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 am not sure whether you are or not really. A normal birth i always thought of was that the mother and baby were well and there were no complications. Ie no severe blood loss, etc.

Bottom line is, who cares whether it is normal or not...mine wasnt i suppose, i was in labouit 46hours32minutes, so NOT NORMAL, but still had a normal birth and a healthy baby. Thats what counts is that both mum and baby are doing well.

Hmm... but I am talking about the term in a medical sense, not in a wider sense... I am saying that normal/abnormal in medical terms does not carry a moral implication. Of course I wouldn't extend that argument to matters such as race, sexuality, religion etc etc. They are different arenas...

I don't think it does carry a moral implication, I do think it's used by some people, clinicians and public alike, in a judgemental way as though c-sections by their 'abnormality' are something bad which obviously they're not, wouldn't have two live births at all if I'd gone down the 'normal' route

But it is a "normal" delivery. CS are wonderful, fabulous lifesavers but they aren't normal births. That doesn't make them any less valid.

So, you had a CS. So what? Any issues are your own to deal with, no one else can make you feel better or worse about it.

Nobody is suggesting that medical professionals are making a moral judgement with normal/abnormal, in the same way as they weren't forty years ago when they spoke about retarded children.

The problem is that the terminology is not used exclusively within the medical profession, and has connotations which are unhelpful. It is also a confusing term for a layman.

But surely no-one thinks c-sections are bad - they are lifesavers! But they are not the norm... taken to the extreme: transpants of organs are not the norm (the vast majority of us do not have transpanted organs in us!), but no-one would ever deny that they are AMAZING and save people's lives...!

TBH, all I think when I hear that someone had a c-section, especially if they didn't have all the strong contractions in the run up to the c-section is... lucky them! In a way... I know the recovery is hard post cs, but boy were you lucky not to have the rips and episiotomies that can go with vaginal births!

All I am saying is, medically, vaginal births are normal

BAN THE D WORD

The main problem here is general attitudes. The word "normal" isn't totally neutral, no; but in this instance it's just a lightning rod for all the general, misogynistic bellyaching about uppity women taking advantage of the 20/21st century. Instead of suffering and occasionally dying. You know, like women are meant to.

Changing the words would just be sweeping it all under a rug. We need to actually scrub our culture's floor clean, here.

Let's face it normal is often used because in the real world people don't always feel that comfortable saying vaginal. I'm not saying it's right but it's true.

"But surely no-one thinks c-sections are bad - they are lifesavers! But they are not the norm... "

At the current rate of increase they will be the numerical norm by 2050. Or before. China's c/s rate is currently 46%. They haven't got far to go.

Anyone who manages to give birth without drips, monitors, episiotomy, forceps, ventouse, or c/s will be as rare as hens teeth by then.

Nice to know our granddaughters have got that to look forward to.

Re-read my post, and realised I implied caesareans were painless. I don't think that. I was terrified of having one, actually, because it sounded so painful .

I try to use the phrase 'ordinary delivery' in place of 'normal delivery', as I've got friends who had C-sections and were a bit sad that they hadn't delivered vaginally. For some reason ordinary doesn't sound quite as loaded as normal, to me anyway. I think I understand where the OP is coming from but the general language used is not going to change I'm afraid...

Birth

Birth

Birth

Birth

Am I the only person who doesn't give a shit they had an EMCS in terms of how I feel about the validity of my child's birth?!!!

Of course a vaginal birth is 'normal'. That's the way it 'normally' happens. It's also the natural way.

I had a VB and an EMCS. Tbh, the VB was overrated! I didn't suffer too much from the CS. I came out of hospital with a living breathing baby, which is all I care about!

OP some people like you would object to the terms independent and unassisted being used too simply because a) those terms would still imply that CS were dependent and assisted which could be construed as negative as in "I couldn't do it on my own, I was dependent on someone else and had to be assisted wah wah! and b) some people will always find something to be offended by.

Not something that worries me. Dd was an emcs, ds was going to be a home birth vbac, but just as we had blown the water pool up at home pre-eclampsia ruled it out and he was born a couple of days later as an elective cs.

Would have like to have given whale music and candles a go, but also had a "good" birth with each cs with 2 healthy children, which is the key thing.

Ghoulwithadragontattoo has got it in one. The correct term is vaginal- people, whether HCPs or mums at toddler group, just don't like saying vagina. Why is a whole other thread.

I usually just say I had 'straightforward' births (usually in defence when being told I had 'easy' births!)

Ghoulwithadragontattoo has got it in one. The correct term is vaginal- people, whether HCPs or mums at toddler group, just don't like saying vagina. Why is a whole other thread.

I usually just say I had 'straightforward' births (usually in defence when being told I had 'easy' births!)

There are a whole load of words that medics use during pregnancy and labour that are frankly off-putting - "elderly prima gravida" or "trial by labour", for example. There has to be a word to describe a delivery that didn't require any intervention, so they use "normal". Someone suggested "natural" but for a lot of people the word "natural" is far more loaded than "normal".

But, as shagmund said, it's not a moral judgement; the term is intended neutrally.

The natural way is 'normal' though, it's how we evolved and the majority of women have a 'normal' birth. Thankfully due to modern medical knowledge and access to lifesaving medical care, those of us whose births go wrong can be saved, as can our babies.

Why should medical professionals change their terminology to suit your chosen sensitivities? Why don't you change your view instead? Be very grateful that you had access to emergency surgery to save you and your baby from the 'normal' outcome that those without access to medical care (the majority of the world's population) are condemned to when birth goes wrong.

My dd's birth was quite terrifying at the time because we both almost died, once it was all over and we were both guaranteed to survive all I could feel was the most overwhelming sense of relief and gratitude.

Changing other peoples terminology won't make you feel like less of a failure, for that you simply have to change your mind.

It would involve getting over yourself and appreciating the opportunities for survival that living in a first world country offers, it would involve being grateful for the surgery which likely saved your baby and perhaps even you, it would involve you understanding that you are responsible for your own misery, not normal birthers or those who refer to them as such.

bobbledunk, do you ever post anything nice and supportive?

"I try to use the phrase 'ordinary delivery' in place of 'normal delivery'"

How dare you suggest that my children's births were merely ordinary, with the implication that someone who had a CS had an extraordinary one.

No, of course I don't actually think like that, but it has just as many potential negative connotations as the current descriptions :)

"Why should medical professionals change their terminology to suit your chosen sensitivities? Why don't you change your view instead?"

Because they have done in the past. 'Retard' is no longer an acceptable medical term for example.

Language changes over time and signifies differing things. Why on earth would the medical profession be exempt from changes in language?

I was horrified when I read in my notes that my horrific, nightmare giving birth to DD was described as a 'normal birth'.

But look in the dictionary and the word normal means:

Adjective:
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun:
The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

tethersend; retard was used as a term of abuse for people with learning disabilities so it was rightly changed. 'normal' is not a term of abuse and expecting medical professionals to refrain from using it is ridiculous.

fanjo; yes, when it's justified. The op is miserable because she has wrongly convinced herself that she is a failure. By sympathising with her, I would be agreeing with her assessment. I'd rather try change her mind so she can learn to be happy with the outcome of her child's birth. She is perfectly entitled to ignore me and continue blaming the word 'normal' for all her problems if she wants.

I think "normal" needs to stay with its precise mathematical meaning, so use another word by all means

Problem you then have is whatever new term you use then sets off on the euphemism treadmill until it too eventually offends the sensitive.