Green Party pledge to reduce c section rates

Oh yeah, MIL, not DM tbf, had a terrible delivery (vaginal) in the 60s so natural is great? Hahaha. She had lifelong consequences. So women should do their own research and advocate for themselves. If they want a CS they should get it! Bodily autonomy FFS.

Awful. If they want to improve things for women and babies they should bring in more Drs and midwives so the ones we have aren't rushed off their feet trying and failing to give women and babies the care they need.

Of course, safety first, for both mother and baby. We need to really improve staffing and conditions in maternity units- so that mothers don't see a C-section as the only choice for safety. 'Normal' birth' would be much safer if staffing and conditions were greatly improved. And of course, safety first, and C-sections have a huge role to play, totally. As said, both baby and me were saved by a C-section for my first one. Other two were born 'normally' and without issues.

Under playing the risk to both mother and baby of major surgery and aneasthesia (baby does share this btw- and babies born by C section are often flat and depressed and need intervention. And mothers to get scaring, adhesions, and all sort of other issues, which can make further pregnancies and C-sections more complicated. A major intervention with GY should never become the norm.

And no, I am not a rocking mad Mother Earth nutter either, but yes, older than most here, pushing 60. Again, on MN- things go from sublime to ridiculous extremes. The solution to poor, bordering on dangerous maternity services is huge improvement on those- not leaving women with major surgery as the only alternative.

And yes, there is nothing like a natural birth and baby being given to mother straight after birt- whenever that is safe and possible.

This. I had an elective caesarean and it was a peaceful process with no problems at all for either myself or my DC. My sister, who had two natural labours, had serious tearing and septic stitches. My friend still has PTSD after her experience.

Childbirth can be a natural, empowering experience but it is also a fucking war zone and women should be allowed to choose their battles, and their weapons of choice.

Agree it’s important for policy to be well informed. That makes more sense than what you had originally said.

I agree OP. I guess they missed the birth trauma inquiry?

You may find it hard to believe but that was her experience. In fact her experience with her care provider for her second pregnancy was bad enough that she ended up paying for private healthcare for the delivery. She's a very logically minded, grounded and positive person and I believe what she's telling me. "Well I'm here anyway I may help things along" was what he said to her and brushed the midwives off when they tried to intervene. Even during my own pregnancy which was high risk, some of the consultants were fabulous and I couldn't fault their care but I saw two who were awful and I left those appointments distressed as a result.

I understand that natural isn't always better but that's maternal outcomes need more research and review.

There needs to be more research between C section rates of different hospitals, the hospital I had ds in had a rate of 47%, but if I went to the hospital just over the border into the next county their rate was 36%, are some hospitals jumping to do sections instead of giving women longer to labour. No way should there be a tariff on how many sections take place.

Sorry, I'm massively pro birth choice, having had a section myself, but obviously that hasn't come across in my last post. I have no idea how you would go about quantifying or assessing what are the 'right' reasons for c-sections, hence my question to posters who seem to be arguing c-section rates have increased for the 'wrong' reasons. Given that sections save lives, I am not at all in favour of limiting them and 100% agree it should be maternal choice.

How privileged a position to be in where the main priority is able to be 'skin to skin, straight to the breast' Earth Mother eye-rolling BS.

All 4 of my younger siblings were rushed off to NICU immediately. The priority was saving their lives. So grateful my mum wasn't a hardline NCT-nut, forcing my blue struggling siblings on the breast instead of letting the doctors whisk them away for transfusions.

And FYI- she never had a problem bonding with or breastfeeding any of her babies, despite no immediate skin to skin or feeding, and despite their NICU/SCUBU stays of up to 3 weeks.
In fact, my friend who had a smooth natural birth had such issues breastfeeding that it never took off. And my sister, after a picture-perfect home birth, ended up in High Dependency TWICE with severe mastitis, this was after the poor baby was admitted twice as he was starving from not getting enough breast milk. It's total bollocks, yet another way of making women feel inadequate.

The main priority above ALL else should always be the health and safety of mother and baby. And although the purists don't like it, that includes considering, discussing and factoring in the risks/gambles of vaginal birth and what the long term implications could be.

Exactly this. I had an elective c section because I wanted one. Lots of my friends are doctors and they had elective c sections too. The reason we wanted c sections? Because maternity and postnatal care is so underfunded and having major surgery was preferable. You have a whole team delivering your baby. If you are unfortunate and something goes wrong in surgery, it gets fixed. Every woman I know who had injuries after a vaginal birth got fobbed off and made to belive it was normal.

I also can’t be doing with anyone prattling on about how natural birth is sacred and special and empowering - yes it may be to some but giving birth (no matter how you do it) is a very painful means to an end and a painful one at that

Doesn’t surprise me, they do seem to hate women.

When it comes to maternity care I’m not sure why people who won’t need to give birth, or perhaps have had nice births themselves, practically foam at the mouth at the thought of women being in more pain than they need to be.

The Green Party don't particularly care for women. They disaffiliated their Green Party Women group for believing in the primacy of biological sex as the basis of women's rights. Prioritising ideology over women's lived experiences in this scenario is totally on brand.

@Thepeopleversuswork that's a bit unfair on NICE in this case. They have undertaken a health economic evaluation of elective maternal request caesarian versus vaginal births using equivalent methodology to what would be used in cancer drug appraisals. They concluded that although the immediate costs and benefits fell in favour of vaginal birth, when long term effects such as urinary incontinence were included the difference between the two became smaller. This ultimately formed part of the evidence assessed in the recent NICE guideline update that recommended maternal request caesarians should be granted following discussion of risks and benefits etc.

I don't deny for a second that some women are receiving substandard care, or that many still struggle to get access to elective caesarians, but this particular one isn't at NICE's door.

I really dislike this policy. It's great the green party are reviewing it. It takes maturity to admit you were wrong.
However, Mumsnet seem to scrutinise the green party more than other parties.
14 years of austerity and NHS cuts (including to maternity care) have not only put the lives of many at risk, but actually cost lives. Both Labour and the Tories have failed to call out genocide in Gaza. That's actually happening, right now. Women and children overwhelmingly affected. The Green Party aren't going to be in power any time soon. So, any unpalatable policies they have are less of a concern to me than bad Labour and Tory policies. Because they could actually come to pass.
I have heard rumours that some in Labour have made it their business to circulate and twist this Green policy to put people off voting them, as many people are planning to vote Green in Labour strongholds as a protest, due to Labour's Gaza stance, and purge of the left, especially their terrible treatment of Faiza Shaheen.
Politics can be a dirty game, and they try to manipulate us more than than you know.

Exactly!

It doesn’t matter the reason behind it though. Women are entitled to have a delivery of their choosing.

@StacieBenson

Are there any stats on how many sections are for medical/non-medical reasons? There seems to be this narrative that women are demanding c-sections for frivolous reasons, but I'd be really surprised if that's true.

Define “frivolous”. Would you say being terrified of “natural” birth was “frivolous”? I was beyond terrified of it. To the point that I had counselling in the weeks running up to it. I was denied an elective C section despite a letter from the GP. In the event my birth was relatively OK. I found it horrendously painful and was fobbed off for hours when I requested an epidural and my labour lasted over a day and involved a ventouse and a tear. But in the scheme of things I have heard and read, I got off fairly lightly.

But I have always been suspicious of the economic arguments against elective C sections. NICE rightly approves very expensive cancer drugs which in many cases will only allow a terminally ill person a few extra months of life. The calculation is that preserving quality of life for as long as possible is paramount. And that’s as it should be.

Those sorts of calculations seem not to be applied with respect to C section though even though these are far cheaper than an immunotherapy drug and even though there is evidence that over the long term at a population level C sections can actually reduce cost. And that’s not taking into account the economic cost of the mental health impact of a traumatic birth, which can be significant.

I’m not comparing cancer therapy to C sections but it does feel that the economic lens applied to C sections is that they are an indulgence if not a strict medical necessity.
Its hard to escape the conclusion that yet again women are subjected to a different cost/benefit analysis when it comes to their health.

Are there any stats on how many sections are for medical/non-medical reasons? There seems to be this narrative that women are demanding c-sections for frivolous reasons, but I'd be really surprised if that's true.

As others have said, my baby had lots of skin to skin and is still partially breastfed at one year. A section doesn't preclude that.

So make the target around providing adequate staff, beds, maternity units then. Don't make the target to reduce the number of c sections.

not sure what century you’re living in but I had skin to skin instantly and my baby crawled up to my breast to feed with an elective section.

Who is talking about giving birth like cave women? Oh please, this sublime to the ridiculous on MN is just beyond ridiculous.

I am talking about well staffed maternity services, with great facilities, good preparation, excellent medical support, etc - cave women did NOT benefit from this, did they?

C-sections are life savers, but there is absolutely NO reason for them to become the norm. And not safe either.

Having your baby make contact with you, skin to skin, and move to the breast to feed, safely, and with professional support, should not be denied in the name of 'new technology'. Women should feel safe and supported- and not the case currently in this depleted NHS. Sad beyond words. Let's remedy this, and the C-section requests rate, for non medical reasons, will drop naturally.

Cancer is natural, but it still needs treatment. Why do women have to have this shit?!