I only advocate a C-section if its an emergency, not for other purposes like coinciding with your lifestyle, or because you dont want to endure vaginal birth.

If someone wants to do C-section they should let their baby stay for as long the baby needs to, they should not jeopardize the baby's health so they can be comfortable.

As the mother of a preemie, I cannot imagine why anyone would choose to deliver before their baby is ready!

My baby was born at 38 weeks on May 19, but decided to do the 21, because that was the probable date of birth to my mother when I was waiting for me. My son was born 9 days before my date of birth by c-section scheduled.

I'm due on the 27th of this month, and after observing other women who are due this month, I've been shocked by the number of people at 34-36 weeks trying to induce labor (naturally) or already talking about seeking a labor induction because of convinience, discomfort, being tired of being pregnant, and what not.

I'm curious what the rate of inductions are now days compared to 10 or 20 years ago. Not a much better than a scheduled c-section (and arguably worse due to the number that end up resulting in a cesarian).

Health issues aside, I don't know why anyone would jeapordize the health and wellbeing of their child for the sake of convinience. I'm personally mortified at how many women "just get tired" at about 36/37 weeks and want out, not being aware how important each day is until 39 weeks. There was a great Wall Street Journal article a couple weeks back directly addressing the significance of carrying a child to a minimum of 39 weeks. It really outlined the physical differences that just a week can make.

I understand the medical necessity of the procedures, heck, I was induced with my first. But, based upon that experience and all we learned from the induction and afterwards, hind-sight being 20/20 we wouldn't have proceeded with the induction at the time.

I dont know anyone in the last 3 years that was successfully induced. Just last night my sister was induced, and sure enough, ended in a c section.

Most doctors push for c sections/inductions becuase THEY want the conveinence of it. I just went through this personally, so I know. They push and push, scare you with things like different hospitals/different doctors should they not be available, etc.

I dont think they should induce unless there are medical reasons. My friend's amniotic fluid was drying up, and that was neccesary. I dont really mind c sections, unless they are done to early. Inductions bother me becuase they almost ALWAYS end up in c sections asfter a good 12-16 hours of distress on the baby by being forced through a half labor the body wasnt really ready for.. They might as well be honest and just tell them they wanted the C sectoions anyway.

The doctor admitted that shes given several c sections a day since the beggining of the year, and not a single vaginal birth..

I agree that mothers should not accept cesarean section just because the doctors want, there must be a reason.

I had no choice, by c-section should be because a bad position and I were going to remove a cyst.

I was very adamant that my repeat c-secctions not be scheduled at the customary 37-38 weeks. My second son ended up coming three weeks early by c-section, but I was in labor and it was more than two weeks before his scheduled section.

My daughter was scheduled on her due date.

Scheduling a delivery early without medical reason, be it vaginal or c-section, does not appeal to me.

lilsugar's characterization that women schedule their c-sections for convenience or to coincide with a special day is not backed up by any kind of factual information and ends up misleading readers.

Many of these "elective c-sections" are scheduled by doctors for various reasons: previous c-section, structural reasons, etc. If the doctor believes that a c-section is the safest way to deliver a particular baby, they most likely time the c-section to avoid the possibility of going into natural labor. Perhaps this new data will change the way that doctors schedule c-sections in these instances. But in any case, this data will be weighed against the risks of a vaginal birth to the baby and the mother in cases where c-section may be required.

And many are because the doctor just wants to, no medical reason whatsoever. It's an increasing trend. It's not limited to c-sections either. Doctors induce labor for no medical reason. Being induced on or near the due date with no other medical reason is huge, and also greatly increases the risk of c-section.

I am not saying that overdue or currently due women never have a reason to be induced. It's just that being overdue in and of itself is often the sole reason doctors induce.

Actually, if memory serves me correct (which is arguable in my 9th month of pregnancy), there are studies to back up the increasing prevelance of "elective c-sections" being used for convinience purposes (of the mother, physician, etc.). And there's absolutely reason to *schedule* a c-section (repeat cesarian delivery, etc.); however, I think the issue is the _timing_ of the scheduling.

I'm speaking from what I've been observing for the past month and half on a particular internet message board of women all due during the month of January. In this group, there's easily more than one hundred women who were/are due in the month of January. I can't even begin to tell you how many people have had *schedule* c-sections prior to their 38th week; how many woman, at 32-34 weeks started talking about how to start inducing labor; how many women at 34-36 weeks ACTUALLY started TRYING to induce labor on their own (never mind the success rates of these natural/at home induction methods or their relative safety); at 34-36 weeks how many women started talking about how they planned to talk to their doctor about scheduling an induction...I could go on.

Granted, there are a refreshing number of women out there opposing these have the baby early viewpoints. But, the frightening thing (to me at least) is the ignorance and/or disregard many women have for the development and wellbeing of their baby because their *uncomfortable* *want the tax break before the end of the year* *tired of being pregnant* etc. And the fact that some Doctors actually engage in the discussion and faciliate this. Even more frightening is the doctor that two weeks before a due date starts scheduling an induction on the due date or a day or two later and tries to push it on the patient - there are many an unsuspecting mother out there who has no idea that their dates could be 2 weeks off, etc.

There are MEDICAL reasons for induction, and their are certainly medical and physiologial considerations for scheduled c-sections. However, the automatic timing too far in advance and the scheduling for the convinience of the mom or doctor is selfish in my opinion. The baby's well being should be the first and foremost consideration - timing should be purely based upon the baby (and the related health of the mother) and nothing else. But, that's me and my bull headed opinion on this.

Sorry for the novella - this is just an issue that's been disgusting me for the past 6 weeks.

A novella but very well said.

facin8me — the link in the beginning of the post connects to other lilsugar c-section coverage including a story (based on a Time Magazine piece) about women choosing c-sections. Articles aside, I hear moms talking about scheduling their due dates for their or their doctor's convenience all the time.

Anecdotal evidence from an internet chat board does not substitute for facts.

The percentage of c-sections with no medical indication are quite low- I've read around 0.7-2.0% from various sources. The reason we think that there is a increase in maternal request c-section is because it is something the media is talking about more often which gives the impression that it is something on the rise. And when the media discusses this trend (like lilsugar does here), they place the blame on the mother. As as greggie has pointed out, it is often the doctor that is driving inductions or c-sections that have no medical necessity.

I found this article to be informative when I read it a few months ago:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/27/the-myth-elective-csection

Yes, lilsugar, but talk and reality are often two completely different things. I also know many women who talked about wanting to be induced early, but many times that was just out of frustration from being pregnant for so long and wanting it to be over with. Those who actually approached their doctor to be induced were shot down.

But like I said above, anecdotal evidence is no substitute for facts. And neither is media hype.

Who are these doctors that schedule C-sections/inductions so early? I had twins and my dr. suggested 1. A Vbac and 2. A C-section between 39 and 39 weeks. None of my friends have successfully scheduled such early births. Friends I know who've asked for early deliveries were denied by their doctors.

Also, I think moms have a right to CHOOSE. Not just to have/not have a baby but also how they want to have it. If a woman can have a homebirth with no medical equipment, than I certainly can decide to have my child surgically. It's my body, I'm paying for it, and they are my children.

The records show it differently because drs have to code it medically for most insurances to cover it. Doctors aren't going to put "needed to make golf game" on the insurance form.

Facin8me - my point/issue which is admittedly a digression from the original subject, although related, is relating to the timing of the scheduling of these procedures. Whether it be a *schedule* c-section (and I see a difference between and "scheduled" and an "elective" cesarian), an induction or what not. The timing of these procedures and when women begin requesting them and are now getting them in many cases (early more often with a cesarian vs. an induction).

C-section rates are rising at an alarming rate and it doesn't take much to realize that medical reasons can't be on the rise at the same rate.

Honestly, I dont know ANYONE who approached their doctor to be induced earlier and was shot down, they always agree. My sister has a group of several pregnant women friends due dec/jan, with differnet doctors, and they all discussed their doctors pushing them to induce early. My doctor told me she "might be on vacataion" when I go into labor, and tried to talk me into inducing at 36 weeks for several appointments before hand. Its not uncommon at all.

Also, just so I'm clear, I do not blame women for requesting early dates for either childbirth method. The number of doctors who allow it is what alarms me. I had trouble finding a doctor who would allow me to go to 40 weeks with a repeat c-section. Now I'm hanging onto mine with everything I have.

MissSushi - I was successfully induced! My daughter went overdue by about a week and the doctor indicated that there were no signs of her coming at all on her own (she wasn't dropping down, I wasn't dilating, no contractions, etc.). I scheduled the induction and it really wasn't all that bad. I wouldn't have tried to go before my due date, and my doctor didn't even bring it up until I past my due date.

My original point, was by successfull, i meant, most end in c-sections. But, i was referring more to early inductions, before hte body is showing any signs of readiness, just for doctors conveinece. Not for situations like yours, or my good friend whos amniotic fluid was drying up.

Doctors just dont turn down people who wish to be induced, and more often they suggest it before anyoen asks, whether for medical reasons or non medical like my doctor with her talk of vacations, tax refunds, etc.

My sister was induced becuase she was rapidly gaining weight and they were afraid she would have a huge baby, or so they said.. they also long before then pushed the whole, oh you wnat your OWN doctor right, etc type things. She was dilating and effacing, so my sister wasnt as worried, but sure enough she ended up with the baby in distress and a complete lack of further dilation halfway through. Ruh roh, c section time.

and to clarify, i DON'T see anything wrong with c-sections when they are needed. I will perosnally request a c-section with my second child becuase of all of my complications with the first that resulted in me nearly dying. I just agree that if you're going to do things at the conveinence of you or the doctor, either way, you shouldnt do it too early, it should be 38-40 weeks, or if you naturally go into labor.

I refused the induction with my first, and gave birth at 38 weeks when i started labor naturally and my water broke.

My favorite inductions have been my sister-in-law's. She decided at 38 weeks with her first that since they were estimating an 8 lb baby, she wasn't going to wait another two weeks for a 10 pounder. Rather than clarify that they meant 8 lbs at birth or anything else, her doctor scheduled the induction. That one went fine. Her second, she was sick of being pregnant, again at 38 weeks. He ended up with a broken collarbone because he moved up rather than down and had to be forced out. Third, she wanted her husband to be able to play a summer league baseball game. That time, she ended in a c-section.

I obviously have no problem with medically indicated inductions and c-sections, considering I've had both.

All of the people who I know who discussed early induction with their doctors were told the same thing: no. People around here are told upfront by their doctors that they won't induce without medical need because of the likelihood that the the delivery will end up as a c-section. But we could compare anecdotes all day...it's just a reflection of the different communities we are exposed to and the attitudes towards childbirth contained within them.

I guess we have lost sight of the study and what it has shown: as for women having C-sections at 37 weeks or 38 weeks, until this recent NEJM study and one before it, most people (mothers and doctors) were not fully aware of the risks because most people consider 37 weeks to be full term (early, but still term). So for people to be judgemental about women choosing a c-section during this time period is misguided. To be sure, most of the women who have "elective c-sections" are women who are having repeat c-sections due to complications during a previous labor. Technically, there is no medical need in most cases to have a c-section if a subsequent pregnancy is uncomplicated, but many doctors won't perform VBACs and the women end up having to go the surgical route. If these women know in advance that they will have to have a section, and their doctors are telling them that 37 weeks is safe, why are we judging these women so harshly?

I would not have gone for an early induction. No way. No how. I do know several people that have done their own methods at home to try and get baby out early too. Someone I know used Castor Oil and that ended badly for her. 25 hours of labor and still had a c-section. And she said it was um, messy. She just had her second and went for a successful vbac sans any at home methods.

Greggie- your sister in law sounds awesome . She's not going to let a silly inconvenience like the birth of her child rearrange her schedule! Ha. People are funny.

Yeah she's not a bright woman. Obviously her doctor isn't either.

facin8me, I still don't see anyone judging the women, harshly or otherwise. The tone of the thread is disbelief at doctors, not women.

Except my sister-in-law. But seriously, I hold her doctor to blame. She could've told my sister-in-law no or at least educated her.

You're right, Greggie. Most of the posts here are not judgemental. I am mostly responding to nevada's assertions seem to indicate she believes that pregnant women are driving the early scheduling:

"But, the frightening thing (to me at least) is the ignorance and/or disregard many women have for the development and wellbeing of their baby because their *uncomfortable* *want the tax break before the end of the year* *tired of being pregnant* etc."

Calling these women ignorant and such is judgemental. If these women are being advised by their doctors that this kind of thing is safe, that is a reflection on the poor healthcare that these women have received.

Well the fact is, many are ignorant of the facts. I don't necessarily blame them, but if they are totally uneducated on it, they are ignorant. It's up to their doctors to educate them. It's not judgmental to say a woman doesn't know the risks.

In the end yes, the doctor is the truly ignorant one who disregards the risks, which is not the woman's fault.

As I said above, "the facts" are really only now being flushed out with data. If you would have asked a doctor last year about having a baby at 37 or 38 weeks, they probably would not have had a problem with it. If the women are depending on those doctors for advice, they are ignorant of the facts as you and I know them, but they are not ignorant or reckless with the baby's welfare as implied above.

If doctors disregard the recommendations of the NEJM study and the one from Pediatrics last month, then yes, they are ignorant. The good news is that when doctors are educated about the recent findings, they stop doing inductions and c-sections before 39 weeks and you see a huge drop in NICU stays!

It may come across as judgemental, but you're applying it as a blanket statement to *all* women. I'm referencing what I've personally observed for the past 6 weeks or so on a particular message board, where there have been extensive discussions relating to the benefits of a child *cooking* until at least 39 weeks, where there's been enough premies born of to the women on the board, and heartache from the mothers having to leave their babies at the hospital in NICU. Then you see, women who are so ENVIOUS of those who've already had their babies and are saying their tired, uncomfortable, sick of being pregnant, etc. and even though they _know_ it's better for the baby to gestate longer, they're willing to start doing things (like taking Castor oil) to bring on labor at 36 or 37 weeks and are approaching their doctors about trying to get an early induction scheduled.

To that end, yes, I may be a bit judgmental in this situation.

I don't judge woman who don't know better. I believe the doctors are responsible for helping to educate their patients, and we're contantly learning more and new information is becoming available. Shoot, so much is different this pregnancy for myself than four years ago with my first.

While I don't agree with the practice, I can see why some doctors push for the scheduled c-section. Anyone who has followed around an OB for a few days quickly sees how tiring the job is, how sleep-deprived they often are (how often they are sued for things completely beyond their control), and why they might choose scheduling a c-section at 8am when they are well-rested rather than delivering someone at 3am after hours and hours of labor.

I don't have any kids and likely won't for a good 2-5 years, but it seems kind of obvious that you would want the baby to "cook" until they're ready. I can't even imagine how uncomfortable the last trimester becomes, but you owe it to the baby to keep them growing/maturing until they're ready. Hopefully the docs will start to realize this and lessen their pressure on unsuspecting women. Who knows, maybe we'll stop relying strictly on due date to determine what constitutes "full-term", and begin to develop other tests that determine when baby is ready to arrive. Wishful thinking?

I know a girl who had to be induced for insurance reasons. She was past her due date and they said they would not cover her unless she gave birth within the next couple of days but after that they couldn't cover. So she got induced and then the baby was in distress so she had to have a c-section. The baby was also born with undeveloped lungs and had to be on oxygen for 6 months after it was born. The mother believes that if she just had the baby on the baby's time that she wouldn't have had the problems and had to have a c-section.
The mother said when she was born she was 3 weeks late. I was also 3 weeks late when I was born--they day before my mom was supposed to be induced. I guess now the time frame is different then it was back then.