C sections where safer, then they'd get everyone to have one, if they where safer, why are serous medico's saying it's a dangerous trend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exileexpat Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 C sections are not safer. It is still major surgery, which they are cutting open an organ. C-sections in thailand are higher for a number of reasons. 1) The monk picked a day that was lucky and they want the baby born on that day 2) Public hospital Obs work 8 am till about 4 and then have a private clinic in the evening. If your baby is not born in office hours, c-sections it is. 3) The other usual medical problems ex non-progressive labour, size of baby etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 Studies have found that an apesiotomy does more harm than good. Do you have a link to one of those "studies" Study No need to roll eyes. I will forgive your lack of knowledge. :grin: Conclusions Evidence does not support maternal benefits traditionally ascribed to routine episiotomy. In fact' date=' outcomes with episiotomy can be considered worse since some proportion of women who would have had lesser injury instead had a surgical incision.[/i'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soongmak Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 My wife got a c-section after 26 hours of labor. The labor was a gruesome experience that still makes my blood boil every time I think of it. They should've known my wife wasn't able to deliver a child as big as ours was: 4.55 Kgs, 55cm tall. Bastards! The result was fine though. I have a great son, 10 months old now. I wish you and your wife the best of luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Conclusions Evidence does not support maternal benefits traditionally ascribed to routine episiotomy. In fact' date=' outcomes with episiotomy can be considered worse since some proportion of women who would have had lesser injury instead had a surgical incision.[/i'] The study is based on the mother.......not the baby. I could see your study and raise you 10 more but what would be the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Conclusions Evidence does not support maternal benefits traditionally ascribed to routine episiotomy. In fact' date=' outcomes with episiotomy can be considered worse since some proportion of women who would have had lesser injury instead had a surgical incision.[/i'] The study is based on the mother.......not the baby. I could see your study and raise you 10 more but what would be the point. It is because the episiotomy is for the mother and not the baby. Give me the link to your 10 studies. Put up or shutup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.