Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Or is this birth plan okay?

181 replies

1997r2017 · 09/09/2017 21:12

Basically, i dont want an extra long birth plan as i feel it will be ignored, also i know that forceps/venthouse could be needed but i feel like they are more likely to avoid then if i just say no.
Is there anything ive forgotten?
Please excuse my writing xxxx

Or is this birth plan okay?
OP posts:
FormerlyFrikadela01 · 10/09/2017 11:30

Better an episiotomy than a tear!

The evidence suggests otherwise. There is a reason episiotomies are no longer given as a standard.

HiJenny35 · 10/09/2017 11:58

Battyoldbat I'm not sure why you mean, as soon as you have the injection (not the vitamin k but the injection to help the placenta out) you have to have the cord cut as it can be passed to baby through the cord.
The injection in a managed third stage is given straight away.
If she wants delayed cord clamping she needs to say that she doesn't want that.
I'm assuming that what happened to you was that you attempted a natural third stage, waited for delayed cord clamping and after 15 minutes as the placenta didn't come away by itself (it usually does in this time) after 15-30 minutes the placenta hasn't passed they will then generally intervene and try the injection/manual removal.
I was lucky and both times the placenta passed without intervention after 5-15 minutes but I did need to stand up and let gravity help.

DeltaG · 10/09/2017 12:06

My DS is 19 months old and I am firmly in the 'go with the flow camp'.

Which was just as well, as I had a long, inefficient labour requiring oxytocin to speed it up, epidural and ventouse delivery. I had a 3rd degree tear, haemorrhage and emergency transfer to a bigger hospital for a blood transfusion. I subsequently went on the have physiotherapy to repair my pelvic floor (not common in the UK - I am not in the UK). All good now and am 5.5 months pregnant with DS2. Will be having a medical c-section after the rigmarole with DS1.

OP of course you have preferences and wishes, but I think it is important to be very aware of the fact that along with rights, come responsibilities. That is to say, if you absolutely refuse certain procedures and damage to yourself and/or the baby occurs as a result of this, that is entirely your fault.

There was a post on the Guardian recently about a women who had a VBAC at home for her second birth after an emergency section with her first child. This was against all medical advice and the the baby ended up profoundly disabled as a result.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/03/my-nephew-is-disabled-and-its-all-his-mothers-fault-mariella-frostrup

I think the main thing to remember is that the child's safety is more important than the preferences and comfort of the mother during the childbirth process.

And why the hell anyone would refuse vitamin K injection for the newborn is beyond me.

Shopkinsdoll · 10/09/2017 12:13

The only word I put on my birth plan was epidural 😄

JemmyBloocher · 10/09/2017 12:17

I have a legal background (not currently a practising lawyer) and wrote that I refused forceps and signed a paper saying that under no circumstances were they to be used; they are banned in a few countries and I have researched enough to know that I didn't want them used full stop. My doctor argued with me, but also knew I would sue them if they were used at any point. I had a section - no forceps were used. You are within your rights and YANBU.

It is easier generally to just 'go with the flow' of course it is, however if there are certain things you take issue with then they should know and you should feel empowered to tell them and be listened to.

Londoncheapo · 10/09/2017 12:37

Lots of people here saying that "birth plans are useless, any intervention offered will be essential/no-alternative so what's the point?"

I agree that a lot of birth plan stuff is pointless. HOWEVER, I think an exception should be made for the whole forceps/cesarean thing.

I've seen a few people here arguing that if forceps are ever proposed to a woman in labor, then it means that there is no alternative, it's too late for a cesarean and so on. I have to say, this is complete bollocks.

Forceps are used in the UK for various stages of "head engagement" (if I may put it that way):

  1. There are high forceps deliveries (unusual, but not unheard of--basically, Kielland's forceps are typically used for this, I believe).
  1. Then there are mid forceps deliveries.
  1. Finally, there are outlet forceps deliveries, when the birth of the baby is already well underway.

High forceps/Kielland's are actually banned in many countries, but I regret to say that they are still used in some cases in the UK. You absolutely CAN have a cesarean at this stage--if a hospital is using this technique, it is because they are making the choice to do so.

Similarly, it is perfectly possible to avoid a mid-forceps delivery by going straight to a cesarean. It is absolutely not "too late" for a cesarean.

An outlets forceps delivery is the least invasive kind. By this stage in the labor, it's basically too late for a cesarean--but to be honest, many of these could probably be substituted for ventouse, as is actually the case in many countries.

As a non-UK resident, I'm just giving a bit of international perspective on this, but honestly, I am startled at how common forceps deliveries are in the UK. In a lot of developed countries, forceps deliveries are now rare, because the high/mid forceps type presentations mostly just go straight to a cesarean, and the "outlet forceps" presentations (least invasive) are usually done by ventouse instead.

It is perfectly possible to insist on refusing forceps and going straight to a cesarean in most cases, and if I was going to have any kind of birth plan, that is actually the one thing that I would absolutely insist on.

A high percentage of forceps deliveries result in third-degree tears and/or levator ani muscle injuries, often leaving women with significant sex/continence problems, which cannot always be corrected with surgery--I have heard that the majority of women who have had a forceps delivery have permanent and significant LAM damage. That is before we even talk about the injuries that can be done to babies.

I don't know why the NHS is so keen on forceps compared with other countries. I suspect it's a mixture of a) pressure to keep the cesarean rate down for political reasons b) forceps are cheaper than cesareans in most cases and women can be booted out of hospital quicker c) the medical profession feels a need to ensure that medical practitioners "keep their hand in" by getting regular practice with forceps.

Forceps operations are notoriously difficult to teach to students and medical residents; experienced OBGYNs find it very very hard to describe exactly what they are doing or give concrete instructions. There is, I understand, concern that if doctors don't practice with forceps, they won't become expert in using them, which will mean that the medical profession will lose the ability to use forceps in those cases where they genuinely are unavoidable. I "get" this. On the other hand, I have to say that (selfishly) I would not be prepared to allow my own body to be used as a training tool.

peppalongstocking · 10/09/2017 13:46

Londoncheapo you are entirely correct that not all forceps are unavoidable - in fact none are, depending on the risk you are prepared to accept.

The problem with your argument is the "well, i'll just go straight to Caesarean then" - sometimes it takes longer than people would like to think to get to baby in a Caesarean. In high risk situations the forceps would be done in theatre anyway, but not always. And even if the woman is in theatre already, unexpected things can happen - e.g. epidural transpires not to have been good enough for a C section, whatever - change of plan, minutes tick by, minutes where the mother's life is not at risk, but baby's brain might be.

And as for the "under no circumstances" type of refusal of an intervention: as long as the woman understands that the risk to baby is potentially devastating lifelong handicap, then it is her choice to live with taking that risk - her autonomy over her body is the only deciding factor as long as her life is not in danger (and even then, depends on scenario - e.g. documented refusal for blood transfusion for religious reasons will be respected even in life-threatening haemorrhage).

The problem is that often people don't understand risk as a concept when it is applied to them and go with the thought that just because so & so was fine, they will be too. Often that works out well and the message gets reinforced, but for those where it doesn't go well, the regret, the trauma, the "I wish I'd known fully what that really meant" - not many can foresee the potential fallout.

hairymaryquitecontrary · 10/09/2017 13:56

I've seen a few people here arguing that if forceps are ever proposed to a woman in labor, then it means that there is no alternative, it's too late for a cesarean and so on. I have to say, this is complete bollocks

No, not that they are ALWAYS the only alternative, but that they are SOMETIMES the only alternative. It isn't complete bollocks at all, and the fact that my DD is alive and well now proves it.

DeltaG · 10/09/2017 14:17

@Pepper - I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say many people just don't understand risk.

Someone on the Guardian comments gave a good example of this. The risk of complications for a VBAC is 2%. Sounds small. However, if an airline told you that 1 in 50 (i.e. 2%) of their flights were going to have a major aircraft malfunction, would you still be happy to fly with them? Suddenly puts it in a different light.

Cleanermaidcook · 10/09/2017 14:35

I did a birth plan with first, but to be honest by the time i'd been in labour for 3 days the only thing i wanted was to get it out, really didn't care if there was a bus load of tourists having a look or they used a spoon - just get it out and keep us both alive.
2nd and 3rd - no birth plan, just go with the flow.

PaintingByNumbers · 10/09/2017 14:36

We all went ahead and had kids, c section, vaginal, vbac despite the risks. Why compare vbac complications in particular with a major aircraft malfunction??

PaintingByNumbers · 10/09/2017 14:38

And Londoncheapo is exactly right about forceps in the uk vs the rest of the developed world

PaintingByNumbers · 10/09/2017 14:40

Which is why I spent great detail on this in my birth plan. I have to live with my pelvic floor for life.

hairymaryquitecontrary · 10/09/2017 14:49

And Londoncheapo is exactly right about forceps in the uk vs the rest of the developed world

She's not. I'm not in the UK Hmm

PaintingByNumbers · 10/09/2017 14:59

Forceps are simply not used with anything like the same frequency in other developed countries, high forceps are indeed banned in many, ventouse is indeed prefered over forceps, what part do you think is not true?

DeltaG · 10/09/2017 15:00

@Painting - the comparison was to illustrate risk.

PaintingByNumbers · 10/09/2017 15:07

Apparently there is a 1/15 chance of an anal tear with vaginal births. If I was told that an aircraft had a 1/15 chance of a major incident, theres no way i'd be getting onboard. Reads even better than the 2% risk of vbac complication (which is often more like a 'minor delay to take off')

DeltaG · 10/09/2017 15:13

Yes but an anal tear is highly unlikely to kill you, whereas a major aircraft malfunction may well do (as might a VBAC complication).

Risk is made up of two parts - the probability (likelihood) that an event will occur AND the impact or consequences if it does.

Thus, we we would likely accept a 7% risk of a vaginal tear but not a 7% risk of a major aircraft malfunction.

hairymaryquitecontrary · 10/09/2017 15:14

Forceps are simply not used with anything like the same frequency in other developed countries, high forceps are indeed banned in many, ventouse is indeed prefered over forceps, what part do you think is not true?

Which countries would that be? 'In my developed country they are used just as much as in the UK. They may be banned in some but not all. Ventouse and forceps are not interchangeable, you use them at different times (I have had both).
So none of your comment is true, in fact.

PaintingByNumbers · 10/09/2017 15:14

Thats what I meant, you dont have a 2% chance of dying in a vbac either, its nothing like a major airplane malfunction.

PaintingByNumbers · 10/09/2017 15:16

You know, if i'd been told there was a 7% chance of an anal tear I would have reconsidered the whole vaginal birth thing .... (I only read that stat online, maybe its not true)

cookiefiend · 10/09/2017 15:22

I wrote out quite a similar plan. Even though everything went in the way I didn't want it (induction, consultant led, emergency c section) everyone read it and they followed what they could-

I wanted delayed clamping and once they could see she wasn't in distress (which was their fear) they delayed as long as possible. I wanted DH to declare the sex and he did (with my second baby he forgot as she had a bowel movement and they rushed her out the room. The staff were great- reminding everyone not to say the sex until he came back).

I know you won't necessarily get to follow the plan exactly, but it is helpful for the staff to be able to see what is important to you. When we had to deviate from the plan they explained why. So that plan looks fine.

DeltaG · 10/09/2017 15:24

But it's not just the chance of the mother dying, there is also the risk of the child dying or suffering injury/disability. And this particular example was taken from the story I linked to on the Guardian, where the woman not only had a VBAC, but she had it at home, increasing the overall risk.

How she was unable or unwillingly to see that the level of risk in this decision was unacceptable, I don't know.

DeltaG · 10/09/2017 15:29

You know, if i'd been told there was a 7% chance of an anal tear I would have reconsidered the whole vaginal birth thing .... (I only read that stat online, maybe its not true)

I think it's in the right ballpark from what I've seen. I also understand that the risk of haemorrhage from a c-section is around 4%, so I guess the decision would then be, would you prefer a 7% risk of an anal tear or a 4% risk of a haemorrhage? (All things being equal with regard to risk for the child).

Stellato · 10/09/2017 15:46

I think the main thing to remember is that the child's safety is more important than the preferences and comfort of the mother during the childbirth process.

Hm. I have a bit of a problem with this statement.

Until birth there is no baby. There is a potential baby. Women are allowed to make choices about their body based on their own criteria, since any other enforced birth approach starts us down a path that looks a bit Handmaid's Tale.

Should women make choices that maximise the safety of their unborn child? I think so, yes. And I honestly believe the vast majority do that anyway.

But you can't force any pregnant woman to accept birth interventions. You can withhold birth interventions of course, that's different.

Swipe left for the next trending thread