Green Party pledge to reduce c section rates

[TTCaxristi]

Is this something a political party should even get involved in?

I had understood that a focus on keeping c sections below an arbitrary threshold was at least partially responsible for the Shrewsbury maternity scandal.

https://news.sky.com/story/shrewsbury-maternity-scandal-the-babies-who-died-in-the-uks-worst-hospital-childbirth-scandal-12576727

It looks as though the greens are reviewing the policy now but am I alone in finding this chilling? What does it say about their attitude to women? I really strongly believe that it’s up to the individual woman how she gives birth, and the focus on arbitrary targets is misguided at best and dangerous at worst.

YABU - this is something a political party should have a policy on
YANBU - this is not something a non medical entity should have policy on

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/green-party-nhs-lbc-b1162105.html#

My concern is that the policy seems uninformed. Most policy has a rationale underpinning it, and where there is a need for expertise, has at least a mechanism for taking that expertise into account. I can’t see that with this policy. Instead it is extremely specific and targeted and relates to how a woman gives birth, which is such an invasive thing. It doesn’t seem to allow for a woman’s choice, and given that hers is the body the baby will be coming out of, that seems to me to be quite an oversight.

I really dislike this policy. It's great the green party are reviewing it. It takes maturity to admit you were wrong.
However, Mumsnet seem to scrutinise the green party more than other parties.
14 years of austerity and NHS cuts (including to maternity care) have not only put the lives of many at risk, but actually cost lives. Both Labour and the Tories have failed to call out genocide in Gaza. That's actually happening, right now. Women and children overwhelmingly affected. The Green Party aren't going to be in power any time soon. So, any unpalatable policies they have are less of a concern to me than bad Labour and Tory policies. Because they could actually come to pass.
I have heard rumours that some in Labour have made it their business to circulate and twist this Green policy to put people off voting them, as many people are planning to vote Green in Labour strongholds as a protest, due to Labour's Gaza stance, and purge of the left, especially their terrible treatment of Faiza Shaheen.
Politics can be a dirty game, and they try to manipulate us more than than you know.

@Thepeopleversuswork that's a bit unfair on NICE in this case. They have undertaken a health economic evaluation of elective maternal request caesarian versus vaginal births using equivalent methodology to what would be used in cancer drug appraisals. They concluded that although the immediate costs and benefits fell in favour of vaginal birth, when long term effects such as urinary incontinence were included the difference between the two became smaller. This ultimately formed part of the evidence assessed in the recent NICE guideline update that recommended maternal request caesarians should be granted following discussion of risks and benefits etc.

I don't deny for a second that some women are receiving substandard care, or that many still struggle to get access to elective caesarians, but this particular one isn't at NICE's door.

The Green Party don't particularly care for women. They disaffiliated their Green Party Women group for believing in the primacy of biological sex as the basis of women's rights. Prioritising ideology over women's lived experiences in this scenario is totally on brand.

Doesn’t surprise me, they do seem to hate women.

When it comes to maternity care I’m not sure why people who won’t need to give birth, or perhaps have had nice births themselves, practically foam at the mouth at the thought of women being in more pain than they need to be.

I also can’t be doing with anyone prattling on about how natural birth is sacred and special and empowering - yes it may be to some but giving birth (no matter how you do it) is a very painful means to an end and a painful one at that

Exactly this. I had an elective c section because I wanted one. Lots of my friends are doctors and they had elective c sections too. The reason we wanted c sections? Because maternity and postnatal care is so underfunded and having major surgery was preferable. You have a whole team delivering your baby. If you are unfortunate and something goes wrong in surgery, it gets fixed. Every woman I know who had injuries after a vaginal birth got fobbed off and made to belive it was normal.

How privileged a position to be in where the main priority is able to be 'skin to skin, straight to the breast' Earth Mother eye-rolling BS.

All 4 of my younger siblings were rushed off to NICU immediately. The priority was saving their lives. So grateful my mum wasn't a hardline NCT-nut, forcing my blue struggling siblings on the breast instead of letting the doctors whisk them away for transfusions.

And FYI- she never had a problem bonding with or breastfeeding any of her babies, despite no immediate skin to skin or feeding, and despite their NICU/SCUBU stays of up to 3 weeks.
In fact, my friend who had a smooth natural birth had such issues breastfeeding that it never took off. And my sister, after a picture-perfect home birth, ended up in High Dependency TWICE with severe mastitis, this was after the poor baby was admitted twice as he was starving from not getting enough breast milk. It's total bollocks, yet another way of making women feel inadequate.

The main priority above ALL else should always be the health and safety of mother and baby. And although the purists don't like it, that includes considering, discussing and factoring in the risks/gambles of vaginal birth and what the long term implications could be.

Sorry, I'm massively pro birth choice, having had a section myself, but obviously that hasn't come across in my last post. I have no idea how you would go about quantifying or assessing what are the 'right' reasons for c-sections, hence my question to posters who seem to be arguing c-section rates have increased for the 'wrong' reasons. Given that sections save lives, I am not at all in favour of limiting them and 100% agree it should be maternal choice.

There needs to be more research between C section rates of different hospitals, the hospital I had ds in had a rate of 47%, but if I went to the hospital just over the border into the next county their rate was 36%, are some hospitals jumping to do sections instead of giving women longer to labour. No way should there be a tariff on how many sections take place.

You may find it hard to believe but that was her experience. In fact her experience with her care provider for her second pregnancy was bad enough that she ended up paying for private healthcare for the delivery. She's a very logically minded, grounded and positive person and I believe what she's telling me. "Well I'm here anyway I may help things along" was what he said to her and brushed the midwives off when they tried to intervene. Even during my own pregnancy which was high risk, some of the consultants were fabulous and I couldn't fault their care but I saw two who were awful and I left those appointments distressed as a result.

I understand that natural isn't always better but that's maternal outcomes need more research and review.

I agree OP. I guess they missed the birth trauma inquiry?

Agree it’s important for policy to be well informed. That makes more sense than what you had originally said.

This. I had an elective caesarean and it was a peaceful process with no problems at all for either myself or my DC. My sister, who had two natural labours, had serious tearing and septic stitches. My friend still has PTSD after her experience.

Childbirth can be a natural, empowering experience but it is also a fucking war zone and women should be allowed to choose their battles, and their weapons of choice.

Of course, safety first, for both mother and baby. We need to really improve staffing and conditions in maternity units- so that mothers don't see a C-section as the only choice for safety. 'Normal' birth' would be much safer if staffing and conditions were greatly improved. And of course, safety first, and C-sections have a huge role to play, totally. As said, both baby and me were saved by a C-section for my first one. Other two were born 'normally' and without issues.

Under playing the risk to both mother and baby of major surgery and aneasthesia (baby does share this btw- and babies born by C section are often flat and depressed and need intervention. And mothers to get scaring, adhesions, and all sort of other issues, which can make further pregnancies and C-sections more complicated. A major intervention with GY should never become the norm.

And no, I am not a rocking mad Mother Earth nutter either, but yes, older than most here, pushing 60. Again, on MN- things go from sublime to ridiculous extremes. The solution to poor, bordering on dangerous maternity services is huge improvement on those- not leaving women with major surgery as the only alternative.

And yes, there is nothing like a natural birth and baby being given to mother straight after birt- whenever that is safe and possible.

Awful. If they want to improve things for women and babies they should bring in more Drs and midwives so the ones we have aren't rushed off their feet trying and failing to give women and babies the care they need.

Oh yeah, MIL, not DM tbf, had a terrible delivery (vaginal) in the 60s so natural is great? Hahaha. She had lifelong consequences. So women should do their own research and advocate for themselves. If they want a CS they should get it! Bodily autonomy FFS.

And as far natural.. don't make me laugh. Heart attacks, presumably natural? Infections. Presumably natural? Broken bones. Presumably natural. Should they be treated?

I find it unbelievably offensive and down right dangerous that they call child birth a “non medical event” when I was being torn to shreds down there and lost a litre of blood it certainly felt medical! Is this viewpoint from some old sexist standpoint- belittling what physically happens to a woman? I spoke to my consultant just before I gave birth this year and ask why only is it in the past year the reason for morning sickness as been found ( something to do with a hormone) sadly she said it’s because women’s health is sadly neglected. Even women in a lot of pain are dismissed- I was Told I was being a pain in my first labour when I had no pain medication as I couldn’t understand what position they wanted me to go on the bed in as I needed to shut my eyes for a few moments due to the pain! I’m just glad they will never get into power- a load of crazy morons. Miscarriages are natural- doesn’t make them good!

There's concern in maternity about the upsurge in the numbers of women having medically complicated and traumatic births. I don't think that many people who're involved in maternity care are that bothered about planned caesareans - it's the number of unplanned caesareans, inductions and assisted births that are concerning. One hospital near me now has a caesarean rate just shy of 50%, most of which are emergency c/s - but with no additional obstetricians, no additional support on postnatal, and midwife shortages. It worries me. It just feels unsafe. The Greens have put their foot in it, but the quality of maternity care and issues around staffing and capacity, all of which will be impacted by a big increase in women experiencing complicated births and the postnatal challenges that sometimes arise from them, absolutely are an NHS issue that deserves political attention.

Some hospitals might be jumping to do c sections quickly.

Or are the hospitals with a lower c section rate denying women access to maternal request c sections?

Why do the Green Party think women should give birth naturally but teenagers should be offered puberty blockers and cross sex hormones?

I’m not sure I understand your post. What have I said is unnecessary?

"Some hospitals might be jumping to do c sections quickly.

Or are the hospitals with a lower c section rate denying women access to maternal request c sections?"

They have to publish very detailed statistics about mode of birth - they'll give their emergency as well as elective caesarean rates.

"In 1900 I expect birth was nice and natural in the UK. The neonatal death rate was 150 per 1000, ie 15% of babies died at or near birth. Now (2020) the neonatal death rate is 4 per 1000, 0.04%. So a better standard of medical care including c-sections, forceps, ventose etc has saved the lives of 14.6% of babies born in the UK in 2020."

I think I read that the biggest and fastest fall in maternal and neonatal deaths happened at a time (late 1940's to 1960's) when the caesarean rate was very low and most women were still giving birth at home. We can thank antibiotics, good antenatal care, anti-d, etc for that.

We've had a huge upsurge in major interventions in birth in a very short space of time - like over the past 6 years, but the stillbirth rate has hardly budged in that time.

We've also got a situation in UK hospitals where rates of complicated birth are significantly higher for low risk women who choose obstetric settings for birth, than for similar low risk women who choose midwife led settings for birth - and no difference in baby outcomes. Suggests there's something about the model of care in obstetric settings that may be creating problems in some women's labours that are resulting in higher rates of unplanned caesarean and assisted births.

Not wanting to sound ungrateful for modern birth technology and safe surgery btw - I feel grateful for it every single day and it saves so many lives. But there's definitely a problem with the way the system is working right now, and women are paying a high price in terms of births ending up maybe being more difficult than they should have been.