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.