Twin-Sections?

If you've suffered through my ramblings of late (totally your fault), then you know I'm struggling with the lack of birthing options available for twin pregnancies here at the beach.  My current options include:

• C-section by a doctor
• Labor at home then C-section by a doctor
• Labor at hospital then C-section by a doctor

Why are doctors here so unwilling to allow vaginal births for twin pregnancies?  I haven't really asked that question yet (I've been too busy asking if I could even have a vaginal birth).  In the meantime I might have a theory.  

Back in 2007 the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on a British research study which found c-sections to be safer for twin babies than vaginal deliveries.  Basically there was an increased risk in post-delivery deaths for the second-born baby when twins were delivered vaginally.  

The researchers were quick to state while there was an increased risk for the second-born baby, it was still very small compared to other risks like premature birth.  In fact, one doctor was quoted as saying:

"I would hate to see this study used as an excuse to have every mother with twins have a Caesarean section."

-Dr. F Sessions Cole, director of newborn medicine and head of neonatal intensive care unit at St. Louis Children's Hospital.

I have no idea if this study has influenced my doctors' viewpoints on c-sections vs. vaginal delivery where twins are concerned.  If it has than the above quote becomes extremely ironic.

There is a second issue at hand obstetricians face when delivering twins:  malpractice risk.  I can only assume my doctors are more comfortable doing routine c-sections on twin pregnancies because it minimizes the malpractice risk of any complications arising from a vaginal birth.

To be honest, having a c-section does not upset me, the few people I know who've had them say they are not bad.  What does upset me is the lack of control and choice I've been given.  Personally, I feel it should be my right to have whichever birth I want for these babies (technically I still have these choices, but who really wants to have a twin vaginal birth when every doctor you've talked to tells you they aren't comfortable doing them).

Ideally, a c-section shouldn't be the first course of action for twin pregnancies, but the last course of action used in emergency situations.  Isn't that how c-sections originally evolved? 

For those of you wondering 'what's the big hype about c-sections vs. vaginal births?'  First, c-sections are much harder on the mother's body recovery-wise than actually having a vaginal birth (provided the mother has proper training on how to prepare/cope with vaginal births).  

Second, laboring and vaginal birthing release natural hormones inside the mother's body and womb to help prepare both for delivery.  For the mother, these hormones aid in a quicker recovery post-delivery.  For the baby, the hormones and actual act of labor prepare the baby's brain and lungs for independent living (bye bye umbilical cord).

One final note, would-be Dr. Kammer said it best (and so very eloquently) when he said 'Research on pregnancies is really crappy, Em.  Nobody wants to do testing on a pregnant woman.'  He's got a great point.  I certainly wouldn't sign up for any research studies while pregnant . . . would you?