AIBU - to be really pissed off that epidurals are being restricted?

[christmasmum]

Was just reading an article in Mother and Baby magazine saying that epidurals are classed as an 'abnormal birth' and that they should be restricted in the future to avoid women having caesareans.

What is this all about? Why should women not be free to make their own decision on pain relief, while being aware of the risks involved in every form of pain relief? And is it not the case that women having diffcult births in the first place are more likely to BOTH have an epidural AND end up having a c-section anyway??

Before giving birth to my DD I bought into all the information from the NCT, books and magazines etc and was determined to go for a 'natural' birth. I ended up being induced and despite being told by every woman I have ever spoken to who has been induced, that I should have an epidural the midwife advised me that I would not need one. After 10 hours of intense contractions and finding out I was a huge 2cm dilated I decided enough was enough and had an epidural.

I was instantly relaxed and started to actually enjoy the process, 2 1/2 hours later (despite the consultant arriving to prep me for a c-section) I found out I was fully dilated and delivered my wee girl after 5 minutes of pushing to a room that was full of people laughing and singing Christmas carols.

I obviously only have my own experience to go by but I am absolutely convinced that the relaxing effect of being out pain helped me deliver my baby naturally.

What is this pressure on women to be in pain and suffering to be 'real women'. And why is that every new Dad I've spoken to with wives who did not have pain releif seem so proud of them? Is this just another example of male oppression of women? Even subliminally??

AAGGGHHHHH. Rant over.

I had an epidural and it was bloomin' brilliant, like a few of the others I was induced. In my case the MWs recommended I had an epidural, and I completely agreed with them. And refused to start the induction process until the blood test results were back and it was confirmed I would have the epidural. Why is is an abmormal birth? Appears to be a completely normal way of giving birth, if I'd vomited up the baby, that would have been abnormal. Surely having something to help with the pain is normal, not everyone's choice but one of a normal range of choices.

I'm not sure why people are so against the medicalisation of birth if that's the mother's choice. If I get a cold, that's perfectly natural, I'm still going to take Lemsip to make me feel better and help me cope with it.

Surely it's all about choice, if you don't want a medicalised birth, don't have one.

I don't quite get the cost argument either, ultimately lots of NHS treatments are about pain relief and improving the patient experience.

WhatFreshHellIsThis said it much more eloquently

There is particular smuggery from some women who had natural births with no epidural and big babies. Size is poorly correlated with pain. You have no concept of what the labour experience was like for anyone else and no right to judge their levels of pain.

Upwind - I am not talking about YOUR experience. I am talking GENERALLY.

The fact is that most women DO have straightforward pregnancies, and COULD achieve natural births. Not all, MOST.
Most women who have epidurals do not have them because of medical need, they have them for pain relief. That's a fact. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, just saying that we need to be clear about the facts we're discussing.
No one is suggesting that women should not listen to medical advice!! I had a CSection with dc2 because it was a medical necessity. I therefore had an epidural, because surgery is done under either general anaesthetic or epidural. Vaginal births don't need to be.

i still get sore back , from when i had epi , years ago. anyone else have this ?

If they're so widely available, why didn't I get one, either time? despite begging?

We need more epidurals, not fewer. Anaesthetists should be available to give them 24/7. How can there not be an anaesthetist in a busy maternity hospital just because it's 2 am.

Ah crossed post there Upwind.

Your introduction of the word 'smuggery' makes it quite clear that you're coming at this from a different angle, and making judgements about women who have different types of birth to your.

I think this 'smuggery' is often imagined. A woman decides that what she wants is to have a natural birth, to avoid interventions for the baby, and then she's accused of being 'smug'. Sorry, that's another thread.

I am going to INSIST on an epidural. I have been seriously mentally ill since having my dd, and I'm pretty sure it is linked to the feeling of being completely out of control and ignored during her labour. I actually loved the section when it finally happened, because for the first time I felt I had someone looking after me who knew what they were doing!

I'm quite happy to hold my hand high and said I had an epidural because I didn't want any pain.
I then went on to have a lovely-rest-of-labour, calm, relaxed, chatting to dp and the docs.....

Lissy, If I ever had a 3rd (unlikely) I would insist on a cs. I've done barbaric out of control pain twice now. I know a cs isn't a walk in the park in the recovery phase, but it's a less frightening kind of downside. I think I would take that as a pay off for not having to go through another horrendously painful birth with no pain relief. I felt quite 'why me?' after my 2nd when yet again I'd had no pain relief and other women had had 2 epidurals.

violethill you say "My first baby was big, and I managed a natural birth. A lot of my friends who chose epidurals had smaller babies!!" what does that mean?/ that you think smaller babies hurt less????

Violet how would you define medical need for an epidural? Because as I said before, I don't think this is to do with medical need. How do you go about deciding who gets one? Do you have to be screaming in agony before you get one?

This is a bit like the old abortion chestnut of people saying 'some people are having abortions whose circumstances aren't so dire that they couldn't possibly have had the baby, how terrible. Let's restrict abortions for everyone, clearly these women are incapable of making rational decisions.'

Besides, you're assuming that epidural = non natural birth. I think it's far more likely that complicated birth = more likely to want an epidural, personally.

LOL "A woman decides that what she wants is to have a natural birth, to avoid interventions for the baby" - don't you see violet, sometimes it isn't a choice? Noone chooses a difficult birth, you know.

I wanted a natural birth, both times, and tried really hard to get one despite having to attempt a VBAC second time round. Sometimes life doesn't work out like that.

violethill there is judgement implicit in your contention that many women who have epidurals "just" use them for pain relief and therefor "didn't need them".

That is not a neutral statement of fact, it is extremely value laden.

Why is pain relief not an extremely good reason? 7 and 3 yrs after my children's births I still shudder when I think of it.

Violet - the only judgement I make about women with more straightforward births is that they were lucky. I agree that smuggery is often imagined, but not in this case.

You seem to think that epidurals are unnecessary for vaginal births because they were unnecessary for yours. That women who had epidurals when delivering smaller babies than yours did not really need them. That is smug. You have no idea what it was really like for them, or how their births really went.

Yes, small babies do not just 'slip out' you know. Mine were both 6 lbs. The second child was a month premature and it was still agony. Agony. It couldn't possibly have hurt more if they were ten pounders.

I agree with Upwind about the size of the baby not necessarily being related to the level of pain. Ds1 was my biggest baby (9lbs 8oz) and by far the longest labour of my three - 40hrs altogether. His birth was also by far the least painful. I was advised to have an epidural towards the end as there were concerns that they might need to do an emergency c-section.

Dd weighed a little over 7lbs and at less than 6hrs her birth was by far the shortest. It was also excruciatingly painful - to the point that at one point I was literally tearing my hair out because it actually distracted me from the rest of the pain. I had a MW who refused to believe I was having anything more than twinges and so kept cranking up the syntocin drip. I begged for an epidural but was grudgingly given paracetomol. The MW only believed I was in labour when dd's head appeared.

Effective pain relief should be available to all those who want it IMHO.

I had heard that in the case of a premature baby (as my dc2 was, slightly, being born at 36+4) the contractions aren't as effective. A bigger (or more normal sized baby for full term) works with the contractions more effectively. Not saying that that wouldnt hurt!!! Just saying that if there is a notion that 6lb babies 'slip out' then omg!!!!! i can tell you that's not true.

Just to clarify - even if I had not had medical advice to have an epidural. I would definitely have asked for one and could not have done it without it.

I'm sorry but I completely agree, epidurals lead to a completely natural process becoming medicalised and I do not see it as being necessary.
I know somebody from NCT who had one because she was frightened of the pain and ended up in a wheel chair for 18 months and still suffers from headaches, I bet she'd take 12 hours of "pain" over that in hindsight.
I had one with my first which nearly led to a C section, I had an awful reaction - nothing to do with how the birth was going - so with my other children I decided that 4 hours or 24 hours I would manage without.
I howled for it towards the end but am so pleased everyone ignored me.

kathy you would also strictly limit the circumstances under which a woman was allowed an epidural, based on your personal experience?

The 'completely natural process' is barbaric and intolerable. I get flashbacks.

I wouldn't take the back ache over an epidural. Back ache isn't terrifying. It can be managed. The intense pain of a birth is frantic, terrifying, intense, barbaric, extreme.

I would put up with longer term twinges to have been spared that barbarism.

Yes because if I can manage so can everyone else, it really isn't that bad and if you talk to people who've been in car accidents, fires, even gun shot injury's the body's natural adrenaline does a much better job of helping people cope than narcotics which lead to ongoing health issues.
If people put trust in their own abilities rather than handing over responsibility to the medical profession I'm sure the outcome would be much better in normal situations.
I was offered intervention after intervention with my back to back baby but she came out in her own good time just 40 mins after they'd called theatre and started making arrangements behind my back.

Violethill "A woman decides that what she wants is to have a natural birth, to avoid interventions for the baby, and then she's accused of being 'smug'. Sorry, that's another thread."

That's just it violethill, you make it sound like those that didn't ave a 'natural' birth chose it that way. This most often not the case. Most people, before giving birth would choose to have a 'natural' birth. Most are then lucky enough to do so, for others it's a case of doing anything to get through it safely.

I couldn't manage it.

Maggie, If you had to you just would or you'd never do it again.
Or maybe you'd have been educated before the birth on how to cope rather than relying on drugs that could potentially kill/paralise or brain damage you. An epidural is not a light choice to make or an easy option.