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 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."

So many more things affect your ability to get your baby out than just the size of your pelvis. How well molded the baby's head is, your position (sitting on your backside reduces the space the baby has to come out by as much as 25%), the position of your baby, how much energy you have left to push with by the second stage of labour....

"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"

Because 1. scans estimating fetal weight are not accurate and 2. because the evidence suggests that planned c/s for babies suspected of higher birthweight (in the absence of other complicating factors like diabetes or previous c/s) doesn't improve outcomes for babies and puts women at higher risk of serious ill health.

They didn't have enough staff on to give me a csection for an obviously big baby. good luck with that, said one charmer at the 'look around ' session, while waving forceps around claiming they were rarely used. They were used on me.
Nothing to do with having a small pelvis. So, yeah, it's a bit of an emotive subject.

Have to agree YABU, maybe you didn't intend for this to be goady but it kinda is.

I fail to see any judgement in the article, or any implication to the effect that saving the lives of women and their children by c-section who would otherwise have died is in any way an undesirable outcome.
The observation that, by virtue of medical intervention, a congenital condition is therefore continued down the line thus more prevalent is hardly a veiled advocation that 'we shoulda just let em die'. I can find no criticism within the article implied or otherwise directed at women who have caesareans for other reasons either.

As one who is also only here because advances in medical science meant my father and others like him, including my two sons, were/are able to survive the laws of Natural Selection, I have be grateful. It was once rare for those with it to survive much beyond childhood or, at best, into early adulthood but medical advances in treatment now ensure suffers can go on to live long, healthy, productive lives.

I have no problem facing the cold, hard fact that, of course, this means the congenital defect I carry, while still rare, must as a result be more 'common' in my family's descendants as succeeding generations continue to survive and indeed thrive. Advances in genetic research show there is much potential to eradicate it in the future though.

I've had 2 sections and one assisted delivery - because my pelvis doesn't open enough

I am not in the slightest bit bothered by the article and don't really understand why I would be

I don't disagree with the research or facts of it but the article itself.

Even the sub heading "The regular use of Caesarean sections is having an impact on human evolution, say scientists" seems off to me. This statement is not about the small amount of one specific condition but saying regular use of c sections.

Maybe I'm not vocalising my point so well either but I think the article could have been better written.

And to say showing respect and sympathy for my friend's and acquaintances feelings is patronising is a bit much! A little more empathy in this world wouldn't go amiss.

But OP, you have several replies here from people who have had c-sections who aren't in the least bit offended by the article, so who gives you the right to deny their feeling because you feel offended on their behalf? Empathy is one thing but appropriating and more or less imposing your feelings on the affected community because you are reading something between the lines that very few others can see (because maybe it isn't there) IS patronising.

But I DO know people who feel this way.

How am I imposing anything on everyone that's had a section by sympathising with the many women who do feel that way?

Just because some people don't feel like that doesn't make the people who do less important.

Maybe it's different where I'm from as we have a ridiculously high c section and intervention rate and I'm also active in local birthing circles so it's more at the forefront of my life.

If anyone takes anything I say as patronising I apologise. It really wasn't meant to be.

How am I denying anyone's feelings?! That's the exact opposite of my intentions.

And there's also been several replies where people have been offended or thought it was a little off.

My lovely dil told me she had failed as she had s section.

Made me feel so bloody angry on her behalf.

Some people are determined to find offence in everything.
Your post isn't about the scientific research it's about you being offended on behalf of people who didn't even have the condition that the article is about! But you aren't really offended you just want to tell people who have had c sections that they should feel stigma and shame about it! Give your head a wobble. No wonder your friends feel bad about their sections if this is how you go on 🙄

Wow. That was straight up bitchy Mouldy.

Where, how and why am I telling anyone they should feel stigma and shame?! What the actual fuck are you talking about???!

I agree that there seemed something 'off' about either the way the article was written or the fact that someone decided to write about it in the first place.

But this article isn't about unnecessary intervention practices is it? It's about one specific condition that requires intervention. It's not in any way adding to the drip drip stigma of c section stigma. Frankly, if you are so active in birthing circles maybe you should be more concerned with addressing the drip drip coming from some natural birth activists who are the worst for putting down mums who needed intervention.

"The regular use of Caesarean sections is having an impact on human evolution, say scientists"

This is an extremely neutral statement. I think you need to leave this alone too.

Actually I'm a bit offended by your misplaced and condescending opposition to basic science.

If it's about one condition why use the sub headline "The regular use of Caesarean sections is having an impact on human evolution, say scientists"?

How does that relate to the point they're trying to make?

And how do you know that I'm not concerned with the natural birth activists making people feel crappy? A lot of assumptions going on here.

When I say birthing circles I mean both homebirthing midwives and hospital based nurses and doctors. All who have very different views and experiences.

There's nothing wrong with that statement. I'd go so far as to say it's obvious.

It is a neutral statement I agree. I'm saying it doesn't fit in with the article suggesting this issue is just in relation to one medical condition.

Interesting article. I've had two c-sections. I find it pretty funny that people feeling sorry and protective of anything that might make us feel inadequate also hop in with a chance to mention the drug-free waterbirth.

We don't need sympathy, and more than vaginal birthers do. Really - we don't.

I thought the article was fine. The language was neutral, the science looked solid. If anything, I could see it making some women feel that their sections were unavoidable because of their physiology, rather than being some sort of moral judgement on their willpower or fitness to be mothers.

I think that it is inaccurate to state that it is the "regular use" of caesarean sections is having an impact on human evolution as it has nothing to do with them being regular. I can't see why the statement would make anyone feel like shite though.

I get where they're coming from with the research but I also think that cephalic-pelvic disproportion is often used as a reason for sections when actually it's something else.

I was told my section on my first was due to disproportion but I'd had an epidural and couldn't move around and the baby was also badly positioned. I also think that it was a self-fulfilling prophecy as when I met the consultant practically the first thing he asked me was my shoe size (37)and then looked at me (5'0), then DH (6'1) and shook his head. After my section, he basically said "I told you so"

I so wanted to go back to him 3 years later after I'd had a VBAC, with just gas-and-air for pain relief, with a baby who was a full half pound heavier & head 1.5" bigger in circumference