Episiotomy

thanka2 said:
I've really never heard of a case where an episiotomy was helpful when a baby is in distress--episiotomies are done more for the mother than the baby--usually if the baby is in distress it's from some other reason (lodged in the birth canal and not coming down)--a mere bit of skin isn't going to really hold the baby back, I don't think.
Click to expand...

Like geomum's situation, getting an episiotomy was necessary for my baby. He was stuck and I couldn't get him out. I had an episiotomy so they could get the vacuum in.

I don't know where some of these shocking stories of being cut without permission are occuring, but I'd be seriously peeved if I were cut without even being told beforehand. That's disturbing.

I was given the consent form to sign when I arrived in delivery. I already knew all about it because I'd discussed it at appointments. It's a 'just in case' form. The nurse probably won't know until the baby is almost crowning if an epi will be useful. That's NOT the time to explain the epi and ask you to sign a consent form.

The drs told me it was not standard practice to do epis. I asked for perineal massage and the nurses did that throughout my labour. Just say you don't want an epi unless medically necessary. I found the drs and nurses to be very amenable and willing to follow your wishes. BTW, I gave birth at POW.
 
Info. about episiotomies:

Episiotomy: Is it really necessary?

To those women who had them because of medical reasons or because of the health of the baby, I'm not going to argue whether they were actually needed or not--you were there, I wasn't so I don't know--and even if I had been there (which would have been awkward and weird for everyone! :haha:) I may have not known whether it was needed or not.

What I meant to bring up is that they are over-used and if those attending the birth do other things (perineal massage etc) they can be avoided most of the time. I think that sometimes doctors say "the baby is in distress" as well when they aren't really. It can be a catchall "excuse" for doing what they want to do. For example, the baby's heart-rate decreasing isn't always a sign of "distress"--it is normal for the baby's heart rate to decrease during contractions. Yes, there are truly dangerous situations and if at the time, the doctor cut you because it helped the baby come out faster, then that's how it happened.

I think it's more of a time thing--not that the baby was caught up on some skin but because time was of the essence, the cutting was necessary to get the baby out--eventually with the right procedures you would have stretched or tore the baby would have come out--however, waiting wasn't an option. That's what I meant by my previous comment.
 
I had an episiotomy. I had discussed it previously with my obgyn and was perfectly comfortable with her doing it if it was necessary. I think the important thing is to have a good understanding and discussion with your obgyn about it. Also, though the wound hurt pretty badly for the first 4 days or so - by the end of the first week, it didn't hurt anymore. So all in all, it wasn't so bad for me.
 
For the ladies who had episiotomies, was there any scarring later on after the wound healed? I tore and still have horrible scarring that is really irritating.
 
I've really never heard of a case where an episiotomy was helpful when a baby is in distress--episiotomies are done more for the mother than the baby--usually if the baby is in distress it's from some other reason (lodged in the birth canal and not coming down)--a mere bit of skin isn't going to really hold the baby back, I don't think.

This is incorrect, when a baby is in distress in the late pushing stage an episiotomy can speed up delivery by 5-15 minutes, it is one of the medical reasons for doing an episiotomy,
 
I think it all depends thanka2...I tore both times and have no scarring whatsoever and then you will have women who do...perhaps just luck of the draw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top