this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
26 points (88.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
9295 readers
956 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact that there is a profit motive behind the overuse of c-sections is a settled issue. There is. There are investigations, there are studies, and there are metaanalyses of those studies. C-sections are a relatively easy procedure with predictable results that minimise litigation risk. It is frankly absurd how high the incentive is for a hospital to perform one.
I can't comment on your baby in particular. I don't know the relevant facts and it would be wildly unethical to comment on it as a result. But with regards to whether there is a financial motive to perform c-sections in general the science is in.
There's no source listed for this statement. I don't understand why it says C-sections shorten the mothers' stay is all I'm saying. The recovery time for cesarean is longer than natural birth. Maybe it's changed over the last decade, but it is invasive surgery that takes more time, and yeah, thus more money/profit, but I don't see how it shortens stay. That's all I was commenting on.
Note, Just noticed too, the quote uses the funny ’ apostrophe, and not the Usian ' standard on our keyboards. Someone was talking about that on a different thread I read earlier, as an indicator of AI or possibly non-Usian user. But that's irrelevant here, I just noticed it. I don't trust like, anything.
Edit edit,
And yeah this is basically summing up the issue here in the last statement. I was hella grumpy this morning, I'm still hella grumpy, but finished the last two paragraphs of the article now. It's not wrong overall.
That sentence is wrong. Women stay longer in the hospital after a c-section. You are right to question the article if that is what it says.
The whole paragraph reads:
Upon reread, I think they meant the use of medications over individualized holistic care is what shortens the stay. Not C-section.
I was allowed to refuse meds, I did refuse meds. Idk. I think that's what they meant in the article though, and I misunderstood what "It" was referring to in the paragraph.
But also, the obgyn isn't the same doctor working the ER. I can't speak to rural places, at all, so I don't know how it is, but it was my doctor who delivered my baby, the same doctor I had been seeing for years of obgyn stuff. It's not just some rando who's available in the hospital. I feel like this comes from an honest place, but the author might have exaggerated for slight effect. But I don't know how it is in other places. Hell, maybe they're popping babies out so fast in the mid-west with not enough doctors available, wouldn't shock me, I know hospitals are shutting down out there with cuts to medicare. Maybe it is like that out there.
No they're talking about general reduction of bed rest after birth, not that c sections have shorter hospital stays. It is also describing a process that originated in the 19th century, not a recent phenomenon.
Yeah, I read that now. "Holistic" is a bit vauge for me to understand wholly, it can mean a few different things. I had three days rest at the hospital, but was expected to take it easyfor 6 weeks post. I wonder how much rest was recommended 100 years ago to what is recommended today.