To ask how many people have asked for a cesarean out of preference?

[VioletteValentia]

I did it. I’ve never met another person who has, or who has admitted to it. I have come across people who seem convinced that supporting maternal choice would lead to everyone asking for cesareans, which I think is bullshit. Not everyone wants one!

Did you do this? Would you? Would you be more likely to if you felt the option was equally acceptable?

I’m interested in how many women feel like I did.

I shouldn’t have to say this but...no “natural v cesarean” insulting please.

I don't think people should be able to choose one on the NHS without a medical reason. I think everyone who needs one should get one but they cost about 5 times as much as a vaginal birth and there isn't the money for people to have them because they don't fancy a vaginal birth.

Where on earth have you pulled those figures from? They're completely wrong. Do you not know that the most expensive births are instrumentals and EMCS, which are consequences of attempted VB?

Read the rest of the thread, read what NICE say. Factor in the possibility that universal ELCS would actually be the cheapest way of doing things (current best guess is an £80 difference and this is before factoring in the greater staffing efficiencies that would be possible with universal ELCS).

With that in mind, should all women be forced to have an ELCS because it would potentially work out cheapest for the NHS? If your answer to that is no, and I fervently hope it is, ask yourself why you think it's ok to force women who don't want VB to attempt one on (incorrect) cost grounds.

. I think everyone who needs one should get one but they cost about 5 times as much as a vaginal birth and there isn't the money for people to have them because they don't fancy a vaginal birth.

Using that logic why should abortion and contraception be paid for on the NHS? It’s a choice.

Plus it doesn’t cost 5 times as much when you factor in the costs of vaginal gone wrong.

Beetlejizz exactly.

I asked several times but was refused and by my midwife and at the hospital. Two weeks overdue, induced, very nearly emergency section. Still pissed off about it. But have a baby so can't complain.

For anyone wanting one, I would suggest saying as early as possible and being very firm about it.

I’m trying to get pregnant at the moment, and I definitely want an elective Caesarian. I know so many people who had emergency ones that I’d rather just go and plan for it rather than leave it up to chance. I agree with the PP who said she was a control freak - I absolutely am! Then again, I’m also not planning on breastfeeding (insanely sensitive nipples to the point where I hate them being touched and I’m in a same sex relationship and I want us both to be able to feed the child). I like the idea of going to an NCT class to make mum friends early on, but I’m expecting to be 1000% in the minority when it comes to birth and feeding!

In theory mine was elective but was after very severe damage done after my first natural birth. So I think of it as medical rather than elective personally.

Speaking of bullshit, this post below from lesquigh is also utter dross from start to finish:

I do think that too many sections are carried out on the NHS though. There are too many people using the anxiety card to get a section and for most people a section causes far more issues ban a vaginal birth. If you have a genuine mental health reason for not being able to deliver vaginally then fine but it has too many risks and costs the NHS too much money to simply be done willy nilly for everyone who is a bit scared of childbirth. Everyone has fears about childbirth, especially the first time. I am happy and prepared to be flamed when I say “if you want a baby then be prepared to give birth vaginally, it’s the natural way and the way it should be unless there is a genuine medical reason that puts your life at risk why you cannot”.

So you appear to have designated anxiety as not an actual mental health problem. Can you tell us the rationale for this, and your qualifications for making this call? Also, what's the mental health card?

We then move on to the question of what is too many sections, why you feel entitled to define this, and what your rationale is. If you think our figure is too high, tell us what an appropriate one would be (and don't do so by telling us the WHO have a recommended rate that's below ours, because they don't).

Next, the issue of cost. RTFT. You're just wrong.

Lastly, the issue of risks. You say sections have too many risks. Presumably you're aware of the risks of attempted VB as well (which include EMCS). With that in mind, what balancing exercise have you performed between the two, to tell us that ELCS has too many risks? You also have simply said you shouldn't be able to have a section unless it's life threatening- does this mean women who have risks that are significant but not life threatening are shit out of luck then? Or have you just not realised they exist?

It's really interesting how badly informed and just generally thick some people are about the whole section thing. Obviously if a poster chooses to post a load of unsubstantiated drivel that a quick google and thread read would show to be bollocks, that was their decision and theirs alone. Equally though, the (mercifully few) really idiotic posters on this thread didn't invent the ridiculous ideas they're spouting. There's a cultural context here.

Exactly Beetlejizz. I made sure I was very informed. There’s a whole thing about people just assuming natural is better without actually looking and knowing the risks of VB

Yes... and to some extent that can be understood because it's often very much what we're told. The NHS is too often much better at telling us the risks of section than it is at telling us the risks of attempting vaginal birth. And people are entitled to believe their care providers. But there's a distinction between accepting this for yourself, and deciding other women shouldn't be allowed bodily autonomy because of your failure to do even the most basic of research.

I had a c-section with my first due to failure to progress. I requested it with my second and was refused so went to another hospital who agreed and booked me in.

I didnt ask for one but was offered one after measuring large and a scan showing a large baby at 36 weeks. Baby was nearly 11lb so I'm glad I took them up on the offer.

The NHS is too often much better at telling us the risks of section than it is at telling us the risks of attempting vaginal birth. And people are entitled to believe their care providers. But there's a distinction between accepting this for yourself, and deciding other women shouldn't be allowed bodily autonomy because of your failure to do even the most basic of research.

Exactly. I question why women aren’t made to sign consent forms for vaginal births. It’s far more risky than a section, in that the risks have more potential for long term damage.

At the end of the day your body your baby and they should listen to your choice. that's what I think anyway.

I had an emergency section with my first and was pushed to have another section with dd2 but my recovery was horrendous first time and I'd have done anything to avoid it so I dug my heels in and went VBAC, which worked for me. However our NDN was terrified of labour and pushed for a section and it ended up being a good thing as baby was much bigger than predicted. She recovered really quickly and did the same with her next two.

I had a crash EMCS with DC1, the consultant told me after that wouldn't have been able to deliver him vaginally - he would certainly have died. I laboured for 36 hours and only got to 4cm, he was b2b and just couldn't progress.

No way was I going through that hell with DC2. I'm terrified of that alarm going off again, and of my scar rupturing. So this time I have refused point blank to attend any kind of VBAC clinic and insisted on seeing the consultant to request a c section. The midwives, in fairness, have been very understanding and have assured me that I'll get my choice.

Of course it's risky. Being pregnant is risky. Giving birth is risky. If c sections are SO risky then why do so many obstetricians opt for them?

I had an awful vaginal birth with DC1 (crash forceps, cut, tear ect) and was so traumatised I strongly considered an ELCS with my second pregnancy.

After considering the pros and cons, I decided against it and was lucky enough to have a very straightforward, positive vaginal both.

However, I COMPLETELY understand why some women opt for an ELCS and I feel it's very important that every woman has this choice.

There are so many reasons a woman may want one- previous traumatic delivery, history of sexual abuse, tokophobia, health conditions that aren't considered a 'proper reason' by some doctors.

Or she may simply be making an informed choice. Women are autonomous and intelligent adults. They can look non-bias information and risks/benefits relating to them as an individual and their own unique risk factors (age ect) and make a decision about what they want for THEIR body, baby, birth, physical and mental wellbeing.

The doctors will usually have forgotten their patient a week later, however the woman has to live with the physical and mental consequences for the rest of her life. So I feel choice and informed decision is very important.

OP - the consultant was happy to say yes but they'd just received blanket guidance from the trust or whoever to say no, so she's had to specifically apply for funding for it. Fingers crossed it gets approved though.

Exactly. I question why women aren’t made to sign consent forms for vaginal births. It’s far more risky than a section, in that the risks have more potential for long term damage

No. Just no. C sections come with a number of risks which you do not get with natural child birth. Recovery is far quicker for most.

I don't understand why anyone would elect for a c section. Most people get anxious before childbirth. Luckily not everyone requests a c section!

No. Just no. C sections come with a number of risks which you do not get with natural child birth. Recovery is far quicker for most.

I don't understand why anyone would elect for a c section. Most people get anxious before childbirth. Luckily not everyone requests a c section!

Natural birth has risks you don’t get with a cesarean. 90% of women tear, that’s not an issue if you don’t have a natural birth. Neither is shoulder dystocia. Nor is having your vagina botched by bad stitching.

Its hard to recover quicker than I did. I was pretty normal the next day. Walked out of hospital in my own clothes a couple of days later (I was only in because dc was poorly).

Then I suggest you read the thread because myself and others have discussed our reasoning.

Marriedwithchildren5 a couple of years ago the RCOG argued that women should be given the risks for both VB and CS. It hasn't happened yet but it really, really needs to

No. Just no. C sections come with a number of risks which you do not get with natural child birth. Recovery is far quicker for most.

C sections come with a number of risks which you do not get with NCB. And attempted NCB comes with a number of risks which you do not get with ELCS. Neither mode of birth is risk free. Certain risks are greater with certain women, and certain risks are more and less acceptable to certain women. Women need to be told the risks of both, tailored to their situation, then given the right to choose (this, incidentally, is what the case law says).

There is no simple this way of giving birth is more or less risky, across the board. If you think that, you're wrong, and your inability to understand why anyone would opt for an ELCS is not a relevant factor.

Also, 'recovery is far quicker for most'- you're going to have to prove a claim like that. Remember that women having EMCS and instrumental deliveries are women who attempted VB, so they're part of the cohort of women you're talking about. Women who had straightforward VBs is not the appropriate control group here.

With all this in mind, the lack of informed consent for attempted VB actually is a bit of a concern.

Had an EMCS with DS and an ELCS with DD. Wouldn't have even considered a VBAC due to uteruine rupture risks.

I was given the choice between ELCS or trying for a VB with dc2. We’d had complications with dc1 birth, which raised the risk of further complications with dc2, so I chose ELCS.

If I’d had the choice with dc1 I’d also have chosen ELCS if I’m totally honest. It being my first dc, I was just really nervous about the whole VB idea and potential problems. But then, when I was pregnant with dc2, having had one VB, I quite fancied another VB ! It was the risk of potential damage to dc2 during birth, if history had repeated itself, which made me choose ELCS. Otherwise, if it was purely down to the ‘experience’ I might have tried for another (hopefully less difficult) VB.

If we ever have another one, I’d probably have another ELCS instead of agonising over it as I did with dc2. It was fine. So was dc1 birth in the end. It just a bit more complicated / chaotic.

I was extremely scared of labour during my first pregnancy 11 years ago but assumed that there was no point even requesting a CS if it was a risk-free pregnancy. I was induced when I was 2 weeks overdue and after 3 days of induction there was no sign of me going into labour so I requested a CS. As it turn out it was a good thing I did as the baby's head was on the 99th centile and she was stuck under my ribs and had to be got out with forceps.

I requested a CS when I was pregnant with my 2nd child and it was agreed that I would have the CS if I hadn't gone into labour by 39 weeks but if labour started prior to that then I would attempt a VBAC. I got to 39 weeks without any sign of labour starting and had another CS. I was extremely happy with both my CSs and don't feel that I missed out in anyway on having a "natural" birth experience. I found it quite hard to establish breastfeeding after the first CS but eventually managed it and breastfed both children past 1 year.