Did anyone read the People story about Christina Aguilera?

Kyrshamarks, BSN, RN · Feb 17, 2008

Why is it unethical? She availed herself of a very common medical procedure and she saed herself pain and accomplished what she wanted to have done. that is unethical? then is plastic surgery to change sagging breasts unethical?

pirap · Feb 17, 2008

When the patient chooses an elective C-Section then no it's not unethical-it is a choice the patient makes-wise or not. What's unethical to me is doctor's pushing women or even HINTING AND SAYING "You know we could just schedule you a C-Section, blah blah blah, etc." I do not believe doctor's actually educate women about the risk/benefits of this procedure whole heartedly.

Another unethical situation is the approaching hour in the late afternoon and Mrs. Smith is 6 centimeters, no change in 2 hours, let's roll her to the OR for a Section-baby looks fine but he wants to go home. Or a doctor saying in the office that he doesn't believe the pelvis is large enough to accommodate this baby and a C-Section is scheduled instead of giving mom a trial of labor. It makes me sick-not only is it unethical for the docs to do this but it is a licensed assault on a vunerable woman who only wants a healthy baby and will listen to her doc no matter what crap he is feeding her-THATS UNETHICAL:angryfire

Dolce, RN · Feb 17, 2008

Well, I don't know if it is unethical or not, but I don't think it is in the best interest of the baby. I think we should let the baby decide when its ready to come out. How on earth does she know she would have to have an emergency C-section anyway? I think some people are very uneducated about C-section vs. vag delivery. With a C-section you have to recover from surgery plus recover from delivery. Do you not think that incision is going to hurt???

lady parts stretched out......:icon_roll

kmoonshine, RN · Feb 17, 2008

I'm not saying I agree with her reasoning, but to play devil's advocate: perhaps it was best for her to do a scheduled c-section, considering how the paparazzi are nowadays. I'm sure the paparrazi had been camped outside her home, just waiting until it was time for "baby" to come. I suppose in some ways a scheduled c-section gives her control of the time, environment, staff present, etc.

shortstuff31117 · Feb 17, 2008

:oThats too bad for her baby. 37 weeks! That's ridiculous I think.

The mean part of me wants to say she probably didnt want to get any bigger (stretch marks and all) so she figured the earlier the better.

But maybe she was just sadly misinformed like many women in this country. Now she may have to suffer the consequences.

shortstuff31117 · Feb 17, 2008

How did she save herself pain???

Noryn · Feb 17, 2008

We dont know her history, there may be a reason for having to have a C-section. She also is a very small woman, not sure if that had anything to do with it or not but she appears much larger in photos than she actually is.

Kiwimid · Feb 17, 2008

we need to educate women about their bodies more. the pelvic floor gets stretched carrying around a pregnant uterus anyway. sheesh are people stupid enough to really believe that a c section is any less painful than a lady partsl delievery????:angryfire:flmngmd:

Katnip, RN · Feb 17, 2008

I read a little blurb somewhere that many celebrities have C-sections early to help their bodies look better sooner after the birth. And if you read about the latest celebs it seems to be true, because almost all deliver "early" from 34 weeks on.

I should say they go early because their tummies aren't as large as at full term and they "snap back" easier when they are that early.

rph3664 · Feb 17, 2008

When I was in sex education in the 1970s, our teacher told us that movie stars USED to have their babies that way in the belief that a lady partsl delivery would ruin their figures. I have heard of some regions (Brazil, IIRC) where it is considered gauche for a woman to deliver lady partslly (why would that be anyone else's business?) and the philosophy is called "too posh to push."

As for trials of labor, EVERY woman I've ever heard of who had one of those had a c-section after a VERY difficult labor. I'm obviously not a nurse. I once worked with a dwarf whose doctor initially believed she could have a lady partsl birth but later changed his mind - and this 4 foot tall woman had a 9 1/2 pound baby! :eek:

No, it sounds like she asked for one and the doctor did it for the reasons stated in earlier posts.

imenid37 · Feb 17, 2008

Little Miss Brittney had an elective C/S too did she not? The I guess #2 was a repeat. It is now acceptable to perform a C/S due to the patient's vanity and anxiety and you don't even have to be a self-absorbed celebrity!. Just think, 10-12 years ago, insurance companies were forcing TOL on prior C/S patients and refusing to let them schedule a repeat. I do not agree with either position. Why should you be allowed to do surgically what you can do naturally just because you don't want to? Unlike the VBAC situation where there is a somewhat increased morbidity/mortality with the less invasive option, the elective C/S has greater health risks for mom and baby. 37 weeks is too early for an elective C/S , unless you REALLY have a medical problem, which does not include "sick of being pregnant or not wanting a stretched out lady parts." So why is healthcare so expensive??? I am not a Rikki Lake fan, but I hear her new documentary "the Business of Being Born" is awesome. I hope to see it soon. BTW, many small women are able to deliver lady partslly w/ no problems. I am now overweight, but when I truly was tiny, I had 3 SVD's...no problem. Some of our worst problems w/ delivering lady partslly are with very obese patients. Also the lady parts was made to stretch! No doubt, C/Section is a lifesaving option, but it is not always the most necessary or desireable option.:angryfire:angryfire:angryfire