Does anybody actually know anyone who had an ELCS just because they thought they were "too posh to push"?

[InAStateOfReflux]

Just watching the Wright stuff. One of the hot topics is that apparently ELCS rates being performed by the NHS are rising because people are deciding they are "too posh to push" and it's costing the NHS lots of money.

They are suggesting that these women should be offered psychiatric counselling to bring them round to the idea of having a vaginal birth.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I was given an ELCS because my dd was breech and was in fact strongly advised to (not given much choice in fact) and anyone else I know who's had one has been offered it because of significant trauma or complications in a previous birth.

I have never however met a woman who insisted on one on the NHS just cause she didn't fancy pushing it out of her fanny, and I doubt the NHS would go with this anyway tbh...

And if they're talking about women who have real fears and emotional distress regarding child-birth, then yes of course lets force the hysterical wench to push it out, does she not know how much money she's costing the NHS?

Oh how I love the way the media portray these issues...[sigh] Yes perhaps ELCS rates are rising and perhaps this should be addressed in some way, but to suggest it is for such fickle reasons is so juvenile. Perhaps it is the HCPs fault and not the whole female population who are apparently too cowardly to push their babies out?

What do they mean by "counselling"? A couple of sentences to you about the likelyhood of XY and Z happening rather than AB or C, then they can tick a box on the screen to say the patient has been "given counselling". Or several in depth sessions. Hmm, which do we think will apply?

I'm sorry to hear of your experience mosschops, that sounds horrendous.

"Why do people talk about vaginal delivery as if its cornered the market on traumatic births?"

In general, I don't think they do. In my experience, in RL it's always the people who end up with EMCS that get sympathy for their experience - not the other way around.

Perhaps the people on this thread just happen to be ones who have more experience of traumatic natural birth than traumatic c-s birth?

herethereI sympathise too. I decided to go for vbac with ds2 as I was very traumatised after cs with ds1. The stupid consultant took it too literal when I said I wanted to try and avoid another cs. Obviously I didnt mean at risk of ds2 or me. When it was evident the bith was going the same way at first time I asked for a cs as I really didnt want it to get to an emergency situation again and I wanted to be conscious this time. Consultant refused and said we can do this. He used Keillands forceps which butchered me, I lost a load of blood and lost consciousness and missed the birth again. Like you I was faecally incontinent for about a year and had 9 months of physio for it. 8 years on I still occassionally have faecally incontinence. My bladder also had no sensation which meant I had to stay in hospital 3 days longer than I should of. 8 years on I still have problems with my episiotomy which often opens up and bleeds after sex. After ds2 had been delievered and I regained coniousness the consultant said with a big smile 'we did it, we avoided a cs'. If I hadn't been so tired I would of given him a mouth full. Thankfully ds2 was not affected. Is your dd ok now?
Next time I will be having a cs, obviously mainly for health reasons but also really dont want to be unconscious for a third birth I want to be fully with it the first time I set eyes on my baby and I want to remember that time. I was robbed of that the first 2 times

I am always slightly saddened by the faces you when people talk about people who dont want a "baggy fanny" or pelvic floor damage etc.

Does anyone actually want a baggy fanny? Seriously?

Is it so wrong to be apprehensive about that, enough that they'd rather avoid that over possible other complications?

"Does anyone actually want a baggy fanny? Seriously?"

That really made me, , sorry, shouldn't be laughing given the issues on the thread, but tatty.

parakeet - yes, VB does greatly increase the chance of pelvic floor dysfunction and - particularly - damage; but I think that a CS is not necessarily a magic bullet in this respect, and a certain percentage of people will develop problems, regardless of their method of delivery.

As you point out, though, how one might measure that percentage is greatly complicated by obstructed labour resulting in EMCS.

Insomnia11 - the former I suspect. When I was trying to decide whether to go ahead with my suggested ELCS I found it hard to even have more than a 5 minute conversation with anyone, I was just given a leaflet with the pros and cons and some meaningless statistics. I opted to have a 2nd attempt at ECV just so I could corner the consultant for a frank discussion about it while I breathed through the pain while he wrenched around my bump. I had to tell him I was a med school student and ask him to "level with me" to get spoken to like an adult and get any real advice that was anything other than just confusing.

Tatty - I suppose people make those faces because they've been through labour and birth, and it could seem as if people who've had CS are crowing about the fact that they (VBers) will now have baggy fannies. Not v. nice.

Just as unpleasant as women who've had VB prattling on about "unsightly CS scars" or such.

It's rude, I guess.

I had an ELCS for breech, but had requested one anyway. Doctor demurred a bit -- I guess he was right to actually. I have been raped and I guess had some issues about control, but I wasn't in agonies over the prospect of natural birth, I simply had a preference. I was prepared of course to give birth naturally but in the end she was breech and I had preeclampsia. Birth was smashing. Want another for this one, expect to be talked into vbac but have mind made up. Besides, I had Ashermans, which makes rupture risk higher.

This was in Asia and I knew plenty who requested sections simply 'because'.

Anyway, I cam breastfeeding a near-three year old while 6 months' pregnant, so I guess I've cancelled out my evil-lazy-bitch-too-posh-to-push black mark with years of breastfeeding and babywearing (I know I hate the phrase too)

I don't think for a minute that a NHS ob/gyn would grant a request 'jus like that'. Or should.

Looking back I'm surprised that so many of the ob/gyns in Asia did. I'm actually glad mine tried to dissuade me, although I'm secretly glad my daughter was breech. Does that make any sense?

Noone wants a baggy fanny and noone wants saggy tits. But that comes with having a baby, and I'm guessing we all know this before we decide to get pregnant? For me I decided I would rather have a saggy fanny and baggy tits and some dcs, than a tight fango and bouncy boobs and remain childless!

Luckily my fango is intact, but I didn't plan for this, and given the choice I would still rather have had a VB.

Tits? Well they're long gone! But you can't win 'em all!

I can see why a woman who has had a traumatic vaginal birth, or one whose labour has ended in an emergency section, would opt for an elective section and I think it is a perfectly valid reason.

For my part I was so traumatised by my elective section (bad complications coupled with the fact that being paralysed from the armpits down while someone cuts you open is fucking terrifying) that I spent my second pregnancy in a constant state of fear that I would end up with another section - it really overshadowed the entire pregnancy. Bit of a bugger that I ended up with a crash section, DS2 nearly died and I have been told that I would never be allowed to attempt a vaginal birth again. Oh and I've had enormous piles for three and a half years

Oh, and "baggy fannies" (what a horrible phrase for a woman to use) or overhang or incontinence or scarring -- it's often all part of the territory however they exit.

I am lucky I have a three inch scar and no stretch marks and overhang. But I'd be lucky if I had a larger transverse scar with stretchmarks and weed when I cough (which I do anyway pregnant.....)

The point is I'd be lucky to carried a baby and given birth as safely as possible.

The rest is fripperies.

I really don't get why a CS is seen as an easy option. I've had one of each type of delivery and I'd pick the VB every time.

"the fact that being paralysed from the armpits down while someone cuts you open is fucking terrifying"

I'm sorry you were terrified, I guess it could well be that. But I found it, while a bit weird, actually comforting! But then I knew my ob/gyn for a few years and he had operated and cured my Asherman's, so I trusted him. Plus it was a jolly atmosphere in the room and it was my birthday so they all sang to me while cutting me open.

Why should you have to sustain perineal damage first before a CS becomes an acceptable choice? Why is tokophobia so belittled?

Why has the "let women who really want to attempt VBAC have a go" idea (which I think is good) turned into "previous section is not a good enough reason to request a CS"?

Why is it anyone else's business how a woman wants to give birth?

Yes, a straightforward complication free vaginal birth is probably the best option. However, it's one noone can choose, it's simply luck of the draw, no matter how well prepared you are.

I'm not buying into the CS always being more expensive than VB. It's certainly true for the straightforward ones, but as soon as complications arise, it's not such a clear cut case anymore.

As for the points raised by confuddled - I'm actually shocked by this level of ignorance. Placenta praevia only made lethal by doctors? How's that?
And it's quite obvious why humans experience more issues than other mammals - it's one of the trade-ins for walking upright and having quite a big brain. You seem to believe you're educated, when you're basically just indoctrinated with nonsense which has no bearing in reality.

What a great birthday present Otch!

Sorry for the use of "baggy fannys" but I am sort of quoting the kinds of terms that tend to get quoted from the supposedly too posh to push set...

Quite right Widow, and I suspect if there was some magic looking-glass that guaranteed a woman would have a straightforward VBAC many would go for it. But so many after having emergency sections cannot fathom ever being able to give birth naturally and figure if they are going to end up with a section, then its damn well going to be an elective one not an emergency one.

Its a very human thing to think that way.

I did.

I wanted a CS and went private to get it. So, I suppose I could be classed as feeling 'too posh to push'. I could afford it, so I did it.

I know MANY others who have done the same thing. ANd I know of one person who has managed it on the NHS. But, if you are really going to be too posh to push, then you really do have to go private.

Christ imagine women demanding the type of birth they want .

The bitches will be looking for equal pay and voting rights next!

I love how some women feel that they are the judge and jury on what are and are not 'trivial reasons'. (For the record not wanting a loose fanjo or having it ripped open is trivial and will make you a bad parent. In addition you won't get your gold medal on the steps of the hospital).

ANd, Tatty, the term used mainly here is 'welly boot top'

wizards sleeve here

I agree Chunky. Even worse is facing a judge/jury made up of men. Maybe that's sexist of me, but at least the women potentially judging me (not that they do for placenta praevia to be fair) have done it themselves and are extolling the virtues rather than just having an opinion based on...? I dont know. What makes a man feel strongly about the way women give birth? Possibly the same reasons as some women, like cost to NHS, being true to nature, etc, which is fair enough but I can't help but get my hackles up when a man starts waxing lyrical about this topic. Which is bad of me really, I suppose...

"Bucket chuff" is one of the least savoury ones I've heard recently

It is very human - and pretty rational - to want to have some measure of control over outcomes.

All things being equal, ELCS (not EMCS) probably are the most "controllable" of all birth scenarios.

I was thinking along those lines too, Widow. I wonder if everyone had a ELCS (let's imagine it's the norm, and is considered routine surgery, women are properly monitored so that the CS takes places at optimum time for baby's development, rather than some more arbitrary date, etc.), wouldn't the NHS recover some money in other directions? In the short term, CS is much more expensive (3 times, I think) than a straightforward VB. But in the long term? I wonder what the gynae bill for botched VBs is? What would happen if that were set against the cost of CS? Just speculating, btw.

Can't believe this thread has descended into comparing terms for a slack flange!