C-sections tied to higher asthma risk for babies

LONDON - Babies born by Cesarean section are more likely to develop asthma than children delivered naturally, Swiss researchers said on Tuesday.

There has been conflicting evidence on the link between asthma and C-sections but the researchers said the number of children involved in their study and a long monitoring period strengthened their results.

The findings also underscore the potential risks of elective C-sections as more women in Western countries choose to avoid a natural birth, the researchers said in the medical journal, Thorax.

"The increased rate of Caesarean section is partly due to maternal demand without medical reason," Caroline Roduit of Kinderspital Zurich medical institution and colleagues wrote.

"In this situation the mother should be informed of the risk of asthma for her child, especially when the parents have a history of allergy or asthma."

Asthma, which affects more than 300 million people worldwide, is the most common pediatric chronic illness. Symptoms include wheezing, shortness of breath, coughing and chest tightness.

Babies born by C-section are not exposed to their mother's bacteria when they pass through the birth canal -- something that helps prime the immune system and could explain the increased risk, the researchers said.

The Swiss findings are based on nearly 3,000 children whose respiratory health was monitored until age eight. By this time, about 12 percent, or 362 children, had been diagnosed with asthma for which a doctor had prescribed inhaled steroids.

About 9 percent of the children were born by C-section but these babies were nearly 80 percent more likely to develop asthma compared to those born vaginally, the researchers said.

The association was even stronger for the 9 percent of the children with two allergic parents who were already more predisposed to the respiratory condition, they wrote.

The findings follow a Norwegian study in July suggesting babies born by C-section have a moderately increased asthma risk. Other studies have found no link between C-sections and a child's long-term health, including asthma.

to read the article go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28005600/

Thought you all might like to know.
Patty

[pertykitty]

also giving babies before the age of 1 tylenol lead to asthma too i read.  seems there is a link to something no matter what you do.  i had 2 c's but not by choice, when i hear a woman say she wants one because xmas is coming up or they want the babies birthday the same as dad's i cant imagine why.  but that is a whole other ball of wax

[AnnieBrooke]

Swell.  Just what you need to hear when you had to have an emergency C-section.  

[peekawho]

This would mostly impact mothers who are choosing elective C/Sections over labor.  And those who are choosing elective induction, which has a higher incidence of associated C/Section.

No one would argue that you should compromise a baby in distress by NOT doing a C/Section simply because the child might have a slightly increased risk of asthma later in childhood.

[kennedydp5]

all mine were born via c-section...  1st one being an emergency and the other 3 were repeats but i guess those are considered elective, right?

should i be conerned?  nolan (my youngest) has had 2 colds recently, both of which he developed a croup type cough with.  my dds never did that.

when i worked in childcare i had 2 kids in the one year old class that needed asthma meds inahled before naptime.  i didn't know it could be diagnosed that young.  

my dh also has allergies, but i don't...  but there's no history of asthma in our family.

[tiredbuthappy]

i personally can't comprehend elective c-sections. i had to have a c-sec with my first, and my dr doesn't do vbac. what i don't get is that so many electives are done for selfish reasons, or reasons of convenience, but HOLY CR@P the recovery was anything but convenient! i dread the next one. when i did my hospital tour there were several ladies who were having their first and knew they were going to have a c-sec. of course they were the ones teetering around on heels and talking on their cellphones during the tour, asking questions about the hospital's spa services. grrrrrr. statistics like these wouldn't sway people like that.

of course c-secs are a wonderful gift of science and technology for those cases where there are complications. so many people i know would have lost their babies or even died if they hadn't had one. but it is no picnic. i was so jealous when my neighbor was home and driving her kids a few days after having her second. i would've still been in the hospital, trying to poop/laugh/cough/move without busting an incision.

[AndiJ78]

I also came across a study recently that showed a possible link between asthma and Tylenol use in infants. The recommendation was to only use Tylenol for a fever over 101, unless otherwise directed by a physician.

Interesting information. The c-section risk makes sense to me when you consider how tightly the baby is compressed coming out via vaginal births.

I am not quite sure about the Tylenol one but it was interesting to read.

[alikat1205]

i dont' get the "convenient c/s" either.  it is a hell recovery.  i had two, both not by choice, and one baby has asthma, one does not.

[kennedydp5]

are my repeat c-sections considered elective even though i was not offered vbac's?  my ob did not give me that option b/c they were all close together and i don't think their practice even does vbac's.

[alikat1205]

they are elective.  you may not have had a choice in choosing an elective c/s, but still they were chosen (by your dr.) and scheduled in a non-emergent situation.

[AndiJ78]

No, on the contrary, they were not considered "elective" as the practice of VBACs has been considered dangerous due to the risk of uterine rupture and is not worth the risk from a liability standpoint , especially in a case like yours where you have had several babies back-to-back. The hospital where i delivered Tristan and Clayton has banned VBACs completely.

To me an elective c-section is done out of convenience for either the doctor or patient when no significant health risk exists.

[melimeli]

I had a vag devlivery and a emergency c section.. both of my dd have mild athsma..

I had a v back with my youngest and still waiting to see if she develops athsma..  but she is with a new partner

[CYW]

peek pointed what I was going to say out.. I was induced and my son has asthma.. it's been a constant battle since daycare due to him being sick all the time...But I have been wondering whether inductions could be a leading cause to asthma as well...

[cantwait4baby]

My daughter was a c-section - Labor first - emergency C section and Yes she does have Asthma so makes some sense to me.  Although I think everything has a link to something somehow anymore.  My next baby will be born June 1st via C-section.  I could choose vaginal after C but my doctor did not recommend it due to the risk of hemmorage.  I happily agreed I loved my c-section.

[alikat1205]

if it is scheduled it is called an ERCS, regardless that it is indicated.  i will have to have an ERCS should i ever get pg again.  i don't choose it, i don't want it, but it is what it is.  

[alikat1205]

i am a uterine rupture survivor and will have to ERCS.  it is elective even if there is a reason or risk, being scheduled is called ERCS.  if you don't have a reason, than it is ERCS for convenience.  if there is a reason, risk of vbac, or whatever, it is ERCS due to risk.  it is a non emergent c/s.

[Darkestlight]

My c section was kinda planned..... My health was suffering severely and we picked a date, made sure my dds lungs were developed enough and sent me on my way, plus i cant have natural birth anyways due to surgery i had down below when i was younger. Natural birth would destroy what the doctors previous did and i would require more surgery. So I dunno what you would consider my c section...... my dd does not have asthma though.

[alikat1205]

it's an primary elective c/s indicated for cause (health, prior surgery) -- not an elective c/s done for convenience.  

[AndiJ78]

Let us all not also forget there are other reasons for infants and children developing asthma, including early introduction of solids, family history, and other environmental factors.

[tiredbuthappy]

true... i wonder how many of the moms choosing an elective c-sec for convenience choose to formula feed for convenience as well.

[CYW]

i agree there are so many things...on the news a few weeks ago they were saying that here in ontario 30-40% of children born had asthma versus the past 5 years...it's all so common....the air we now breathe is junk...

[alikat1205]

i did not choose elective c/s -- i had two emergent c/s, the last for uterine rupture.  i also did not formula feed for "convenience" but because of my UR, i had no milk..... and my baby has asthma, so while i did have c/s and did formula feed, i am part of the group.  do not lump everyone into the "convenience" category.  many women have elective c/s, but it is not for convenience, and they are grouped in this category.  

[tiredbuthappy]

i was in no way referring to you, or even anyone on this forum. that is why i specified CONVENIENCE. i didn't automatically lump everyone having an elective c-sec into 1 category. i don't know- maybe it's this area, but so many women do both for convenience. i was just commenting on how that could be influencing the statistics regarding c-sections and asthma. breastfeed reduces the risks of asthma. and if you think about the c-sec argument it makes sense, since bf'ing also boosts the immune system. again, i don't see how you thought i lumped you into the convenience category and appologize if you misunderstood me.

you seem to be dwelling on the semantics, and the discussion is going in circles. i am in the same boat- any subsequent c-sections will be scheduled for medical reasons but will not be emergency. i understand your perspective of "elective."  according to medical definition, it may be elective, but in my mind I would no way ever elect to go through that again if i had a choice between c-sec and vaginal birth.

[cantwait4baby]

Be careful with pointing fingers at the formula feeding moms and moms of c-section.  I had/did both and trust me I followed every single doctor recommendation out there and my daughter has asthma.  My daughter did not have solids until the age of One.  My C was an emergency C and my option for formula was not mine - I went into A-Fib during pregnancy and was being treated for it during and after pregnancy.  I would have been passing all medications keeping my heart at a normal rythem on to my baby if I chose to nurse her.  

So be careful what you say - nursing to me would be a convenience during the night, on the run I could go on forever...  In stead I was forced to pay top dollar for formula and carry warmers and bottles everywhere I went.  So that quote is backwards.

PS.  Are people really allowed to "choose" a C-section for convenience?  I am not an expert but I dont think they are?  And if it is due to already having a C-section it is because of the risks involved in doing a vaginal after C - research it - there are many risks to mom and baby with that method.

I personally think nursing moms/stay at home moms etc are wonderful mommies.  I give you/them all the credit in the world for being such wonderful mommies.  Guess what - I am just as wonderful!  My 19 month old is considered advanced from her neurologist so I must be doing something right.

Finger pointing does not get anyone very far, if you like to say things about other moms to make yourself feel better do it in your head not on a forum.

Good Luck during "sick"season mommies.  I was doing great until this week.  ARGH!

[tiredbuthappy]

i realize you posted while i was, but i wanted to clarify: i am not pointing fingers. i am not accusing. i was simply wondering if it is a factor in the statistics and if there's a link. statistics are a funny thing because sooo many factors play a part. as mommies it is very natural for us to wonder if we did everything right, and to apply everything we read to our situation. it is also natural for all of us to get defensive.

there are a whole slew of factors contributing to the increase in asthma- and probably many we don't know. i personally feel we can blame the increase mostly on the environment. and of course there are some people who would have gotten it if born to the ideal situation in the most pristine environment. being science and math minded, i always wonder about what else may be contributing to changes in statistics. i just added one, solitary thought to andi's chain of thoughts. please don't turn this in to a debate.

[alikat1205]

i don't elect either, but if you schedule it is elective.  i realize you didn't choose, me either, but it is still elective, and you are grouped in with those who schedule for convenience.  

[tiredbuthappy]

your story actually really affected me. for a while i thought i would try to find a doctor willing to do vbac. but, after hearing about your nightmare, and speaking to my doctor, i realized that it is not a safe option for me.

[AndiJ78]

Around and around is right.

I can clearly see where Tired was going, it is a shame others do not and are feeling threatened by her comments. She is a no-nonsense lady, if she were pointing fingers it would be an obvious point. She was speaking in hypotheticals and noting some common threads.

Same as it being more common for SAHM to nurse, which is one of the reasons I believe illnesses during the first year are lower. Not just because of nursing, but also because of the decreased likelihood of being exposed to illness during that first year. On the flip side, once those breastfed babies go out into the world more, they are probably more likely to get sick in their third and fourth years than their counterparts who had been in daycare settings all along.

No finger pointing, casual observation. At the same time, you don't often hear of mom's who nurse giving solids early. It decreases our supply which is hard enough to keep up in many instances.

I don't see any one thing contributing to asthma or allergies, but rather a combination of events or circumstances that work together.

[CYW]

my uncle's ex wife breastfed both her girls and gave birth naturally no drugs and both her first daughters have asthma.. she just had another daughter 5 months ago...(not with my uncle) but yeah...

[alikat1205]

i can't say i feel threatened.  my point is this.  just because you had a very very good reason for your scheduled c/s, does not mean you are not at risk for the complications of an elective c/s.  some women schedule for convenience.  i believe that is much rarer than you think, but you have the same risks as those women.  now, your risks of labor may be higher than electing c/s (for me, in the future, they are), but that does not mean that since you had a good reason you don't incur the risk of an elective c/s.  also, i think those very few who schedule for convenience aren't told the whole truth, that they have increased risks, so instead of looking down on them, we should feel sorry for them, and spread the word.

[have 2 kids]

I was not at all offended by Tired's comment.  I don't know why everything has to get twisted around.   I chose not to BF my 1st.    Bottles, formula, etc it really didn't seem that convenient but it was my choice.
My 2nd was an emergency c-section,  tired to BF but he had a rare allergic reaction to it.
If I had another baby I would have had another c-sec.  Dr's around here don't do V-BAC.
But I certainly wouldn't schedule one so I could pick the birthday or to make it happen at a more convenient time.   I found it exciting to wake up in the middle of the night with my water breaking.  

[AndiJ78]

I think Peek can answer how many are scheduled for convenience under the guise of being needed, it happens ALL the time.

And no, whether the section was done for a reason or done for scheduling conflicts, the risks and outcomes are no different.

People get upset at the notion of doing something that could harm their baby. Just look at how up in arms folks get over any topic on here. At the same time, I can understand why people would hate to be lumped into the same group of women who schedule having their baby like they would schedule a pedicure. It does happen way more often than you might believe, especially in the world of the rich and famous.

Shame on the doctors who will perform these truly elective c-sections.

[pertykitty]

tired the second c is much easier than the first.  the first i pushed for 3.5 hours, they tried the vac, but that kid was face up and was not coming out.  having an epi made me unable to move which maybe could have forced him to rotate but with his hr dropping a c is what happened.  with my second it was scheduled but at 34w6d little miss addison decided at 4:17am that it would be better if my water broke and i labored a bit first again lol.  the worst pain was in the shoulder from the gas.  

[peekawho]

An elective primary C/Section is one in which the choice of delivering by C/Section is made for no medical indication at all.  Trust me, it happens more and more.  

You can also have a scheduled primary C/Section for medical or fetal indications, such as macrosomia, fetal malposition, or other reasons that would make a vaginal delivery medically unsafe.  

A Repeat C/Section is one in which the mother delivered by C/S before, and either does not chose to deliver by VBAC, or does not have that option due to medical or fetal indication.
A Repeat C/Section can either be scheduled or unscheduled.    

An emergency C/Section is one in which a C/S is done that is not anticipated nor scheduled.  

[peekawho]

Just because you schedule your repeat C/Section, it does not make it "elective".  Yours is clearly indicated due to your past history.
You obviously do not have the choice as to route of delivery.  You will be "electing" the delivery date, but not the procedure.

Some people interchange the terms "elective" and "scheduled".  They are not the same.

[alikat1205]

no, peek there is always a choice.  this is a free country, no court ordered c/s (well, actually that is happening, but i digress).  you choose to follow your doctors orders and recommendations, and choose to go forward.  no one is strapping you down against your will. (yet)

[kikicoates78]

I was never given the choice, I even asked, My 1st section was emergency, no choice I was dialated to 10 pushed for 21/2 hous, my pelvic bone was too small to pass the baby. My second I went into preterm, the section at that point was not "scheduled" but my Dr. was unwilling to do a vbac due to the previou risks I had, even though the baby was much smaller due to the pre-term. It's not elective if your Dr. won't agree to do it.

[alikat1205]

even if you were not asked, there is always a choice.  there is the choice to seek out alternative medical care, to go unassisted, to show up in labor and refuse a c/s.  i am not recommending these choices, i am not telling anyone not to listen to their dr., but i am saying that when you schedule a c/s that is a choice.  

why is there any importance?  because, for the purposes of a study like this one above, it does not matter if you had a medical reason to c/s or if it was for convenience.  the study is based on the premise that there is a benefit to labor, even if it does not culminate in a vaginal birth.  here, the idea is that uterine contractions help to expel fluid from the baby's lungs, which is a benefit that babies born by elective c/s do not get.  women who are under the mistaken idea that they had no choice but to deliver by c/s believe that they are not part of this risk, since their c/s is not elective.  this is simply not true.  regardless there are risks and they are part of this risk group, and should know that.  you weigh the risks.  is the risk of having your baby by elective c/s outweighed by the risks of labor or vice versa and then you proceed to decide.



peek, i have a choice.  i have a higher risk due to my previous uterine rupture, but it is still my choice, my body, my choice.  i could decide that i wish to risk labor and all of its risks instead of ERCS.  granted, few, if any doctor would agree to attend me, but it is still my choice.  knowing that, even though a medical professional would say my only option is to ERCS, it is still my choice to agree, and to say that yes, i agree that the risk involved in ERCS, for me, is less than the risk involved in a TOL.

kiki, in this study, emergency c/s is not considered, b/c it is not the same as elective c/s.  an emergency c/s means you have had a trial of labor, and the benefit of uterine contractions for your baby, so that type of c/s is excluded from the study.

knowing that, all scheduled c/s are by definition, elective, the reasons for them are, however, different.  it is imnportant to realize that when you agree, you agree to the risks of an elective c/s.  i am in no way saying, don't agree, i am in no way saying that anyone is wrong to agree.  i am not saying that there aren't good reasons to ERCS - because of course, there are, but i am saying that you are part of the risk group known as elective c/s and you can't step out of it.

[AndiJ78]

The semantics game is pointless and proving incorrect. You have a woman who has been in the field of helping to deliver babies for over 30 years...my money is on her as will be most other members here. Not only that, she makes sense. Even another leading medical information web site defines elective cesareans as being cesareans performed without MEDICAL indication or justification, not simply as just being scheduled.

It is not elective if it means the mother or baby's life is in danger. Call it what you want, but the rest of the medical community in the United States is not likely to agree.

"There is always a choice..." HA!

Now I shall commence singing because if history is any indicator you will keep posting...

This is the post that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends. Someone started singing it not knowing what it was and they will keep on singing this forever just because this is the song that never ends...

[kennedydp5]

dude...  andi.... LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

i just started laughing out loud reading your post and i had to rad it to dh who laughed w/ me!   too fuuny!

[ziggysgrl0724]

OK, just gonna throw my 2 cents in here....
First of all, an emergency c-section doesn't always happen after a trial of labor...sometimes things go wrong in there and they get the baby out, WITHOUT labor...this doesn't always happen, but I just want to point out that it can and does, therefore it shouldn't be stated so Matter of factly.
Also, this study is aimed at telling mothers who choose c-section because of convenience that there is a risk of asthma......now does a mom who has a scheduled c-section do to previous ones have the same risk?  YES they do....but that's benefit outweighing risk, whereas a mom doing out of convenience is not so much.
I have had three c-sections....first one I labored, and it was discovered that my tailbone stuck too far into my pelvis to allow the baby to pass through safely...SO, c-section for me.  When I had my other 2, they were referred to as SCHEDULED CSECTIONS....you cant really elect to have something that your not given the choice to have.....vbac is not an option for me, so I can I ELECT a c-section?  I guess I could....if I didn't mind my baby and possible myself dying..
This isn't a debate about what makes a c section elective or not.,...it was pointing out that have a c section raises a babies risk for asthma...and informing mothers who choose to have a c section out of convenience of this risk.

[alikat1205]

you can say it is semantics, but i am going to the RISK, of the elective c/s.  because you have a true medical reason for the c/s does not take you out of the risk.

[alikat1205]

ziggy,

thank you for understanding that the point.  the risk, not the reason.  i am not telling anyone to have or not to have a c/s.  

[alikat1205]

ziggy

the risk, though is for mothers scheduling (electing) as well, that is the ONLY thing i was pointing out was that the risks (which may definitely be outweighed by the positives) still are a factor.

[ziggysgrl0724]

The article doesn't say that...ANYONE who has a c section MIGHT have that risk...they say to warn people against elective(as in they have a choice, and choose for convenience) because why take the risk if its not necessary.  For people like me, and everyone one else who has had SCHEDULED c sections...yes they risk MIGHT still be there...but is not our choice to make, the c section is medically necessary..no matter what the future risks might be to the baby.

[alikat1205]

i understand that but it doesn't distinguish between electing for medical consideration or convenience, and logically there is no difference, with the exception that a medical consideration would obviously tend to be a greater risk than the risk of the c/s, which would not be true for the sake of convenience.  that is all i am saying is that just because you believe you HAVE to have a c/s (and i'm not disagreeing with that) does NOT mean you are excused from the risk of an elective c/s.  you should know all of the attendant risks.  not saying you shouldn't still agree to a c/s.

why does this upset so many people?  i don't understand what i am saying that is so off the wall offensive?  is it because for the sake of risk i am lumping together the convenience c/s with the more medical c/s?  is it because i am saying that you have a choice even though choosing to refuse a c/s is obviously in some situations an irrational choice?  

[pertykitty]

alikat i had my first c out of necessity.  emergency, unplanned.  my second was "elective" as you say it because i didnt choose to risk death to my baby or myself.  what is making others speak up (imo) is that you cant distinguish a mom deciding that she will have her baby on such and such date for convenience and comparing it to a mom who will have a c section because her baby is breech.  its a far cry from being even close to the same.  i understand what you are saying, i understand what everyone else is saying, now we can just hope you can understand others comments as well.

[alikat1205]

i am only comparing in terms of the risk.  not the reason.  if there is a risk, in this case, for increased chance of asthma during a planned c/s it is there whether or not you have a reason beyond convenience, and i think by changing the wording, some women get the mistaken impression that their c/s does not carry thos risks.

[ziggysgrl0724]

OK, I'm gonna try this again..hopefully it makes sense.....
the article is not distinguishing it in that way...its saying that's mom who have a choice(which is the true meaning behind "elective") should be told of the risk.  It does not say there is no risk to people having scheduled c sections.....but there is no point in warning someone of a risk that they have no choice in trying to prevent....the risk no matter what is the same.....this article maybe just hopes to change the mind of moms looking for convenience by explaining to them the possible problems.  
I think perty is right....it seems like your lumping everyone together with your explanations...and maybe thats the problem...I know that the risks are the same whether the c section is wanted or not....but I didnt have  A CHOICE...your posts make it seem like I did....and like perty said, and I said earlier...the only way having a vaginal birth would be a cholice for me is if I wouldnt mind my baby and possible myself dying in the process.

[pertykitty]

im sure either way the child is at risk.  i dont think anyone contested that information.  what was said that upset some was the fact that a second c is elective.  i suppose in the grand scheme of things it is, just like i elected to keep my unborn child, some will have radiation to fight their cancer, and the extra butter i put on my 98% fat free popcorn later .   rather than keep upsetting others lets just say we all have our "opinions" and we are all free to them.  

[alikat1205]

i think even if you have no choice but to accept a c/s, you should still know all the risks of it, i think that is where we disagree.  i don't think "there is no point in warning someone of a risk:", i don't understand why you wouldn't, even though you would still proceed to c/s.  i have the same choice for a vaginal birth as you do, since i had a prior uterine rupture, but i take responsiblity for that myself, i don't say you should do the same.  i feel forced and pressured to a c/s by those circumstances, but i still take it as my choice.  that is a completely different subject.  

in this case, of course, i would choose a c/s and risk asthma rather than labor on a uterus scarred by a rupture.  however, i would like to know the risk exists.  perhaps i would watch my child a little closer.  other risks that are more serious than asthma might be uncovered and you can bet i would like to be warned of them even if would have a c/s anyway.  i don't get that logic.  

but i'll leave it alone, because apparently y'all don't want to hear it, and i get it, and that's fine!

[pertykitty]

are you saying you want the nurses and drs to tell you in the hospitol that the risk of c includes possible asthma?  i think if they were to warn you of all the possible effects from delivering vaginally or by c the paperwork might destry the rainforest alone lol.  

[alikat1205]

well, for those women "scheduling" this conversation need not occur in the hospital, there are weeks and months to have the conversation and send out the paperwork.  and as a lawyer, i could give a rat's *** about the paperwork -lol - informed consent is always the best kind :)

[pertykitty]

true they have time in the weeks or months prior to discuss this.  did any of the studies say the dr.s DONT discuss this?   as a mom i took interest in learning about childbirth and i knew that a child needed to go through the birth canal and i tried my best to be educated before i delivered.  i have been listening to you and trying to be open to all sides of this info turned debate post HOWEVER. it seems that possibly you are now in it for the 'I WIN". lol

a woman needs to be just as involved in learning about her pregnancy and delivery and not 100% dependant on a single dr to tell her everything.  i may have misread this but didnt it say that it was a study not proven and didnt it then say there were no long term proven results?  seems panties are in quite a bunch over a haunch lol

[AndiJ78]

...yes it goes on and on my friends. Someone started singing it...not..knowing....

[alikat1205]

i am not in it for the "i win"  i just think that so many things have been overlooked.  and andi, i never said don't get a c/s and your attitude ot "singing" and "i laugh" is incredibly rude.  you need not agree with me, which is no reason to be disrespectful, because i never was.  why this attitude?

[kikicoates78]

BTW neither of my children born via section have asthma, thought I would throw that in considering that was the original question.

[BabyHardiman]

Scheduled C's happen all the time.  My small town doctor told me women do it mostly so that they can schedule their family members to be in town at the same time.  It happens in this very small town, I'm sure it happens in others.

"It's my body, it's my right".  Women use this line all the time.

[ziggysgrl0724]

Oh boy...lets not open THAT can......

[AndiJ78]

what it was and they'll keep on singing it forever just because....

Your "point" has changed a few times on this. First it was that every c-section save for a crash c-section was elective, which we have seen proven otherwise both by our own resident medical professional and literature from major health web sites. So then it became the point I made which was that the risk would be the same regardless of whether it was elective or not, but that this should work to sway those from electing a section for convenience.

So again, I sing....

[alikat1205]

huh?  my point never changed.  and yes, that's the point.  so???  i dont' get the problem, or why it has hurt you so deeply.  i am sorry to have done so, that was never my intent.  

[have 2 kids]

Yes, we all get the risks are the same.  I wouldn't have a c-section just because my Dr wanted to go fishing,etc.  But I'm not about to question a decision when my babies life is in danger.    
Alikat- you make it seem like all c-sections should be questioned.   Gee, what would I decide   possibility of asthma or death???????????    Hard decision.  I don't think so.
Why do you keep continuing with this. ?

[alikat1205]

i do think that if you are agreeing to a major surgery, you should weigh all the risks and benefits before agreeing.  i don't see why that is a disagreeable thought.  i also said that asthma v. death was a clear decision.  why do you keep continuing?  i have agreed with what y'all are saying.  all i added was that women electing for medical reasons should also know the risks.  why is that so upsetting? even if you agree the benefits of the c/s outweigh the risks, what is wrong with knowing them?  what am i missing here?

[peekawho]

The point of the article is simply that babies born by C/Section may have a higher risk of asthma than babies delivered vaginally, and that women choosing C/S should be made aware of this when deciding.

Enough, already.  It was a simple article.  The productivity of this discussion is about done, I think.  

A new study comes along every week, anyway.  I don't put a lot of stock in this one just yet.  

[alikat1205]

peek,

we agree on the point.  i don't understand why it is so upsetting.

[AndiJ78]

Yes it goes on and on my friends....

[peekawho]

Ali, that's enough.  I'm not upset.  

I think we've all had enough of the discussion.  No one is saying that women shouldn't be informed of risks vs benefits.    No one.

Some women who did not choose to have a C/Section, but who had to have them by circumstance, are upset to be lumped in to the same category as women who elect to have a medically unindicated procedure.

That's who I see getting upset.  

[surprisebaby]

Can anyone sign your song Andi?  It's one of my FAVORITE'S!!!! LOL

[AndiJ78]

Sure!