Posts Tagged ‘
Vaginal Birth ’
Thursday, August 7th, 2014
Some moms-to-be like Laura Nelson picked Hudson Hospital in Hudson, Wisconsin, because of its VBAC (vaginal birth after C-section) friendly policy. But now, just weeks before she’s due, Nelson is looking for a new hospital (and new ob-gyn) to assist in her attempt to have a VBAC, because the hospital has banned this option after August 31st.
In a written statement to local news station WCCO, the hospital stated, “We support VBACs as an option for women, but at this time we cannot provide this service due to human resource constraints.” And it seems, according to two ob-gyns we heard from, that recommendations from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) requiring anesthesiologists and ob-gyns to remain in hospital for the entirety of a VBAC patient’s labor could be to blame for this.
“Most hospitals across the country will not offer VBACs to their patients if there is not 24 hour obstetric and/or anesthesia personal available to perform an emergency C-section or surgery,” says ob-gyn Michele Hakakha. “Budget cuts and poor funding are main reasons for hospitals not having 24-hour in-house care. Other reasons may be lack of specialized caregivers, or too few caregivers to warrant many days of in-house call per week.”
And unfortunately, money may be at play. “OBs who do VBACs and anesthesiologists with a VBAC in labor know that they are required to be ‘in house’ for however long it takes the patient to deliver—and they are NOT able to bill for their time in doing this,” says Marra Francis, ob-gyn and author of The Mommy MD Guide to Pregnancy and Birth. “Hospitals can choose to reimburse physicians for the time they are at the hospital providing care or they can decline to reimburse them. But if all three entities (hospital, OB, Anesthesiology) can not come to an agreement on how providing VBACs will be done in order to provide the safest care that meets ACOG’s regulations, the hospital will not allow VBACs because of the liability they assume.”
This comes at a time when many experts are concerned about the growing number of C-sections, despite the fact that VBACs have a 75 percent success rate—and moms who give birth vaginally have a much shorter recovery time than those who have a C-section.
In a statement, Hudson Hospital said its working with the affected patients to help them find somewhere else to try their VBAC. But let’s hope the policy changes soon as well, so moms-to-be have more options.
Tell us: Did you have a VBAC? Was it difficult to find an ob-gyn or hospital who would accommodate you?
Keep up with the very latest in pregnancy news by signing up for our Daily Kick newsletter, or liking Everything Pregnancy on Facebook.
Image: Mother and Newborn by ChameleonsEye/Shutterstock.com
Add a Comment
C-section, Cesarean Section, delivery, hudson hospital, Laura Nelson, Marra Francis, michele Hakakha, OBGYN, Vaginal Birth, vbac, vbac ban | Categories:
Everything Pregnancy, Healthy Pregnancy, Must Read, Pregnancy News
Wednesday, July 30th, 2014
That’s the scary implication behind one hospital’s attempt to keep a mom-to-be from trying a vaginal birth after previous C-sections (VBAC). Mom-to-be Jennifer Goodall received a letter from the hospital where she planned to give birth, Bayfront Health Port Charlotte in Florida, stating that “because she decided to have a trial of labor before agreeing to cesarean surgery, her prenatal care providers intended to report her to the Department of Children and Family Services, seek a court order to perform surgery, and to perform cesarean surgery on her ‘with or without [her] consent’ if she came to the hospital,” according to a press release from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
Goodall tried to fight it in court, but was unsuccessful—the judge said that she had no “right to compel a physician or medical facility to perform a medical procedure in the manner she wishes against their best medical judgment.” (And that’s despite the fact that Goodall herself said she wasn’t adverse to having another C-section—but just wanted the chance to try laboring.) In the end, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy last weekend, at a different hospital where they were willing to allow her to labor—and had a C-section.
But this wasn’t the first time that a woman reported being bullied into a C-section. We reported about a woman who was suing a New York-area hospital for forcing her to have a C-section against her will.
VBACS aren’t right for everyone. But at a time when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is expressing concern over the startling numbers of C-sections (one in three babies is born via C-section now), why are so many hospitals still pushing for surgery? And why are they using scare tactics like reporting parents to Child Services for questioning the hospital protocol?
Image: Rissy Story/Shutterstock.com
Add a Comment
american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, birth, C-section, Cesarean Section, cesarean surgery, child services, childbirth, Healthy Pregnancy, Labor, pregnancy, Vaginal Birth, vbac | Categories:
Everything Pregnancy, Healthy Pregnancy
Friday, October 4th, 2013
It’s become sort of a given that if you’re expecting twins then of course you’ll have a Cesarean Section, right? Not so fast, says a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The assumption is that a C-section is the safest way to deliver two babies, especially since many second-born twins end up in a breech position, but the mere fact that you’re carrying twins doesn’t automatically rule out vaginal birth. As long as things are progressing normally with your pregnancy, it’s still a viable option.
That said, the rate of C-sections for single births is at around 31 percent, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, while the C-section rate for twin births has jumped to 75 percent as of 2008 (the latest numbers available), and is thought to be even higher now.
While some women like the idea of having a planned c-section—you know exactly when you’ll give birth and can therefore plan for it; there’s not all of the agony involved in pushing; and your lady parts are just as you left them—it is still surgery and with all surgery there can be complications (like infections, blood clots and adhesions). So with all things equal, in a normal, healthy pregnancy with no complications, vaginal births are still safer, and there’s no reason to think that you cannot have one—even with twins.
This is great news for women who had wanted to give birth vaginally, but didn’t think they could because they had two babies onboard. I think childbirth is scary for a first-time mom anyway, but once you tell her that she has no choice in the matter, and has to give birth a certain way, it just ups the fear factor. Now women expecting twins can feel like they’re still in control of their bodies and their decision, and choose which method is truly best for them.
TELL US: Are you psyched to hear it’s possible to give birth to twins vaginally, or would you prefer to have a planned C-section instead?
Image of the twins is courtesy of Shutterstock.
Add a Comment