The right to decide how to give birth....

After reading the above linked Washington Post article I was truly disgusted. The true reason why Vaginal Birth after Caesarean (VBAC) is not being allowed by some medical practices and hospitals has nothing to do with malpractice increases or safety issues. The risk of death to the mother is 2 to 4 times greater by C-Section than by a vaginal delivery.

Oh, yes the supposed feared "Uterine Rupture", (not to be mistaken with a Uterine Rapture) there is a 1% risk of that happening in a VBAC. In the 1% of cases there is a rupture death is very rare, much lower than the risk of a C-Section.

So why are these doctors and hospitals forcing women to following this stupid "Once a Caesarean Always a Caesaren" motto? Because it's easier for them. The mostly male OBYGN's who don't have to closely monitor the woman in labor and can schedule the delivery around their schedule. Given the actual statistics? Anyone who buys the theory that it is because of increased malpractice rates from a VBAC has done no research. It amazed me that the Washington Post did such a sloppy job on this article.

Why does this bother me so much? I've lived this. I was in labor with my son for 72 hours with pains 3 minutes apart. Then he started to go into stress so an emergency C-Section was done to save his life. (1982) I have no problem with that. When I got pregnant with Emily the OBYGN told me - the once a C-section always a C-section mantra. I could not find a doctor that did not feel this way (This was in 1985) so I scheduled my C-section feeling frustrated but my only other option was to have my baby at home with a midwife and I wasn't that daring at that time period. Next Megan (1987) a new OBYGN who told me it might be possible for me to try to have a "normal" delivery. Everything looked great and then at the very end Megan turned breech. The doctor would not allow a VBAC breech delivery and the medical standards did not allow him to try to attempt to turn her due to the supposed increase chance of Uterine rupture. So another C-Section. Then Erin (1989) same OBYGN, who said there was still a chance I could deliver "normally". Right at the very end Erin turned breech. I thought okay here we go again. However the standards for attempting to turn a baby called an external version had changed a bit. So he opted to try to turn her (it sounds painful but it wasn't). Erin turned, I had my "normal" delivery. It was awesome. The nursing staff thought I was crazy because after she was born I remarked it was fun. It was fun compared to the extra bs you have to go thru with a C-Section. It was a big deal at Toledo hopsital when she was born, people would walk by my hospital room and you would hear them say "She had a VBAC after three sections"; "Yes, this is the VBAC". I lost the twins next, both of them were born vaginally. Then in 1995 and Aubrey, again breech (Yes, this has reinforced my belief that my daughters are stubborn) Same doctor, same scenario he tried to turn Aubrey with the external version and she would not budge. So I ended up with my last and final C-Section.

Since 1995 things should be better not worse for mothers who have gone thru a C-Section. As my history demonstrates there are times when it is necessary. However, there are times when it is not. It should be my choice and given the less chance of risks along with the much preferred recovery time after a Vaginal Birth it is pure economics and the preference of these doctors and hospitals not mother's safety or even their babies safety. Not to mention a mother who has a C-Section will have a longer hospital stay which makes the hospitals more money.

Once a Cesarean always a Cesarean may make financial sense for those looking for a larger profit but it should not take away the right of a woman to decide how she wants her own child to be born.