AIBU to ask this about c sections...

[pizzafrenchfries]

So I have another post on here related to a yoga teacher and a debate on c sections and bonding but after speaking to a few other mums in real life I would really like to know...

My son was born by an emergency c section. I was conscious but it all happened very quickly... anyway.... after the birth people constantly asked: 'were you ok with that?' (Having the c section) as if it was an option... my ex yoga teacher implied it would restrict on bonding, and now a few of the mums at one of the mums groups i go to have said a few times about how if you give birth bu c section you miss out on the birth/ it's harder to heal from a birth/ birth is a beautiful experience you can't share if you're having a c section etc etc.

So basically my question is am I being unreasonable to think that most of the time a c section isn't an option and so asking if you minded having one is a redundant question?! Why do people feel if it's not a vaginal birth it's not a 'proper' one or you haven't suffered enough? And do people really think (like my ex yoga teacher) that vaginal birth is the only way and are actually 'against' c sections?! If so what happens if labor doesn't progress do they honestly believe you should die?

I had a c section-my daughter and I bonded beautifully. I felt "guilty" for a few weeks after because I'd not had her naturally (I blame NCT for this but I missed the c-section class because I was in hospital with PET ) but I got over it pretty quickly. Anybody who says a c-section is the "easy option" obviously doesn't know what the operation actually is.

The goal is to have a healthy baby and mother who is still alive. It is not about providing the mother with a 'good (read: natural and unassisted) birth experience'. I think I threw the Hypnobirthing book out at the paragraph were they were lyrically talking about 'women in Africa'. The fact that most of these women would also love to have options and actually have a high rate of maternal and childbirth mortality seems to mean nothing to this natural is best mafia. FWIW I had an emergency CS with the first and a VBAC with no 2. I see no difference in how I bond with my children. Ignore these people. Enjoy your baby. (And anyone saying CS is the 'easy' option is deluded.)

Eurus - no I don't agree with it because I think it is a dangerous trend. C-section definitely should be there for medical reasons no question about that. But not without medical reasons. My view may be misogynist for you but it is currently in line with expert advice.
Again not saying there is anything wrong with a c-section when required for medical reasons, I would go for it in a heartbeat if this is what it took to save me and my baby!

oblada, would you count tokophobia as a medical reason? abuse-related trauma?

oblada I thought that guidelines had changed recently in the UK to allow for maternal request c sections?

I probably wouldn't have my DS without csection. He was transverse breech and unlikely to have made it out the natural way. He was also a month early due to complications but I spent a blissful 10days in the transition unit. Visiting was very limited but because there was only two of us in there we had one to one with midwife 24/7. They were bored because neither baby was very high risk so did everything for us, it was like having a maternity nurse. I was able to bond with DS brilliantly without a stream of exhausting visitors. When we finally got out I was rested, confident with BF and firing on all cylinders.

I had an emergency c section under general anaesthetic. As I was asleep neither my husband or I were there for the birth (in the sense of being awake) which does make me quite sad sometimes. I think it perhaps did making bonding a bit harder initially but I bloody love my DC now, am a complete nutter about him, so in the long term it doesn't matter at all.

Also I wouldn't be writing this post if it wasn't for that c section and more importantly than that, my beautiful DC wouldn't be here either.

Thumb he's good thanks, he turned 7 a couple of weeks ago and you'd never know to meet him what a tricky start in life he had. He does confuse teachers etc sometimes by referring to being a triplet though

Which expert advice is this oblada? NICE, for example, recommend all women should have the option of ELCS. And rightly so. Forcing women to use their vaginas in ways they don't want to is disgusting. There isn't a way to make that not misogyny.

You sound rather like you've imbued some of the sillier and more poorly informed propaganda. I'd be interested to hear why you think it's dangerous. Betting your answer will include at least two of an incorrect claim that the WHO recommend a 15% section rate, a reference to the micro birth film and a total failure to consider all the ways in which ELCS is safer than VB...

Well oblada me and most others on this thread can only thank our lucky stars common sense prevails in the NHS and you have no say in the matter

Forcing women to use their vaginas in ways they don't want to

Erm...

Having had an EMCS I cannot understand why someone without medical reason (or pathological fear of natural childbirth) would opt for major abdominal surgery rather than at least attempt a natural birth. Female bodies are designed to give birth. How on earth can the cash strapped NHS cater for mass ELCS and post op care for women who don't feel they should be "forced to use their vaginas" in the way that nature intended? Do you have a link to the NICE recommendation Eurus?

I don't think there would be masses of women who opt for an ELCS, because most women do realise it's major surgery and carries some risks for both mother and baby. But the option should be there.

I'm on my phone sorry. Will do later if nobody else has. It will be a useful read for you. NICE also explain why it isn't more expensive. And it'll get even less so if routinely offered, since the most expensive births are attempted VBs that result in complication-EMCS being, after all, a risk of VB. This is before we even consider the costs of fixing the side effects of VB, which can be considerable later even in straightforward births.

Also, female bodies aren't designed to give birth. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, quite a common one amongst people who take the view you do. Humans have evolved big heads for being clever and smallish pelvises for being fast. Thus our births are tough, because evolution doesn't give a shit, because being fast and clever and losing a lot of us in childhood is still sufficiently advantageous to have got us to this point.

And you've still not explained why denial of ELCS for ideological reasons isn't forcing women to use their vaginas in ways they don't want. Your cost argument, even if it weren't wrong, still wouldn't be a rebuttal to that point.

Red Toothbrush knows the ELCS NICE material well if she's reading.

I can't see where NICE recommend it as an option to every woman. It's an option to women after they have been offered mental health support to help deal with their anxiety, and if the women still choose to have a section it should be offered then.

I should also add that having had a Cat 1 EMCS I understand entirely and without reservation the desire to have an ELCS without attempting VB. And I've done it the other way too. The VB was worse.

The reality is that VB carries risks,not least the risk of EMCS. There's no risk free mode of birth. Women should be able to choose the risks more acceptable to them. Because we are all different, our bodies did not evolve to give birth,and we all come with different pre existing views, conditions and risk factors that make a one size fits all approach (which no CS without medical indication is) nonsensical as well as cruel.

I could be wrong, as I've never looked into it, but didn't prehistoric people have larger heads than we have today? Maybe they birthed smaller babies. Why would our bodies not evolve to cope with evolution of larger headed babies ? It's a really interesting topic. Anecdotally though most of my friends who've had easy natural births actually had big babies, wheras those who had problems (including my own) were small.

"Why would our bodies not evolve to cope with evolution of larger headed babies ?" The answer has already been mentioned. The deaths of some women and children due to large heads getting stuck is neither here nor there in evolutionary terms. The advantage of having a large brain overrides the loss of some individuals.

My first baby was 9lbs 13oz and his head measured off the centile charts. He got well and truly lodged in my pelvis (which is not actually that small!) and I had to have an EMCS.

I felt bad after my first emcs but fine with a second elcs. If I hadn't got elcs for my 2 month old I doubt very much I'd be writing this now as I needed a full medical team to keep me alive. I think women should have choices and other people need to keep their opinions to themselves. Maternal and infant mortality are low here because of medical intervention - I don't see expectant mothers hopping on planes to give birth in African villages because it would be a safer natural birth. I like yoga but I don't see how knowing some stretches qualifies someone to spout opinions on anything other than yoga.

I had an emcs. I have type 1 diabetes and the plan was always induction at 38 weeks. However that had to be moved forward to 37 weeks because I developed preeclampsia. 4 days and 2 pessaries later, after they'd had to triple my blood pressure medication I was only 1cm dilated! Cs was a total relief. I am now ttc no 2 and have already a Cs pre approved because it would have to be an induction and they have honestly told me that that induction may well not work and they wouldn't leave me very long before doing cs. So i feel i would prefer to plan one. No regrets at all, it saved me and ds and I don't feel it affected us bonding.

It's hard to to take costs of birth with consequences because the actual cost gets added to the other department bills. I did hear on radio four a long time ago that biggest costs to maternity are pay outs for botched births. Ie life long care costs.

One day society will look back on this time as barbaric for the forcing some women to have vaginal deliveries when they don't want too much for a myriad of reasons.

Eurus totally agree on risks acceptable to them.

Tell them to look up maternal and neonatal death rates in developing countries where there's a lack of surgical facilities available to provide c-sections. It's improving all the time, but is still appallingly high. And even if the women survive the birth they could be left with damage to their bodies that could be life limiting for her and her family.

In an ideal world we'd be able to pop babies out with no problems or risks, but guess what - our bodies aren't actually terribly well designed for this. Most other animals manage much better than us, but our strong pelvis and narrow birth canal make it a relatively dangerous process.

Bigger babies are increasingly the norm, and our fanjos aren't keeping up.
Remind her that without the c-section you might not be there to pay her wages and just because she can put her foot in her mouth doesn't mean she should.