..to not give a flying **** about having a 'natural' birth

[somewherewest]

OK I can understand the desire to avoid intervention if possible but I really really don't get the ideological fervour which some people seem to invest in 'natural' birth. I've been just been going through the handouts from the NCT antenatal course the DH and I are doing and the message basically seems to be "Your choices are important...but if you don't chose to have a 'natural' homebirth sustained only by breathing exercises and whale music and to breastfeed the DS until he's old enough to be bringing girlfriends home then YOUR CHOICES ARE BAD". I really, really do not get this horror of 'intervention'. Is it just that decades of organic yoghurt adverts have conditioned us to think that 'natural' must equal 'better' in every bloody situation, or am I being totally unreasonable?

I thank my lucky stars I will give birth to my next in the States where there is not this kneejerk reaction to having a c section- which i had with my first very large baby.
I have been offered the choice of another c section and knowing i give birth to large babies and have a narrow pelvic opening I accept the offer gratefully.Now in the UK I doubt I would even be offered this if I asked- they would make me try despite the last experience suggesting natural birth is a very dangerous option for myself and my baby.

It is all about cost in the UK and since many women can give birth naturally they make everyone try that beyond a reasonable point according to many friends I have spoken to who gave birth in the UK.

After that, I learnt to avoid any books/info about pregnancy/birth/baby rearing/child rearing that have adjectives in the title

Damn good advice - should be on any "MumsNet Guide" IMO!

And I'm another one standing up to say the NCT was waay OTT.

YANBU. Natural isnt better in child birth. Its dam painful and I say "Roll on the Epidural please"

BTW - I'm really sick of hearing the 'you wouldn't have a tooth out without pain relief' analogy to childbirth.

If having pain relief for tooth extraction made the process take longer, resulted in a higher likelihood of the dentist needing to put his knee on your chest to lever it out, and often required the dentist to cut your gum open to complete the extraction, I think quite a few people would consider seeing if they could do without it.

I also find it odd that people put this sort of argument forward with no acknowledgement that there are two people affected by the decision to take drugs in labour: the mother and the baby.

YADNBU! Am currently 37 weeks and just finished NCT classes that I thought were a load of nonsense, to be honest. I actually skipped some because neither I nor DH could bear to listen to anymore talk about how we're all mammals and birth is just natural. Yes, it is 'natural' but so is cancer, so is death, so is miscarriage and stillbirth. Lots of things are natural but it doesn't mean that medical intervention can't help us to deal with them.

On a cautionary note, my cynicism about 'natural' birth is coloured by the miscarriage I had. I went the natural route and the pain was absolutely horrendous. There was no way I would have got through it without hospital care and diamorphine. Even gas and air wasn't enough. I had been told I could manage the MC at home but ended up going to hospital in an ambulance instead. Getting into hospital finally was fantastic, I was immensely relieved to be in good medical care finally and not be at home terrified out of my wits. So every time the NCT teacher yakked on about home birth, I just thought back to my MC and the bullshit I was told about managing it at home and couldn't help being cynical. I think people who advocate home birth and natural birth must just be lucky enough to never have been in severe pain or trauma in their lives or denied access to medical care. Anyone who has ever had a serious illness / accident knows the value of expert medical care at the right time. I think in the UK with the NHS being 'on tap' people just take medical care for granted and are complacent.

Tbh the people I've found who spout crap about natural birth being best for baby and placing value on it are the kind of people who tend to go to NCT because that is what they think they'll get. But that is not my experience of NCT. Not their literature, policies or anything else relating to birth (their feeding stuff is a tad hard line IMHO but that again is subjective).

However, having met some of these militant birthers post birth most have lost the rose tinted specs. Sadly many feel disappointed.

Do I blame NCT and the like? No. Do I blame the media for unrealistic depictions of birth? Only as a symptom of a wider culture that places much stock on women being perfect superwomen which of course we're not. I might have managed to have one natural birth but I couldn't run a marathon or other feats of endurance because my body isn't built for it. Do I give myself a hard time about it? No because it would be pointless. Some of us are built for birth, some are not. It's luck of the draw.

That said, if you have a heart condition you don't go straight to open heart surgery. You try less invasive stuff first unless the condition is so serious surgery needs to happen immediately for the safety of the patient. Birth is the same. Unless there is a danger to mother or baby having a go without intervention is the sensible thing to do based on the available evidence. The problems come when decisions start being made based on protocols or bad practice and that is why women need to know what to expect and when to question.

cherrysodalover - unfortunately c-sections in the states are very often dictated by cost as well. But in this case, the extra amount the obstetricians can make from performing them, the cost to them of waiting too long for a mother to labour naturally etc. Naomi Woolf's Misconceptions is interesting on this. I fear we in the UK are going this way too.
And I repeat, I speak from the point of someone who gladly chose a CS over a natural birth with a breach baby so am not anti CS at all. But it's worth understanding all the options.
I find this a fascinating debate. OP I honestly used to feel like you until I started doing some research. I'm still in no way "anti intervention" but I am so much more pro natural birth because it really does make the most sense. And I will stand up and be counted as someone who does not think the NCT is OTT about natural birth. I have just been having a re-read of some of the literature and can't see what you are getting at at all. Perhaps we all just read things differently.

YANBU. Couldn't agree more. I think it's terrible how women seem to think they're failures because they had a C section or an epidural or whatever. And terrible how high people's expectations of "natural birth" with "breathing" as pain relief are raised.

Completely ridiculous. "Breathing" is not going to provide the same pain relief as having a big whack of drugs injected straight into your spine.

Not having read any NCT stuff or been to any NCT classes, I don't know how much of this is the NCT's fault and how much it's people needlessly beating themselves up - a lot of women carry around a lot of pointless guilt about all sorts of things. Either way, it's sad and unnecessary.

sometimes natural is better in childbirth. mine was not painful. if you want an epidural then go for it but not everyone wants or needs one. what suits one doesn't suit the other. everyone is very quick to thank their lucky stars for all the medical intervention and drugs available when needed but in many, many cases relaxation and breathing is more than enough. it's not nonsense, it's not crap. it's a perfectly valid way of giving birth.

i, like many, like to consider all my options and feel i've made a fully informed choice so i would read up on all the options with an open mind. it's o.k to be rude and judgemental about mothers wanting a natural birth but not about those jumping at the chance of pumping every drug available into their body without considering the alternatives?

I don't doubt that there can be iatrogenic reasons for a birth going wrong, but it's simply not true that pain relief will always and without exception result in injuries, stalled labours, trauma etc.

There's always this implication that if you didn't have had intervention x than y definitely would have never happened. Attributing everything to iatrogenic causes is as bad as if not worse than denying they exist.

Personally, I blame our culture for telling us we can't give birth more than telling us it is all easy. And I thank my lucky stars I don't have to give birth in the US where natural births are seen as the preserve of crazy hippies and the expectation is that you won't be able to cope. (My friend's words, not mine.)

Of course there are some who go to far, but the same could be said in either direction.

I'll 'spout crap' about natural births being best for mothers and babies etc (charming turn of phrase by the way, totally dismissive) because it is true. I haven't had a natural birth, doesn't change anything.

Wow OP I just read your last post. Is there really any need to be quite so rude? The caps and swearing aren't painting you in the best light.

Passion is fine but a few manners cost nowt.

But why are the NCT and the like always making out that any kind of intervention is always uneccessary? As if doctors and midwives are stood there just chomping at the bit to dive in there with their forceps or c sections. I am of the opinion that they are the trained professionals and they know best, and I am happy to go with whatever they feel would get baby out safely.

Incidentally, I would still be trying to push my DS out now if it hadnt been for intervention - I had planned gas and air, TENS a bit of natal hypnotherapy. After a looooong labour, I ended up with morphine, epidural, syntocinon drip and forceps in theatre. All it took was a little bit of turning for the doc and he came out easily, but there was no way he was coming out on his own!

My own NCT class was actually very good and she was very thorough and unbiased when discussing intervention - although I think maybe she got the measure of the group pretty early (ie. we were definitely not a group of natural homebirthers!).

I can demonstrate a classic cascade of intervention using my own example if it helps anyone, it isn't all bullshite.

doublestandard - "That said, if you have a heart condition you don't go straight to open heart surgery. You try less invasive stuff first unless the condition is so serious surgery needs to happen immediately for the safety of the patient"

Well said! A intention to have a 'natural' unmedicated birth does not preclude intervention later when it becomes advisable. The two things are not mutually exclusive. I managed 1 largely and 2 totally intervention-free births in a bog-standard NHS hospital. But if I had needed more help I wouldn't have turned it down.

Trouble is with the 'one size fits all' approach is that it assumes that we are all idiots and need things to be spelled out. It doesn't take into account that we may just be able to read the information given and make up our own mind.
I found this with the BF literature given to me at the hospital when I had both DS1 and 2

I'll 'spout crap' about natural births being best for mothers and babies etc (charming turn of phrase by the way, totally dismissive) because it is true. I haven't had a natural birth, doesn't change anything.

NinkyNonker I assume you are quoting me? I was refering to women who judge the value of mothers by the method they gave birth. I doubt my DS cares that he was born at home without pain relief any more than he'd care if he was born via c-section.

If you read my full post you'll see I am not pro-intervention for intervention's sake.

I absolutely don't preclude intervention (as detailed previously), I don't think anyone has suggested that at all.

I'm pregnant again now (early days) after my previous experience I am somewhat undecided on how to approach the whole icky labour thing. I stand by my assertion that natural is preferable though.

And the fact he got stuck was nothing to do with the interventions I had, it wasnt a 'cascade' - he was jut trying to come out of the side of my pelvis! And despite the interventions etc, giving birth to him was one of the most lovely experiences of my life (I can say that now!)

Ahhh, the natural birth!!! My hospital notes tell me I had one if them!

I read them the day after DD was born when the Diamorphine, gas and air and epidural had all worn off! :o

Thank God for medicine, that's all I can say.. These drugs allowed me to give birth and I didn't need a cesarean.. Without them, I couldn't have continued...after 4 bloody days of contractions and 24 hour of pushing.

Planning too much is ridiculous, the baby may just pop out but then again it may not. Women owe it to their babies to listen to their own gut feelings but also to ALL advice including that from midwives.

The NCT doesn't say intervention is always unnecessary - where does that come from? In my experience it is trying to explain to parents that there might be a choice and they have a right to question every decision that is made. Surely it's no bad thing for parents to understand the processes and why having an epidural (for example) may slow or even halt labour? Doesn't mean the woman won't still have the epidural - blimey if I'd be in labour for 24 hours and was knackered and in agony I'd probably want one - but why is it wrong to understand the implications? Not just for her but for her baby? And also of course that those implications are not always negative?

But why are the NCT and the like always making out that any kind of intervention is always uneccessary? Are they? Where? Certainly not on their website, mission statements or publications.

Sorry DoubleStandard, I misunderstood you.

yabu, i know it's already been said, but having been through one intervention-heavy labour due to being woefully uninformed I would do ANYTHING to avoid it again

and i did, and I managed to have 2 lovely homebirths after that one. It's really incredibly important for ME to do anything I can to avoid having any intervention.

not because I am some lentil-eaving hippy who believes doctors are bad or that I am inherently making the "right" choice by wanting a natural birth, but because I've seen both sides of the coin and I know which I prefer!

Of course I know that sometimes with the best will in the world things happen that lead to intervention, and I am fine with it. intervention in so many cases saves lives... but a vast amount more is completely unnecessary IMO.

"I was asked why I didn't love my dd enough to consider trying to do it properly"

I'd say to all the people on this thread who've described outrageous, stupid and unkind comments made by their NCT teachers - report them. If there is any truth in what you say then your teacher would be disciplined and have her contract cancelled.

The sentiment above runs directly counter to the central belief of the NCT, which is that mothers should be treated as individuals, listened to and be shown compassion.

I suspect however, that there's a lot of creative listening going on by people who are hostile to the belief put forward by the NCT (and the Royal College of Midwives incidentally) that there are significant emotional, social and health benefits associated with normal birth and that parents should know about it and know ways to improve their chances of having this kind of delivery.