回答: 问一下：大家都说刨腹产不好，那为甚么大部分明星/名人都选折刨腹产呢？ 由 bonjour 于 2007-07-18 16:22:51

This come largely from 3 sources 来源: crazydog 于 07-07-18 16:57:09

1) midwives--if everyone chooses to 刨, they lose their jobs. This is life or death issue for them. 2) insurance company--cost much more to do C section than natural birth.2) doctors follow the standard official guideline from Amercian Association of OB/Gyn. It takes a huge effort to change this long-term guideline, even though the last president of the association personally is an advocate of elective C-section.Not only 明星/名人, if you ask doctors, many will choose elective C section. Not only 尿失禁, babies also risk more by natural birth than elective C section. Emergency C section is a different thing.

***********************************************************

来源: rurumama 于 07-07-18 17:51:44
I don't think babies also risk more by a vaginal birth than elective C section - -it is just against my instinct. However instinct is not enough to argue, so I have to find some material to back me up: article 1article 2article 3

*************************************************************

来源: crazydog 于 07-07-18 18:08:59

First, the negatives listed in article one are very out-dated. Current practice in C section by a good OB has pretty much eliminated that worry. To be specific, the OB cuts a very small openning, only barely big enough for the baby head to emerge. The OB then with the help of a very strong assistant, literally squeezes baby out through multiple rounds of pushing. This practice mimics squeezing of the baby lung. Second, the medical field has given a plausible explanation for the previously shown lung issues with the C section babies. These were emergency C section. Most babies were already in trouble when the mothers were forced into the emergency C section. In these statistical studies, there was no control for the conditions of these babies--they had problems to begin with. No such problem was detected in elective C section babies. 3rd, I cannot help but discount the source of these articles. This is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal but a private company. The writer is not a trained specialist in the field. If you look at the articles in the reference list, you will see that they are few and highly selected. In fact I have read one of the articles they cited when I was trying to determine this issue. In that same issue of the journal, there were several articles arguing for elective C section (it was a special issue on the elective C section issue), but the author of the articles chose not to include the opposing articles. You are a scientist. You know what it means.