AIBU to think we shouldn’t worry about an increase in c-sections?

[PancakeCloud]

I came across an instagram post earlier where someone had shared data indicating the UK’s c-section rates have increased significantly in the last five or so years. The commenters almost universally consider this to be ‘tragic’ and think it is ‘so so sad’ that some women are electing to deliver via section. There are also a whole bunch of commenters who think if only women were properly informed they would push for a natural birth even if drs are recommending inductions etc.

I accept the UK’s maternity system is under strain and needs improvement, but really isn’t the point that we have healthy mothers and babies not that women give birth via one method or another.

There are downsides of attempted vaginal births, because of course not all of them go to plan! There is an increased risk of severe birth trauma or hypoxic brain injury to baby vs choosing a c section. For women, tears and pelvic floor injury are very common. While C-sections come with their own risks, these are well known and often presented without acknowledgement that vaginal births have downsides too.

For the NHS I understand planned c sections are cheaper than other births, given so many of them end in emergency sections anyway and because of payouts when things go horribly wrong.

Are we not looking at this all wrong? The goal should be healthy mothers and babies irrespective of how those babies get out. Why are people so fixated on reducing the c section rate?

Enough that I wasn't risking it after being raped and having knives stuck up both orifices.

@TiredShadows Interesting information. I wonder why 18/19-year-olds are more at risk for certain things than someone slightly older? I can understand under-16's being at higher risk, but I didn't realize that late teens were also at risk.

There are some risks specific to understand 21s. I think preeclampsia is one. Or was at least thought to be when I had my first. I know the BC criteria back then actually prohibited teenage mothers but the midwives were already pushing back on it.

Why far less time before?

Obviously you're not labouring, whether at home or in hospital.

So for me it was:

• 8am, arrive at reception, be shown to a private room and husband given a cup of tea.
• 8-9:15ish, nurse does obs and obstetrician and anaesthetist chat me through the plan. We discuss preferences like music as well as practical stuff.
• 9.30- I walk down to theatre, go for a wee and get introduced to the team.
• 9:45 - spinal sited with husband present. I assume they are still doing checks on me but then introduce me to my baby at 10.03.
• 10:30ish, taken to recovery next door for ons and first feed.
• 11am taken to the ward.
• by midday I'm scoffing chocolates whilst waiting for my (delayed) toast.

It was very efficient, polite, dignified and pain free. Many first time mums would have been labouring for most of the day before and spent the previous night in hospital labouring. I went for dinner and had a good night sleep. It was fab.

Oh. Dd1 first baby, arrive at hospital just before midnight, baby born 1.25am, 2nd arrive at 6am baby born 8.10am, last one arrive at hospital 3.45am baby born 6am.

Dd2 arrive at hospital 4am, baby born 5.55am hone at midday 2nd child born in front room floor less than an hour after first pain

So not necessarily hanging around hours before.

You realise that that isnt the norm with this though surely?

More typical arrival to birth intervals for FTM's are 6-12 hours, and around 24hrs if induced apparently. The only women I know who had births very quickly after arriving also ended up with damage requiring surgical repair because their bodies couldn't cope with the speed. Regardless though virtually all FTM's tear or are cut and require stitches after,

Also crucially, all of that pre birth time will be in pain. With a section, none is in pain.

But to use your own words against you… you do realise your experience isn’t necessarily the norm either?

The vast majority of women I knew who have had c sections have been in agony still weeks later, my best friend was still struggling to walk up the stairs and pick her baby up from his crib 2 weeks later, another had so many recurring infections as a result that she was in & out of hospital for months…

Well actually neither me or either DD had any stitches at all after birth with the exception of my first one where they gave me 2 stitches ( and she was the longest labour)

And I'm surprised they have people in there 6 hours plus in labour. I knew when my Dd2s husband rang the MLU they said to come in when contractions were 5 mins apart and lasted more than 60 seconds

I absolutely know my experience isn't necessarily the norm (though it's in line with that of friends of mine who had elective sections), but that's why I specifically said that recoveries vary! But it's not accurate to say that recovery is longer, just that it can be.

Labour lasting 2 hours absolutely is not the norm, and that's patently obvious, especially for first births.

Managing birth (first time especially) without tearing or being cut is also pretty unusual - 90% of FTM's experience this.

What outcomes are you referencing? C sections often lead to slower recoveries, problems with breastfeeding, more risk of thrombosis (big risk for post natal women), mobility reduction in the days post surgery, can’t drive for ages or carry heavy objects.

Compared with usually a very simple and painless recovery from vaginal birth.

Obviously there are good and bad experiences both sides but over medicalising a natural and low risk pregnancy doesn’t serve anyone.

That’s true re tearing or being cut, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a quick recovery. I had bad tears with my first 2, and a 2nd degree tear with my third, wasn’t like anything had torn at all as far as I was concerned, was like the small cut on a finger i have currently but much less annoying because there is very little daily life that involves manipulating things with my vagina/perineum. They really have to be 3rd degree to impact life in any way comparable to a c section and even then I don’t understand why slicing through the layers of abdominal wall and uterus isnt clearly at least an equivalent healing process, unlike your abs you don’t use your perineum every time you feed or carry baby or stand up. I wasn’t going running for the first couple of weeks after all. Was the best recovery of all. Which really brings it back to low risk mums who want more babies are safer having natural births, and yes they might have a tear but that’s mostly not comparable to a c section.

god yes. The women saying it smelt rotting and being admitted back for infections 🤢🤢🤢

Can still take another 12 hours or more easily. For me anyway.

I didn't have much in the way of abs before tbh. I think I definitely used my perineum more than my non existent weak abs. 😂

I think it's perfectly reasonable to prefer the idea of my abdomen being sliced open whilst I'm properly anesthetised compared with my labia being ripped open without anaesthetic.

Though frankly the fact that we have to make that horrible choice shows what warriors us women are.