Did anyone read the People story about Christina Aguilera?

crysobrn · Feb 28, 2008

Funny thing is, I have heard that J.Lo's twins were born 15 minutes apart, which implies strongly that she DID NOT have a c-section.
Now, if she (or anyone else) had needed one, that's another story.
:) :)

I read the same thing and thought the same thing as well.

Elvish, BSN, DNP, RN, NP · Feb 28, 2008

Funny thing is, I have heard that J.Lo's twins were born 15 minutes apart, which implies strongly that she DID NOT have a c-section.

We've had 3 sets of vag twins in the last couple weeks, which I am SO SO glad to see.

allnurses Guide · Feb 28, 2008

The thing about trying to time gestation . . .is that it is not an exact science and 37 weeks could easily be earlier and riskier.

I too read about Jennifer Lopez and thought it sounded like lady partsl deliveries but you never know. . . .

steph

jhhrn68 · Mar 1, 2008

It is never better for a woman to have a c-section just for the hell of it. It is not better for her and it is not better for the baby. What happened to women giving birth the way nature intended? Birth is a wondrous thing and should be appreciated. Women - all women - need to be educated on this. Surgery is surgery and should be avoided whenever possible.

chubbyann · Apr 14, 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

oh my, this is what happened to me:no:...my OB said my pelvis is not big enough to accomodate my baby so instead of giving birth the natural way I had a C-section. i did not experience having labor pains...yes she did told me about trial labor but all about the bad side...of course i ended up paying more fee in the hospital as well as a higher professional fee for the doctor but still thankful enough that i never had any complications neither my baby ....

Elvish, BSN, DNP, RN, NP · Apr 14, 2008

I too read about Jennifer Lopez and thought it sounded like lady partsl deliveries but you never know. . . .

Think I read later that she had a section as well. What the delay in delivery was didn't get mentioned. Not really any of my business, I guess, but being in the field I do get curious.

rph3664 · Apr 14, 2008

oh my, this is what happened to me:no:...my OB said my pelvis is not big enough to accomodate my baby so instead of giving birth the natural way I had a C-section. i did not experience having labor pains...yes she did told me about trial labor but all about the bad side...of course i ended up paying more fee in the hospital as well as a higher professional fee for the doctor but still thankful enough that i never had any complications neither my baby ....

I've known a lot of women who experienced this. Like I, and a lot of other people, have said, the issue is not c-sections but UNNECESSARY c-sections.

One of my co-workers has 2 kids. The first child's birth was not difficult but it was an extremely long labor. The second was a scheduled c-section because the baby was breech (an OB nurse with 30 years' experience convinced me that this calls for an automatic section) and she has said several times, "Why would any woman choose to have a baby this way?" She brought him in when he was 3 weeks old, and she was still having to take pain meds, although just OTC ones. When her other son was 3 weeks old, she was completely healed.

And in Christina Aguilera's case, it was done at 37 weeks and it doesn't sound like she had any complications. That's scary.

Elvish, BSN, DNP, RN, NP · Apr 14, 2008

See, I just don't get the breech = automatic section connection. Now, maybe in the hospital with newer OBs many of whom don't know how to safely deliver breech kids lady partslly. But many many many babies have been born breech and I just don't get why there is this big push (no pun intended) to section every breech. Unless it's the above reason (which I still don't agree with) OR there is some medical circumstance inhibiting mom's ability to labor & birth lady partslly. Oh, and the flat on the back thing....that needs to go too, in all births but esp breeches.

crysobrn · Apr 14, 2008

Think I read later that she had a section as well. What the delay in delivery was didn't get mentioned. Not really any of my business, I guess, but being in the field I do get curious.

I was curious as well and then later I heard the times were only ONE minute apart, so not sure where the original numbers came from.

crysobrn · Apr 14, 2008

See, I just don't get the breech = automatic section connection. Now, maybe in the hospital with newer OBs many of whom don't know how to safely deliver breech kids lady partslly. But many many many babies have been born breech and I just don't get why there is this big push (no pun intended) to section every breech. Unless it's the above reason (which I still don't agree with) OR there is some medical circumstance inhibiting mom's ability to labor & birth lady partslly. Oh, and the flat on the back thing....that needs to go too, in all births but esp breeches.

One of our OB's will automatically section for breech babies and the other depending on the OB hx of the mother. Once when the second was covering for the first we had a mom come in that was supposed to be a section based on breech position, well the second doc was comfortable with the delivery and she was covering so we did it lady partslly... Doc #1 was not happy cause it was not his idea, but it went fine, good outcome, actually a very easy delivery in the end. So, I think that it should be done on a case by case basis but at least it is a REASON, as opposed to Christina and her 37 week delivery by choise for NO reason.

rph3664 · Apr 14, 2008

See, I just don't get the breech = automatic section connection. Now, maybe in the hospital with newer OBs many of whom don't know how to safely deliver breech kids lady partslly. But many many many babies have been born breech and I just don't get why there is this big push (no pun intended) to section every breech. Unless it's the above reason (which I still don't agree with) OR there is some medical circumstance inhibiting mom's ability to labor & birth lady partslly. Oh, and the flat on the back thing....that needs to go too, in all births but esp breeches.

This nurse had seen too many breech babies who died or were severely injured when it didn't have to happen.

Elvish, BSN, DNP, RN, NP · Apr 14, 2008

This nurse had seen too many breech babies who died or were severely injured when it didn't have to happen.

You know, I guess I'm seeing the other side of it - I see way too many otherwise healthy babies who have to spend time in NICU on O2 because they have too much junk in their lungs from not being pushed out lady partslly.

Bad things can and do happen in any sort of delivery - I think the key is having a birth attendant that knows what they are doing.