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'm a sonographer and ask patients everyday if they had a normal delivery or a c section. purely because I'm looking for a c scar whilst I scan. I don't think any of us think any less of women because they've had a c section. we all know full well their not a decision made lightly and we do not think any less of any women who has had to have one. May be its me being naive that women feel that they were a failure for having to have a section but we make no judgements to people who've had one.

'Normal' birth is not a terribly helpful term, as I'm never sure quite what comes into it. I had a vaginal birth, but with intervention (ventouse) though no epidural/painrelief apart from G and A. I have heard such births described as 'instrumental' which sounds like we got out the maracas and had a party. So, YANBU that 'normal' is not a good term to use (still not clear if I had a 'normal' birth myself) but I don't think it is perjorative, its not normal to stick a vacuum cleaner device to a baby's head and pull it out, but I am not complaining.

bobbledunk, you asserted that the medical profession should never have to change their language; I cited the fact that the word 'retard' was no longer used as evidence that the medical profession has changed its language in the past and is not exempt from doing so.

This is not the same as likening the word 'normal' to the word 'retard' in any other context, and it is absurd to imply that I did.

Can anyone explain why health professionals no longer refer to normal/abnormal children when discussing SN?

Whatme, that's the beauty of language- it changes. Some words become more offensive, some less so. It's fluid. Nothing to do with sensitivity, just a shift in society's norms and values.

Arf at 'instrumental birth'

IMo it should be vaginal, not normal. It's just describing the way the baby came out. I've had both a c-section and a vaginal delivery but my vaginal delivery was probably very different to the woman who did it just after me. And it certainly wasn't 'natural', with three medical professionals staring up my foof, continual foetal monitoring and a canula in my arm.

Vaginal does seem the most accurate and sensible term.

Babies normally come out of the vagina, it's how we evolved. Babies coming out of a hole made by a scalpel in the mothers stomach is not normal. Its not uncommon, and it's not a failure, it's just not what normally happens. Yanbu for feeling how you do, and talking through your feelings is a good thing, but the very fact that you were devastated by what happened reinforces that it wasn't normal.

A vaginal birth is a normal delivery.

Babies normally are born out of the vagina.

It's not like they're all calling it "the right kind of delivery" or anything

Of the 6 women who delivered on the same day as me, I was the only one who delivered vaginally. I was abnormal that day.

'Normal' is just vague. It's not accurate and therefore annoying IMO.

"the very fact that you were devastated by what happened reinforces that it wasn't normal."

I would question the logic of that statement. I would say that throughout history, there were plenty of women who were devastated by their 'normal birth', particularly through injury or death of the baby. Therefore devastation is no indicator of 'abnormality'.

tethersend; if we are to ban medical professionals from using the word 'normal' to describe normal deliveries because some oversensitive person decides that they would be less miserable about their surgical birth if that particular word was banned (which is utterly ridiculous), then presumably we have to ban every word that some oversensitive person chooses to be offended by. If we ban 'normal', we can ban anything and everything.

You were the one who equated banning normal with the previous banning of the word retard and good for you for realising the absurdity of equating the two. It is that absurdity that makes the banning of an inoffensive (normal) and factually correct term (normal delivery) absurd.

Banning the word normal will not make op less miserable about her surgical delivery. Getting over herself and having gratitude for the privilege of having 'abnormal' options when birth goes wrong would.

Vaginal does seem the most accurate and sensible term

I agree.

Of course, in 10 or sp years time the euphemism treadmill will demand another word for "vaginal" as by then it will have become associated with the norm.

But... A c section isn't the norm. It is major abdominal surgery, and mother and baby need all the care and attention and additional help that entails.

I think there are worse turns of phrase.

"You were the one who equated banning normal with the previous banning of the word retard and good for you for realising the absurdity of equating the two. It is that absurdity that makes the banning of an inoffensive (normal) and factually correct term (normal delivery) absurd."

1. No, I didn't. I used the word 'retard' as an example of how you were wrong in your assertion that the medical profession should never have to change its language. Let me know if you need me to explain this again.

1. The absurdity was your inference alone. Good for me indeed.

It's a bit odd to attack someone for being 'oversensitive' when you clearly feel so strongly about this issue. Words signify things whether you like it or not; the word 'normal' carries a value judgement in common parlance, albeit a minor one. I think there are better and more accurate words to use; vaginal seems ideal. What's the objection to that?

It's not a 'euphemism treadmill', it's the evolution of language.

Tethers, women devastated by the death or injury of their baby aren't devastated by the birth but by the outcome. The op wasnt devastated by the outcome but by the process of the birh itself.

The OP isn't the pnly person who objects to this. I've heard it from a number of women in RL.

rogers, plenty of women were devastated by the injuries they received giving birth; plenty of infant deaths were as a result of the birth.

Devastation is no indicator of abnormality- both situations are completely normal.

Vaginal isn't a euphemism.

My birth notes described DSs birth as 'uneventful' not from where I was sitting

rofl - now that terminology really would piss me off!

The medical profession have changed their language where it was appropriate to do so. Banning the word 'normal' is not necessary because it is not offensive.

I wasn't attacking anybody for being oversensitive, just pointing out that when you develop an obsession with innocent words to the extent that you want to ban them, it is!

Why should they change it at all? I'm sure if they did, you would have many more people complaining about how the word vaginal makes them feel so bad and if only it could be banned they would feel so much better about their surgical delivery.

The op's feelings about her method of delivery not being what she wanted is the problem here, not any word and all the wordplay in the world will not change that.

What actually needs to change is that women need to stop berating themselves or feeling that they have failed. Words won't do that.

But nobody's asking for the word 'normal' to be banned- just suggesting that due to its connotations, it may not be the best word to describe a vaginal birth.

By calling anyone who is offended by the description of their birth as normal/abnormal as 'oversensitive' and saying that they choose to be offended, you

"Why should they change it at all? I'm sure if they did, you would have many more people complaining about how the word vaginal makes them feel so bad and if only it could be banned they would feel so much better about their surgical delivery."

Really? I'm not so sure. But, if the word 'vaginal' were to become offensive, then language would change in order to reflect the shift in society's perceptions. This is not wrong or bad; and it wouldn't be because it signifies a vaginal birth. In the same way, the word 'normal' is not wrong or bad because it signifies a vaginal birth; it is inaccurate and therefore inappropriate because it doesn't. The fact that it implies a moral judgement compounds this.

'normal' is a euphemism for vaginal. That's what they mean when they say it. I can't see why a medical professional would use a euphemism.

Oops, missed a bit of a sentence:

By calling anyone who is offended by the description of their birth as normal/abnormal as 'oversensitive' and saying that they choose to be offended, you belittle their argument.