CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Lifestyle › Health › Dealing with an episiotomy: What to expect?

Dealing with an episiotomy: What to expect?

Started by Justin Fox · · 👁 13 views · 111 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Justin Foxrustymoose54Jose Miller3Anthony Rodriguez58Nicole JamesBetty Bennett10Casey Palmer5Christian Sanchez44Grace Jackson11Susan Martin24Rebecca Myers38coastaldriver4placidfox55Christian Lee13Frank Alvarez8driftingstag8Kate Garcia2Gerald Kern77jadesailor14Brandon Murphy7shadowfalcon33Sophia Martinez65bluebadger24Megan Reed …
Justin Fox Justin Fox Active MemberOP
110 messages
joined Jan 2006
#41 ·
Susan Martin24 said:I honestly think you’ve got some serious psychological issues to work through. If your girlfriend wants a child—which is perfectly normal—she'll likely have the sense to choose a stable, well-adjusted father for them.
May God help you... though honestly, a good psychiatrist might be a better bet.

Susan Martin24 is personally insulting me now, which is completely off-topic. It’s pretty obvious she can't actually beat me with a solid argument, so she’s resorted to attacking my character instead. Go ahead, keep coming at Fiumanka if you want—it just proves you don't have a leg to stand on. 😵

Take a look at the recent threads. It’s becoming a pattern: the veteran doctors are still out here running full epidemiological studies, while the younger specialists won't touch them. Why? Because the old guard is stuck in their ways, clinging to outdated methods instead of evolving. Honestly, how can they even justify making clinical decisions when they aren't getting any buy-in from the patient? Today's patients are more informed than those old-school practitioners give them credit for. They know what's going on.

Regarding her question about the Jehovah's Witness patient: if he refuses a transfusion, there's no surgery. It’s his right to decline treatment; a doctor isn't allowed to just force an operation on someone. You have to make sure he understands that he will die without the procedure—though, honestly, can anyone be 100% certain of that outcome? If he says no, you cannot perform the surgery against his will, provided he is legally competent. Are surgeons all-powerful? Not even close. Can anyone actually guarantee a 100% success rate? Of course not. You simply cannot operate against a person's wishes. Doctors aren't the masters of life and death.

That’s exactly why it works this way. People aren't perfect, and because of that imperfection, we have to be the masters of our own lives. We should have the final say over our own bodies. A doctor is a specialist, sure—an advisor, a guide—but they aren't God, and they certainly shouldn't be acting like a drill sergeant. A medical opinion shouldn't carry more weight than a person's own wishes. Take a Jehovah's Witness, for example. If they sit down, sign a legal document, and swear they don't want a blood transfusion, then that's the law. If they get into an accident and end up in a coma, you can't just override them. You respect their choice, even if it leads to death. In an emergency where there's no paperwork, then yeah, the doctor does what they think is best to save a life. But you can't force your will on a conscious patient. It's just not right.

Surgeons shouldn't be allowed to just stone people, but that idiot who thinks he’s God—deciding what to do with a patient against their express will—really belongs behind bars. It's basic autonomy. History shows us how dangerous that ego can get. Take Mengele, for instance. He was a doctor, and back then, the local laws and the surrounding environment gave him a free pass to run his horrific experiments on people. But does that make what he did right? Not even close. No amount of legal permission changes the fact that some actions are just plain evil.

History is full of medical treatments that were once standard practice before being tossed aside as complete failures. Given that track record, how can anyone justify forcing today's "correct" methods on people? It’s a dangerous precedent. Besides, the doctors always seem to walk away from their mistakes without ever facing any consequences.

Regarding Susan Martin24’s story about that woman who worked right up until her due date and then jumped back into the office just days after giving birth—look, it’s her choice. It’s her right. But that doesn't mean women who want to take more time off are somehow "gaming the system" or being lazy. That’s a total reach. The whole "returning in a few days" thing is just extreme. I mean, where is the connection to the baby? What about actually recovering from childbirth? Who is even watching the infant after forty-eight hours? It feels like she’s chasing a paycheck or a promotion at the expense of her own health and her child's well-being. Honestly, it's her life, but the whole situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I truly wish our laws allowed for much longer maternity leave.

Bottom line: I want my doctor to provide advice, guidance, and execution—but only on the things that I have personally signed off on.
So, let me be clear: it isn't exactly "lie down on the table and let me do whatever I want." 👎
"The diagnosis is this... here are our options... my advice to you is... do we have an agreement? Don't worry, I've been through this before. Now, just lie back and relax; I'm going to get started on exactly what we discussed." 👍

A little bit of time goes a long way when it comes to how a patient actually feels. Does Susan Martin24 honestly think people are just mindless cattle, or does she view them as conscious beings with their own fears and emotions? I wonder if she even realizes who is footing the bill for her salary—it's the very same people she refuses to actually consult about what they want from their treatment. Even regarding things like routine episiotomies, the medical consensus is clear: it isn't necessary as a standard practice. There should absolutely be room to respect a patient's wishes there.
Justin Fox Justin Fox Active MemberOP
110 messages
joined Jan 2006
#42 ·
To prevent anyone from claiming that giving birth in America is an impossible feat, here are two links featuring positive experiences where women noted the staff treated them well:
http://www.mama-mami.com/content/view/267/178/
http://www.mama-mami.com/content/view/268/178/

Also, here is a link to a device that’s supposed to help with perineal training—essentially to prevent tearing so you can avoid an episiotomy:
http://www.avoidepisiotomy.com/epi_n..._training.html

For those planning to give birth outside of the States: I’m no expert, but I suspect if women work right up until the end of their pregnancy, the babies might be smaller. If someone takes maternity leave early just to stay off their feet, the baby's size might increase, which could lead Doctors to suggest a C-section because of the weight. Physically, that's usually tougher than a natural birth, though mentally, it might actually be easier.
Frank Alvarez8 Frank Alvarez8 Member
43 messages
joined Jun 2005
#43 ·
Justin Fox said:For those planning to have babies outside the US: I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect if women work right up until the end of their pregnancy, the newborns might be larger. If someone takes maternity leave early to rest during pregnancy and then goes into labor, the baby's size might be such that doctors suggest a C-section due to the weight. Physically, it’s probably harder than a natural birth, but mentally, it might feel easier.


I'm due to give birth in about a month, and I've been doing a ton of research on my options. My take? Routine epidurals are a hard NO for me, but if there's a medical reason for one, I definitely want to be kept in the loop.

Regarding the baby's size and how long a woman works—my mom worked right up until just a few days before she gave birth and had a son weighing 4,250g. Meanwhile, I've been on maternity leave since my 6th month, and my little guy has stayed at a perfectly normal weight so far (and I assume he'll stay that way).
And choosing a C-section as a primary way to deliver sounds terrifying! Of course, when it's medically necessary, that's a different story. But the idea that a woman would choose it just to feel "mentally easier"? Maybe before the actual labor starts, thinking you won't feel the pain of delivery itself, but... cutting through the abdomen, cutting through the uterus... why opt for a major surgical procedure that isn't harmless when nature already provided a way for a natural birth? Plus, nowadays you actually have choices, whether it's an epidural, water birth, or using a birthing stool...
Justin Fox Justin Fox Active MemberOP
110 messages
joined Jan 2006
#44 ·
Here’s a link regarding perineal support—it basically involves using your fingers to support the tissue so the baby's head doesn't cause a tear:
http://www.moondragon.org/pregnancy/...homebirth.html

Or, to put it more concisely, they call it "perineal support, a type of counter pressure to the stretching from the baby's head, to help prevent a tear" over at http://www.birthingnaturally.net/bir...ions/push.html

As for the main topic:
"Studies have found that episiotomy is not an effective way to prevent a tear, and may increase the likelihood of a deeper tear. On average an episiotomy takes 3 months to heal."

Do you have any recommendations regarding birth methods, how to communicate with Doctors, or choosing a facility?
driftingstag8 driftingstag8 Active Member
61 messages
joined Jan 2009
#45 ·
I gave birth 8 days ago—specifically on Monday the 19th—over at the hospital in Washington, D.C.
And yeah, I ended up getting an incision just like I did with my first baby.
Honestly, I don’t know how much we can actually trust any specific medical consensus here (it feels like some of the moms in my circle are way too militant about their views, and frankly, I don't always see eye to eye with them), but I can definitely speak to my own experience. My first baby was nearly five pounds over the limit, which meant more stitches and a recovery that dragged on for about three weeks. This time, the baby is almost 4 kg, there were fewer stitches, and I can already tell I’ll be sitting normally and getting back to my routine without a hitch. I didn't have issues with the old scars, so I’m hoping this won't be an issue either. For the first one, I had an epidural, but this time it was natural because I didn't even show up to the hospital until contractions were hitting me every five minutes, so the whole thing wrapped up in about an hour.🙏 The stitching part itself was 🙂 🙂, but the doctor really went all out to make sure everything looked perfect.😁
The woman in my room had a massive tear during delivery and her situation was honestly a total disaster; she couldn't even sit up or turn onto her side without help. I felt so bad for her. Her baby wasn't even that big. There was also another woman who didn't need any stitches at all (it seems like at the hospital in D.C., they don't just cut everyone by default, but rather decide based on how things look, though personally, I'd much rather have an incision than deal with what that poor woman went through), and since it was her second child, she was able to sit up just fine, and I have to say, I’m pretty jealous.
So, my take is that you shouldn't just cut every woman for no reason, but then again, tearing is so easy to happen and that is definitely not something you want.
A friend of mine tore during birth, and now, ten years later, she still deals with pain and tightness whenever the weather changes because the scarring is so uneven.
But hey, you know how it goes, you have to make your own choices.
That said, it is absolutely inexcusable that the hospital bought that cheap thread a couple of months ago, causing basically every other postpartum mom to end up needing the stitches pulled out.
Also, regarding the idea of working up to three days before birth and then heading back to the office after only three weeks—in my opinion, that is just terrifying, both for the baby and the mother. From a purely medical standpoint, postpartum recovery lasts about 45 days while the uterus returns to normal, so anything less than that is overkill. On top of that, leaving a three-week-old baby without their mother (especially if she's breastfeeding) is just senseless, obviously excluding those extreme cases where someone literally has to work just to survive.
There isn't a job in the world worth leaving a newborn behind for; they need their mother's milk, her voice, and her embrace to grow up properly.
Justin Fox Justin Fox Active MemberOP
110 messages
joined Jan 2006
#46 ·
To whole thing about leaving the baby behind doesn't feel existential to me. It sounds more like a question of priority, like: "My career comes first, I'm making this sacrifice, blah blah." Honestly, that attitude rubs me the wrong way, but hey, if that's someone's preference, far be it from me to judge.

What does postpartum period mean here? Are you talking about the recovery time after giving birth?

Thanks for sharing such an interesting experience. Like you said, every single body is different. For some people, everything just goes smoothly and naturally, while others end up dealing with some nasty complications regardless of how careful they are. I find it interesting that the incision didn't cause you long-term issues—it seems like in most cases, a cut just heals up and leaves nothing behind but a scar.

Why was the stitching painful for you? Didn't they give you local anesthesia?

I'm glad everything went well for you. Congratulations! 🙂
Susan Martin24 Susan Martin24 Active Member
79 messages
joined Apr 2006
#47 ·
Regarding my friend who worked right up until a week before she gave birth and then jumped back into work just three weeks after the baby arrived—this isn't about being greedy for a paycheck or trying to prove how tough she is at the office.
The girl is specializing in surgery in Baltimore, and her environment was basically a "love it or leave it" situation. Have you guys ever watched ER on TV? You notice how even the pregnant doctors there are working hard with huge bumps? In that world, the bosses feel like the job has to get done, period, and your baby is considered your own private business. Personally, I don't think that's right, but that's just the reality of it.
To give you some specifics, my friend's mom flew in from back home to watch the baby for a few months, so during her lunch breaks, my friend would head home (thankfully she lives super close to the hospital) to pump.
It wasn't always different here, either—my mom, for instance, was actually in court arguing a case about four weeks before she went into labor, and she didn't head back to work until three months after the baby was born.
I know this is getting a little off-topic, so sorry about that, but honestly, any SANE (and I really mean sane, let's be real) pregnant woman—whether she’s working a desk job, teaching in a school, or even a doctor—shouldn't feel the need to go on medical leave the second that pregnancy test comes back positive. Yet, so many women do—it doesn't matter if nothing is wrong; their OBGYN will happily hand them a high-risk pregnancy diagnosis just because they asked (because, hey, you can't say no to your doctor), and the woman stays home perfectly healthy and fine.
Is it even worth mentioning (especially since so many ladies here have been through it) that this kind of "idling" is actually more harmful than helpful?
Frank Alvarez8 Frank Alvarez8 Member
43 messages
joined Jun 2005
#48 ·
Susan Martin24 said:Regarding my friend who worked right up until a week before giving birth and was back at her desk just three weeks later—it wasn't about being money-hungry or trying to prove herself to management.
The girl is specializing in surgery in Baltimore, and it was basically a "love it or leave it" situation. Have you guys watched ER on TV? You’ve probably noticed how even the pregnant doctors there are working hard right up until they pop. Simply put, bosses expect the job to get done, and they view your baby as your private business. Personally, I don't think that's right, but that's the reality of the world.
To be specific, my friend's mother flew in from the States to watch the baby for a few months, which allowed my friend to head home during her lunch break (luckily she lives near the hospital) to nurse.
It wasn't much different back in the day either—my mom, for instance, was busy dealing with a court case about four weeks before she gave birth, and she returned to work three months after the baby arrived.
I know this is getting a bit off-topic, so my apologies, but honestly, any HEALTHY (and I emphasize healthy here) pregnant woman—whether she works in an office, teaches in a school, or is a doctor—shouldn't necessarily go on leave the second that pregnancy test comes back positive. Yet, many do. It doesn't matter if there's no issue; their OBGYN will happily hand them a high-risk diagnosis (mostly because you can't say no to them), and the woman stays home, perfectly fine and healthy.
And is it even worth mentioning (especially since many women here have given birth) that this kind of "idling" can actually be more harmful than helpful?


My mother also worked until just a couple of weeks before she gave birth (she was a nurse at a hospital), and she was back at work by the time I was three months old (same goes for my brother), but she had childcare lined up and wasn't breastfeeding.
If I had somewhere to leave my child, maybe I would head back to work sooner too (at least part-time), but daycare centers won't take babies under a year old, and leaving them with a stranger isn't an option for me.
driftingstag8 driftingstag8 Active Member
61 messages
joined Jan 2009
#49 ·
Justin Fox
The postpartum period is basically those first 40 days where doctors insist your body needs time to just... reset itself.
As for the stitches, they gave me local anesthesia so those initial ones didn't hurt a bit, but man, when she went back in with the tweezers to fix the old incision—which I specifically asked about—it was absolute agony. Still, the woman clearly knew her stuff because I’m already sitting totally fine.👍
Susan Martin24
Kudos to those pregnant female doctors you see in American TV shows, but honestly, pass. A friend of mine isn't even a doctor, just a nurse, and she ended up having an abortion because she caught rubella while working at the hospital during a really early stage of pregnancy.
Also, just because you aren't working doesn't mean you're stuck on the couch being lazy. For instance, there was a stretch where I actually had to stay off my feet (which wasn't an issue at all in my last pregnancy), but once that phase passed, I was back to being super active. Maybe that's why labor was such a breeze, since I was working out right up until the end; the day before I gave birth, my husband and I walked the entire length of the coastline from Opatija to Ičić and back.😎

Regarding going back to work early, everyone should just do what works for them. Personally, there isn't a job in the world worth leaving a tiny baby home alone for (unless we're talking about basic survival, obviously). I work as a preschool aide, not a doctor chasing some high-powered career, so I feel like everyone's choice is their own business.
I don't think we should be looking to Western examples of "career climbing" as some kind of gold standard. I work to live; I don't live to work. I don't see how becoming modern-day corporate slave—and actually thinking that's some kind of massive achievement—is doing myself any favors. But hey, it's your life and your choice.
Justin Fox Justin Fox Active MemberOP
110 messages
joined Jan 2006
#50 ·
When it comes to taking maternity leave early in a pregnancy, I honestly think it’s the smartest move a person can make. Why?
1. You dodge all that unnecessary workplace stress right when you need peace most.
2. It gives you the space to actually focus on yourself: exercising, getting your head in the right place, eating well (personally, my job is usually just a frantic dash from one meeting to the next, a quick grab at some mediocre takeout for lunch, and then dragging myself home totally drained—leaving zero energy for a workout or even cooking a decent meal).
3. You really can't predict how a pregnancy will feel. It isn't an illness, strictly speaking, but physiologically, the symptoms can feel just as debilitating. It's only humane to allow sick leave when someone genuinely feels unwell.
4. Society should support this; giving pregnant women those nine months of paid leave is socially responsible. We're talking about the continuation of our species here. Pregnancy should be eased, not made harder. Expectant mothers shouldn't have to worry about how they'll manage while dealing with a growing belly.
5. Let's be real: nobody is indispensable. For many, their own pregnancy is far more important than the office paperwork they've been grinding through for years. If someone needs to stay home, let them take the leave.

The whole topic is technically off-topic; it belongs in Law or Politics.

Regarding the stitches, I don't quite get how it could have hurt so much around the old scar—it's as if the local anesthesia didn't even touch that specific spot. A strange phenomenon. You really could have asked for extra numbing.
Susan Martin24 Susan Martin24 Active Member
79 messages
joined Apr 2006
#51 ·
Justin Fox, look, the law is pretty clear on this: maternity leave kicks in four weeks before the due date.
And let’s be real, there's no room for sentimentality here. No employer is just going to gift you eight months of psychological prep time or whatever else you need to get ready for motherhood.
Now, obviously, if we're talking about illness, a high-risk pregnancy, or a job that could actually harm the mom or the baby—like being exposed to radiation, toxins, or infections—that's a completely different conversation.
But if the woman is healthy, I honestly don't see any reason why she shouldn't be working.
Work is both a necessity and a responsibility. If someone doesn't want to work, they don't have to; my God, just quit. But personally, I don't see why I, or any of us, should be paying for a healthy pregnant woman to just sit at home all day (regardless of whether she's reading, walking, exercising, or meditating).
After the baby arrives, our laws allow for maternity leave until the child reaches their first birthday (with exceptions like twins going up to three, plus special extended childcare leave, etc.).
A lot of women head back to work early because of socioeconomic reasons—we all know pretty well how much the government actually pays out for maternity leave (it's okay for the first six months, but after that, I think it's only around $867 per month).

I know this is totally off-topic, but many women globally—though maybe less common here in the States—don't work from the time the baby is born until they start school. Personally, I think that's fine, but not at the expense of everyone else having to foot the bill through our payroll taxes because they're technically on medical leave.
If I were physically or mentally unable to work, or if I just didn't feel like it because, say, I was going through menopause—people wouldn't show me any mercy; they'd tell me to either work or quit. And really, that goes for anyone else too; let's not kid ourselves.

At the end of the day, having a kid is a personal decision and a financial one for the parents... if the father earns enough to support the family, then the mother can choose to focus on the family.
Public daycare, which is already struggling because of various thefts and the massive shadow economy that fails to fill the federal budget, just can't handle that kind of load here.
Frank Alvarez8 Frank Alvarez8 Member
43 messages
joined Jun 2005
#52 ·
Susan Martin24 said:Justin Fox, the lawmaker is being very clear: maternity leave starts four weeks before the due date.

Actually, maternity leave kicks in 45 days before the birth.

Susan Martin24 said:There’s no room for sentimentality here; no employer is going to gift you eight months of psychological prep time for motherhood.
If we're talking about illness, high-risk pregnancies, or jobs that could be dangerous for the mother or baby—like exposure to radiation, toxins, or infections—that's a different story.
But if a woman is healthy, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't work.
Work is both a necessity and an obligation. If someone doesn't want to work, they don't have to; my God, just quit. Personally, I don't see why I, or any of us, should pay a healthy pregnant woman to sit at home (regardless of whether she's reading, walking, exercising, or meditating).

And did you consider those women who earn way more than the maximum amount provided by maternity or complication benefits? Or the unemployed woman who takes maternity leave and receives payments until the child is a year old? It doesn't matter how much the benefit is; you, me, and every other employee are the ones funding her, even though she never contributed to healthcare or social security...

I agree with you that many women use pregnancy as an excuse to skip work, but plenty of employers ignore the fact that if a pregnant woman decides to work as long as possible, she isn't available 24/7. You can't expect her to handle everything exactly as she did before, especially regarding physical and, more importantly, mental strain.
Kudos to the employers who act fairly and respect her pregnancy, but they are the minority. Most just see a woman—pregnant or not—as nothing more than labor to be exploited.
Susan Martin24 Susan Martin24 Active Member
79 messages
joined Apr 2006
#53 ·
Exactly, Frank Alvarez8 hit the nail on the head—maternity leave kicks in anywhere from 28 to 45 days before the due date.

Regarding that second point about employers taking advantage of their staff—yeah, it definitely happens, and it’s honestly messed up. It’s especially bad when you look at manual labor jobs, like a retail clerk who’s expected to be hauling heavy boxes and scrubbing floors all day... but from what I’ve seen personally, most women who jump straight onto disability leave the second they see a positive pregnancy test are usually working desk jobs where they aren't physically breaking a sweat anyway.
And about that whole idea of "optimizing the workforce"... isn't that basically just how most bosses think across the board?
I promise I won't drag this topic out any longer!🙂
Kate Garcia2 Kate Garcia2 Active Member
51 messages
joined Feb 2011
#54 ·
Pregnancy isn't an illness, and it certainly shouldn't be treated as one.
However, it demands to be respected as a "different state"—an extraordinary condition, if you will. Doesn't the name itself imply that? 😉
It means you don't subject a pregnant doctor or nurse to childhood rashes during the first trimester—regardless of how much some women have pushed boundaries lately (a trend that, unfortunately, hasn't slowed down in the US)—nor do you expect a pregnant woman to be lifting heavy cargo 😠 (something I've witnessed firsthand)
As for episiotomies, it’s a grim reality, but I have to agree: most hospitals still perform them routinely even when they aren't medically necessary. Take a major hospital in Washington, D.C., for instance; they seem to do it every single time.
Some of the smaller clinics in the DC area don't.
But out here, they aren't performed as a matter of course.
driftingstag8 driftingstag8 Active Member
61 messages
joined Jan 2009
#55 ·
Justin Fox
Stitching up over an old scar hurts way more—at least that’s what the doctors tell you—because the tissue is just thicker. As for getting extra anesthesia, it’s not like they just hand it out whenever you ask; sometimes you just have to suck it up and deal. Honestly, I haven't met a single woman who didn't feel that sting, regardless of the numbing. But truthfully, it doesn't even matter. It's actually wild how the second that baby arrives, you completely forget about the pain, no matter how much it sucked; if that weren't the case, nobody would ever go for a second kid. Since my first was with an epidural, this was a totally different ballgame for me, and I can tell you, I had no idea what to expect.
All I really cared about was making sure the baby was okay (amidst all the noise and drama, that’s the only thing that's actually real), so I was basically just a bystander in my own story. You only start overthinking what you should have done, said, or demanded once everything is already over, but in the heat of the moment, none of that even crossed my mind.
And if my husband hadn't been there for the delivery🙂—even though that was the plan—it would've been a whole different story. They say at the hospital in Washington, D.C., husbands are usually allowed in, but since they haven't finished the renovations in the maternity ward, they aren't letting anyone in right now.
They talk a big game about how you can do this or that, but unfortunately, the reality on the ground is a little different.
Justin Fox Justin Fox Active MemberOP
110 messages
joined Jan 2006
#56 ·
The whole hospital situation is such a mess. You have one right, then you negotiate another, and suddenly you’re being treated like a third party who just has to suck it up. It feels like they suddenly grow vampire fangs when they realize protecting their own interests—or the interests of some VIP patient—is more important than yours.

I came across some interesting data from Switzerland: apparently, the ideal way to handle childbirth (balancing maternal recovery and infant risk) is a smooth vaginal birth followed immediately by a planned C-section, which avoids many long-term complications. In Switzerland, they actually respect a woman's wish for an elective C-section; if she asks, the hospital is obligated to provide it.

It seems like an elective C-section is actually a smart move to bypass unnecessary pain and trauma. They say it essentially trades unknown risks for known ones. Here in the States, doctors act like they hold the ultimate veto on whether a C-section happens, though I suspect if you’re persistent enough, you can get it. You just cycle through a few different Doctors until you find one with enough empathy to write *sectio caesarea* on your chart.

Of course, it’s surgery, and it costs twice as much as a standard delivery. That’s why doctors try to pull the decision away from the patient and keep it in their own hands. I think that’s wrong. A patient is a conscious human being capable of making informed choices, not just cattle to be processed. As for the cost, if the woman hadn't decided to get pregnant, there wouldn't be any delivery costs at all. The C-section should be part of that overall package covered by Medicare; it's what social solidarity is supposed to be about.

Now, everyone is going to come for me again, but for those of you attacking my view, think about this: if a woman is genuinely afraid, and if a C-section is a proven, safe method, where is your authority to deny her a procedure that protects her health? Why force her through dozens of hours of Pitocin, agony, tearing, and risks to the baby, like potential bone fractures?

Regarding maternity leave: sure, strictly speaking, people might call it an abuse of the system, but the criteria for determining if a pregnancy requires medical leave are incredibly vague. How much vomiting or pain do you really have to endure before it qualifies? To me, letting a pregnant woman take leave immediately is both sensible and humane.

If we’re really going to hunt for "abuses," let’s look elsewhere first. Let's focus on the directors of local clinics buying bizarre, useless equipment, or the mismanagement within Medicare. Let's talk about the massive spending on veteran affairs, or the corporate privatizations that gutted the American economy, or the bureaucracy that keeps this country from standing on its feet. Or better yet, let's look at our tragic legal system, where lawsuits drag on for years and certain criminals walk free because of technicalities in how the law defines anatomy. 😲 Sorry, I went on a bit of a tangent there, but those are the real issues. Just because a law is flawed doesn't mean we should support treating people inhumanely in the name of following it.
Christian Lee13 Christian Lee13 Member
39 messages
joined Mar 2005
#57 ·
Justin Fox, look, most of what you post is actually pretty solid, but I really think you need to dig a bit deeper into the risks and actual consequences of having a C-section. It’s not right to walk into a maternity ward acting like you’re just heading out for a night on the town—this isn't some casual debate over whether to get a tooth pulled with or without local anesthesia. We should be focusing on humanizing the delivery conditions in American hospitals so mothers can actually walk away with happy memories of giving birth, regardless of how much pain they went through.
Kate Garcia2 Kate Garcia2 Active Member
51 messages
joined Feb 2011
#58 ·
Justin Fox said:

It appears an elective C-section is a brilliant way to bypass pain and complications. They say it simply swaps unknown risks for familiar ones. In America, doctors act as if they have the ultimate authority to approve or deny a C-section, though I suspect with enough persistence, one can simply cycle through a few specialists until finding an empathetic one willing to sign off on it and note "C-section" in the chart.

Of course, it is surgery, and it costs twice as much as a vaginal birth. That is precisely why doctors want to move this from a patient's choice to their own clinical decision. I find this fundamentally wrong; a patient is a conscious being, not livestock, and should be able to choose their preferred path. As for the cost, if the woman hadn't decided to get pregnant, there would be no childbirth expenses at all. Therefore, the cost of a C-section is part of the overall package that allows a woman to give birth via Medicare—it is social solidarity.


For God's sake... 😲 😵

Honey, a C-section is a SURGICAL PROCEDURE, and SURGICAL PROCEDURES carry inherent RISKS OF COMPLICATIONS (for both mother and child) along with a POST-OPERATIVE RECOVERY that is neither easy nor short, often carrying the threat of late-stage complications.

Get a grip. An elective C-section isn't a vacation to Florida. 😵
Gerald Kern77 Gerald Kern77 Active Member
56 messages
joined Dec 2011
#59 ·
I’ve mostly just been lurking here, but I honestly think this has gone too far. The idea of opting for surgery just to avoid an episiotomy strikes me—no offense intended—as a rather frantic notion. I had my baby over twenty years ago; I actually sat for a college exam right before giving birth and managed to take another one just three weeks later. Despite the episiotomy—which, by the way, healed perfectly fine—I don't recall the delivery being traumatic at all, nor have I had any issues since. I trusted my doctor's assessment that it was necessary—I was quite a protected case, given the father was a physician at that same hospital. I was back on my feet that very same evening, and I simply cannot fathom having to spend weeks recovering from a C-section just to sidestep an episiotomy.😕

A C-section is serious surgery—listen to your doctors—it requires anesthesia, which carries inherent risks that anyone would be aware of. But for the woman recovering, there are so many more stressors involved—from catheters to other complications—all of which are significantly more uncomfortable than an episiotomy...

And if any expectant mothers are reading this—make your own choice. It is, after all, your own body. I once declined an epidural after asking a friend of mine—an anesthesiologist—if he had ever administered one to his own wife, who is also a doctor, and his answer was a firm no....
jadesailor14 jadesailor14 Regular
314 messages
joined May 2006
#60 ·
Justin Fox said:Pain is such a personal thing—it hits everyone differently! I remember when I had that terrible bout of food poisoning last year, and honestly, I felt like I was dying while my roommate just sat there totally fine. It really does vary from person to person.

I think you might have gotten a few things mixed up there!
I’m going to sit this one out because I really don't see the point in debating someone who clearly doesn't have a clue! It's not like you're an expert on the subject, and honestly, you've never even been through pregnancy yourself.
Honestly, I think this is one of those massive, total facepalms!
Everyone feels pain just the same, I think. It really just comes down to how much patience and common sense someone actually has for others. Some people have enough grace to stay calm instead of screaming, while others turn their own past struggles into an excuse to act out. I've definitely learned that the hard way!

Justin Fox said:I was looking at some statistics earlier (I'll drop the link once I track it down!), and it turns out that in Switzerland, the best outcomes for vaginal births—meaning zero complications like tearing, vacuum assistance, or injuries to the baby—actually happened right before a scheduled C-section! It seems those cases had the most minimal impact on both mom and baby. Such an interesting finding!

Let's goooooooo!
Wow, those statistics are seriously impressive!
Even the most old-fashioned grandma in a small town like Topeka would know that!

I'm having a little trouble following your logic there!
I'm feeling pretty good today! Just wanted to pop in and say hi to everyone. Hope you're all having an awesome week! 👎 But man, that is just absolutely awesome! 👍
I honestly don't think the smaller procedures cut it, but if you go big, it’s absolutely worth it! I had a similar experience last year and, man, what a difference. 😕

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads