« | Main | »

May 05, 2005

Comments

bizarrogirl

I heard it too, this morning, and I was jumping around saying, "Duh!" too. And I think there have been previous studies on it, too -- why is this a big surprise?

Amy

I don't know! I know I've read in several places the same thing they're saying now, so I don't know why it's all over the news this time.

canadian sherry

All I know is that I really DO NOT WANT another one unless I'm trying to give birth to an elephant. I swear, tearing probably would have ben easier to recover from than my 4th degree episiotomy. They may as well have removed my legs.

By the way, I never even heard that people actually believed that about incontinence or sexual function. I just assumed they were done for the same reason as my doctor had, concern that I would tear wildly which would be harder to stitch up and hurt more during recovery (at six weeks post-partum I *finally* stopped taking painkillers every day!). If someone wanted to give me one for either of those two reasons, I'd flip.

Steph

Gosh, I guess I was one of the lucky ones. I had an episiotomy after 2 1/2 hours of pushing, and than Sydney popped right out. I feel like that might have actually helped me avoid a c-section. And, I haven't had any of the problems associated with them. Intersesting stuff, though!

Amy

I think a lot of the problem stems from the doctors who do them routinely---the chick in charge of the study said on NPR that there are many, many doctors who do them no matter what, that the doctors know before they even get into the L&D room that they're going to do one. I want to know how in the world that makes sense---why do it if it's not even needed and if tearing is the better option?

The comments to this entry are closed.