AIBU to think that the term 'natural birth' might cause upset to others?

[Mitzicoco]

I had two water births. One fairly straightforward and the other not so (thank god I was in a hospital). When chatting to other mothers through NCT or baby groups I noticed that a lot of people referred to their births as natural. Nothing wrong with that, but I just wondered if I might feel upset by these comments if I had had a c-section, or some other delivery. Surely every birth is natural? What do you think?

I had 3 vaginal births. I am very careful not to use natural as it implies that other births are unnatural. I had 3 vaginal births purely by luck.

@Teddybear45 which demonstrates exactly that refusing suggested interventions can lead to greater problems further down the line.

If we have something wrong with our bodies, we generally take the medical advice given. Not many people refuse a treatment plan for MS or COPD because of it being "unnatural".

I don't understand why the recommendations of medical professionals, who have attended a multitude of births and are committed to getting mum and baby through it safely, are seen as so optional in this area of medicine.

Of course women have choice and should be informed of the various pros and cons, but the attitude of trying to avoid interventions and ploughing through with your own original, non medically trained "plan", against advice, blows my mind.

“I had 3 vaginal births purely by luck.”

Why say that rather than say women who don’t are unlucky?

“Of course women have choice and should be informed of the various pros and cons, but the attitude of trying to avoid interventions and ploughing through with your own original, non medically trained "plan", against advice, blows my mind”

I absolutely agree with everything I have bolded!

@supurbly - agree. Actually I don’t think pain relief should be optional - it should be mandatory if the medical professional feels it would benefit the mum. In no other area of medicine can you opt out of pain relief for a major op - why can you do it during childbirth?

Or- everything I have not actually bolded, but between my ineffectual asterisks

“Actually I don’t think pain relief should be optional - it should be mandatory if the medical professional feels it would benefit the mum” Blimey- really? So someone like me who wanted to avoid pain relief if possible and said no when offered should have been forced to have it??

I honestly don't understand the obsession with natural birth. Nature doesn't care if childbirth kills women and babies it just cares that enough of us survive to continue on. Childbirth is painful and dangerous. I'm all for anything that makes it less painful and less dangerous.

@BertrandRussell - would you have gotten a rectal tumour removed without pain relief? Just saying. Your decision wasn’t a logical one.

Noone should be offended by the term natural birth.

If you are offended you have too much time to think about it being even remotely offensive.

Some people need drugs, others dont.

I know full well in going to need the full wack, gas and air, needle in my spine, whatever it takes. Even if I need or want a csection, But I'm not offended by anyone who tells me their birth was natural.

It's making the baby that counts, not how, where or when you get them out.

People need to stop being so sensitive over minuscule details in life.

Teddybear45 Exactly.

It is ludicrous that someone would accept pain relief to pass a kidney stone, yet would refuse pain relief during labour.

A woman in excruciating pain increases the chances of the baby becoming distressed. It sometimes feels like a woman's ability to hold her head high at an NCT meet up, overrides common sense.

What is unnatural is being to proud to accept pain relief to make your baby a life and your life easier.

If my baby comes out high on whatever I've been pumped with, breathing, crying and alive, then great, crack on.

“Just saying. Your decision wasn’t a logical one”

So? I was not putting either myself or my baby at risk. Why should I be forced to have pain relief any more than another woman be forced not to.

Of course, if someone is lucky enough not to be in excruciating pain, then fair enough dont have pain relief. But questioning whether there is a need for say ventouse or forceps is just bonkers IMO.

Medics don't suggest things just for the sake of it. To consider refusing consent as it wasnt in some nirvana of a birth plan, is potentially dangerous.

Why are proposed treatments in this area of medicine viewed so dubiously and with such distrust as to their necessity? We don't distrust the treatment of appendicitis, we tend to trust the professionals (if we have any sense).

Actually I don’t think pain relief should be optional - it should be mandatory if the medical professional feels it would benefit the mum

Hell no. When I turned up in back labour ahead of my supposed elective section, they tried to force all sorts of drugs on me mostly because they wanted to see if this baby would fit through my pelvis unlike the previous one. I rejected the lot not because I wanted to suffer but because I feel all the drugs I ended up being given for various things in the car crash which was dc1's arrival really contributed to my memory loss, mental health issues and then postpartum psychosis. I had a discussion whilst again pregnant with a consultant anesthetist and she thought that certainly some of the drugs wouldn't have helped. I wanted the bare minimum with dc2 and that was my choice.

Plus where does it stop, I've had 2 emergency sections and haven't needed any pain relief after what I was given in theatre wore off. Should they be forcibly medicating people afterwards too?

of all the things to get upset about...... people seem to get offended about eveything these days.

“Of course, if someone is lucky enough not to be in excruciating pain, then fair enough dont have pain relief. But questioning whether there is a need for say ventouse or forceps is just bonkers IMO”

Yes. Good thing nobody is saying that, isn’t it. Because it would indeed be bonkers.

Honestly, this thread is hosting a positive army of straw men.

To me, birth is birth - a baby coming out of its mother's womb and into the world when the mother is full term, or earlier if medical intervention deems it necessary. I had two c sections and I don't think of my children's births as 'unnatural'. I don't care if other people do though. I agree that some people probably use the word 'natural' to avoid saying 'vaginal'.

I have had 1 x vaginal and 1 x cs birth.

Natural does seem to equate with superior nowadays with a lot of people - agree with this, I was one of them.

I don't get offended by the term 'natural' birth but TBH I did feel like I had failed my second child born by CS. I know that the reason I felt like this is because I though of 'natural' as better.

Because I had birthed my first vaginally with no issues, I was aiming for minimal intervention and pain relief with my second. My second child ended up being delivered by CS while I was under GA due to complete placental abruption an hour after arriving at hospital at 6cm dilated. Because it was my second straight forward pregnancy and labour (homebirth was pushed but thankfully I opted for hospital), c-sec had honestly not crossed my mind at all, so to wake up and discover that I had basically missed the birth of my own son was pretty upsetting.

I know that the main thing is that we survived thanks to surgery and I am beyond grateful to the medical staff for intervening to save both of our lives, but I still felt like my body had failed and robbed me of a 'natural' birth. (I have since had medication and support so thankfully no longer feel this way 2 years on)

Like you @Rarfy I really struggled to come to terms with missing out on those first precious moments while I was still knocked out, that we should have had if my stupid body had managed to achieve a 'natural' birth.

Also, how do we know that cavewomen weren't off their faces on magic mushrooms when they gave birth?

Of course, if someone is lucky enough not to be in excruciating pain, then fair enough dont have pain relief. But questioning whether there is a need for say ventouse or forceps is just bonkers IMO”

Yes. Good thing nobody is saying that, isn’t it. Because it would indeed be bonkers
I didn't say that anyone here had said that.

Honestly, this thread is hosting a positive army of straw men

The question of interventions sometimes being a "choice" was brought up in regards to it sometimes leading to other measures being needed. By you.

Therefore, mentioning the consequences of "choosing" to refuse interventions seemed to be a natural progression to the conversation.

It isn't a strawman argument, it is a completely tangential subject!

The reason why people are defensive of natural birth is because there's a history of birth being over medicalised - routine to make women birth on their backs with legs in stirrups, episiotomies, shaving, enemas. Even routine general anaesthetic so you'd be out cold.

The same regime had babies out in nurseries, breastfeeding frowned upon, cuddling babies discouraged etc.

Basically midwives handled birth then male doctors came along with the idea that female bodies were defective and they could do better, not just in emergencies but routinely. Natural birth advocates were pushing against that way of thinking, thanks god.

Birth is painful but unlike other pain, it's not a sign of sickness in the body. Pain relief has a role but it's always counterbalanced by drawbacks and risks. It increases risk of interventions and can hinder bonding.

It should be all about informed choice.

SuePerbly- you are spoiling for a fight, aren’t you?

But Houston if it became over medicalised that was surely to do with the sheer amount of women that died because of it before any effective intervention? not saying they went about it the right way initially but they were trying.

As mammals comparatively our children have the biggest head circumference to push out vaginally. Hence

Posted too soon.

Hence the mortality rates before science.