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?

I can't get the link to work, anyone able to link to it?

Im amazed it required scientific research, it is obvious surely? Its the same as a lot of other medical intervention to save lives.

When I detach myself then I do agree with it. I think it's bonkers that we are intent on saving everyone when in reality we do need more people to die. The earth is running out of space for humans.

But then I think of all the women I know that have needed c sections, and their lovely children that have been saved by them and I'm so grateful for them.

I don't see how getting offended on behalf of other people is useful. It's a piece of research, and people taking it personally are a bit odd, I think.
I did have a caesar, as did my mother, so I may well be one of the cases they're referring to.
I would almost certainly have died without the caesar, so hooray for modern medicinev - not only were we both alive, I didn't even have a fistula!

I don't really understand the significance or why it's newsworthy. Just because we're intervening in something medically and it's "affecting" evolution it doesn't mean it's not still just evolution. Does evolution have to be "Mother Nature" led?

Imagine how many other tiny interventions here have been in the history of humans that have had an affect on how we've evolved.

And I had 2 completely drug free water births, so it doesn't directly affect me!

I found the article fascinating (2 c-sections due to over-10lb babies) and feel grateful that that intervention was available for me. However comments like the one above certainly wouldn't help anyone feeling bad about their c-section.

I had an emegency section and welcome all the knowledge scientific research can bring. Hiding new health related findings incase I and other women in my position feel bad would be fucking stupid. If I'm ever pregnant again, I know I'd be recommended to book an elective section and without research like this, and the research that shows poorer long term health outcomes for people born by section, I'd do so. Now that I have this information I can make a more informed decision in the future. Even if it doesn't work out, the research gives my the ability to make educated decisions to try my best. And to try and minimise negative outcomes for my son who was born by section.

I don't know why they needed 'scientic research' to come to the conclusion that women with small pelvises are now able to pass on the genes to future generations whereas previously, re-C section, they would have died in childbirth and that particular genetic line would have stopped right there.

I could have told them that for nothing and I ain't no scientist.

Julju - See I think its fascinating that as a species we can have an impact on our evolution. It makes for very interesting reading to some people.

You could argue its not really significant that there are other solar systems outside of ours as it will most likely never directly impact us. I think scientific advancement is absolutely essential and fascinating to help us understand both ourselves and the world at large.

forks and the development of the overbite

Ta Minifingerz, I knew I hadn't imagined reading something, though obviously it's a theory not definitive.

sorry, but your link doesn't work. any chance you could re-post it?

As a piece of science research its pretty neutral, I'm not sure the BBC has put any spin on it at all.

Evolutionary changes can happen quite fast. Its not just nature that causes evolutionary changes, human intervention can as well, but its all still evolution. Our abilities to cure disease, deal with disabilities etc etc are all probably having evolutionary changes on our population.

Its good to understand what is causing these so that we can try to affect them if we want. For example it might be possible to reduce the amount of C sections needed if that was something we wanted to do.

I don't really see a problem with the research, it's not saying caesareans are a bad thing (they are obviously not) just that they have affected evolution.

I do think that childbirth in all its forms can be a very emotive topic which does mean there is scope for the research to be taken the wrong way. Especially when combined with the lazy journalism and disgusting phrases like "too posh to push" (whoever came up with that should be shot!)

The only way you can read it as a slight on women who had C section is if you have a massive chip on your shoulder!

The article is explaining why something is happening - not passing any kind of value judgment on c sections.

Don't worry, I found it.

I can possibly see why some might find it offensive. However, I think they have a point. Whereas previously, only the strongest mums and babies would have survived childbirth, there are so many intervention now that mean that this is no longer the case. The same is true in respect of IVF- it means that people who in the past would not be able to reproduce are now able to. Inevitably, that will have an impact on the profile of the human race. However, now that we have these interventions, I am not sure it is a negative impact- it doesn't matter too much if someone would not have survived childbirth in the past, because we know they can now. So it's possibly not too much to get concerned about IYSWIM. I would see it as a good thing.

Apparently foot size is correlated to pelvis size (according to a midwife I got talking to once). I might have to hunt down the research and see how they estimated CS births due to small pelvis - because I was under the impression that no-one really knew.

Mine two EMCSes were probably caused by it, but no-one's written anything other than 'failure to progress' and no-one ever spoke to me about it (except for the casual chat with a midwife at a party once)

...although having said that I don't think the BBC article is that bad, it seems quite neutral to me? I didn't see any of the TV coverage so can't comment on that.

Only after I failed to push my 8lb 10oz baby out myself and needed forceps (she was too low for a c section) was I proven right in that I'd inherited my mother's pelvis (30 years previous she failed to get 7lb 5oz me out without forceps). I had asked throughout pregnancy whether there was any way to tell and was told "not till you try". Still amazes me that they can tell so little when you have so many scans etc.

Second baby they had the forceps ready. Just as they had with my mother. And both my aunties. And my nan. And my mum's cousin..............

The research seems speculative to me. Can they be sure that more women today have narrower pelvises than 200 years ago? They can't possibly have that data.

In fact, although the article starts by talking about narrow pelvises, it then goes on to discuss what seems to be the real issue, which is that babies are getting bigger (for reasons we're not quite sure of, but which are possibly related to maternal obesity). So the woman's pelvis is only too narrow in the sense that it's not wide enough for a big baby.

I'd have thought it was obvious that modern medicine would have an effect on the evolution of our species - people that would otherwise have died will now live to pass on their genes. Given that some of the 'saved' people would have died from a condition with a genetic component, it will change the genetic make up of the species over time.

i think the rise is more likely due to c sections being safer than they were. so 30years ago they may force a woman to push an 'almost too big' baby out. where as now they would allow a c section as it's deemed a safe routine procedure.
it doesn't state whether they've discounted elective sections, or sections given for reasons other than baby size. nor does it seem to take into account that some babies born by section could have been born naturally as they were not as big as expected.
also babies are bigger these days. that's a result of diet (easy access to food in areas where there wasn't before due to poverty or rationing) and lifestyle, more desk jobs etc. so a baby in the same woman may not have grown so big so would have been born naturally.
evolution takes longer than a generation. this is filler news. not science.

Pfft. So what? If and when we can no longer perform Caesarean sections, evolution will sort things out again, won't it.

I can't believe people were encouraged to have a go at pushing out giant babies if there was even a question of it not being safe, it sounds completely inhumane and so risky for the woman and the baby. Things can go very badly wrong very quickly!