California members - Help, please

[YinYangMom]

I just spoke with my mother-in-law in Los Angeles who mentioned to me that my sister-in-law in San Francisco was to give birth to her 2nd child on Sept X…a specific date. I asked how she knew she’d have the baby then and the response was:

She’s scheduled to have a C-section because it’s the law.
Since her first born was delivered via C-section because she wasn’t dialating, all future births have to be delivered the same way.

She then told me my other sister-in-law has decided NOT to have any more children because of the law. Her first born was delivered by C-section because the umbilical tube was around the baby’s neck. She does not want any more c-sections so she’s opting not to have any more babies.

IS THIS FOR REAL?!

If it is, then I’m wondering what the moral/Catholic implications would be. It seems ludicrous to me that a woman would be forced to undergo such a procedure.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I live in southern California, and I have never heard of such a thing.

I do know that, once a woman has a C-section, most doctors want her to deliver that way for all subsequent babies.

However, it being a law in California is news to me. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about what the doctor wants and what the law is.

 

[im_wildrose]

I’m not sure about California specifically but I am aware of laws in some states that require repeat c/s, especially in hospitals where they do not have a 24/7 surgical staff who can do emergency c/s at any time of day or night. Now, when I say “law” it’s not a state law but rather a law of medicine – something demanded by the medical licensing board. In other words, if a doctor does not follow their rules, he can loose his medical license.

All that said, my personal opinion is that this is not only terrible but completely ridiculous. The rates of uterine rupture from VBACs (vaginal birth after c/s) are very low and even lower are the chances of something serious happening to mom or baby. In most cases of uterine rupture, birth can proceed as normal and it simply requires mom to have a few stitches. I have some personal experience on this because my second birth was an emergency c/s that required a large and higher risk scar. I was originally told (while recuperating in my hospital bed no less) that I would no longer be permitted to labor and birth vaginally. When I unexpectedly became pregnant 6 mos later I did my homework, dug in my heels, educated myself throughly and demanded an attempt at labor. As it turned out, my 3rd child was born after 1.5 hrs of labor, 20 min after arriving at the hospital. Anyway, I’ve gone on to have 2 more children, both natural and vaginal, with no problems. I realize that bad things do occasionally happen but that is the case with any birth. I think the doctors have buckled under the pressure of malpractise insurance companies and sue-happy people who are unable to accept the fact that things go wrong sometimes and it’s not always the doctor’s (or anyone’s) fault. But I’m going off on a tangent and getting venty so I’ll stop now.

God bless, Jen

 

[YinYangMom]

I’m thinking it’s got to be more of an insurance ‘rule’ or as you suggested, a medical practice…but I’d like to find concrete evidence of that so I can send it to my sister-in-laws.

My mother-in-law delivered 9 healthy babies, 7 natural and 2 c-sectioned, and not in that order, so she and I both know the future c-sections aren’t medically necessary.

If anyone finds any internet links please share them here.

Thank you.

 

[CarrieMG]

My best friend just delivered her 5th child three weeks ago. ALL 5 of her children have been c-sectioned. Her doctor says she should never go into labor, but that she has no adhesions and nothing to prevent her from having more children which she hopes God has planned for her.

My cousin had two c-sections and then three vaginal deliveries.

My sister-in-law had two c-sections and then two vaginal deliveries.
Prayer and discernment of God’s will should be what directs our having children - not laws. It’s getting too close to the laws of China for me when we start allowing lawmakers to control in this fashion. If this is a law in California it needs to be overturned.

 

[Katie1723]

Years ago it was “once a section, always a section” Times changed and then it became optional and VBACS were offered. Now it seems that the trend is reversing itself and VBACS are not as popular. And sadly I fear physicians are leery of being sued, so many of their section patients are opting for that…a repeat section.
Obviously there are cases where sections are warranted, but barring medical reasons, they are not always mandatory. And I am not so sure it is a “law” . Please check with you OB doctor.
~ Kathy ~

 

[GloriaPatri4]

My first child was delivered by C-section after four hours of labor due to the baby’s slowing heart rate and small pelvis. With my second child I was given the choice whether or not to have a repeat C-section or deliver vaginally. The OB recommended that I had a C-section due to the size of the baby. With my third child the OB induced labor two and a half weeks early so that the baby would not get too big and I could have a better chance at delivering vaginally which I did after 12 hours of labor.

The only time that I’ve heard of Doctors insisting on a repeat C-section is when the original C-section was a vertical incision (usually emergency and quickest way to retrieve the baby) thus the old incision would be more likely to rupture.