Just so you all know

major bean wrote: Having a baby by "appointment" is not for the convenience of the mother, rather it is a fad for the convenience of the doctor. So they give drugs to induce labor. The babies delivered in this manner a quite jaundiced. (Who in the world would swallow the salesjob that it is for the convenience of the mother?)

Cesarean birth was a fad for quite some time a couple of decades ago. It was promoted by the doctors to generate more revenues for the doctors.
Implanting pacemakers was another fad (and moneymaker).
Tonsil and adnoid removal was quite the fad for decades.
Full body CAT scans was the craze a couple of years ago. (Talk about cancer causes!)

Sure you heard all of the rationalizations for such fads and the true believers would pound you for being insensitive and such. But, still, it was just a fad. Life threatening fads, but still fads.

It's a convenience for both mother and doctor in many cases, but certainly not in all. I had to have an emergency C-section with my second, much to my dismay, because she was a complete breach and during an ultrasound with 3.5 weeks to go (to see if there was enough amniotic fluid to attempt a manual turn, which is not any fun but I was willing to do in order to have a vaginal birth) we discovered that there was a dangerously low amount of amniotic fluid remaining (as in barely enough for them to do an amniocentesis and test for lung function - and prescribe steroids before delivery to speed along development). I was on my lunch break and was supposed to go back to work, I had experiments running, but ended up going to the hospital and checking in instead. Was that my fault? Certainly my small frame didn't help the baby's position, but the lack of amniotic fluid no one can say one way or another what happens there.

Valid medical reasons for a c-section: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 002911.htm

Long-term complications are still being discovered. Here's one such study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9065131
Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems.
Hemminki E, Meriläinen J.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 May;174(5):1569-74.

OBJECTIVE:
Few studies on the long-term effects of cesarean sections exist. The purpose of this study was to investigate the occurrence of three long-term effects, ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, and abruptio placentae, in the subsequent pregnancy.

RESULTS:
During the follow-up time in the hospital inpatient register, fewer exposed women (those who had had c-sections previously) had a completed pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy was more common among the exposed women than among the controls (risk ratio 1.28). In the first subsequent birth abruptio placentae was more common among primiparous (at index the birth, risk ratios of 3.22 in hospital inpatient register and 2.41 in birth register) and multiparous women (4.52 in hospital inpatient register and 3.89 in birth register). Placenta previa was more common among primiparous exposed women than among control women (risk ratio 5.34 in hospital inpatient register and 3.78 in birth register).

CONCLUSIONS:
Cesarean section is a modest risk factor for ectopic pregnancy and an important risk factor for placental problems.

Jaundice is not correlated with c-sections per se, but with pre-term babies who's liver hasn't adequately developed and they are delivered too early (often to make sure that the mother doesn't go into labor before the scheduled date).

C-sections weren't just a "fad" a couple of decades ago - their rate is still steadily increasing. Thankfully, it's still not as high in the US as it is in Venezuela (32% here national average vs 90% rate in private clinics and 33% rate in public hospitals in Venezuela).
Venezuela: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/vene ... h-cesarean
USA: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db35.htm
And it can be attributed to many factors, like poor media coverage, doctor's influencing or outright telling their patients to do it, insurance companies encouraging it (while it costs more, they have this false notion that it's "safer" because of the illusion of control over the procedure), and hospitals b/c they get paid more for surgical procedures, and mothers who want to avoid the scary unknown of potentially painful childbirth or who don't think about the benefits to the baby to continue the pregnancy, only the convenience of having their lives "planned and controlled" (and yes, I know mothers who have done this merely for the sake of their own convenience).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21266421
Portrayal of caesarean section in Brazilian women's magazines: 20 year review.
Torloni MR, Daher S, Betrán AP, Widmer M, Montilla P, Souza JP, Merialdi M.
BMJ. 2011 Jan 25;342:d276. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d276.

OBJECTIVE:
To assess the quality and comprehensiveness of the information on caesarean section provided in Brazilian women's magazines.

RESULTS:
The main cited sources of information were health professionals (78% (n=92) of the articles). 71% (n=84) of the articles reported at least one benefit of caesarean section, and 82% (n=97) reported at least one short term maternal risk of caesarean section. The benefits most often attributed to delivery by caesarean section were reduction of pain and convenience for family or health professionals. The most frequently reported short term maternal risks of caesarean section were increased time to recover and that it is a less natural way of giving birth. Only one third of the articles mentioned any long term maternal risks or perinatal complications associated with caesarean section. Fear of pain was the main reported reason why women would prefer to deliver by caesarean section.

CONCLUSIONS:
Most of the articles published in Brazilian women's magazines do not use optimal sources of information. The portrayal of caesarean section is mostly balanced, not explicitly in favour of one or another route of delivery, but incomplete and may be leading women to underestimate the maternal/perinatal risks associated with this route of delivery.

major bean wrote: I would highly suspect that you caused the problem which required the C-section. Ergo; inducement of labor. And the subsequent C-sections were absolutely necessary because the initial C-section destroyed the intergity of the womb so that natural birth was out of the question.

Again, unless you know what the circumstances were of SG's pregnancy, you cannot make this judgement. Subsequent c-sections are NOT absolutely necessary as they do them in a way that allows for VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesearean, as SG already mentioned). The womb is not compromised if they perform a transverse incision. http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/vaginal ... c-overview

This is in-your-face brutally honest, but mostly all pertinent: an informed consent form that would be good make mothers sign before agreeing to an unnecessary c-section (it might lower rates of ones scheduled for convenience sake of mothers or doctors). http://www.vbac.com/

major bean wrote: Did you know that a person has a limit of Xray exposure per lifetime that should not be exeeded? Medical personnel apparently do not know this. They order Xrays like candy without regard to the cummulative effects of Xray and cancer. It is a medical fad. The patient is the one who must beware and protect himself/herself and children. Chest Xray anyone?

Medical personnel do know this - the problem is that there is no comprehensive electronic medical database for patients to accurately track their total exposure. When someone gets a broken leg, they go to a different doctor than when they have chest pains, knee problems, or even the dentist. So it falls to the individual to track what dose they've had from each procedure over the years, and to limit exposure as much as possible - very few people are that detailed oriented, or good at keeping their own records organized to keep track of such information. So when the chest x-ray technician orders one up for you, they have no idea of your history and what other ones you;ve had because they have no access to all previous records. It's one of the things about our healthcare system that urgently needs to be addressed. Yes, it behoves the patient to be their own advocate and keep their own records, absolutely, but most people don't think of these things, especially in an emergency situation.

Too, tests like MRIs, x-rays, CAT scans, PETs, etc are encouraged by insurance, and fostered by doctors because it's easy and clear-cut - they do a test, they prescribe a drug and shove you out the door. BUT, it's a lazy way to improve someone's health. It entails relatively no follow-up office visits, or more involved counseling of patients to do more beneficial, but long-term lifestyle changes that require self-discipline (like permanently modifying diet and exercise habits).

major bean wrote: Each person should be an expert concerning their health. Relying upon doctors is just plain foolish.

ABSOLUTELY each person should become an expert on their health and traditional and alternative methods to keep themselves healthy, but I absolutely DISAGREE that relying upon doctors is foolish.

TPP - totally cool experience! I asked my hubby if he wanted to do that and he turned a little green! Even if he had wanted to, when I went into labor with our first, he wasn't in any shape to help (a little hungover from a birthday party we'd attended the night before - he ended up getting oxygen rather than me when we checked into the delivery suite!!). rofllol