To not get why a vaginal birth is so important to some people?

[Liketochat1]

Some mothers talk of the trauma and disappointment of not giving birth vaginally. Some say they don't feel like a proper woman or that their body failed them. For many this sounds very traumatic, for others moaning.
AIBU to not 'get' why this is so important to them? I've had 2 c sections and was only intensely grateful that I live in a country and in an age where there are gifted surgeons and resources available to perform these life saving operations. In other parts of the world women are dying in childbirth as they don't have access to these.
Am I so unreasonable to think this?

im saying that emphasising the live birth isnt enough,it minimises the process and impact on the mum
and its a bit of a taboo to discuss feeling traumatised when supposed to be grateful for live birth
yes clinically livebirth is the priority,but maternal mental health can be affected by birth

Absolutely. I don't think I disagree with any of those comments. Even if the baby lives b ut the birth is really dreadful some women have PTSD etc. I did not mean otherwise.

I was really commenting oin mothers who are a bit disappointed things did not go to some plan when in fact birth often does not. I object to baby showers too because a pregnancy is a hope not a certainty and you shiouldn't count your chickens until they are hatched.

You do get the bad labours on threads like this and I hope women are not put off. Many of us have pretty okay births by and large. Indeed my mother had us in a very few hours each time.

glad we concur
yes birth has become stylised and marketed as a vb no analgesia is perfect mc birth.bouncing on gym ball,chanting an incantation with a doula at hand
no one needs such pressure, and yes baby showers are ghastly way to encourage spending on pricey tat

schmee on the c-section for twin births, I'm too lazy to go look up the RCOG guidelines but I think that since that 2002 article they've looked at it again and decided that vb for twins is about similar risk to c-section if the first one is head down.

before giving birth, i had had quite limited contact with the medical profession - getting prescriptions for birth control, once for a UTI when I was a teenager. Whatever my expectations of childbirth were, they did not include being treated like a willfully malfunctioning piece of meat by hcp whilst in labour. it ended with an emCS, and funnily enough, it was the surgical team who treated me with dignity and respect.

my second birth was prem, and i spent however many hours with hcp dismissing that i was even in labour, telling me patronisingly that i couldn't possibly be, telling me that i could not have any pain relief as they needed to be able to see how much pain i was in. this carried on right up until my waters broke, and ds was crowning.

my second child's birth was better (for me) than my first's. if anything, it should have been worse - my second was quite early, i was labouring alone. The only difference i can see is that i listened to my own body and did not take any of the hcp patronising nonsense (you aren't in labour! silly girl! maybe it's a kidney stone! FFS) to heart.

I'm sorry if this has already been stated - I don't have time right now to read the whole thread!

Anybody who says, "Well, at least the baby is ok", should stop and think for a second: would anybody say "Never mind about the baby"? Highly unlikely. Therefore, the statement is utterly pointless.

Just because a baby is born healthy, does absolutely NOT invalidate the mother's experience of what happened to her during childbirth - not even a little bit. She does not cease to exist for labour and birth just because a child is born.

The same goes for a baby that is born with problems, or dead: the mother's feelings about the experience of the birth are something she is entitled to, because what HER MIND AND BODY went through is HER EXPERIENCE.

Therefore, the statement is utterly pointless. I mean that in the context of dismissing how the mother feels about her birth, not that I don't care about the health of the baby. For this point, it's a separate issue - and one that is just as important.

Just in case that wasn't clear...

I think all births are different. My vb was horrific. The damage wasn't corrected until my baby was 18 months old. Even then it wasn't 100% corrected. I'm left with problems. I didn't go on to have a 2nd dc as a result. My body isn't as it was and will never be the same again.

I wish they had given me a c section.

No one way is better than the other to me.

I loved giving birth to my son, it was the most wonderful amazing experience of my life-despite the pain (at 10 lb 3 he was a forceps delivery).
Prior to labour I refused to consent to a c section unless my baby was in imminent danger. I am so glad that I did.
Having said that if you are happy to have a c section, then there is nothing wrong with that-different strokes for different folks.

"I am very sympathetic to people's birth traumas"

That wording does not sound like someone who understands that we're talking about Birth Trauma, PTSD following a birth. None of your comments have ever sounded like they appreciate that we're talking about the same mental health condition suffered by people serving and calling babies commodities is just the height of your lack of sympathy.

"Obviously if you're really hurt by it get some therapy and try to think of other ways to feel better about it all."

Go and tell that to a solider!!!

I don't agree with anything you've said, I've not read anyone feeling the way you describe and find it quite offensive the way you talk about people. You don't know what people go through, you're not in their heads, you didn't live through their absolutely unique experiences so you are in no position to pass judgement!

Well said cantreachmytoes!

I quite know what the objection is. I said some people have awful births and need therapy. Some need a C section for the children and mother to be okay. If you don't need a C section most of us agree it is better to have a vaginal birth. I have nowhere said I have no understanding of PTSD. Just about my whole family are involved in mental health. I would imagine I know much more about it than most, not less.

However I do believe there are two categories - women so damaged they have PTSD etc and need lots of help. Women who are a bit disappointed it wasn't the birth they wanted who can try to look on the bright side which is how most us get on with our lives on a day to day basis. I don't think there is anything controversial in that position at all.

When I said "YANBU" to the OP, I rally wasn't referring to women who'd had such dreadful experiences that they suffered PTSD.

The kind of EMCS I had was not traumatic and I doubt many women would find it so - it was a million miles from some of the births described here and elsewhere. But there are women who seem unduly upset about having been deprived a vaginal birth - that's what I cannot fathom and what makes me cross.

Why does it make you cross though? How does it affect you personally?

This gets very interesting, doesn't it? Some women laugh off the man who gropes their breasts at work and another is traumatised for life. We cannot not accept their trauma.

Anyone watch Ian Hislop's 3 programmes recently on the Stiff Upper Lip? Worth watching if you have time.

I never got a choice. It was an EMCS and it came after 3 definite miscarriages, 1 historical undiagnosed one, and lots of heartache.

I understand that everyone is entitled to their own feelings and view points on this matter but would really appreciate it if people wouldn't tell me how crap CSes are.... I hate it when women preach about one way or another. Birth isn't a one size fits all commodity and as such, stating your strong views vociferously will undoubtedly cause offence, upset and heartache for others on occasion. But I find she who shouts loudest generally doesn't give a fuck about anyone else. They are also the people who have never had it rough.

I can understand what is one woman's trauma is another woman's 'so what?'. You'll never change the feeling of either party, so why try.

I also tire of the only child debate where people patronisingly concede that it can't be helped in some cases, but look how awful it is to be an only child!!! How sad it must be for onlies, not necessarily now but when the parents get old and they can't share the load. I genuinely believe some folks were born without the sensitivity gene....

Yes, I always don't even ask people if they have children, just in case they cannot have them or hate them.

I do feel we need to ensure young girls don't think elective C sections to avoid all the pushing and because some celebrities have them are the right way to go though. That is the only general point I would like hammered home to younger girls.

Most people on the thread have said having a life baby is the only end point we all want really, never mind the birth. It was certainly what I was most after when I had the twins - twin births are riskier than single ones.

You can certainly make out a case for never having children or only having one. There is nothing as bad for the planet as what i did - having 5 children. In fact inthe 70s when I was teenager there was a huge movement against big families on environmental grounds, a massive thing, something you felt if you had babies. We lost that despite all our fussing over global warming but it remains true. Mankind has ruined this planet and having babies at all very much adds to that much more so than if you change your brand of car or get solar panels. having one child should get you a hero of the people medal really.

Xenia Mon 29-Oct-12 09:19:00
Just about my whole family are involved in mental health. I would imagine I know much more about it than most, not less.

It utterly frustrates me when people on the interwebs use OTHER PEOPLES qualifications to some how add weight to their OPINION when the truth is they are talking out of their backsides.

Birth trauma is an area of mental health which is way behind where it should be in terms of support, research and knowledge even from people within the field for this day and age. The situation is utterly appalling.

What really narks me about your comments Xenia, is this automatic assumption and stating that women are seeing ELCS as 'better' and cultural life style choices. This attitude is one that is ADDING to cultural taboos surrounding birth trauma & fear & asking for help. And sadly because there is this myth that ELCS are being asked for for lifestyle reasons rather than mental health ones the support and political will that is needed to research this area of medicine just isn't there.

The Select Committee Fourth Report in 2003 found that research into the reasons why women ask for ELCS was not there. It recommended that standardisation of the reasons for ELCS being done was implemented to add this so research could be done. TO DATE THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. So we are left in a situation where myths are allowed to persist rather than actually properly getting to the bottom of the problem and addressing what mental health issues there might be surrounding birth fear and trauma for all concerned.

The trouble is when you make statements like:
However I do believe there are two categories - women so damaged they have PTSD etc and need lots of help. Women who are a bit disappointed it wasn't the birth they wanted who can try to look on the bright side which is how most us get on with our lives on a day to day basis. I don't think there is anything controversial in that position at all.
How do define what is trauma and what is life crippling? I find it a statement that is somewhat belittling and doesn't allow for a sliding scale for how a birth can affect a woman. Its almost as if, if you aren't on your knees begging for help you somehow haven't got the right to feel anything about your birth other than gratitude that your baby is alive and your feelings are trivial. And that in itself is something that stops people with more serious problems from trauma from seeking help as they feel like they don't want to be dramatic or cause a fuss etc. THERE NEEDS TO BE GREATER SUPPORT FOR EVERYONE WHO FEELS LIKE THEIR BIRTH WASN'T WHAT THEY EXPECTED FOR WHATEVER REASON.

The same principle goes for women who ask for an ELCS. To be meet with any kind of response that they are asking for cultural reasons rather than any other reason is a hinderance to those who are in genuine need because of the set of judgements it creates within society. There are numerous women on this site who are regulars who will tell you about how they have come across this type of attitude from PROFESSIONALS before and after birth despite having a mental health diagnosis to back them up.

In truth, the evidence building up from research abroad seems to point to the fact that women who ask for an ELCS follow a pattern in terms of their mental health, as much, if not more than they follow a pattern for their social demographic. (And actually what research does exist seems to point to it being woman over 35 asking for ELCS rather than teenagers). It is looking more and more like women who ask for an ELCS should be treated with more respect and in need of more support, rather than being given the label of 'seeking an easier birth'. Failure to do this, ultimately is both poor healthcare and economically unsound as it creates more problems after the fact.

In terms of how someone feels about her birth, its completely and utterly up to the woman experiencing it. I am supportive of anyone who feels they 'missed out' on a VB as much as I am supportive of those who elect for a CS. The more I read, the more I feel that we are stuck in a rut with maternity and the existing prescribed limits of what is considered 'normal' and what isn't and how childbirth is being managed. And this is where women are being failed most. In order for things to change there needs to be a wholesale attitude change by professionals, politicians and the public to enable use to have the will to look at this with fresh eyes and a lack of judgement/ideology so that good unbiased research can be done.

I don't feel thats going to be for sometime, so for now we are left in this unholy situation where women have to PROVE how desperate or traumatised they are to a certain level of acceptability before getting help, rather than accepting from the start there is a problem, no matter how big or small and working backwards from that and assessing the depth of the problem with support from the beginning.

I totally 'get' why the method by which you give birth is so important to any woman. Its tied up, with every notion of what it is to be a woman, self identity, self worth, status within society, cultural pressures, expectations, ideology, how you are treated by medics and other staff, how the system of healthcare is so standardised and rigid, feelings of betrayal at not being properly informed, the choice of terminology in childbirth, issues surrounding consent, issues surrounding control. Comparisons with weddings v marriage and birth v baby completely miss the point and lack any understanding whatsoever.

For me the question is why people DON'T get why the method of birth is so important, because that raises a hell of a lot more important questions about healthcare and psychological well being than asking the opposite.

And any judgement whatsoever in the context of that is a major hinderance.

Xenia, I have to say that your failure to understand why your comments have upset a few people here speaks volumes for how closed your mind is to this and how ignorant of how important some of these issues are to their mental health. You belittling what they say, only reinforces the status quo and doesn't help us to move forward and progress. The fact you have lots of relatives in mental health is irrelevant. You aren't - you have no expertise. You haven't experienced any of these things and you've repeatedly shown a complete lack of empathy with very cold, trite responses to emotional criticism of what you've posted. I think its quite sad, how you fail to connect and consistently feel the need to stay aloof and above others on this forum and do so by using methods like making your statement sound superior because of your family connections.

Open your mind and listen to people and show them a bit more respect.

My hat goes off to the Birth Trauma Association who support women on both sides of the VB v CS debate. Not enough people are doing this and women are being lost in the rivalry and politics between medicalised births and the natural birth lobby.

It makes me cross LaVol because it's yet another stick to beat ourselves with.

WOHM (I quite deliberately use M there rather than P) - you're depriving your children. SAHM (ditto) - you're depriving your children. FF - you're depriving your children. Can't make a chicken stretch for 4 dinners - you profligate materialist you. And so it goes, on and on.

I can't deny that squeezing a baby out must be a rite of passage (as it were). But the biggest rite of passage in the whole child-acquiring process, surely, is becoming a parent - however that happens. It is very sad that some women's experience of this is so marred by needing a CS. How has that happened?

But some women will be upset if they wanted a VB and didn't get one. I can't speak from personal experience as far as a CS goes but I suspect it's something almost subconscious.

Perhaps it depends on what exactly happened in the woman's birth? The nearest I get to this is that I had a forceps with my first - I don't beat myself up about it, in fact I quite enjoyed the birth, - but somewhere inside my brain there was the feeling that this could probably have been avoided if my labour had been better managed, and that I was a bit of an outsider looking in on the process. I was never convinced it was necessary - a failure to be patient rather than a failure to progress. I wanted to do my damndest to avoid it the next time - which I did.

I am not alone in this I think - another friend had an induction the first time and was jubilant the second time round when she went into labour naturally. She kept saying over and over 'I did it myself'. I can't recall anyone commenting on her first birth so where did this feeling come from?

I sort of feel it's the same sort of force which drives some people to climb mountains... it's not entirely rational.

Sorry, not explaining very well.

fedup now THAT'S the post we needed...

Thank you for so eloquently explaining why birth matters. I might copy and paste it, because it helps to be able to articulate why a seemingly 'successful' birth outcome (live baby, live mother), even vaginally, as my first was (wouldn't use the word natural, in any sense) can have far reaching consequences for a mother's mental well being, and sometimes the well being of her child.

You seem very knowledgable, may I ask if this is in a professional capacity? (Feel free to tell me to f* off, obvs.)

I find myself becoming more and more passionate about this issue. More needs to be done to help women come to terms with their birth experience. It ought to be an intrinsic part of postnatal care, and not based on assumptions about how traumatic a birth needs to be before it might be an issue. Routine debriefs, at maybe the six week check would be a start...

I attended a 'birth trauma' clinic after DD's birth. Unfortunately they were only interested with the state of my perineum, which, although mangled, had nothing on the state of my head at the time...

db
xx

I think I am having imposed on me here views I don't have. I have said women suffer huge trauma over births and they need treatment. I do not really see what is unsympathetic about that.

Maybe it's the way you express those views, Xenia, that leads you to be misconstrued...

Standing ovation goes to fedupofsomecalledexperts

Xenia, you should re-read your posts then, and maybe read them again after that, then read my link and fedup's post. I'm pretty sure you won't see it though. Unless you're actually sympathetic to the issue you won't get it. Being sympathetic doesn't mean saying "Yes, some women walk away with PTSD" because you are making it black and white, one or the other.

designerbaby, the problem is that there are two meanings to the term. One is the official meaning that I'd write in caps (Birth Trauma) and the other means physical damage after a birth, although it's also used for Birth Rape - as much as I believe in Birth Rape, I think it's not doing favours to use BT to cover it, BT as a result of BR is different (OK, I'll stop talking before I write pages). It sounds like you were sent to a birth trauma clinic rather than a Birth Trauma clinic IYSWIM.

Oh, I get that confuddled... I knew what it was for, birth trauma with a small b&t and that it was for women who had 3rd or 4th degree tears or other vaginal/cervical/perineal trauma. And it's not that I didn't appreciate the care taken to put me back together, physically.

I just, with hindsight, find it kind of gobsmacking that while they were so concerned about my shredded lady-parts, never once did anyone so much as ask what effect the whole experience might have had on my mental wellbeing.

I think as part of the 6 week check a debrief ought to be offered to every woman - without any judgement about whether what she went through was 'traumatic enough'.

But I guess it all costs money the NHS doesn't have...

db
xx

I had doctors visit me next day after my sections but no one ever debriefed me. It took almost 5 years to get a debrief on the first! I had asked for one and PALS arranged it but the woman who did it held my notes close to her body, acted defensively and said "It was a normal section, what do you want me to say? They went in, took her out and sewed you up" I thought "wow, that filled in the 45 minute gap in my memory, didn't it?"

As a Doula I teach people the importance of TBRAINS and always say that if you get to T and the answer is no we don't have Time then you should make sure you do the BRAINS part afterwards!

I think a hospital that has a birth trauma group is not going to get the difference between Birth Trauma and birth trauma!