by caryn (10171 Posts), Wed May 30, 2012 05:07 pm
The way to think about this is to remember that we don't get to choose between the no-risk scenario and something riskier. There are known statistical risks associated with all of these things, and if you ask your docs, they will be able to tell you (at least rough!) numbers. And you'll probably want the less-risky of the two options, whichever it is. After all, the reason for "choosing natural birth" is that arguably evidence says it's the less risky option given a normal pregnancy, all other things being equal.
Since these pregnancies aren't normal, the umbrella of options that constitute "natural birth" aren't necessarily the least risky options, any more. It's hard to wrap our heads around this, because we were generally low-risk for complications at the beginning of our first pregnancies, when we read popular pregnancy books and blogs. But on this board, women aren't at low risk for complications - they're *already having medically complicated pregnancies*. We already have hypertension, or a history of preeclampsia. And women in those populations have a different risk profile from normal pregnant women.
Induction with pitocin at 37 weeks is the lowest risk scenario in some cases. Emergent Caesarean with a NICU team in the room is the lowest risk scenario in some cases (raises hand). Amnio to check for fetal lung maturity followed by a scheduled Caesarean is the lowest-risk scenario in some cases.
Some women value some things more highly than choosing the lowest risk scenario, in which case they may choose the riskier of the available options. But sometimes there are no options, medically speaking - and that's probably okay with everyone who posts here, because we want to get to raise our babies.