Ok, so I’m not one who usually takes offence at things - I’m a live and let live sort of person. However, this comment has upset me a bit.
My little one has been ill for a few days with what we think is a stomach bug. Diahorrea, vomiting, etc. Poor thing has not been herself, but she’s on the mend now. It’s a bit unfortunate as she’s not long got over a bout of hand, foot and mouth, but she seems ok now.
We had to cancel Easter plans with the family, which was a shame and I think they were disappointed, but I thought they understood why we wouldn’t want to travel. Anyway, we called my MIL today (whom I love, by the way. We get on really well) just to update her that the little one is improving. One of the things she said during the conversation was that children born by caesarean have lower immunity than kids born vaginally because of bacteria in the birth canal etc. And perhaps that’s why my little one had been ill a lot. All of hers were born vaginally, of course.
Now, I didn’t choose to have a c section - I laboured all night to try and have a natural birth but it just wasn’t possible and she was in danger so we had to do it. But even if I had, why do I feel like information like that is designed to make mums feel bad? What do you want me to do, go back in time and give birth naturally?! What can I do with this information?!
And anyway, I did some reading and it’s not strictly true. The study this is based on only tested 10 babies and didn’t take into account the mothers’ health or use of antibiotics. NHS sources say it’s not entirely reliable. I actually sent her this article to prove it: www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/caesareans-and-baby-immunity/
I’m probably going to let it go now as I don’t like arguments and I don’t think it will get us anywhere to discuss it further. Just wanted to rant a little and see if others agree with me that this wasn’t a helpful thing to say!
Sorry for the essay! :-)