to think the term 'normal delivery' should be banned from use by medical professionals?

[maxpower]

I had to have an emcs with DD and was devastated by it. But what continued to upset me was the way other people referred to VBs as being 'normal' - as if I was somehow abnormal because of what had happened to me. I think it'd lessen the feeling of failure that can come with emcs or assisted deliveries if the term 'normal delivery' wasn't used. They could be called 'independent deliveries' or 'unassisted deliveries' instead.

I can see the problem. Normal is a pretty unhelpful word to use here. It doesn't actually describe the situation well - look how many of us are a bit stumped as to what it means. These days, the 'norm' probably isn't completely hands-off, natural delivery. Certainly most people are in hospital. Even without getting het up by connotations, 'normal' is a really vague descriptor if what you're trying to say is did you deliver vaginally or by CS.

I thought 'unassisted' generally meant without a midwife - the hard shoulder of the M42 scenario!

"Very interesting. I'm fascinated how a significant number of you have told me I feel like a failure. I never actually said that. (And I'm not being touchy or defensive, I'm just stating a fact)"

op, you did infer you felt a failure, your opening line is "I had to have an emcs with DD and was devastated by it"

this is obviously a highly emotive subject, there is no right or wrong, a healthy baby is the best outcome.

...And if you had forceps or ventouse, you also didn't have a 'normal' delivery. You were pretty forcibly assisted and without that intervention you may well have died - same as CS in terms of 'normality', I'd say.

'Natural' - also unhelpful. What, no pain relief? Or by definition, at home? Or just vaginally, but epidural and forceps and manual removal of placenta technically ok?

what a minefield.

Ah ok.

Well with ds I ended up with stitches and had a PPH so post birth intervention. When they asked me if it was normal (when pregnant with DD), I didn't bat an eyelid at the term.

The thing is, no one can make you feel any particular way - you choose to feel that way. So changing the name of something spear change the facts and if the facts make someone feel a failure, they need to tackle that not the terminology.

I don't agree that the word 'normal' does not signify any moral judgement. It is widely used to describe something which fits between defined parameters.

Would those who claim the word is neutral also agree that the word 'abnormal' is free of moral judgement?

We do not as individual get to decide what a word means; that is not how language works. Words signify what they signify, even if that is different to their intended definition.

Anyone who thinks that the word 'normal' signifies no moral judgement is not normal.

"Natural" has too many other connotations, especially in relation to birth. It would just lead to confusionm

HCP: was it natural (meaning was It vaginal or sunroof)
Woman: no- thank god for the epidural- I couldn't have coped without it. (Thinking hcp is asking about pain relief)

Had 4 vaginal delivers but 3 were not spontanious they were inductions -2 for failing to progress and 1 was elective(by me)......

My history would have been long and boring if not for the word 'normal'

YABU - IMO

YABU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My god woman really?

I have had 2 c-sections, both planed, and have never gone into labour and never will, but a vaginal delivery is normal and the way its ment to happen!

get over it!

I have had all 'normal' deliveries and don't want to refer to them as anything other than what the professionals call them, which has always been 'normal'!!

So why should I call them something else because a few people don't like it!? I dont want it changed.

YANBU and I have tackled several senior midwives at work over this. For 25% of women who have given birth, c-section is their normal. It's a horrible expression and is part of midwife propoganda that we should all be aiming for vaginal delivery.

propoganda? Bloody hell, sort of proving my point there.

Anyway, we should be aiming for vaginal delivery, unless there is sensible medical reason otherwise. Not really a shocker, is it, that a baby should probably come out the easiest simplest way rather than through major surgery, unless that surgery is medically necessary?

This doesn't have to be a minefield, and you're laying your own bombs.

Oh I don't really know the best terminology. I just wish no woman was left feeling devastated or a failure by something that you have relatively little control over. I am all for making the birthing process easier, more transparent and informed consent but also for telling the truth.

I think the commercialisation of birth and giving birth has a lot to blame. We are all sold this idea that by doing X or Y we can make a difference, whereas the reality is your age, internal layout, where you live, your baby's size and orientation, other genetic factors and luck are what makes a difference to what the norm is.

The norm for my age, with my family history and pregnancy last time was vaginal delivery with a 25% chance of intervention. Now I am older if I have another the likelihood of intervention increases until I reach an age where intervention is the norm.

OP, you are right that "normal" is a daft word because it depends on so many variables. Vaginal, intervention etc are all better words.

Yes you are.

Actually, I think we should be able to choose the way our babies come out; including elcs. If you assess the risks and opt for one, maternal choice should be a valid enough reason.

But that's another thread

totally disagree tethers, unless they all get medical training first, as well as pay for privately (since sections cost several multiples of the cost of v-deliv.) But yes, another thread

It'll only be a matter of hours before there's one on that very issue, Paranoid

I've had pretty much every 'type' of delivery going. DD1 I needed a ventouse, DD2 I almost had a ventouse, but they said I wouldn't be able to go home the same day so I told them to get the fucking vacuum away from me that I would get her out, and did. DS was EMCS at 28 weeks and DD3 ELCS.

I couldn't really give a stuff how my babies came out tbh, so long as they were ok - which two of them would NOT have been had I not had ventouse/EMCS.

And I took every drug offered with the first two. They were long, slow, agonising labours. The drugs were most definitely needed

I did have a "normal" delivery and it was so traumatic that every time someone asks if it was a normal delivery I want to say NO!

This is ridonkulous.

My birth was not unassisted, sure it was free of interventions but the midwife assisted me in delivering my baby a fuck of a lot.

Normal means the norm. Vaginal birth is the norm.

Honestly OP? Is this a serious question? Normal = it is the norm, i.e. more than 50% of babies are born by vaginal delivery, not by cs.

I totally disagree that describing the way the majority of women give birth as "normal" is in any way a moral judgement on women who give birth by cs. I don't see how this is an issue? The normal way of giving birth is vaginal birth, unless there is a medical reason for another type of delivery, i.e cs. I assume there was a good medical reason for you to have your emcs... how is it a issue by which you are judged/you should judge yourself.

As an aside, this is not to say I am sweeping away any feeling that you may have been traumatised by your DD's birth... that can happen with any type of birth and is, I guess, becasue of the way things were handled and the, frankly, terrifying nature of the whole process. But being traumatised by a scary or degrading experience is not the same as feeling judged... and I think normal is precisely the right term for the method of childbirth that is the norm!

And swapping normal for "unassisted"? Pah! I was GREATLY assisted by my midwife - I couldn't have done it without her!

Tether - in medical terms (and that is what we are talking about), of course abnormal does not have moral connotations. I have abnormally formed eustatian [sp] tubes (tubes in your ear that drain "gunk" away)... that is a fact! Not a moral judgement!

Perhaps the word 'normal' could be changed to 'natural'.

I think natural is far more emotive than normal, and less clear. Do you mean no pain relief? does gas and air count? Do you mean no forceps etc?

ON reflection, although I juts don't see the problem with normal meaning the norm, perhaps "vaginal" as opposed to "by cs"? But OP, that wouldn't change the fact that vaginal birth is the norm!

YABU in thinking different terminology should be used.
YANBU for feeling devastated that you had a CS. They're your personal feelings and you are entitled to them, as are we all. That said, in the nicest possible way, I hope you don't dwell on it too much because it's just one of those things and doesn't make you abnormal at all.

"I totally disagree that describing the way the majority of women give birth as "normal" is in any way a moral judgement on women who give birth by cs."

legally, why do we not call children with no SN 'normal' if the word has no value judgement attached? It doesn't matter if you or I see it as a moral judgement or not; the word 'normal' has connotations beyond our own beliefs.

Normal = it is the norm, i.e. more than 50% of babies are born by vaginal delivery, not by cs.
Normal = over 50%, nice definition, does that mean that black people in Britain are not normal (after all they don't make up over 50% of the population) or that SN children are abnormal as they also don't make up over 50% of the child population in the UK. Your definition is flawed.