To find the BBC article on research on c sections and evolution a bit off?

[bummymummy77]

_t.co/jrKmhdvCwy
_
I find it a bit off. Yes it's science and cold hard fact but for some reason the tone got to me a bit.

And this is coming from someone who had a home birth and is very anti unnecessary interventions.

I can imagine it making women who've had c sections feeling like shite.

Seemed to me a little like the way it was worded is added to the quiet drip drip of c section stigma.

I mean, we've evolved past having enough body hair to survive in caves and eat raw meat, we treat cancer and intervene medically to save 1000's of lives daily.

At the same time I find it interesting and obviously most research will benefit mankind in some way.

What are other's views on it?

mouldycheese I know, I was being faceitious. I was just referring to the tone of the reporting which seemed to sleepwalk into another blah blah too many c-sections story

I've just realised I would have been dead for 30 years last August!

Why the fuck would anyone feel stigma or shame about a c section,? What a bizarre notion. Never met anyone who felt that way.
But starting a thread saying that people feel stigma, shame and shite about a c section is rather odd behaviour and a clear attempt at a bunfight. Personally I would hate a homebirth I like all the drugs available, epidural yes please make it a double.
If you want to discuss the research that's one thing, but discussing the research whilst suggesting that c section people feel "shite, shame and stigma" 😂 is frankly designed to inflame.

So just to resort, the research only relates to one medical condition that necessitates a c section. Fetopelvic disproption.

I've never felt ashamed. My babies vastly outgrew my pelvic capacity, it's not really anyone's fault is it? Was told at the time that it was very rare so kind of heartened to read today that it happens quite often.

Op did your friends have fetopelvic disproportion? No? Then this article is not about them. If they did have it, they and their baby are alive due to c sections. So why you patronisingly think your friends would be upset by an article about one particular medical condition that they don't have I have no idea. Perhaps you need to either read the article and the research properly or have a lie down.

I think some do feel sad about having a c-section - I blame the Nct (our classes were very anti-intervention, 5/8 of us ended up with emergency section )

I had an energency caesarean and wasn't offended by the article. But then I have always viewed it as life saving surgery and actually pointed out to DP that DD and I had essentially beaten natural selection (I'm a biology teacher!). Which essentially is what we do through modern medicine generally, antibiotics and cancer treatments being other examples.

I thought a big contributing reason to the rise in caesareans was that generally there is a trend for increasing birthweight due to better nutrition?

I read that article and my first thought was that actually cephalo-pelvic disproportion (ie, mum's pelvis too small to give birth to baby) must be extremely hard to diagnose properly. Pelvimetry isn't done very often now and in any case is pretty inaccurate and not very useful in working out of a baby can be born vaginally. And who knows how many women would manage to push out a baby if they weren't lying in the stranded beetle position during labour, as the MAJORITY of mothers are in developed countries.

curtains I know quite a few people (all of whom did NCT) who were really gutted to have missed out on natural delivery. I'm all for supporting women to have natural delivered, but do think interventions need to be less frowned upon in the classes. My baby had the cord round her three times, was back to back, I'd been in labour for five days and there was meconium in the waters. No amount of birthing balls, massage or whale music was going to resolve that!!

YABU - scientific research should be reported as it is, not amended because it could hurt someone's feelings.

My take on it all is that the researchers were more impressed with the fact that they discovered changes to human evolution in such a short period of time. I agree with RainyDay and how modern medicine has provided all these great ways for us to overcome natural selection and why I get so angry when people demonise vaccines
I think there are many other ways women who have c-sections are made to feel rubbish about their birth but that wasn't what I got from this story.

Damn you women.... can't you just die in child birth.

The biggest reason for the recent huge rise in caesareans is defensive obstetrics and increase in previous caesarean section IMO.

The national rate for induction for first time mums in the U.K. Is now about 30% (some hospitals it's over 40%) and about 30% of those (over 40% in some hospitals) will have an emergency c/s.

I fully expect the c/s rate to climb to over 1 in 3 in the next decade as the NHS does more and more scanning, testing, inductions etc.

I know a couple of people who beat themselves up for not delivering naturally.

Personally, I couldn't give a damn.

My baby would have died without a C section, so anyone who tries to tell me that his birth was 'wanting' in any way can fuck right off with their idiotic opinions.

The article doesn't offend me in any way though. It's just reporting a (minorly) interesting scientific observation. I don't see it as judgement.

Mouldy I think the only person trying to start a fight on this thread is you. I wanted to start a discussion. I thought we were all big and ugly enough to do that without resorting to unpleasantness.

And to say people don't feel stigmatised by having c sections is really invalidating a lot of women's feelings. A lot of women don't and of course so they shouldn't but that don't negate the ones that sadly do.

I wouldn't have said it was "evolution" in its conventional sense. It's more like unnatural selection.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, or the article, and suspected that there would be some people on MN saying it made them feel like shit.

One slight and maybe paranoid concern is that in the near future there won't be the same medical care as there is now, and that antibiotics will not be effective and there will be lots of too big babies, and lots more maternal deaths.

And how on earth is a home birthing mother trying to show some empathy for mothers that have had to have c sections starting a bunfight ffs?

So op what point do you want to make about the research? As you haven't mentioned what your point actually is

"but do think interventions need to be less frowned upon in the classes"

Women know c/s can be life saving. You'd have to live under a stone not to know that.

Having a reasoned discussion about the risks of interventions is part of the point of antenatal education. I wish I'd bloody known. I did an NHS class and when I asked about forceps I got the response 'some people read too much' from the midwife. :-(
Note: I had a forceps birth. Wish I'd known more. I wouldn't have taken a full discussion of the risks as judgement or felt disappointed, just a bit less panicked by the problems I experienced afterwards.

I think yabu. Scientific research isn't about people's feelings, it's just about facts.

I've read something similar to this in one of the Call the Midwife books, a few years ago. It's not a particularly new idea.

It's starting a bunfight to say c section mums feel "shite, stigma,shame" 🙄
How patronising! Hilarious!

And entirety unconnected to the article.
Do you know anyone with that condition or ate yoy just feeling empathy patronising to all those who have had sections?

People feel stigmatised for all sorts of reasons. Doesn't mean they are being judged and discriminated against.

It's ok to be disappointed that your birth went pear-shaped. Your disappointment doesn't have to be someone else's responsibility.

"I think yabu. Scientific research isn't about people's feelings, it's just about facts."

Can you wheel that out the next time a major new study showing benefits of breastfeeding or staying at home with your children is published in response to the inevitable outbreak of posts by mn's complaining about being 'made to feel bad' about their feeding and work choices?

Let's not go down this road. The article was poorly written about an emotive subject.

YABU, it is simply reporting a recent scientific study. There is a lot that humanity does which could be classed as "unnatural selection". Screening for various birth defects, abortions, three parent babies etc.

C-sections have been going on for a bit longer so its probably easier to see what kind of result this leads to. I don't think any offence is intended at all.