Talk:Caesarean section

Bias

I feel this document (e.g. the third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction) are biased towards vaginal birth. They gave me a feeling that C-section is bad and should not be preferred. This is no longer true. See this article please. Both vaginal and C-section have their own risks and the overall risks are similar. In the Risks section, only papers showing higher mortality risk for CS are cited. There are papers showing otherwise (i.e. higher mortality risk for vaginal delivery).

I think there is a POV problem. I don't currently have the time to fix the article, but I just wanted to raise this. Hadian.hn (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Gender accuracy

The C-section page should use "pregnant person" and/or "birth parent" where applicable instead of using the language "mother" and "woman". This is because people of other genders give birth and therefore have C-sections, such as transgender men, nonbinary people who are assigned female, etc. In fact, the surgeon who was one of the first to successfully perform a C-section, was a man who in today's terminology would be referred to as a transgender man. Not only are "pregnant person" and "birth parent" more inclusive, they are more accurate, and reflect the experience of more people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.142.82.162 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

See this discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Veterinary C-sections

The article appears to be limited solely to human caesareans, with not one mention of veterinary caesarians. C-sections are of course carried out routinely in pets and livestock, and surely the article should also cover this – or be renamed Human caesarean section. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a Distinguish tag for "Vivisection"?

Why is "Not to be confused with Vivisection" at the top of this page, with a link to that other topic's page? The Vivisection page does not contain a similar statement about Caesarian section with a link to this page, or even any mention of Caesarian section in its entire article. While the two terms at their basic definitions appear similar, with a little consideration, their correlation via this distinguish tab only in the Caesarian section article seems not only unnecessary, but potentially politically motivated.

Here is the introductory paragraph from the Vivisection page: "Vivisection (from Latin vivus 'alive', and sectio 'cutting') is surgery conducted for experimental purposes on a living organism, typically animals with a central nervous system, to view living internal structure. The word is, more broadly, used as a pejorative[1] catch-all term for experimentation on live animals[2][3][4] by organizations opposed to animal experimentation,[5] but the term is rarely used by practising scientists.[3][6] Human vivisection, such as live organ harvesting, has been perpetrated as a form of torture."

If practising scientists rarely use the term "vivisection", and it has long been used as a catch-all term for animal experimentation, and perhaps most importantly that it connotes human torture, it seems quite likely that the one-way inclusion of a distinguish tag for vivisection in this Caesarian section page is either politically motivated; or at the very least, simply uninformed or misleading, and worthy of replacement by a simple reference to vivisection within a more relevant--and less prominent--location in the article. Even then, given the no-longer-experimental nature of this procedure to birth human--and other animal--babies, even that reference seems like it should probably be a historical one. Umpkinpeter (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Risks

Hi. Can someone else check this section? It says "Adverse outcomes in low-risk pregnancies occur in 8.6% of vaginal deliveries and 9.2% of caesarean section deliveries." I don't see the ref supporting that, and do not think it is that simple. 2603:7000:2143:8500:15C2:4FA7:3ED8:3C82 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sushuruta

there is a page which mention that sushuruta did c section but has no citations on it so i am going to remove it David dclork li (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"List of fictional people who were delivered by caesarean section" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of fictional people who were delivered by caesarean section has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 23 § List of fictional people who were delivered by caesarean section until a consensus is reached. Tollens (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

One-sidedness of some statements

One can feel that the article was written by an opponent of cesarean section. The pros and cons of vaginal birth compared to cesarean birth are not described.

On the contrary, only the MINUSES of cesarean delivery are given in comparison with vaginal birth. Because of this, the idea of ​​childbirth methods will be distorted. Please update the article. 46.219.133.177 (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)