Women are encouraged to have vaginal births due to…

[Undkonm]

1. cost
2. because women are not treated like men in terms of pain management

I have read (and also strongly believe) that the nhs encourages vaginal births to save money. A consultant has recently come forward to say exactly this. It is appalling and women are still falling for the narrative that vaginal birth is the only real way to give birth.

Don’t get me wrong, I know there are huge risks with all medical intervention such a c section. But I know so many people who have ended up with an emergency c section and it’s been awful for them. In contrast, those I know (including myself) who elected a c section by choice had a peaceful and largely predictable birth.

This toxic narrative that birth is only birth if you give birth vaginally is another abuse of women. I am glad I had the insight and confidence to push for what was best for me. I know other women who desperately wanted a c section but were pushed around and didn’t get to have it elected.

When will this end? I should add that I also strongly believe women who want vaginal births should be absolutely supported but it should be an active choice to do that, not the expected ‘norm.’

Do others agree? Do you have other thoughts on this? To go one step further I think the abuse of women continues when the baby arrives with huge pressure to breast feed. Just leave women alone to make decisions that are right for THEM.

But an IUGR baby is likely to come preterm and therefore risky to their life so induction or c-section is medically appropriate.

I was forced to have a vaginal birth after rape. I'd been promised I could have a C-Section if I wasn't coping. I had a terrible labour - induction, distressed baby with meconium and dropping heartbeat, insufficient pain relief (failed epidual). My body went into shock, I didn't cope and asked for the C-Section I'd been promised, and was denied one as theatre was busy. I have PTSD from intesnse flashbacks during birth of being pinned down and nearly 13 years on I've just completed a course a EMDR to try to come to terns with what I went through. I feel very let down by the NHS, who are supposed to be a trauma informed service. I'm so sad to read about the experiences of others x

I had an induction at term because it was picked up quite late but the NCT leader was extremely dismissive of it when I asked for her advice and seemed to think I should just carry on and wait for baby to come naturally. As it turned out I had a section as the hospital didn’t want to move onto the drip but I felt a lot of guilt about it. My baby was below the 2nd centile at just over 5lb so tiny.

That sounds horrendous. I'm sorry you had to go through all of that and they didn't give you the c-section.

Can I ask how old your kids are? do they show signs of any issues? Like sensory issues such as not liking the feeling of labels or the joins in socks? Or being fussy eaters. Can they sit still in chairs - do they bring their head to their plates to eat rather than bring their utensils to their mouths?

I had an emergency C section and what I learnt afterwards was that kids need the movement down the birth canal where their shoulders hit either side to trigger the first stages of crawling and their infant reflexes going dormant - if these reflexes do not go dormant its a bit like a house whose foundations are not solid and there are weaknesses as the child gets older. Mine have in their teens been diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety and both their infant reflexes have still not gone dormant.

Also, while going through the birth canal kids come into contact with their mums friendly bacteria which helps them populate their own stomach digestive systems.

I'll always defend a woman's choice to have their body treated how they want it treated - but not let's not pretend that the NHS wants natural births because its cheaper - its better for both mum and the baby.

I don't know about you but having an emergency C section without labour meant my body did not release the hormones to trigger breast milk production or the hormones to shrink my tummy back. I also have that C section pouch - C sections are not the a ideal birth plan - mine was very painful and I lost so much blood I needed a blood transfusion.

Having read many of the patronising comments on here about sections and why formula is a sad second best for babies by silly women who are either too lazy or stupid to breastfeed (because this is exactly what many of the posts on this thread imply) I’ll bite:

1. Women should feel free to request an elective section if they want one. In the UK this is your right.
2. All things being equal, a vaginal birth with zero complications is safest for the mother.
3. A planned section is safest for baby. It comes with a slightly higher risk for the mother but this is very small if in the hands of a competent surgeon in a properly staffed and resourced hospital (admittedly, this is debatable in many UK hospitals).
4. While colostrum has many benefits, recent studies have shown that in countries with safe water sources and proper hygiene there is negligible benefit to babies from breastfeeding over formula. Please stop beating women with this stick. Fed and loved is best. End of discussion.

I have had 2 elective sections - first due to placenta previa (so severe that my baby and I would both have bled to death had I gone into labour) the second truly elective. Different surgeons and hospitals both abroad in private hospitals. Recovery one was brutal and made me question why anyone would pick a section. Second was no more painful than an intense Pilates session. I was in town buying emergency baby supplies on day 4! I wad told that the difference in recovery was probably down to the complexity of the stitching needed in the first section - in the second, my surgeon had to remove a lot of scar tissue etc.

For anyone reading this and feeling judged or shamed for how you plan to give birth please ignore and do what’s best for you and your bodies and your babies. If that’s a natural delivery and breastfeeding then fantastic (just know that some babies cannot or will not latch and some women cannot produce enough milk) and if it’s a section and formula also brilliant!

@ItsAShame2

What do you mean by infant reflexes? The startle reflex?

I had an emergency C section and what I learnt afterwards was that kids need the movement down the birth canal where their shoulders hit either side to trigger the first stages of crawling and their infant reflexes going dormant - if these reflexes do not go dormant its a bit like a house whose foundations are not solid and there are weaknesses as the child gets older. Mine have in their teens been diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety and both their infant reflexes have still not gone dormant.

Is this satire?

This sounds like a bunch of horse shit - wtaf??

You know that placenta removal triggers a hormonal response, right? No matter how it's detached?

What on earth? My son was born by c section as I had preeclampsia at 34 weeks. He's 4 and completely fine. I was a c section baby and have never had any of these issues. No digestive issues and we don't eat from troughs

The NHS does its best and I am glad it encourages vaginal birth where possible. I think it is a good balance. Lots of women can have and want a vaginal birth and that is perfectly safe for the baby. I would have had a C section with my twins had that been needed but they came on the due day (40 weeks - late for twins) and vaginally. If I had needed a C section to save them or whatever of course I would have had it and I have been very lucky to have 5 reasonable births. - painful at times but not as bad as some women have. I think we should not judge other women for their choices. I am also a very keen breastfeeder and it was one of the best experiences of my life feeding my children but that is how I felt and other women bottle feed and that works very well for them.

Risk of stillbirth doubles after 40 weeks.

This is such bullshit it's unreal. I can't believe you think c sections cause ADHD.

This is it, medicine in this country is so super defensive it's toxic but unsurprising. You're right there is research that shows an increase in the risks, even though they're still fairly low, it's better in the eyes of the NHS for a woman to be annoyed because they feel they were unnecessarily induced (survivors bias and all that) than if anything happened and they'd have to defend knowing they hadn't highlighted the risks/hadnt been offered/hard to access. Of course anyone can decline induction, its understandable why they're offered one albeit it should be explained why so people can make more informed decisions; also means should something happen there's a nice tick box saying risk understood and accepted.

Well my C-Section baby started crawling at seven months so I guess her reflexes were triggered fine. Don’t appreciate this unscientific nonsense misinformation.

My children are 27, 25 and nearly 21. No issues whatsoever. Two of them are graduates with many skills at their disposal, and the 3rd is due to graduate next year. I've never been in labour but I successfully breastfed them all long-term. They have all been robustly healthy, rarely having even V&D or colds at all. They were basically all too big for my pelvis.

I do have the c-section pouch, even though my obs performed an apronectomy and a tubal ligation during my 3rd c/section. It's smaller than it would have been if he hadn't. He removed the first two scars.

I'm just grateful that my children were born happy and healthy. If they'd wanted to bring them out through my nose that would have been ok because their wellbeing was paramount.

Vaginal, drug-free birth proponent over here. 100%

YABU.

It's generally a good principle in medicine to avoid interfering in normal biological processes unless necessary. Even in fairly mundane scenarios, there is a lot we don't know about the human body and there is always a risk associated with fiddling. We have no real idea if there are consequences we can't see or measure easily to c-sections.

And in addiction, there are real risks, immediate and ongoing, to major abdominal surgery.

These are the main reasons vaginal birth is considered the default, and that follows normal practice in other areas of medicine.

However, so far as cost goes, it is a serious consideration in any socialized medical system. There are only so many resources, and if you are using them in one place, you can't use them in another. It's completely normal to do cost benefit analysis in the health care system, it happens for every procedure, intervention, and drug.

I’m all for the women’s choice. Freedom of information, education and choice.

And proper pain relief!

Fucking hell. What’s with this OTC medicine after a C?! Absolutely fucking mental. Poor poor women who have that. Entirely unnecessary. Archaic torture mentality.

I'm afraid that doesn't sound plausible & more like ppl looking for reasons why their child might be delayed.

Grandson was a planned ECS & displays none of the things you describe at all. No issues with milk either. The only difference was that his head was a slightly odd shape for a while due to his position in the womb but it is all 'normal' now.

This is a stupid statistic though. It's the kind of thing that leads people to push back against hospital policies because it's so obviously idiotic.

If the baby has problems that mean it is likely to be stillborn, it's also much more likely likely to go overdue.

But it's perfectly fine and normal for some healthy babies to take a little longer than average.

For that latter group being too eager to induce puts them at greater risk.

And there are limited benefits to induction for the babies who have problems that lead to stillbirth.

It's also not unheard of for there to be dating issues, where they have misjudged how far along the mum is - even if they try to do dating with the ultrasound.

A policy of inducing all mothers who go past 40 weeks is just bad factory type medicine.

It's probably still too early to tell in some cases as every labour is different. Both mine were induced, 36 hours for the first and 32 hours the second but in the end both vaginal births both over 10lb and home that day, the second wasn't even 4 hours old (way too bloody early to go home). With the first I got right to pushing and they were deciding if I might need forceps or possibly section if it didmt start moving as I was so tired but in 20 mins she was there. I don't care if it's section or vaginal as long as baby is there safe but yes it took long but in the end it was fine.
But yeah I agree it's def money driven reasons as there was literally no beds available for me to stay and with my first boy enough midwives to cover the births happening so doubt the money is there to government surgery additional staff and the extra days to recover

Wow. Where to even start with this one.

A statistic cannot be stupid, it simply is what it is. A statistic is a factual finding. People calling statistics stupid are often the people making stupid decisions because they think they know better than actual scientists and doctors doing research.

The main cause of stillbirth after 40 weeks is placental aging/failure. Not a health condition. Stay pregnant too long and your placenta may give up regardless of how healthy you are.

What problems do babies have that make them more likely to be overdue and stillborn? Never heard of that. Timing of birth is all about the mothers health as far as I am aware. Babies that high risk of being stillborn because they have a health condition are best to be born via c section quickly and taken to NICU surely?

Yes most women who go overdue are safe to do so, but for every few thousand that are safe to do so, one woman will lose her baby to stillbirth. There's no way of knowing which woman that will be until it happens. How does any woman know that woman is not her and why on earth would you risk it? I certainly wouldn't take the risk with my baby if it could be avoided.

Limited benefits are still benefits which means it's better than doing nothing.

And of course doctors advise you not to take the risk, their job is to keep you and your baby safe, not let your baby die then say the risk was low so we didn't think it was worth doing anything.

If women are fully informed of the risks and want to take them fine but the rhetoric that statistics are stupid and women should ignore medical advice because natural is better is dangerous.

I think encouraging natural isn’t a bad thing. It’s not about being cheap in my opinion, it’s just what we expect our bodies to do. BUT of course if you do not want to go for a vaginal birth for whatever reason, you should be given other options. If issues are present beforehand and a c section is best, a planned one is so much better than emergency.

I have an issue with inductions. I hate the idea of forcing a woman’s body to do something natural artificially.

Nothing wrong with encouraging breastfeeding either. Obviously the first few drops are ideal for baby. I believe there needs to be WAY more support for women to make breastfeeding less daunting. But if a woman wants to formula feed then the option should be there. My mum recalls nurses having formula milk ready at the hospital and is shocked the same service isn’t provided today.

I agree with you, there is too much neglect - women have given birth since the beginning of time and it’s shocking that in the West hospitals are I’ll prepared and are putting women and babies at risk at times.

Point is that many trusts do not support elective sections.
And ones that do often make it hard for a woman to get one.

NHS should inform woman once about pros and cons of section amd let an adult decide how she wants to deliver a baby.
Because majority of female obgyns will opt for section despite knowing evolution gifted is with vagina ;)