(Trigger Warning!!!) To think labour pain is not respected by healthcare professionals?

[Goldfishshoals]

Warning: you probably don't want to read this if pregnant/about to give birth!

Three weeks ago I gave birth. I had back labour - truly agonising. The pains started on Friday, but because they were about five-six minutes apart they were arbitrarily considered 'pre-labour' rather than actual labour (despite hurting as much as 'real' labour pains). They continued like that for four days, in which time I obviously got no sleep. I called the midwife for help several times and was fobbed off with 'take paracetamol', which unsurprisingly did bugger all for the intense stabbing sensation in my back every contraction. After one call in which I cried they let me come in (30 mins car ride there and back in pain!) and have a single dose of coedine (barely took the edge off) before sending me home.

On Tuesday my waters broke so I was finally allowed in the hospital for monitoring - I pretty much immediately begged for pain relief. 'of course you can have some!' said the midwife breezily before buggering off for fifteen minutes leaving me in pain. Then she came back and said she just had to ask a few questions then 'we'd see' about getting me some pain relief... I did eventually get given some gas and air.

My contractions never became more frequent on their own and eventually I ended up being induced with epidural - which wore off just in time for me to be fully dialated. First they said they'd get me more - then they said it was too late and gave me gas and air - which they took off me again when it was time for pushing. I begged for pain relief (for anything!) and was ignored. I struggled to push but the pain was overwhelming and stopped me being able to push fully. Baby eventually delivered with forceps, and episiotomy which I could barely feel in contrast to the agony I had been in.

I had third degree tear which needed stitching, and suddenly everything changed. I had an anaesthesitist numb me fully, and keep checking my pain levels for the theatre, I had a few days in hospital with three types of pain relief thrown at me, and I was sent home with boxes of unnecessary coedine etc, for the incredibly minor soreness of the stitches.

When I compare other hospital visits (for being run over by a car as a teen, and a more recent dvt) it's a similar story. My pain was taken a lot more seriously and I was given better pain relief much more quickly, despite them not being nearly as painful as my back labour.

I realise not everyone has back labour, and some people have much less painful births (lucky cows) but surely having high levels of pain isn't that unique? So why wasn't it treated seriously? The only thing I can think of is that labour pain just isn't respected. Aibu to think this?

I had an ELSCS with my baby after the trauma of the twins. I was given 2 little slips of paper at my "VBAC consultation". VBAC - allegedly safer and better in all respects. CS - maybe marginally safer for the baby.

I had made my mind up by that point anyway (pretty much the first conversation me and DH had after finding out I was pregnant was about how neither of us wanted to go through the labour experience again) but there was never a single mention of forceps etc. Even, now I think about it, with the twins where my twin 2 was breech and so some kind of intervention was really quite likely to happen.

I would like to see my notes. Can I just request them?

Oh, and wildkiwi says everything I want to say about "letting" women have pain relief in her post...but very nicely and articulately. I cried last night just thinking about the twins' birth. DH would like another baby but despite my glorious elective section I still just don't think I can face it.....

I don't really think HCp understand fully the trauma suffered by some of us having a cs either.
I understand women who are too nervous about having another baby - I was too. I didn't under any circumstance want another CS. It's horrid isn't it.

Breastfeeding women can,and frequently do, use oramorph for pain relief.

I am more and more aghast at the experiences described here.

I stand by my statement that medics and midwives don't want to see women in pain and will do their best to relieve it.

But it seems that 'best' is often falling very far short.

I begged for pain relief and got nothing not even a paracetamol.

Horrid, what did they say when you asked?

They don't want to see women in pain so they tell themselves they aren't in pain, they are just silly and hysterical. Same outcome.

My experience of asking for pain relief and being denied it was that it was usually dismissed with a breezy 'let's see how we get on without it'.

I found throughout my care that doctors were quite happy with the idea of pain relief and happy to prescribe it but it was midwives who refused to actually let me have it. Sometimes with rolling of the eyes about how doctors haven't a clue

There are a few posts on here which reccomend that women complain about poor treatment - I would love to complain but my twins are now three years old and the time limit for complaining is 12 months. Those 12 months went by in a blur of feeding, winding, changing two babies and to be honest, I didn't realise how their birth had affected me mentally until their first birthday. Instead of looking forward to it, I was dreading it as I couldn't stop the intrusive thoughts and flashbacks about my experience in hospital. I paid for private counselling which has helped but I don't think I'll ever totally get over that experience.

Does anyone know how you can complain (or at least feedback) to the hospital more than 12 months after the birth?

Of course it's not an easy line to tread headofthehive but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it. Warning of the risks of CS isn't an easy one either, but the NHS seems happy enough to do that.

Feedback more than 12 months after the birth?

HOMS should always be interested in this. And Trust CEOs?

Thanks Izzy - this thread is inspiring me to say something to the hospital. At the time I thought it was I wasn't just unlucky but it seems that it happens all too often and I think hospitals should be aware of the long term effects their treatment has on women. I now feel strong enough (and have a bit more time now I'm through the madness of having baby twins to look after) to write it all down and complain but it's only after this long that I've felt able to. I guess that is the same for a lot of women and which is why there aren't more complaints.

You can try to give useful information but I think the problem often is there is so much information. And levels of it. And strength of evidence.

I am glad they are giving you the risks of a cs. When I had mine, no risks were given to me at all. So I think things are moving in the right direction.

It is right that they give risks of c section it's just the way it was done. Mine was very much "you could die, we could cut the baby, we could damage your bladder, x,y,z...nope no issues to be worried about with vaginal birth" which was hideously unbalanced.

And then of course there is the discussion about future risks. Like long term side effects.
The impact of a CS on future pregnancies and delivery choices and risks with that.
So much of the discussion often relates to that pregnancy and that delivery.

Looking at a woman's obstetric career as at whole rather than one birth is important.
Telling someone about the risks if a CS should really be more than saying you might die, the baby might die.

For my part I was told the risks of c sections explicitly, both on that and future pregnancies.

Not, mind you, when baby was breach and a c section was on the cards. Oh no, everything very rational and balanced that time. But a few weeks later, baby now turned, induction in progress with drip alternately increased (to baby's distress and disappearing heart rate) then decreased to allow baby to recover, then increased again... and one very stressed woman, hysterical with terror as her baby's heart rate plummeted AGAIN for what seemed like hours with alarms going off and people shouting at her to lie down, even though there epidural she'd begrudgingly been given was moving up her body making breathing difficult when lying. Yep, that woman who had repeatedly said something didn't feel right and had already asked for a section several times, now as she's crying - heart rate through the roof - you say "well it would go down as an elective section not an emergency on your notes. You think about that and we'll come back". You think i gave a shiny shit??

So they came back, I told them my decision, and they said "you could die on the operating table you know - I'll let your husband think about that. Or you could need a hysterectomy. We'll let you think again about whether you're being fair to your husband and we'll come back".

So again they came back, and I told them my decision, and they said "think about future pregnancies ending in stillbirth. That's far more likely", but frankly the thought of my baby THAT PREGNANCY not having a beating heart for what felt like ever, I would have taken never ever being pregnant again to keep him safe - I was beyond terrified, not least because I felt the people taking "care" of me cared not one jot for mine or my baby's well-being - rightly or wrongly. The thought that I would risk raising a child with life long issues from his birth just so I could limit the risk to any OTHER babies I might want to have was just laughable to me.

So I got my bloody section, mostly because I wanted nothing more to do with the whole sadistic lift off them. And, perhaps more than I should be, I am extremely f*cking angry I had to get it that way.

Yes, they told me the risks. But they gave them to me with a hefty dose of judgement and prejudice, and that just doesn't seem right to me.

*lot not lift

That's horrific epoxy. Fucking horrible.

Looking at a woman's obstetric career as at whole rather than one birth is important.

Well. Yes and no. It's important if the woman wants it to be important.

Some women giving birth know they don't want any more children after this pregnancy. Others know that further pregnancy is unlikely even if they want it (for reasons of advanced age, infertility etc). Still others, like epoxy above, don't feel possible future children who may never even be conceived figure in their personal decision making process.

By all means inform women of the small but definite increase in risk of miscarriage and stillbirth following a section, and of the decreased likelihood of vaginal delivery (not that this will be a concern for some...). And tell them that if they want 3 or more further pregnancies after this one, large families are usually more safely achieved through VB than ELCS.

However, this is simply one in a long list of factors that may or may not be important to a particular woman. Some women will consider that their future obstetric career is very important. Others will find grotesque the idea that anything other than the welfare of mother and current gestating foetus should be considered. Neither are wrong.

We need to be told about the risks and benefits of attempted VB vs ELCS, and then given the opportunity to choose which set of risks and benefits are more acceptable to us. That's not happening right now. The NHS is finding the time and resources to tell us all about the downsides of sections, sometimes not even accurately, and not enough about the risks of attempted VB. That isn't ok.

Sorry, that first line above was a quote and should have been italicised. I spent the post explaining why that assumption is wrong, rather than espousing it!

But talking about making an informed decision involves thinking about the future.
Otherwise you aren't informed. Women may not even know to ask the question. To only give information that a women specifically requests may leave out information that is pertinent - and that is what you are suggesting? Or should hcp give out information that they feel might be, note might be relevant as well?

You cannot argue that one piece of information is valid (risks of vb)
And a must to be included, but another piece of information (risks on future pregnancies) is only valid if someone is interested enough to ask as they may not know it is a point which could be discussed.

Informed consent to me is having all the information ( some relevant to me and important, some not) in order to make as judgement.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting at all that information be left out. I'm stating that you're wrong to say looking at a woman's whole obstetric career rather than one birth is important. Because actually, that will be true for some women and not others. You cannot make the assumption. So the correct wording was 'may be important'.

And nobody is saying that women should be informed of the risks of VB and not ELCS, we're specifically saying it isn't ok for women not to be told about the risks of only one. The NHS is clearly doing a better job about telling women of the risks of CS than of attempting VB, but the reverse wouldn't be ok either.

Unfortunately epoxy I have a possibly equally difficult situation. I had the complications with the next pregnancy which resulted in life long complications for that child probably due to the initial CS. The initial cs was due to me being overdue and not engaged, and I naively went along with it possibly due to not being informed of the risks?
So I am all for informed consent as like you I didnt get any.