to think that some MNers are just a tweensy bit biased when it comes to elective CS?

[youcannotbeserious]

Why is it, when anyone ever posts that they want an elective CS / considering going private, LOTS of MNers start going on about the risks (I appreciate that they exist and, to be fair, they are explained in detail by the consultant and you have to sign a waiver so you are fully aware of them) and needing to be in an NHS hospital 'just in case' and you wouldn't want to be in one of those pesky private hospitals, but the same never gets said for home births which, as far as I can see, must have a reasonably equal risk of needing to go to transfer to a hospital?

Why is it that Elec. CSs are so frowned upon?

I'm genuinely curious - I had to defend my 'birth plan' several times here on MN - and I don't honestly see why it's so emotive... Should I run for it now?

Youcannotbeserious, I share the same experience as you ie friend with electives had great experiences and friends with vb (I would say 50%) having such shocking experiences I would not wish on my worst enemy.

For my 2nd cs which was elective, I attended 2 VBAC clinics and used them fully. I came with a long checklist of questions and even got the experienced midwife to go back and check and clarify statistics of risk of VB going wrong. She was very helpful.

But what it came down to was my fundamental disagreement with her figures. She said in her experience only 1% of natural births ended up with 3rd/4th degree tears. Anecdoctally, from a extremely limited sample of my friends and relatives, I know that to be untrue. 1%? I can believe 20% at least - 1% is really taking the piss and taking me for a fool.

Turniphead, 'facts may be facts'? I question that perhaps the risks of vb have been mightily downplayed and the risks of cs ramped up to put the fear of god into women. Just go on any mn thread and you will routinely read stories of vb from everyday posters that will make your toes curl.

Just to clarify, I am talking about risks of tears in first time mothers.

Turniphead: what I meant by being uncomfortable is that the risks were'nt explained to me. Like Blueshoes, you get told one thing, but the limited no. of friends makes you believe something very very different.

So, I suppose, I too had a fundamental disagreement with the figures. I'd say, out of my friends who had bad experiences with VB were looking at 50-60% whereas friends who had good experiences with CS we're looking at 100% - so CS worse than VB????

Not where I am coming from!

I always say this on these threads, re: maternal morbidity and here I go again.

Thank Heavens, the risk of maternal death in childbirth is very low in Britain. The merest fraction. Yes, it is a fact that there is a slightly higher risk for ELECTIVE cs, but it is still a tiny, tiny number.

I am leaving emergency cs figures out of it as they are often rolled together with non-emergency cs stats because they are more risky - but again, we are talking about a tiny, tiny number.

So - yes, there is a higher risk of certain things for CS, but if you listened to some of the people on mn, you'd think it was akin to playing Russian Roulette.

LadyThompson, it is 'life-threatening', doncha know?

Message withdrawn

Youcannotbeserious- I don't feel your analogy is very valid. When you cross a road, you look both ways and listen before stepping out. This minimises the likelihood of being run over by a juggernaut you hadn't noticed bowling down the street. There are very few precautions you can take to minimise the risks from surgery, other than not smoking or being overweight, and knowing whether you have adverse reactions to anaesthetics.

And fwiw, out of our class of 5 at NCT antenatal classes, 4 ended up with interventions ranging from episiotomy to c-section. I don't think anybody felt any kind of angst or feelings of failure about the manner of the birth of their babies. Antenatal teacher was lovely, breastfeeding counsellors also lovely. I really don't understand the venom towards the NCT.

duchesse, why does the ability to minimise risk come into it at all? Surely, it is the absolute risk to that individual that counts, not whether it can be minimised?

As it is, I don't smoke and am not overweight. I get a clean bill of health for my routine well woman health checks. Cs was a walk in the park for me. And the doctor signed me off for early discharge from hospital.

Message withdrawn

Pruners, the midwife in my postnatal ward, who was pregnant at the time, told me she was going for an elective . I thought it quite surprising tbh.

I had what was classed as an emergency cs (no particular distress on my or dd1's part though) after 36 hours of labour and still only 4 cm dilated. I was irritated at the time, as if I had been managed better, then I don't think it would have been necessary, but overall, the only result I cared about was healthy me and healthy dd1.

I then had another cs for dd2 after a trial of scar - 4 hours of labour and not dilating again, so another cs. So be it.

I felt fine after both cs's - breastfed both dds (dd1 until 13 months, still going with dd2 at 16 months) and was up and about after a couple of days with both of them.

After dd2, I had to take dd1 to hospital appts 3 days post cs, and distinctly remember being at toddler group with a 6 day old dd2.

I have had people wondering whether I "just chose" to have a cs. Frankly, I don't care what they think, but it does annoy me a little that along with their wondering there seems to be a judgement...

Turniphead, that's rubbish. Find one study that says post 39 weeks a c-section is as or mor risky than a VB and I'll send you my savings. More risky for the mother, by a samll amount. Safer for baby.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I had my elec CS at 38 weeks, because DS was coming one way or another!!!

I don't understand Duchesse's point of view - I mean, if you are going to take that line, why have a baby at all, because ANY childbirth carries a risk - so to minimise the risk would be to not have a child atall...

Message withdrawn

turniphead, for a normal pregnancy with no risk indications, my hospital's policy is to schedule electives for 39 weeks. I had mine at 39 weeks + 3 days. That is pretty standard, from reading other cs threads.

Pruners, I am not sure why the midwife was going for an elective - I did not ask as I thought it would be intrusive as it might require her to reveal medical conditions. But she was happy to tell me, seeing that I had one myself.

I've been told 39 weeks on the nose for my upcoming elective c/s. The policy now is 39 weeks because of research into possible temporary breathing problems, as Pruners says.

Well, some consultants like to do it at 38 weeks to avoid the risk of going into labour. Because it's a lot easier to do the surgery then. But the more mature a baby's lungs are the better.

There was a midwife who got struck off (is that the right term?) for recommending women having C-sections go into labour. It's reckoned to be a good thing now to expose the baby to birth hormones even if it's an elective CS.