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.

Ugh this is so true

Do you know anyone who has given birth in Scandinavia? I have 3 friends who gave birth in Sweden. One laboured for 3 (!!!) days before eventually being given the CS that she had been pleading for since even finding out she was pregnant. Another ended up with a barbaric instrumental delivery. The third had a straightforward vaginal birth but was terrified the whole time after 12 rounds of ivf and multiple miscarriages and had desperately wanted a CS to get some control back. All were deeply upset by the experience - they wanted to be listened to by medical professionals but were refused bodily autonomy.

I could not be more grateful to be in a country with healthcare professionals who listen to women (Hong Kong).

Quite. His head was much bigger than that. It came up on scans, then I developed pre eclampsia, and was given the options of induction or c section. I really didn't want to be induced, soo...

Where in the hell are women getting inductions at 39 weeks?
I was induced twice because I was closing in on 42 weeks. That was the Canada Health rule at the time. Sure, I guess I could have risked the baby's life by declining, but what kind of a choice is that? Not a viable one, that's for sure.

Sorry to hear you went through that too. I also recovered quickly, was able to go home the next day. My roommate in the hospital was so upset because I was out of bed within a few hours that she complained to my doctor and petulantly asked him why I could do it and she was not able to.
She continued to grumble about it to the nursing staff as well. It was as if I was doing it to be unfair to her. Very strange woman.

So you took longer to recover from DD, which was not an induced birth?

Yes @XChrome . She was 9lbs 10oz though (DS was smaller) and I had an episiotomy, lost a fair amount of blood. So I was pretty worn out. That’s why I had the induction with DS, he could’ve got bigger than her, but he ended up smaller!

A C-section was another possibility but I felt happy with my decision. This was 16 years ago, mind you, it sounds as if maternity care has got worse.

well yes that is the point - you can opt for a c section and thats why some woman choose to have surgery instead and decline the induction

Where in the hell are women getting inductions at 39 weeks?

In England, it happens for other reason that woman are offered inductions at 39 weeks

The context of that particular conversation was about inductions based on the baby being overdue. 39 weeks is certainly not overdue. Hence my confusion.

No, the particular conversation started about why a woman would choice a c section & I answered - Pure replied and the conversation continued as she wrote decline the induction

I don't mean to nitpick, but this is what I was responding to;

ThePure · 27/09/2024 02:21

You can decline induction 'when labour is late' because the 40 weeks is a pretty artificial concept. The trial evidence shows no safety advantage of induction at 39 weeks and you can fairly safely wait up to 41 weeks. After that I would not chance it. How many peoples dates are that accurate anyway.

So that is the context of this response;

Where in the hell are women getting inductions at 39 weeks?

That particular post is about labour being late, so that's why I thought The Pure was saying inductions were happening for late labour at 39 weeks.

Thankyou SapphireSeptember
I referred to the births of my two children further up this thread both of whom were born by emergency c section.Unfortunatly I was not given a choice how I would like to give birth, so had to endure two very long and complicated labours before I had to be rushed to theatre.As I stated in my previous post, both my DS1 and I nearly died during the first one mostly caused by the GA used then, and my DS2 was brought out of me just on the point of my uterus rupturing.
My DS2 has given me five grandchildren and two great grandchildren ,none of them would have existed at one time as his older brother's birth would have killed me first.
A very frightening thought. I cannot bear to read books where women die in childbirth after terrible labours in years gone by.Also the number of babies who also died or suffered permanent injuries because of their births.

I'm often reminded of the Milton Mausoleum by threads such as this. It's a monument to a woman who died giving birth to twins, who also died. She'd already had about 12? other babies, not all of whom had survived.

www.visitchurches.org.uk/visit/church-listing/milton-mausoleum.html

Question for those of you who are convinced that our rocketing rate of caesarean is contributing to an increase in safety in birth - how is it that Norway and Finland have caesarean rates that are half ours in the UK, but much better maternal and infant mortality? Norway's maternal mortality rate in 2020 was 1.7 per 100'000 live births, with a caesarean rate of 15%. The UK's maternal mortality rate in 2020 was 9.8 per 100'000 live births, with a caesarean rate of 31%. Their rates of perinatal deaths are half ours.

Could it be that safety in birth is more about quality of maternity care and better public health than it is about high rates of surgical birth?

In which case why has so much of the media debate around safety in birth centred been focused on a narrative which is basically 'too much enthusiasm for 'natural' birth'?

I find it interesting when people point of 'it's major surgery!' whenever a c section is mentioned. But funnily enough they never mention 'it's a dangerous, major medical event!' when vaginal birthing comes up.

The after effects of a vaginal birth can be every bit as traumatic and damaging and painful and long lasting as a c section, but there is this bizarre push to tell women that a vaginal birth will go smoothly and no mention of the risks. Risks of c section: immediately discussed. Risks of vaginal: barely mentioned even if asked.

It's like there is this immense reluctance to acknowledge that birthing vaginally might not go well. Just like the reluctance to admit that breastfeeding isn't always possible or safe for everyone.

If you do ever plan a child, know that wanting a c section is all that's required to have one. They may have to document that they have discussed the issue, but you can listen and state you still want one and that will be respected.

"Where in the hell are women getting inductions at 39 weeks?"

There are loads of reasons why someone might be induced at 39 weeks. You're misunderstanding by assuming that going past term is the only reason for an induction. My induction at 37wk was for oligohydramnios.

I would totally agree that "safety in birth is more about quality of maternity care and better public health than it is about high rates of surgical birth" however we don't have good maternity care in this country. Everyone I know who had a vaginal birth had a bad time because for large portions of their labour they were left alone and midwives kept telling them it would be a long time until baby would be born and leaving again then babies were born alone minutes later because no one is listening to the mother. My sister's baby was stuck and no one noticed so she was labouring with a stuck baby for over an hour, he is lucky to be alive and my sister was left with trauma. Another friends baby is brain damaged because she was deprived of oxygen for too long for the same reason. I opted for a c section because I didn't trust the doctors and midwives to save my baby if a vaginal birth went wrong. I also didn't trust them to treat me well after years of horrifically inhumane gynaecological care for endometriosis. No way I was even entertaining the idea.

"In which case why has so much of the media debate around safety in birth centred been focused on a narrative which is basically 'too much enthusiasm for 'natural' birth'?" Many tragedies have happened because women who NEED a c section are denied them because midwives push for a natural birth when it is not clinically appropriate or safe to keep c section rates down for costs to and to meet targets. Also emergency c sections are performed too late because again natural is best is being pushed in hospitals. This is another part of maternity care being unsafe in the UK.

It is also worth the population in Norway is likely healthier than the population in the UK due to ongoing poor health care and Scandinavian people tend to be larger than Europeans in build, they may well have larger pelvises resulting in fewer babies getting stuck, though this is merely speculation on my part. When we visited Scandinavian countries the people were like GIANTS and I'm tall for a woman in the UK 😂

This.
Vaginal births should absotley be the norm but far far better support given for all women. NHS antenatal is often woeful. Every woman deserves NCT plus as standard for free.
More midwives for home births. More birthing units. Less interventions that are simply there for the cost / ease of doctors. We’ve come a long way from the 1950’s but still so far to go.
Breastfeeding absolutely should be the norm too. Women should not be told on day 2 that they have low milk supply, undermining their confidence.
Breastfeeding councillors should be available to every woman, not just those that can afford hundreds to see one. Because formula feeding was seen as the norm in the 60’s / 70’s lots of the older generation who had babies then didn’t breastfeed and therefore can’t pass that wisdom down to their daughters, which is how babies have survived on breast milk for thousands of years.
Of course if a woman still wants a CS or chooses not to BF no judgements, but far more should be done to support those that do.

We’ve come a long way from the 1950’s but still so far to go.

In some ways we have gone backwards. We scrapped a good domiciliary service in the early 1970s.

Because formula feeding was seen as the norm in the 60’s / 70’s lots of the older generation who had babies then didn’t breastfeed and therefore can’t pass that wisdom down to their daughters, which is how babies have survived on breast milk for thousands of years.

Back in the post war years and 1950s bottle feeding was actively promoted as being scientific. You fed to a schedule and could measure how much milk a baby was getting. Women then were well and truly undermined.

Those examples are rather selective. You could've just as easily mentioned our nearest neighbour Ireland, for example. Higher CS rate than us, plus better maternal and infant mortality.

Instead you chose societies that are much healthier than the UK on most metrics, did you control for that?

Instead you chose societies that are much healthier than the UK on most metrics, did you control for that?

Isn't it worth questioning why some neighbouring societies are much healthier?

"Breastfeeding councillors should be available to every woman, not just those that can afford hundreds to see one. Because formula feeding was seen as the norm in the 60’s / 70’s lots of the older generation who had babies then didn’t breastfeed and therefore can’t pass that wisdom down to their daughters, which is how babies have survived on breast milk for thousands of years."

We've lost a lot of generational knowledge of the realities of breastfeeding though. I spent time on maternity leave with some 80 and 90+ year old women who had had their babies before formula was easily available. They were very well aware of the dangers of exclusive breastfeeding and were horrified by my experience (encouraged to keep on EBFing, ended up with seriously ill dehydrated baby despite having NHS lactation consultant and midwives).

@izimbra

I think that there is a world (perhaps even a country!!) in which I could have had a vaginal birth very safely, whereas I ended up with an emergency section after an induction (at 42 weeks - actually 42+3 once she was finally born, so not a marginal induction). I didn't have a single midwife who stayed with me for more than 2 hours and not once did anyone speak to me about trying to help my back to back baby turn before or after I went to hospital - I tried to read up on it myself and do all fours exercises and bouncing and walked six miles the day before I was induced. I was handed leaflets with no real curiosity. I was alone for almost all of my long induction.

None of us are saying that a good system couldn't potentially achieve more vaginal births. What we are saying is that care shouldn't be structured to try to avoid sections at all costs in the U.K. - it is the wrong question to ask. Sections are just a tool - vital when things are going wrong - they are not a "failure" by a woman in labour or by a midwife to persuade a woman to labour.

If the system asked "what does this woman need for a successful birth", rather than just imposing a series of protocols that "should" deliver a result that the system likes women would be better served and more people would have a VB.

Yes, I know there are other reasons and this misunderstanding has already been noted. Since the post I was responding to appeared to be focused on late labour, I thought she was saying 39 weeks is considered late in some places.

@izimbra

"Too much enthusiasm for natural birth" means that the relevant midwives ignored labouring women, dismissed the concerns of them and their partners and, crucially, didn't know how to recognise when things were going seriously wrong so pressed on regardless because that must be the right thing to do rather than questioning things. It's actually, "too much enthusiasm for cheap natural birth". Of course, this is about staffing (and more critically, experience) and also about a system that assumes it knows how to get a vaginal birth out of every woman by just following the dots until things go wrong.