Doc likes general but we wanted epidural? what is better?

Hi there

My wife is very likely to undergo c-section to deliver her twins (c-section won't be planned; both twins are currently in positions other than head first and my wife is about 37 weeks old, she feels OK).

Her current doctor, who is a very reputable doc, is more proficient in working in an environment where patients undergo general anesthesia, as opposed to epidural/spinal.

We also have another doc at a small private clinic, a young but good doc, who has good support staff proficient in epidural anethsesia.

So we are at a loss. We prefer the former doc, who is far more experienced, but he kinda pushes us toward general. But we would prefer epi because we know that epidural gives some advantages over general, which is not necessary unless there is an emergency.

Do you think we'd be better off going with the eipidural route anyway?

Thanks!

 

I've not had any c-sections but from what I know about them, I'd take the epi. That way you're wife would be fully aware when she gives birth to two beautiful babies.

 

I would be very suspicious of a doctor who likes to do cesarean with general anesthesia when it's not a life and death sort of emergency. Just too risky, IMO. Do the research yourself (in other words, don't take just the doc's word for it), find out exactly what the risks are, for both mom and babies, of each sort of medication before agreeing to anything. If it were me, I'd wait until problems arise before making such a decision. Women give birth to twins vaginally all the time, it's just not so common in the hospital setting anymore. Labor has a way of turning babies into the right position. I have a friend who delivered her twins vaginally, in the hospital. The only concession was that she had to labor and deliver in the OR, prepped for surgery.

 

Plus, look into ways to turn babies through massage, acupuncture, and such. C-sections are major abdominal surgery and should be avoided at all costs!

 

Definitely try to do everything to avoid the c-section. And, if it comes down to it being neccessary, go for epidural over the general...I had to have an emergency c-section (prolapsed umbilical cord-which was discovered until I was delivering her) and I used only the epidural. There was no pain involved with the surgery (until after-then it was horrible). I was conscious the entire procedure and was very aware or everything that was going on.

 

Skip the general. It has more complications and the recovery is wayl onger. Plus you will not even be awake during the crtitical first hours of the babies lives. Epidurals have risks, but they are less than general.

 

Are you sure it's not spinal, instead of general?

Most c/s's are performed using a spinal. The difference is that there wouldn't be a catheter in her back like there would be with an epidural and it only lasts a couple of hours. You can be fully awake if you have a spinal.

 

I had an epidural for the labour and for the c-section I had a spinal. Ah, the spinal... I was totally zonked, off the planet. It was bliss... If only I could have paid attention to meeting my boys for the first time though One of my biggest regrets

I agree with the others, I don't think a general anaesthetic is the way to go. Is this guy scared of doing the big needles in the spine or something?

 

Is this in the U.S.??? I have not heard of doctor's using general for c-sections. It makes no sense at all.

 

Yeah, I have rarely heard of a general for a c-section. Only in the most extreme emergencies when there is no time to place an epidural, they just drug you, gas you and it's lights out. I think nowadays epidurals are the standard for a c-section. If your doctor is offering you a general, some of their other practiced may need to be scrutinized also.