Study Showing C-Sections Could Hurt Preemies Should Be Taken In Stride

on February 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM

c-section Pre-term infants who aren't growing are often taken via Cesarean section from the mother and placed in the NICU. For a long time, this was thought to be the wisest way to protect these fragile infants from internal hemorrhages and other complications. But now, as with many things about birth, that thought is changing.

A new study shows that C-sections are actually no safer than vaginal delivery for premature babies. In fact, they may be worse. Predictably, many moms are taking the study as an insult. But they shouldn't.

C-sections might actually lead to a greater risk of respiratory problems and other complications in these infants, according to a report presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. In addition, these babies not only face consequences in the short-term, they also face them in the long-term.

Babies born earlier via C-section are more likely to develop asthma later in life and other respiratory problems as well as cerebral palsy and learning disability. Then the doctor on the Today show launched into the whole "too posh to push" phenomenon and that's where she lost me.

I know the media tells us that this is a phenomenon and certainly I know there ARE unnecessary C-sections performed every day. But I think this whole "too posh to push" nonsense is made up for the most part. Sure a few women may have done it. Maybe even more than a few. But, by and large, all of us women want healthy babies and we want to follow our doctor's advice to get them.

That said, not everything that comes out about C-sections (such as studies like this) is intended as a judgement against moms who had to have C-sections. Some of the comments on the Today piece are downright oversensitive. Like this one:

I can't believe this Dr. She is always scaring the public. I have had four c-sections over the course of 21 years. Two of which were 16 months apart. My children are all tall and very healthy for their ages. My oldest was taken 6-7 weeks early, no problems. Third was about a month early. Also, they have all moved up a grade in school because of high testing grades.

The fact is, this is a study and it isn't talking about YOUR babies. It's talking about the general rule for the babies they studied. And what they found is that C-sections ARE worse for premature babies and it's in a baby's best interest to stay in the womb as long as possible. This does NOT mean:

All moms who have C-sections are bad.
All moms who have C-sections are "too posh to push."
Doctors force C-sections out of convenience.

Let's not read into it, but let's try to consider new facts and new studies without feeling sensitive about our own challenges or decisions. Maybe 10 years ago, a baby would have been delivered via C-section that now would be a vaginal birth BECAUSE of this research. Instead of taking that like a personal affront, maybe we could appreciate the forward progress.

To move forward, we all have to be willing to refrain from judgement and oversensitivity. Both are non-productive. Let's not assume that everything we read is a personal attack on us and our choices. All of us do the best with the knowledge that we have at any given moment.

Did you have a C-section? Do you find this insulting?

Image via isafmedia/Flickr

About the author Sasha Brown-Worsham

can't decide whether she is a mother, writer, or runner, but is usually all three at some point each day. She has written for dozens of print magazines, newspapers, and websites. She rarely ever writes on bathroom walls.

Filed Under: childbirth, doctor visits

Comments (8)

LittleManMama

on Feb 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM

I think there is a mixing of 2 very different issues. Babies born early due to C-sections of course face greater risks than if they were born vaginally. But sometimes those risks ate outweighed by immediate risks to the baby in utero

Report this comment

Nonmember comment from Manna

on Feb 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I had a premie at 24 weeks and he was born via c section. He does have asthma and CP. Do I believe the c section caused his medical problems? No I believe that his prematurity is the cause of the CP and we have alot of asthma in both sides of our family so its more of genetics with that.

BabyLadyG12

on Feb 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I'm not quite convinced on this--maybe premature babies taken via c-section are ALREADY in such dire straights, that they are more likely to suffer these ill effects regardless of through what opening they enter the world. I just don't see how this proposition has controlled for the possibility that having these sorts of issues contributes to the likelihood a c-section is deemed necessary.

corrinacs

on Feb 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I agree with BabyLadyG12. In my situation, I was scheduled for an early c-section because my baby wasn't growing properly near the end due to placental problems. Fortunately, he decided to come early aynway, so it wasn't a big deal. In my opinion, it was better the earlier he came because my stress level of not knowing how things were going to turn out wasn't helping either! Give us a break. All parents want is a happy, safe, and healthy delivery.

PonyChaser

on Feb 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

You're right, C-section Moms shouldn't take umbrage at a study like this. But I will absolutely take offense at that TV Doctor tying premie C-sections to the "too posh to push" trend. They are two completely different things, and it does nothing but confuse the issue. Pre-scheduled C-sections should never have been mentioned in this piece.

sheramom4

on Feb 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

If you are delivering a preemie either one, you are in labor early and the baby is coming or two, there is an issue where the baby must be delivered, usually by c-section if your cervix is not ready to dilate, so although there might be a higher risk to preemies delivered by c-section is that risk more than allowing the baby to remian in-utero? I had two c-sections. One at 33 weeks for a multitude of problems and one after 28 hours of labor that ended in a plcental abruption. So my choices were limited. I had a successful VBAC in between and attempted a second VBAC, but failing to deliver either of my daughter's via c-section would have been much more dangerous than having the c-sections. In fact, the first one would have ended in the death of my daughter and the second in both of our deaths. I have to agree with the above, I don't know any mothers who willingly schedule a c-section for a preemie...

squish

on Feb 12, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Interesting study, but I can't help but think about the fact that correlation does not always equal causation. I too wonder if the fact that prematurity is the overriding factor in the additional health problems, not the c-section itself. More studies are definitely needed, and over a long period of time.

cherrywaves21

on Feb 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I had a late term preemie 36wks 5days. I was induced to HELLP syndrome. He would have benefitted greatly from a vaginal birth. His lungs just did not want to work and they needed that extra squeeze. But since my heart stopped twice and his as well they had to do an emergency c section. So I can how a vaginal birth can be better in some cases not all.