Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb From: cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) Newsgroups: net.kids Subject: Re: Sibling presence at childbirth Message-ID: <981@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 12:00:21 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.981 Posted: Wed Aug 14 12:00:21 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 15:40:57 EDT References: <306@luke.UUCP> <16600003@convexs>, <5203@elsie.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 24 > When my husband and I took childbirth classes before our > son was born we were told that in the event of a "C Section" > it was possible for the husband to remain with the wife > as long as she didn't have a general anesthetic. > I looked at my husband and said "Why would anyone want > to stay concious for major surgery?" > My second question was "Why would a husband want to watch > his wife have major surgery?" I'll answer your first question: "Why? Because it's safer." Under general anesthesia you will be the closest you will ever be to dead, short of the real thing. (This is a layperson's way of putting it, but talk to an anesthesiologist or post to net.med.) Furthermore, complications can arise after general anesthesia that won't arise under local. (Again, talk to an anesthesiologist or post to net.med.) I had abdominal surgery performed under a local anesthetic. No pain, and (thankfully) no complications. After discussing the various options for anesthesia available to me before the operation with my anesthesiologist, I do not believe I would ever *elect* general anesthesia over local (of course, in some situations the patient has no choice.) I was told that in my case, the potential complications from undergoing general anesthesia were greater than the potential complications from the operation itself.