Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Why vaginal birth?

702 replies

SantaSusan · 16/01/2024 16:48

Inspired by another thread. I'm really interested to understand the reasons for most women opting for a vaginal birth.

Disclaimer: I really, really want this thread to be a nice discussion to share views. I'd hate for this to descend into a judgy or unkind thread! Obviously, however anyone chooses to give birth is their choice alone. And as long as your precious little bundle arrives safely at the end, then who cares how they got there!?

I ended up with an elective. I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd have anything but a vaginal birth. However, for reasons I won't go into, it was decided during my pregnancy that a c section would probably be the best option for me. Everyone I spoke to absolutely loved their c section experience, and 99% of the comments online were so positive, so I wasn't worried about it at all once it was decided upon.

I had absolutely no pain during my c section or during recovery. I breastfed right away. I was up and about pretty much immediately. This seems to be the experience of most women who've had elcs. I would have an elective section again and again. If I'm lucky enough to have another baby, it'll be another section.

As such, I often wonder why more women don't choose to have their babies this way. It's so common in other countries. I think there's a lot of misinformation around c sections. The risks are also lumped in with those of emergency c sections, so electives are often painted to be riskler than they actually are.

You often hear people saying it's major abdominal surgery' in quite a judgemental way, which of course it is. But as far as surgical procedures go, it's generally very straightforward and in most cases, is easy to recover from.

I also repeatedly hear that vaginal is best as it's the most natural. But just because something is the 'natural' way to do something, doesn't necessarily mean it's the best. There's lots of things we do now with technology and with medicine that isn't the 'natural' way, and nobody bats an eyelid.

I can't quite put my finger on why I was so opposed to c sections previously. It's like it was subconsciously ingrained in me for no reason other than popular rhetoric. Which is why I'd be interested to hear why others decided a vaginal birth was best for them? Or why others knew they wanted an elcs? Has your subsequent birthing experience changed your minds at all?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
ChatBFP · 17/01/2024 23:27

@AnneValentine

Yes, brain damage caused by "maternity" care will only relate to babies being brain damaged. The graph relates to brain damage from maternity care. Women do not get brain damage from maternity care. Getting brain damage from maternity care and claiming for it will be about babies being deprived of oxygen during a VB. They do not need to use vaginal - it is frankly really obvious if you know anything whatsoever about birth.

Yes, an ELCS causes risks, it does not cause brain damage. I really don't know how to spell it out to you more - it's honestly like you struggle with basic comprehension.

I have not said at any point that VB is not a good option - it is the best option in most cases. However, for a sizeable minority of women, it is not. If the NHS could put a bit more work into identifying and helping those minority, then it would have fewer brain damage cases in babies, fewer absolutely disastrous pelvic floor damage cases and all women would benefit from more resource and better care. In practice, this means better triaging to understand which women need more monitoring in their births and moving to section when things get dangerous, plus it also could mean helping women to understand their chance of having a successful VB in terms of their individual cases. If the NHS did that only slightly better, it would save billions.

ChatBFP · 17/01/2024 23:40

I'm sorry, @aurynne, but I think you are wrong that it is totally separate.

Many women on here experience barriers to getting a c section from a maternal request - I have had this myself. If this is happening medical practitioners are trying to deny women c sections based on their own "feelings", it's even worse than relying on flawed data.

Personally, I was torn for my second section and I did a lot of research. Just as I chose to try a VB first time around as I was statistically low risk and young, so why not try, it was the most sensible thing for me to have a second section in my situation - in fact, the consultant anaesthetist (who herself had 4 vaginal births) told me it was a fabulous decision based on the way baby was wedged in when I was on the table - she seemed slightly sceptical when I walked in. Sometimes feelings actually align with intuition, but really, honestly, some of us do a lot of research to try to work out what is best. And my experience is that practitioners dismiss it as "feelings".

If you're a midwife, I would have been really really upset if I'd had a birth choices session with you and you'd spouted the usual c section risks at me and then told me all my research was just "feelings". If I had just one practitioner who actually read my notes and engaged with my situation and risk profile (because actually having had one baby is statistically a very good predictor for subsequent ones), I would have felt wonderful about my choice - as it was, I felt utterly dismissed and alone because I was making a decision the system clearly didn't want me to take and was treated like "the crazy lady who feels she doesn't want to try giving birth again" - it wasn't a "feeling", but a very calculated decision based on my personal risk. If I had chosen "feeling" over objective likelihood I'd have tried again for a VB.

ChatBFP · 17/01/2024 23:45

And @aurynne, it's not just about individual medical professionals' views - there is a systemic misuse of data about caesarians in the NHS. You can see it in almost every leaflet published by my local trust. That's not about "feelings" - if you're told you are undergoing an unnecessary and more risky medical procedure (without any counterpoint), then you will feel differently about it.

aurynne · 18/01/2024 00:22

ChatBFP · 17/01/2024 23:40

I'm sorry, @aurynne, but I think you are wrong that it is totally separate.

Many women on here experience barriers to getting a c section from a maternal request - I have had this myself. If this is happening medical practitioners are trying to deny women c sections based on their own "feelings", it's even worse than relying on flawed data.

Personally, I was torn for my second section and I did a lot of research. Just as I chose to try a VB first time around as I was statistically low risk and young, so why not try, it was the most sensible thing for me to have a second section in my situation - in fact, the consultant anaesthetist (who herself had 4 vaginal births) told me it was a fabulous decision based on the way baby was wedged in when I was on the table - she seemed slightly sceptical when I walked in. Sometimes feelings actually align with intuition, but really, honestly, some of us do a lot of research to try to work out what is best. And my experience is that practitioners dismiss it as "feelings".

If you're a midwife, I would have been really really upset if I'd had a birth choices session with you and you'd spouted the usual c section risks at me and then told me all my research was just "feelings". If I had just one practitioner who actually read my notes and engaged with my situation and risk profile (because actually having had one baby is statistically a very good predictor for subsequent ones), I would have felt wonderful about my choice - as it was, I felt utterly dismissed and alone because I was making a decision the system clearly didn't want me to take and was treated like "the crazy lady who feels she doesn't want to try giving birth again" - it wasn't a "feeling", but a very calculated decision based on my personal risk. If I had chosen "feeling" over objective likelihood I'd have tried again for a VB.

You are not reading what I am writing, you are reading your own interpretation of it which has nothing to do with what is written. You seem in a mission to prove something to everyone else on the thread. There is really nothing to prove. Your experience is yours, and yours only. The only valid interpretation of your experience is yours, and nobody else's. Nothing of what I have written is specifically about you. I am sorry to hear about your experiences, the fact is, they change nothing about the way humans make decisions, which is not a theory I have created myself. And yes, decisions are based in feelings, no matter how much you think this "dismisses" the "true reasons" behind them.

"If you're a midwife, I would have been really really upset if I'd had a birth choices session with you and you'd spouted the usual c section risks at me and then told me all my research was just "feelings". You wouldn't, because this is not what I would have done. This is an internet thread. Not a midwife clinic.

The way you choose to use the word "feelings" is very different from the way i used it and meant it in my posts. I suspect this is in part because other peopl;e have tried to invalidate you by treating the word "feelings" like a weapon. This is also very common. However, the same people who did that to you were making decisions also based in feelings.

RedToothBrush · 18/01/2024 01:09

Notjustabrunette · 17/01/2024 21:44

this is in reply to ‘how much is a private c section in the uk question, I messed up the “quotes”
It depends on which hospital you deliver in. I believe it’s about £7,000. But that is for a package that would include anti natal appointments, private room etc.

Edited

That's fine. Now list the number of hospitals that perform ELCS....

...cos it's massively relevant to this conversation.

When I was going through the process, I'd have happily paid that. The problem was that logistically I live in the NW and the only privately available maternity units were in the SE.

We could just about afford the operation. What we couldn't manage was the rest - it just wasn't viable.

Fortunately I was put in touch with a consultant midwife who was a specialist. And I was able to get an ELCS.

My notes are covered in big handwriting 'ELCS for mental health reasons'. I was so bad, I had issues with going mute in fear and got a request granted before getting pregnant. I'm still to hear of a similar case tbh.

But what pisses me off is the coding system doesn't actually have a category to reflect this and insist it's recorded as maternal request. It's wholly inaccurate and misleading. It's a loss of huge amounts of important data to have done this. We simply have no idea who many requests have been granted on the basis of mental health or genuine material request or some other classification because some pricks don't seem this worthwhile to explore.

It's appalling.

As for risk - I was 37. Women who tend to suffer from extreme birth fear, statistically have worse outcomes - anxiety is directly related to risk levels and this has shown up in multiple studies. Women who request CS tend to older, plan few children, have anxiety disorders, have a history of trauma / sexual abuse or fertility problems. Thus they largely tend to be much higher risk for a number of reasons than the general population anyway. So would be more likely to cost the NHS more regardless of whether they were 'allowed' a CS or not.

With this self selecting group being naturally higher risk of complications - which isn't reflected in the NICE guidelines explicitly - but there is considerable supporting research for, it really does put an argument for individualised risk assessments and care on the table. The NICE guidelines can only do a more generalised risk which effectively understates the risks of an ELCS and overstates the risks of an attempted VB for younger women and conversely overstates the risks of an ELCS and understates the risks of an attempted VB for older women!

The NICE guidelines also doesn't reflect something else - women who previously had a traumatic birth behave differently to women who have never had children and have birth fear. Women who previously attempted a VB and request a CS, if given adequate support and a flexible birth plan tend to change their minds after being told they can have a CS if they wish and end up having a VB - and are happy with this decision and have better experiences. Whereas women with birth fear who have not had children may change their minds but are more likely to stick with their initial choice.

Basically it suggests that actually poor care and treatment for previous births is more likely to encourage women to request a CS but this changes if they are given staff support. Think about that - especially with the 'a CS is too expensive and women should pay for them'. It's fairly clear that under staffing and poor support is leading to a huge number of requests but no one wants to address this. Again this is where not collecting data on reasons ELCS are granted is important. I would suggest that the lack of collection of this type of data is precisely to supress the link between poor care and under resources maternity wards and birth trauma and subsequent requests for CS.

Women are less likely to need interventions full stop if labour is better managed and women feel supported and prepared throughout their pregnancy. It doesn't help that most babies are born outside 9 to 5 weekdays when senior staff are less likely to be around:

The study, published in PLOS ONE, analysed over five million births over a ten year period in England and found that 28.5 per cent of births occurred within between 9.00am and 4.59pm on weekdays while 71.5 per cent of births occurred outside these hours at weekends, on public holidays or between 5.00pm and 8:59am on non-holiday week days

Undoubtedly the rise in requests for CS owes a great deal to the state of maternity care in this country which has seen multiple scandals in recent years will little sign of a prospect of this changing.

It's not just the cost of compensation either if things do go very badly wrong - if you have a pile of incidents the cost of insurance goes up. Which means more budget is dedicated to that and not services, at a time when you should be directing more money to services to improve them! It's nuts.

Instead women are blamed and vilified for requesting an ELCS with crap like 'too posh too posh' still being far more prevalent than it should be.

The point I make on these threads is that a request for a CS shouldnt be seen as anything but a red flag, for additional support and access to maternal mental health services if appropriate - because they are still notoriously difficult to access. There was a survey on this, which found most hospitals didn't have any provision whatsoever.

I was lucky. I did a lot of research and went out of my local area to somewhere I had found did have this. But that was off my own back. My GP knew nothing of it but was happy to refer me because it was appropriate.

It shouldn't be like this.

We shouldnt be treating pregnancy and childbirth purely as a physical thing, nor should we be trying to do them for the cheapest knock off rate possible - because when it does go wrong the consequences are much more significant. Indeed the mental health costs of women having a poor birth experience were not even considered in the NICE guidelines - it's a huge oversight.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 18/01/2024 05:14

ChatBFP · 17/01/2024 21:24

@AnneValentine

Again, it's page 58/59 (depending on if you are looking at the pdf or the page number) - there are the statistics from maternity claims for brain injury and CP. these claims will necessarily relate to failed vaginal birth - it is almost impossible to get CP or brain injury from an elective c section. That's just a fact (and I am really concerned if you have any medical training and cannot infer this!).

Just to say lots of CP is from prematurity, regardless of mode of delivery. But obviously no claim in those cases.....

AnneValentine · 18/01/2024 06:17

ChatBFP · 17/01/2024 23:27

@AnneValentine

Yes, brain damage caused by "maternity" care will only relate to babies being brain damaged. The graph relates to brain damage from maternity care. Women do not get brain damage from maternity care. Getting brain damage from maternity care and claiming for it will be about babies being deprived of oxygen during a VB. They do not need to use vaginal - it is frankly really obvious if you know anything whatsoever about birth.

Yes, an ELCS causes risks, it does not cause brain damage. I really don't know how to spell it out to you more - it's honestly like you struggle with basic comprehension.

I have not said at any point that VB is not a good option - it is the best option in most cases. However, for a sizeable minority of women, it is not. If the NHS could put a bit more work into identifying and helping those minority, then it would have fewer brain damage cases in babies, fewer absolutely disastrous pelvic floor damage cases and all women would benefit from more resource and better care. In practice, this means better triaging to understand which women need more monitoring in their births and moving to section when things get dangerous, plus it also could mean helping women to understand their chance of having a successful VB in terms of their individual cases. If the NHS did that only slightly better, it would save billions.

Placenta percreta delivery causing massive blood loss for mother caused brain damage. It literally happened.

Placental abruption causing baby to not have sufficient oxygen causing brain damage. It literally happened.

Two examples, which whilst rare, absolutely is brain damage to a child or mother not caused by issues during a failed delivery.

not to mention premature deliveries.

ChatBFP · 18/01/2024 07:04

@AnneValentine

Yes, but those are not the norm and are unlikely to lead to claim unless the medical professionals should have spotted them and didn't. If you look at the maternity scandals, for example, the accounts are overwhelmingly about VB - doing so past the point at which it is safe.

ChatBFP · 18/01/2024 07:17

@aurynne

I apologise - I understand what you are saying. I still don't totally agree- whilst feelings are absolutely used to weight various facts for the individual, people clearly do attach to the data that is presented to them.

My point is just that data is misused in the NHS system, which has consequences for those of us who are made to go through the ordeal of having to sit in a room with a medical professional and justify our choices at a time which is very vulnerable for us. I could give you so many examples of being told things that statistically were not true, in an attempt to persuade me from having a c section - for example "having a first big baby is not a good predictor of having a second big baby" - yes, it is, the NHS even use that predictive data to inform the charts that measure your bump - it's actually the biggest predictor.

On this thread, lots of people have said "I wanted a VB because [feeling]" and others have said "I wanted a VB because [insert data misused by the NHS to prevent c sections]". I still think it's a problem that data is misused and I do think it must influence some people to some degree. After all, on this thread, people have used misleading cost statistics, amongst other things, to suggest that ELCS should not be an option and present it as indulgent. This is the "baggage" that comes with the c section discussion in the current climate.

Clearly I should never have opened this thread!

RedToothBrush · 18/01/2024 07:56

I think the misuse of data is a really key point.

All these risks put out by the NHS rarely are given with an individualised adjustment for circumstance because they are so generalised too.

This EITHER points to a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics and risk by staff OR a deliberate misuse of them to persuade women to do what is ideologically preferred.

I think it's a bit of both, but mainly down to poor understanding of risk and statistics. There's been numerous studies on how doctors give stats about risk to patients and they do tend to display them in a way that's likely to influence decision making but the far bigger problem was that they didn't understand the statistics in the first place and frequently give bad information.

What's notable on this thread from people giving information about the stats the NHS give is precisely the point that there is a lack of discussion about how these risks are not equally spread amongst women and how there are much higher risk groups and much lower risk groups.

A first time mother over 35 has a relatively small chance of having an intervention free birth in the uk. Its considerably less than 50%. If you have a history of anxiety, you further reduce your chance of an intervention free birth. So in effect are you picking between likely possible interventions at this point if you are a first time mother over 35. Scheduled deliveries happen between 9 and 5 when most senior staff are on the hospital premises rather than only oncall (and naturally because they are not on shift the cost is lower). Complications are more likely with an ELCS if you have previously had a CS too, so arguably if you are over 35 and only want one child, you could argue very easily and quickly that it's probably cheaper and safer for this particular group. I think it would be fundamentally wrong to push this point too though because it would pressure women the other way into a situation they felt they had to have an ELCS.

The whole thing highlights the need for individual woman centred care rather than a sausage factory conveyer belt process which has developed because of dangerous levels of staffing and ideologically driven attitudes within the profession. The fact that women don't feel listened to in childbirth and pregnancy (and healthcare in general) because of paternalistic attitudes is a reoccurring theme. Everything points to poor communication and trust between HCP and women being a major factor in both mental and physical complications.

And no one is willing to have the right conversations about this or even start collecting the right information which would help us understand WHY more women are having both EMCS and ELCS and whether this is also contributing to the numbers of assisted VB deliveries. All we have is load of bollocks assumptions.

Pookerrod · 18/01/2024 12:28

littleburn · 16/01/2024 19:22

Are elective c sections an actual thing? My DC is 10 so I'm a bit out of the loop, but back then it was only if medically necessary or if you had a very strong reason not to have a vaginal birth, such as past trauma. You couldn't just 'select' a c section unless you were going private.

Regarding long recovery times, after my emergency section I was encouraged to be up on my feet within 6 hours. DC was in special care for a week, so I was constantly walking back and forth from my ward to his. Maybe I'm misremembering - or just very fortunate - but I really don't remember the recovery being all that bad or long term, just being a bit sore and achy for the first few days.

You definitely could have elected to have a c section 10 years ago. I did 12 years ago. I simply said at my first midwife appt that I wanted a referral to a consultant as I wanted a c section. I had a little bit of pushback but I was adamant.

I was referred to a consultant who I didn’t particularly like and so I did a bit of research, found someone I did like and then asked for a new referral to him. We then organised diaries to ensure we picked a date where he could definitely do the surgery.

I think it’s a terrible shame that so many people don’t know their rights when it comes to medical care in the UK. The NHS tries to keep you in the dark regarding your rights but a little bit of research into NICE guidelines etc can go a long way.

RedToothBrush · 18/01/2024 16:33

Pookerrod · 18/01/2024 12:28

You definitely could have elected to have a c section 10 years ago. I did 12 years ago. I simply said at my first midwife appt that I wanted a referral to a consultant as I wanted a c section. I had a little bit of pushback but I was adamant.

I was referred to a consultant who I didn’t particularly like and so I did a bit of research, found someone I did like and then asked for a new referral to him. We then organised diaries to ensure we picked a date where he could definitely do the surgery.

I think it’s a terrible shame that so many people don’t know their rights when it comes to medical care in the UK. The NHS tries to keep you in the dark regarding your rights but a little bit of research into NICE guidelines etc can go a long way.

It really depended on the hospital ten years ago.

There were a number that were point blank refusing ALL requests as a matter of policy and forcing women to go to other hospitals, despite the change in the NICE guidance in 2009.

I know that there were a couple of hospitals that were absoluetely notorious for it (I think there was one particularly bad one in Oxford and a couple in London) and there had to be a lot of pressure applied to them to adhere to the new guidance.

DS was born in 2014, so I am very aware of how many women were still having problems getting their request listened to. I spent a great deal of time and effort on here trying to help women who were being treated appallingly. Women were so unaware of what the guidance was and how to challenge what they were incorrectly being told.

There was quite a lot of media stories about how hospitals were still being deliberately obstructive. By 2014 the situation HAD improved considerably from 2009 but it was still regressive. Its changed massively since then with it being pretty well known and hospitals no longer permitted to have blanket bans on ELCS. This largely changed when targets for CS rates were removed which says a lot.

lieselotte · 22/01/2024 09:24

Someone I know has just given birth by c-section after three days in labour.

Personally I think it would have been much easier (and probably cheaper in the end) if she'd been allowed to have a c-section upfront. She was very overweight and had a higher risk pregnancy.

But no, we'll just keep on forcing women to labour for hours and days, and then cut them open anyway. And then expect them to look after an infant.

lieselotte · 22/01/2024 09:26

A first time mother over 35 has a relatively small chance of having an intervention free birth in the uk

I was 30 when I gave birth. I also spent three days in labour (see my post above) but fortunately managed to give birth vaginally in the end (with the help of the Keillands Forceps procedure which I found out later was not without risk). So given that so many women of any age need intervention, it's a bit silly to force so many women through labour, only to cut them open anyway, or use risky procedures.

lieselotte · 22/01/2024 09:27

The fact that women don't feel listened to in childbirth and pregnancy (and healthcare in general) because of paternalistic attitudes is a reoccurring theme

Yes, this!

IlsSortLaPlupartAuNuitMostly · 22/01/2024 09:31

lieselotte · 22/01/2024 09:24

Someone I know has just given birth by c-section after three days in labour.

Personally I think it would have been much easier (and probably cheaper in the end) if she'd been allowed to have a c-section upfront. She was very overweight and had a higher risk pregnancy.

But no, we'll just keep on forcing women to labour for hours and days, and then cut them open anyway. And then expect them to look after an infant.

To be fair the risks of a CS (eg infection, blood clots) are considerably higher for obese mothers so it's maybe worth making full effort to achieve a VB, even if the odds of success are not brilliant.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 22/01/2024 16:03

Surely choice is the thing here, not forcing anyone to do anything. However if women want to attempt VB then they should be allowed to ( around 60% will succeed)

RedToothBrush · 22/01/2024 16:31

Neurodiversitydoctor · 22/01/2024 16:03

Surely choice is the thing here, not forcing anyone to do anything. However if women want to attempt VB then they should be allowed to ( around 60% will succeed)

Of course it should be. Though doctors should still be able to strongly deter options which they feel are unnecessarily risky if need be (especially since this may pose a professional risk to them)

The balance just isn't there though. And women are made to do huge amounts of unnecessary hoop jumping.

ChatBFP · 22/01/2024 20:18

@RedToothBrush

Yes, agreed.

You also can't ignore that in the private sector this is achieved, which is partly about resources and party because of the customer relationship created. My friend went into early Labour around 35 weeks with a back to back baby; her consultant basically said to her "it's a bit early, so we have to monitor you very closely and if you have a VB I will call time on it earlier than I otherwise would if you were 37 weeks plus but it is totally your choice. Baby is back to back, so might be a bit more painful - you can see how you go, request an epidural now or if you need it later, or have a c section"

She felt loved, cared for and under control. I her case, she was worried about her baby's health and chose to meet her as soon as possible. She had a c section - others wouldn't, but she did. The point is that she was given focused care that was honest about what was next and what her realistic options were.

RedToothBrush · 22/01/2024 20:55

ChatBFP · 22/01/2024 20:18

@RedToothBrush

Yes, agreed.

You also can't ignore that in the private sector this is achieved, which is partly about resources and party because of the customer relationship created. My friend went into early Labour around 35 weeks with a back to back baby; her consultant basically said to her "it's a bit early, so we have to monitor you very closely and if you have a VB I will call time on it earlier than I otherwise would if you were 37 weeks plus but it is totally your choice. Baby is back to back, so might be a bit more painful - you can see how you go, request an epidural now or if you need it later, or have a c section"

She felt loved, cared for and under control. I her case, she was worried about her baby's health and chose to meet her as soon as possible. She had a c section - others wouldn't, but she did. The point is that she was given focused care that was honest about what was next and what her realistic options were.

One of the weird analomies is that slightly older educated middle class white women traditionally get the best health care across the board. Which is problematic and the ethos was to look at why this happened with a view to improving things for all women.

BUT when it came to child birth this was for a long time framed in a really derogatory way and much of the converse was true. It was regarded as "too posh too push" rather than it being women being best able to advocate for themselves and be listened to and to end up with a good outcome for all. Instead efforts were made to try and push things the exact opposite way in something of a race to the bottom. Indeed the same group are often the ones who also want home births (and again there's actually a certain amount of merit in this for women who have given birth once before - not so much first time mothers though).

Now there shouldn't be this gap in maternity care, but I very much question the ideology going on her over and above best practice.

It's clear that listening to women has positive clinical outcomes. And yet we have scandal after scandal about the opposite and the harms it's doing.

Coatsoff42 · 22/01/2024 21:16

I had three vaginal births and I wish they had been c sections. My mother had c sections for all us, I wanted them too but it was not an option for me to choose. I asked my midwife and was told they were not a choice without any risk factors. It was 12 years ago.
I would have much preferred c sections, I found vaginal births traumatic and it makes me feel ill to think I could have tried harder to have the births I wanted and not had all the damage and tearing.

ChatBFP · 22/01/2024 22:19

@Coatsoff42

Please don't blame yourself for not "trying harder". I had my littlest 3 years ago and, despite the NiCE guidelines having changed, they did try pretty hard to encourage me not to.

As @RedToothBrush said, many medical professionals regarded me as too posh to push, but I read a lot of clinical papers and decided that as I had already had a big baby and a failure to progress result, it was probably in my best interests to go with another c section (especially in the pandemic given they wouldn't let me see my daughter during the pandemic in hospital - it's hardly a great no anxiety birth frame of mind to go into hospital in Labour knowing that if I ended up with another emergency section I'd probably have to be away for 3+ nights and my husband would not be able to come and go). When baby came out, I was correct (medical professionals dismissed my suggestion that he was likely to be big and wedged in - he was - and the anaesthetist - who had 4 VBs herself - told me "gosh, what a fabulous decision you made").

In my trust, I had to have a "birth choices" session with a midwife (who was great actually and had looked after me after my first birth and remembered me - she apologised before she read me the massive disclaimer of risks that they read you when you opt in to a c section and told me that she wasn't given the risk factors for a VB to balance it out but I should weigh the risks myself). Then I had a total car crash one with a junior doctor who tried to talk me around, quoted inaccurate data and kept saying "but don't you want to even try" to me, not realising that this hard sell totally undermined her case that I could "easily" switch to a c section if I wanted to after I had "tried" or if I changed my mind "at any point". The real kicker was when she said "in our trust, 2/3 ladies who choose a VBAC are successful", to which I said "so 1/3 are not. In your view, am I in the 1/3 or the 2/3?" And she said "I can't advise on that, I haven't read your notes" - I mean, wtf?!

RedToothBrush · 22/01/2024 22:29

Coatsoff42 · 22/01/2024 21:16

I had three vaginal births and I wish they had been c sections. My mother had c sections for all us, I wanted them too but it was not an option for me to choose. I asked my midwife and was told they were not a choice without any risk factors. It was 12 years ago.
I would have much preferred c sections, I found vaginal births traumatic and it makes me feel ill to think I could have tried harder to have the births I wanted and not had all the damage and tearing.

12 years ago it was actually still really difficult to get a CS if the doctors hadn't diagnosised a physical reason why you should. Choice wasn't really on the cards for most.

Thulpelly · 24/01/2024 09:55

SophieinParis · 16/01/2024 21:44

Yep..risk the natural route. A natural vaginal birth IS a risk. A planned elective CS does remove much of this risk.

You are seeing an inherent benefit and a lesser risk on the basis of it being natural: this isn’t rational. We all do lots of things all the time that aren't natural..vaccination for example. I’d much prefer the modern technology of vaccination as a means of acquiring immunity rather than acquiring immunity via contracting the virus itself. Yes the latter is the natural way..but I’m not risking it.

This is is just not true for a low risk healthy pregnancy.

RedToothBrush · 24/01/2024 11:03

Thulpelly · 24/01/2024 09:55

This is is just not true for a low risk healthy pregnancy.

Define 'low risk healthy pregnancy'.

A woman of 37 could have one of these but still have a much higher risk of an EMCS or an assisted birth than a woman in her 20s.

One of the problems is precisely that a pregnancy can be healthy but it still goes tits up when it comes to the birth.

Swipe left for the next trending thread