Uneccesary C-section immoral?

[THP]

39 wks is not full term. The signs of labor are triggered after the lungs have maturely developed.

Without any evidence of a problem, there is more of a risk to undergo c-section. You would have put Mary AND Jesus in 3 times greater risk.

I am not going to get into a medical debate on the internet (as I mentioned I am an obstetrician and deliver babies for a living) but I assure you, a scheduled C/S at 39 weeks is the safest way for a baby to be delivered. Of course, if the number of c/s a mother has gets into the 4+ range then that changes. I agree that a primary c/s is higher risk for the mom than a vaginal delivery.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

No, I dont have a source for my logic. I was trying to bounce this off of you guys. I think that an epidural is spiritually unhealthy, but not nearly as an unnecessary c-section. I do think it is turning from an important suffering.



I can appreciate that too. But I never expressed this belief until after my wife expressed her desire to give an all natural birth. I am not judgmental or forcefull about my opinion. And please dont assume I would not practice what im preaching. I plan to be there with my wife participating in as much support as I can.

As far as an epidural being “spiritually unhealthy”, let’s take a look at some modern childbirth practices, shall we?

Until the latter part of the 19th century, women were attended to in childbirth by other women who were experienced in helping them through the process. They were free to move about in labor and get themselves into a position of most comfort when it came time to deliver. Sure, they went without an epidural, but because they could work with nature, instead of against it, the pain was likely more tolerable than it is for most women today. Why? Well, for the past 100+ years in North America, childbirth has taken a turn which necessitates a woman being stuck in bed, hooked up to monitors, and unable to move about or get into a position optimal for delivery of a baby; instead she is stuck on her back because it’s more convenient for the physician, especially for internal monitoring and performing the most common surgical procedure done on women- the episiotomy. When that happens, she’s unable to deal with the pain in a way that generations of women before her did- by working with the pain to birth the baby. Therefore, it’s become almost necessary for a women to have some kind of anesthesia for childbirth, simply because it has now became a medical procedure including inductions (which bring on stronger and more painful contractions than those without artificial enhancement), episiotomies, constant monitoring, routine IV’s, C-section, etc), instead of a natural act in which God intended. Childbirth in the hospital today can save lives, which is awesome, but the level of medical care that is involved equals that of an appendectomy. Which of course, no one, male or female, would be expected to endure without anesthesia. I’ve had 3 C-sections, all with regional anesthesia. I cannot imagine God would think I was sinning or going against “natural law” because I was numb before being cut open from side to side to remove my children from the womb. I don’t think it’s against natural law or “spiritually unhealthy” to have pain relief when one gives birth in the hospital setting, either. That’s my take on it.

 

[Allegra]

No, I dont have a source for my logic. I was trying to bounce this off of you guys. I think that an epidural is spiritually unhealthy, but not nearly as an unnecessary c-section. I do think it is turning from an important suffering.



I can appreciate that too. But I never expressed this belief until after my wife expressed her desire to give an all natural birth. I am not judgmental or forcefull about my opinion. And please dont assume I would not practice what im preaching. I plan to be there with my wife participating in as much support as I can.

Ha! Talk to us after you see what happens to your wife. I hope she doesn’t tear through without being on the epidural. I can’t even begin to fathom the logic of a person who can’t give birth himself declaring it to be “spiritually unhealthy” for a woman who has carried a child inside her body for nine months, enduring constant body aches, nausea, heartburn, constipation, contractions, occasional urinary incontinence, inability to sleep, inability to eat or drink the things she likes, to use an epidural for the pain associated with pushing said child through her vagina, a process which can take well over 24 hours and can result in excruciating damage to her private parts and anus. To me, the notion that you aren’t doing your job as a mother unless you are really suffering is spiritually unhealthy.

 

[PrincessRenae]

I am Catholic. I don’t have children.

My opinion is that c sections are often necessary, and that they are a perfectly safe way to have a baby. Pain and suffering doesn’t make you a better mother. I think a lot of people are willing to jump on the “we do too many c sections” bandwagon without a lot of understanding as to why they are done. Natural does not imply that it is better.

Why would an “unnecessary” c section be immoral from a Catholic standpoint? Catholics accept modern medicine.

 

[Book_Worm]

No, I dont have a source for my logic. I was trying to bounce this off of you guys. I think that an epidural is spiritually unhealthy, but not nearly as an unnecessary c-section. I do think it is turning from an important suffering.

But that’s the most important part of religion, having a reason for your beliefs. Just saying “it doesn’t seem right” is, to me, a lazy lack of rationale and one that cannot be discussed or refuted.

I invite you to tell a woman in her fifteenth hour of labor that having an epidural is turning from important suffering.

I was somewhat flip in expressing this in my previous post, but I do think it is pretty offensive for a man, who will never undergo the painful invasion of his body and privacy in childbirth, to pontificate about the merits of stoically accepting unnecessary pain. It is exactly this kind of thinking that fuels the feminist movement–that men have the right to decide for woman what they can and cannot do with their bodies. (PLEASE NOTE: By this I do not mean that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body when it would take another human life. I am in no way saying abortion is a right or morally acceptable.)

I can appreciate that too. But I never expressed this belief until after my wife expressed her desire to give an all natural birth. I am not judgmental or forcefull about my opinion. And please dont assume I would not practice what im preaching. I plan to be there with my wife participating in as much support as I can.

If you think wiping your wife’s brow and feeding her ice chips while she labors to give birth is practicing what you preach or In any way comparable, I don’t think you have a really good grasp of what labor is like. I’ve seen people I love in pain; I can see nothing good or ennobling about it and would have done anything to alleviate it.

 

[shelby_sun]

My mother was told that she should never deliver a baby over 6 1/2 lbs. Her 4 child was 8.8 lbs and did a great deal of damage not to mention emotional pain. I was told basically the same thing. My first child was 9.10 lbs. and I simply would have died if I did not have a C-section. My other two child were also delivered the same way and I have thanked God many a day that I had them that way. It was quick and easy with very little pain. Not once have I ever missed the experience of delivery a baby the natural way. NEVER!!!

 

[thewanderer]

I am Catholic. I don’t have children.

My opinion is that c sections are often necessary, and that they are a perfectly safe way to have a baby. Pain and suffering doesn’t make you a better mother. I think a lot of people are willing to jump on the “we do too many c sections” bandwagon without a lot of understanding as to why they are done. Natural does not imply that it is better.

Why would an “unnecessary” c section be immoral from a Catholic standpoint? Catholics accept modern medicine.

If its truly unnecessary, for example, a low risk pregnancy, no health concerns, labor has started normally and progressing well at term with no indications of any kind of trouble for either mom or baby, then yes it would be sinful to unnecessarily put mom and future babies at a higher risk of health problems. Performing an action which will give no benefit and will increase the risk of damaging people is clearly wrong. Having said that, there are often good reasons for c-sections that are dismissed by some as “unnecessary”. So you have to find the balance. The best way to find this balance is through a health professional that you trust.

 

[thewanderer]

No, I dont have a source for my logic. I was trying to bounce this off of you guys. I think that an epidural is spiritually unhealthy, but not nearly as an unnecessary c-section. I do think it is turning from an important suffering.



I can appreciate that too. But I never expressed this belief until after my wife expressed her desire to give an all natural birth. I am not judgmental or forcefull about my opinion. And please dont assume I would not practice what im preaching. I plan to be there with my wife participating in as much support as I can.

Well, I will say this, using modern medicine to aid in childbirth is no more spiritually unhealthy than using modern advances in technology for farming or working in an office or in any position that does not require physical labor (remember the mans half? The sweat of his brow?) You can’t take one half of the story as being literally binding but presume the other half is not. Catholics are not Mennonites.

 

[ela2]

No, I dont have a source for my logic. I was trying to bounce this off of you guys. I think that an epidural is spiritually unhealthy, but not nearly as an unnecessary c-section. I do think it is turning from an important suffering.



I can appreciate that too. But I never expressed this belief until after my wife expressed her desire to give an all natural birth. I am not judgmental or forcefull about my opinion.

Well bravo for your wife for wanting an all natural birth but there’s nothing wrong if another woman does not want to go through the suffering…low pain tolerance, fear, etc. (non vain reasons)

Also there is a difference in desiring an all natural birth and what one actually does end up doing. I would not be so proud and start posting everywhere that you guys are doing an all natural birth, I’d instead pray for that all natural birth and keeping the compassion for those women who don’t want to go through this suffering, again non vain reasons, hence zero judgemental thoughts about anyone else.

From one who desired an all natural birth but a whole different drama took place in the labor room.

I sincerely hope for a safe and healthy delivery for your wife! God bless you both.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

No, I dont have a source for my logic. I was trying to bounce this off of you guys. I think that an epidural is spiritually unhealthy, but not nearly as an unnecessary c-section. I do think it is turning from an important suffering.



I can appreciate that too. But I never expressed this belief until after my wife expressed her desire to give an all natural birth. I am not judgmental or forcefull about my opinion. And please dont assume I would not practice what im preaching. I plan to be there with my wife participating in as much support as I can.

The meds used in most inductions and augmentions of labor (primarily Pitocin and Cytotec) cause contractions that are far more intense (and painful) than those that occur naturally. Couple that with a laboring mom stuck in bed with monitors (absolutely routine and necessary when using meds to induce or augment labor) and you take away her ability to move about and get into the positions most conducive to naturally accelerating labor and for pushing the baby out. When that happens, she’s unable to deal with the pain in a way that generations of women before her did- by working with the intensity to birth the baby. That physical position of labor and birth is pretty much standard in most North American hospitals whether or not the mom is given laboring inducing or augmenting meds, although more facilities are becoming open to water labor/births and patients delivering in positions of comfort instead of simply ease for the practitioner. However giving birth in the hospital setting these days is still no less a medical procedure than an appendectomy and no one would consider anesthesia for that as being “spiritually unhealthy”, would they?

 

[PolarGuy]

Father of a child born via C-section, where both my wife & daughter would have died without one, reporting in.

It is theologically unsound to assert that “the measure of surgically cutting out a baby from the womb rejects a fundamental aspect of birth.”

Huh? That is not Church teaching. OP is finding sin, or potential sin, where none exists.

BTW: A C-section for vanity? So, I guess a woman will love having that huge scar, huh?

In the USA, VBACS are not medically recommended in hospitals because of the damage to the uterus usually experienced in C-Sections. VBACs are inherently risky.

 

[rcwitness]

Father of a child born via C-section, where both my wife & daughter would have died without one, reporting in.

OK, this obviously seems like a necessary C-section. Can you share with us at what point the decision was made to perform surgery and for what reasons?

It is theologically unsound to assert that “the measure of surgically cutting out a baby from the womb rejects a fundamental aspect of birth.”

You are intentionally leaving out the most important part of my question. UNNECESARY

Huh? That is not Church teaching. OP is finding sin, or potential sin, where none exists.

Did you not read the Original Post? I never claimed there is a Church Teaching, yet I have actually heard a priest criticize the practice in a homily. His homily was much more “sound” than you twisting my question.

BTW: A C-section for vanity? So, I guess a woman will love having that huge scar, huh?

I am living in a culture which pushes c-sections on women. They use scare tacticts and horror stories. They put fear into women that their husbands will not want to have sex with them again after seeing a baby come out. Or their vagina will be permanently damaged. They also flat out lie about reasons. They CANNOT offer real facts in order to get what they want, because the fact is is that it is a higher risk to perform surgery on a healthy person. THIS IS SOUND REASONING.

In the USA, VBACS are not medically recommended in hospitals because of the damage to the uterus usually experienced in C-Sections. VBACs are inherently risky.

This is NOT a necessary reason. Some doctors tell women this while others admit it is not necessary. Yes, there is more risk involved, but its debatable whether that risk outweighs the risk of surgery. If anything, it supports the position of avoiding an unnecessary c-section the first time around. You said it, “…damage to the uterus usually experienced in c-sections.”

 

[KatieM2]

Ceasarians can save lives.

Not all ceasarians are due to vanity reasons.

Can you tell me where in the teachings of the Church is the use of pain killers in childbirth prohibited and is sin?

I fully agree with C-sections when the alternative is the death of the baby.

The verse in Genesis already quoted surely indicates that dulling or removing the pain of childbearing (not just childbirth - I’d include period pains, vulvodynia, endometriosis) is immoral, as it is God’s plan that these things are painful for us.

 

[Hobbes42]

I fully agree with C-sections when the alternative is the death of the baby.

The verse in Genesis already quoted surely indicates that dulling or removing the pain of childbearing (not just childbirth - I’d include period pains, vulvodynia, endometriosis) is immoral, as it is God’s plan that these things are painful for us.

So, you surely also mean that medical advances cannot be used to save lives right? Since death is one of the results of the Fall?

Also, in order to continue that consistency you’d also need to be opposed to any and all technological advances which make earning man’s daily bread any easier?

 

[PolarGuy]

RCwitness, there is really no reasoning with you, in part because you seem to have decided that some C-sections are unnecessary in advance.

But it’s not really for you to say, isn’t it? Isn’t it up to the doctors? And isn’t “necessity” something that may change minute-to-minute (or even second-to-second) in childbirth, i.e., the cord wrapped around the baby’s neck?

Let’s be clear: After any C-section, no natural birth is recommended here in the US. To me, that alone would make further C-sections basically a necessity.

I am aware that in Brazil surgeries are pushed for many reasons. But I must say: I personally consider it extremely foolish – along the lines of “refusing a blood transfusion or other medically-necessary procedure because God will provide” – to try “a VBAC at home with a hospital ready in the event of an emergency.”

 

[thewanderer]

So, you surely also mean that medical advances cannot be used to save lives right? Since death is one of the results of the Fall?

Also, in order to continue that consistency you’d also need to be opposed to any and all technological advances which make earning man’s daily bread any easier?

Yes, as well as condemn any job that does not involve physical labor for men.

 

[LightBound]

I fully agree with C-sections when the alternative is the death of the baby.

The verse in Genesis already quoted surely indicates that dulling or removing the pain of childbearing (not just childbirth - I’d include period pains, vulvodynia, endometriosis) is immoral, as it is God’s plan that these things are painful for us.

9/10 for trolling effort.

 

[thewanderer]

RCwitness, there is really no reasoning with you, in part because you seem to have decided that some C-sections are unnecessary in advance.

But it’s not really for you to say, isn’t it? Isn’t it up to the doctors? And isn’t “necessity” something that may change minute-to-minute (or even second-to-second) in childbirth, i.e., the cord wrapped around the baby’s neck?

Let’s be clear: After any C-section, no natural birth is recommended here in the US. To me, that alone would make further C-sections basically a necessity.

I am aware that in Brazil surgeries are pushed for many reasons. But I must say: I personally consider it extremely foolish – along the lines of “refusing a blood transfusion or other medically-necessary procedure because God will provide” – to try “a VBAC at home with a hospital ready in the event of an emergency.”

The medical opinion in the US about vbacs is divided. With some professionals. Completely against them and others for them in the right circumstances (is in a safe hospital setting where there will be no delay in the case of an emergency). However, you arw correct that no medical professional in the states would recommend a home vbac as it is inherently very risky.

Op, I’m sure you don’t want this thread to turn into a discussion about home vbacs, but, before you completely de idea on that course please please do objective research into the risks of a home vbac. Unnecessarily increasing the risk of the health and lives of others is wrong whether it iz through c-section or home birth. And, just so you know, I am all for vbacs, especially if you want to have more than 2 or 3 kids. Just please make sure you are actually aware of all of the risks of a home vbac before you decide to definitively have one.

 

[Allegra]

Let’s be clear: After any C-section, no natural birth is recommended here in the US. To me, that alone would make further C-sections basically a necessity.

I agree with you overall, but that is not the case any more. There are many doctors who are okay with a vaginal birth after a C-section, depending on the circumstances. I was very surprised to hear this as I had always thought that one c-section required all additional births to be c-sections as well, but apparently it depends on whether the cuts were horizontal or vertical and other aspects of the original surgery.

 

[Xantippe]

I am curious if people think unnecessarily driving medical cost up is immoral?

The cost of a vaginal birth without complications is anywhere from 2-10x less than a c-section depending on where the birth occurred (birth center, home, hospital). Any time an elective (i.e. medically unnecessary) c-section is performed it is done at the expense of other’s in the insurance pool for either the parents’ or doctor’s convenience. I would tend to say it is more on the doctor’s side since most women don’t just volunteer to have major abdominal surgery. That being said I do know a couple men that have pushed for their wives to have c-sections so they ‘weren’t “ruined” down there’.

Eh, I’ve hung around a blog with a lot of OBs and labor and delivery nurses and midwives (including a bunch from overseas), and apparently the “cheapness” of vaginal delivery is way oversold, once one adds in the possible negatives of vaginal delivery–damage to the baby who may acquire lifelong disabilities, permanent damage to the mother (fistula, severe tearing, incontinence, sexual dysfunction), etc.

“About 4 percent of women who deliver vaginally end up with a more serious tear in their perineum that extends to or through the rectum. This kind of tear can cause considerable pain for many months and increases your risk of anal incontinence.
These severe tears are called third- or fourth-degree lacerations. A third-degree laceration is a tear in the vaginal tissue, perineal skin, and perineal muscles that extends into the anal sphincter (the muscle that surrounds your anus). A fourth-degree tear goes through the anal sphincter and the tissue underneath it.”

babycenter.com/0_perineal-tears_1451354.bc

Owwww!

For more information that will make you wince, try googling “childbirth fistula.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetric_fistula

There genuinely is an issue with regard to c-sections putting a cap on the number of pregnancies that a woman can safely carry. There are occasional CAF posts on the subject, from mothers who have had 4-6 c-sections and are being told no more pregnancies by their doctors as the uterine wall eventually reaches a point where it’s paper thin.

I’d say that having a medically non-indicated c-section is definitely something to avoid for a devout early 20-something Catholic woman with lots of childbearing years ahead of her, but if a woman were in her later 30s and just having a first child, where’s the harm?