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?

Chukkypig, did you have the syntocinon drip? Low pain threshold, my arse. Wouldn't you like to hook her up to one of those contraptions and keep cranking up the drip because she is not dilating quick enough.

The cheek of the midwife to tell me later that 'some babies don't like the drip'. Oh, so nobody thought it fit to inform me of that risk when 'pushing induction' on me. This being loose with facts and risks is beginning to rile me. Informed choice is a bit of a myth on the NHS IMO.

I didn't even get as far as the drip, just had pessaries, so strictly speaking I wasn't even induced. Was bloody awful though.

My mum had the drip, and she thought it was going a bit quick. So she checked the dosage on her notes, then the drip, and they had given her 50 times the dosage. Lucky for her she knew what she was looking at, and got them to change it, must have been horrendous.

"Some babies don't like the drip" is up there with "you obviously have a low pain threshold" in ludicrous things spouted by healthcare "professionals" during labour. Not exactly scientific, you might say. Must be a thread there somewhere!

Now now, Chukkypig. Nobody was decrying the benefits of modern medicine. I do wonder about the use of your word "huge" when it comes to mortality in childbirth.

One can only wonder if the medicalisation of birth is a good thing when most (yes, that is most believe it or not) women give birth without complication.

And yes, I'm sure some babies don't like the drip. Surges of syntocinon which crosses the placenta, strong contractions, no natural birth hormones. Hmmmmm.

I am pro c-section I've had three! One of each, falied to progress ecs with a spinal thingy (OMG can't remember what that's called), general aneasthetic, and elective and going for number four in November. However if a VB was guarenteed to be successful and safe I would do that every time. I do not think it makes you a better mother or have a more valuable birth or baby but something that took thousands of years to fine tune and evolve has to be better for our bodies. Better healing, etc.

But people do decry the benefits of modern medicine, and that is what I get upset about. Women are led to believe that they should give birth with a bit of breathing, relaxation and visualisation. I'm sure that works for some people but others need pain relief, gas&air etc etc onto CS. It's a shame that natural birth is pushed (and yes I say pushed again) to an extent that a lot of women feel that they have failed if they end up with any intervention, which of course is not their fault at all.

I was looking for some stats about mortality, MilkMonitor, but couldn't find them easily and I'm off to bed in a mo. I am sure though that the infant mortality and maternal mortality rates in say 1800 were much higher than they are now. I just can't think of the right phrase to google at the mo.

I did however find this, slightly off topic, but it seems the BF/FF and WOHM/SAHM arguments may not be as modern as I had thought, here you go, fascinating [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/victorian_britain/women_home/ideals_womanhood_07.shtml]

hmm try again with the link

that's better

twinkle,
i've had indigestion for months the joys, eh?

Oh FFS last try then I'm off.

www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/victorian_britain/women_home/ideals_womanhood_07.shtml

I think motherhood should be changed to parenthood and I reckon the whole debate would shift.

Deaths in childbirth 100 years ago or more were due to various factors such as hygiene etc.

Medicine can have a role to play in childbirth today but I agree with MM in that the majority of UK women have uneventful (as in no negative elements) births. Lots have births without interventions too. But that's not to deny a woman the care she needs. The most important thing is to give a labouring woman the care she needs!

Milkmonitor, since it is known that some babies don't like the drip, why was I railroaded into an induction/vb, rather than being offered a caesarean with the full risks of each option explained to me?

Instead, I was told I would have to have to labour naturally (as natural as an induction can be) and I was delivering a baby with a known congenital heart condition picked up in the scans.

Talk about 'pushing vb'!

It is only for the grace of god that my dd (who did not like the drip ) got off scot free from the botched experience.

You shouldn't have been railroaded into anything, blueshoes.

It's a myth that women don't have choices when it comes to how they want to give birth.

However, perhaps the doctors felt that it would be better for your baby to be born vaginally.

allytjd on Mon 30-Jun-08 21:00:05
"I know several people who had infections after sections but none after v-births. "

Several people on Mumsnet myself included have had infected stitches after vaginal deliveries. If you think about it, it's a lot harder to keep clean down below. I had no problems after my C-section.

Post-vaginal-delivery infection is still one of the main causes of the high female mortality in the third world.

And when syntocinon is used, the baby's heartbeat needs to be continuously monitored because of the sheer strength of the contractions.

And then interventions such as forceps etc are more likely to be needed.

So, I guess all in all it could well be preferable for the baby if syntocinon wasn't used.

milkmonitor, "It's a myth that women don't have choices when it comes to how they want to give birth."

It is not a real 'choice' if information about pros and cons of cs and vb is selectively presented and risks not fully explained. In other words, it is a myth that there is 'informed consent'.

I am very sure the consultant and midwives I spoke to knew that there was a significant chance if I was going to be induced at 40 weeks, first time mother, continuous monitoring of a baby with a heart defect, that I would end up with an emergency cs. That was never explained to me. Elective cs was not even mentioned as an option.

I find that a betrayal of me as a mother in a stressful and vulnerable position and an insult of my intelligence. But hey, at least my love passage is honeymoon fresh. And I got a second elective on the system, easy peasy.

insult to my intelligence

chukkypig you and i had a very similar experience- did you go to the chelsea and westminster by any chance? At one stage she was actually forceably holding my arms down when i was screaming in pain, having by then been on the drip for 8 hours with a non-functioning epidural. She told me that my pain threshold was low, too.

I did explain to her that i knew about visualisation and counterirritation techniques as a physio and i had been doing them for 8 hours already! She didn't believe me. All over my hospital notes was 'epidural working well.' She didn't even put a catheter in until i said about 7 hours in that i needed a pee- i instantly filled up the catheter bag. funny how my whole body swelled up afterwards- despite walking around within 2 hours of the surgery so i could then get rid of the damned thing.

I totally agree with the sentiment also that PG itself is pretty risky: there are many possible 'juggernauts' associated with pregnancy that far outweigh the difference between ElCS and trying for VB. AND, are those stats comparing those who managed a Vb and ElCS, OR is it all those who went for VB and ended up with something else as well?

Women think they don't have choices. They are led to believe they have no choice, is what I meant. And as a result, they end up having no choice.

I'm sorry to hear that you felt you weren't fully informed, blueshoes. It does mean that women feel let down and betrayed as you say. I think it's a contributing factor to PND, this lack of control and respect for mothers-to-be, especialy as you say, when they are so vulnerable in labour.

Women need to know that they are fully capable of making informed decisions or at the very least, discussing it rather than having decisions made for them all the time.

At the same time, women need to learn more about the birth process, what to expect, what certain drugs mean for themselves, their baby and their labour etc. It's a dual responsibility on the part of the mother and the medical world. It's the first part of parenting decisions.

milkmonitor, even if women have possession of all the facts, the ability to digest them all (and many don't - it is a fact) and informed decision-making, the less-than-ideal conditions under which women can be required to labour under the NHS negates any real 'choice'.

Try delivering as a first time mother with 4 to a room (yes, that happened in my hospital. Women in second stage labour, just screened off from each other), understaffed midwives running around like headless chickens, "caeserean now, theatre 2" echo-ing along the corridors, and let's see how you get on.

That is if you even get a foot through the door of the maternity ward - as my hospital were ambulancing women away.

In contrast, my elective was calm, controlled, well-staffed and well-monitored. It is a no-brainer - there are risks to a cs, sure, but it is the devil I know and the risks are just the small premium for buying insurance for the relative certainty of outcome.

blueshoes: If you don't mind me asking was your elective was on the NHS? If so, due to medical reasons or your choice?

I had an elective myself, so am with you on their benefits (my choice and my consultant's recommendation happened to coincide).

saskia, yes my elective was on the NHS. It was easy because it was my second child and I already had one cs (emergency).

My hospital said they were supportive of VBAC - which I do believe the midwives had the best intentions of doing and were very reassuring in that direction. But the actual circumstances in the hospital on the day I went for my elective were horrific (see my last post). If I believed their well-meaning spiel about VBAC, I probably would have ended up with another emergency cs. Promises, promises.

MilkMonitor, I tried to make myself well informed. I read books, spoke to friends and family, went to ante-natal classes on both the NHS and NCT.

I felt that the different pain management and delivery methods were not discussed equally. Statistically CS may be more risky, but they are still very very safe overall. So why then was it a case of "you want to do everything you possibly can to avoid a CS" as if it was the end of the world? And, when for most women, the CS is being performed for medical reasons, whether EC or CS, it's not helpful to put the fear of god into them. Similar for epidural, it is very effective pain relief, why this idea that you have failed if you have one which IME is led by the people giving ante-natal classes.

The facts and risks should be presented in a non-emotional and unbiased manner, by people who do not have a stake or interest in one method over another. Then we may have a situation where women can make an informed choice.

Blueshoes: Another question if I may, how did the ward provide nursing care after your elective with such staff shortage (from personal experience I know the high level of attention required afterwards)?

Saskia, very very good question. The hospital did not provide adequate care on the post natal ward. Neither did they allow my dh to stay by my side to help out due to strict visiting hours.

I kicked up a stink and got the consultant to examine me and discharge me after 36 hours - which was less than enough recovery time for me, but I wasn't going to sit around in my bed with my ds crying in his cot and no one helping me.

The joys of the NHS.

Ds and I were fine at home and very comfortable. They got a midwife out to check on me doublequick.

blueshoes ? So pleased for you both, but saddened to hear your post natal experience. 36 hours is nowhere near enough time for anyone to be discharged after an elective. I think I was still a bit wobbly on my feet and having epidural top-ups at this point. You should have been supported and made a fuss over by everyone on just having given birth, it is such a special event.

that doesn't surprise me blueshoes. I reckon i could arrange a CS for next time for the same reason you had one: but the aftercare is one of the reasons we will go privately- TBH 2 nights in a room with 5 other women and their babies meant no sleep at all: quite apart from the contradictory advice from the MWs. Your nipples are too small to BF was a particular classic- i am still BF now: DD is 6 months old.