To have C-section or not to have a C-section - that is the question??

Recently I spoke with a women who was not very far along in her Pregnancy. We discussed several issues such as how long she had been trying, what she was giving up, her "planned pregnancy" her worries and other concerns. Then she threw me for a loop by saying that she was planning on having a C-section rather than vaginal delivery because she didn't want to go through the pains of childbirth.

I wasn't even sure that was an option. Is elective C-section so planned that one may decide to have a C-section for non medical reasons? A very interesting concept and can be a great argument starter at family parties. My personal jury is still out deciding on a verdict but what do you think?

Background

Giving birth by Cesarean section or also called Caesarean section and C-section can be a difficult choice. For many it becomes a life saving measure during an emergency while giving birth. It is another option other than vaginal delivery

The raise in number of C-sections is astounding. Consider that in 1970 only 6 percent of all births were by C-section. Back in 2005 that number had increased 5 times to over 30% of pregnancies.

C-section is a abdominal surgery then through the uterus to allow for the birth of a child. It is often considered riskier than vaginal birth but both procedures cause a risk for mortality of both the baby and the mother.

The following are several reasons to have a C-section planned:

1.) A previous C-section - although not must - having a previous C-section does not prohibit you from ever having a vaginal delivery again

2.) Your baby is breech [Bottom first]

3.) Your baby is transverse [sideways]

4.) More than one baby - C-section may be an option

5.) You have a conditon known as Placenta previa

6.) Mother having HIV and a high viral load [HIV isn't passed through the placenta but can be transferred
during vaginal delivery

7.) Complication to baby that otherwise would worsen with vaginal delivery

8.) A very large baby

9.) Others

Unplanned C-sections

1.) Difficulty during birth

2.) Distress of baby during birth

3.) Umbilical cord concerns

4.) Placenta abruption [placenta unattaches from uterine wall - loss of oxygen to baby]

5.) Others
*** - remember that over 90% of preterm deliveries are done by C-section http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/22684_30185.asp




Elective C-section

- Some doctors endorse c-sections for medical reasons

- Some OBGYN clinics in Italy have a 80-90% C-section rate to prevent lawsuits

- In Brazil - hospitals are allowing 80% of births to be done by C-section

- Increase number of C-sections are being done for non medical reasons

My recent conversation isn't unheard of and is increasing in value for many women. Some women report watching family members with difficult deliveries and others want an uncomplicated delivery. A reported increase in the number of women waiting to become pregnant until later in their lives may also be a factor. This is just one of many areas that women and physicians alike have drawn lines and have begun to debate the idea of non medical elective C-sections.

Originally seen at Interactive Health

Obama's updated health care reform - where are we going??

Where is health care going??

A deadline of August for a Congressional decision to discuss the future of our health care appears to be in place. But increasing amounts of pressure has been placed on Congress and it is unknown what will be in the forecast.

Cost may be at the forefront. It has been estimated that "Covering 50 million uninsured Americans could cost as much as $1.5 trillion over a decade." citation from "Obama team plans more active role on health"

Obama is attempting to allow Congress to progress at its own pace - which is slower than his initial anticipation and expectation.

Some beginning legislation is attempting to force employers to cover their employees or face a strict penalty. This would allow for coverage for every working employee. However, it is less known to what extent this would be applied.

Another option is an insurance plan that would be government sponsored. This would allow the public to choose between their current work provided health care or a government sponsored insurance plan. Those against this are private insurers who argue that they would be pushed aside and would soon be forced to shut their doors.



Obama stated in a radio and Internet address : "This issue, health care reform, is not a luxury. It's not something that I want to do because of campaign promises or politics. This is a necessity. This is something that has to be done."

Another recent issue that congress is muling over currently is to ask some 164 million Americans who are currently covered by their employers to "give up at least part of the longstanding tax exemption granted to such compensation.

Some believe that this will primarily affect the wealthy who receive the largest tax break due to exclusion of their income.

A similar idea was passed around during the Regan administration back in 1984

What does this actually mean? Currently we are not taxed on our insurance. Or in other words, our yearly income is not higher because our insurance does not play into our income. We therefore receive a "tax break". This may lead to a coverage provided by employees that leads to higher deductibles or co-pays and/or a overall coverage that is less extensive and complete.

Recently Republicans from the Finance Committee gave a warning to President Obama and they insisted that he was making a mistake by supporting a government sponsored insurance plan directed at the middle class. Their concerns are that the government would begin to control the insurance market and that other private companies would be pushed out. Many Democrats remain mixed with many who support the idea but remain cautious with the finer details.



Reformation ideas are ever changing with the current need for a health care reform.
It will be interesting to watch as political dust is thrown in the air and watch where it lands and who is affected.


Check out the following stories:

Health insurance ‘haves’ to pay for ‘have-nots’?

"Obama team plans more active role on health"

Originally seen at http://www.iahealth.net/blog