To wonder why people get so outraged by other's choices?

[Mooncupflowethover]

Talking mainly about elective caesareans/vaginal births here.

Why do people care SO much about what choice a woman makes regarding how she gives birth. I have read so many heated discussions on MN about this. Why do people get so aerated about it?

As far as I'm concerned, someone wants a VB, fine. Someone wants an ELC, fine. Why are so many people bothered about how someone else gives birth?? I'd understand if they were talking about their own birth choices!!

Anyway, that's my thought for the day

I doubt I'm BU!

Oh, I've taken plenty of bashings for being pro-home birth and for having had one. My favourite is being called selfish for putting my baby 'at risk'.

maybe we just dont have enough to worry about, frankly I think we are so bloody lucky, we have choice and good medical support

as they say a pregnant woman in Chad has one foot in the grave, now that should anger us more!!!

Lucky, the significant studies showing the risks of ELCS do adjust for those factors. This study for example uses otherwise healthy and complication-free women with breech babies as a control.

I'm sorry but this is a heavily researched area and there are significant increased risks to normal women and their babies who opt for an elective caesarean. Obviously though, vaginal delivery may be considered more risky in certain circumstances (including extreme tokophobia!)

hmmm, sorry Carmen but the fact that you can even be arsed to post these stats proves lucky, and the OP right!

let her have her ELCS, why do you feel the need to post stats saying how dangerous it is?

That study seems to show an extremely small difference though, for example you are 0.16% more likely to suffer postpartum cardiac arrest with a ELCS. So while it is an elevated risk, it is an extremely small elevation. (Do let me know if I'm misinterpreting the data here).

Sorry, the bit in brackets sounds like I'm being sarky. I didn't mean to be, genuine question!

Porca... Lucky said "I'd also be interested to see the much touted stats about how ELCSs are more risky than VBs"

You can't bash me for answering her question! I'm not outraged by anyone opting for an ELCS as I've quite clearly said. It's a woman's choice entirely. But there's no need to try and suppress information!

Lucky, yes. Fortunately maternal mortality and very serious complications are incredibly rare in any kind of birth these days so the risks are still low in a caesarean.

The risk of smaller complications like infection and scar problems is very significant.

Adhesions for example are incredibly common. Around a quarter of a women develop adhesions after a second caesarean (although some studies suggest this figure is much higher). These can be very painful and cause complications in subsequent pregnancies but doctors rarely warn women about them.

I saw this thread and thought it was about freebleeding.

Carmen, do those statistics compare the risks of double incontinence, vaginal prolapse, fistulas and other trauma to bits, pain during intercourse and doing a poo.

If so, I wonder whether vaginal birth would look so rosy compared to cs.

That is my whole point. There are not enough studies about the risks of vaginal birth gone wrong. It is the main reason I chose an elective cs.

If it came down to it, a bad cs is still better than a bad vaginal birth.

I agree with blueshoes - people seem to think people choose ELCS over straightforward vaginal birth.

I'm sure very many of the women who choose ELCS (me being so) do so to avoid a traumatic and damaging VB. It's plain wrong to say ELCS is more dangerous than every kind of VB.

Carmen, about doctors not warning women about adhesions, it is common knowledge that there is a limit on the number of cs a woman can safely have.

My doctor and midwife did warn me, maybe not in specific medical terms of adhesions, but it was in the form i had to sign to consent to a cs. I agreed to it because I knew I would stop at 2. If there was anyone on mn who wanted to have a cs for a first child and a large family, I would bring up that risk too. It is not hidden.

On the other hand, I was not advised of the risks of vaginal births and instrumental deliveries and just expected to assume the risk myself because ... that is what women have always had to do?

I think it's because people like to think that their own positive birth experience was a consequence of their actions and not a random lottery

why do people claim that what you believe, what you choose and your mindset entering childbirth have no effect on what happens? obviously these things have an effect. also the kind/ quality of medical care provided etc etc...with the best will, and the best care things may still go wrong, but are less likely to. (otherwise the hospital that straps you to a monitor and lets you get on with it by yourself would be as good as the one that carefully attends to every mother in childbirth)

many statistics back this up.

Am also wondering if the non-lethal caesarian complications have been weighed against the risks of vaginal damage (still feel a twinge in cold weather- and dd is 13 years old!).

[steps back into thread] am not sure thats true blueshoes - a bad cs is often a 'near miss' and can lead to lots of bodily trauma.

But yes you're right about the damaging vb - isnt the point that the more cs we do the more skill we lose at natural birth and therefore the more medicalised and damaging births we have?

Dopeople feel outraged by other's choices? I certainly don't.

I think it's deeply weird to feel one has any right to dictate (or even have a strong opinion on) someone else's birth.

Non-lethal cs complications can be just as ongoing as vaginal ones cory.

Adhesions are a nightmare to live with. Made even worse that no medical practitioner in the uk seemingly knows what they are.

I do not doubt that, omnishambles. My point was that if you mention non-lethal complications from one kind of birth, you should mention the ones from the other kind of birth too. If you only mention minor complications from caesarians,it gives the impression that you will be safe from minor complications if opting for a natural birth. And vice versa.

Have no axe to grind here- have had one of each.

Blueshoes, yes. There are studies which compare the morbidity rates (complication/injury rates) of VB and ELCS. In normal, low risk, healthy women these are consistently higher in ELCS. (At the very minimum, ELCS guarantees you an incision and scar). Adhesions can cause significant pain after just one abdominal surgery.

But I've never said that every woman should have a VB or that it is always the 'best' choice. It's obviously not the best choice for every woman and I'm certainly not going to criticise anyone's choice to have an ELCS.

The statistics would consistently suggest that for low risk women with no complicating factors, VB is the safest option. I would agree that a phobia of birth or a severe anxiety about the process would count as a complicating factor. Being terrified indeed makes vaginal delivery more difficult and risky. (Although there are other ways to try to tackle that first if the woman wants to).

Carmen,

There are lots of mn threads of women suffering long term pain and permanent damage from botched vaginal births. I have yet to read one about the pain of adhesions from cs - very happy to be proven wrong.

That is my very unscientific observation, being forced to fall back on the anecdotal because of lack of information about botched vaginal births.

It was enough for me to make a decision to go for a very uneventful and calm elective cs, whilst taking in all the other risks of cs.

I agree, too many people get het up over birth choices, feeding choices, bed times, feeding and so on...

Live your own life and leave everyone else alone

Runaway, I don't actually see anyone on this thread telling anyone else what to do or what not to do or even criticising anyone else's choices. This is a discussion forum though, so surely we are free to discuss the risks and benefits of birthing choices?

Blueshoes. I remember reading the story on here about someone's insides falling out through their caesarean scar

I don't know how many surveys have actually been done about the emotional and physical fallout of minor complications from vaginal birth, but would be interested to see any research.

Interesting question, cory. I think birth trauma from both vaginal and caesarean deliveries is grossly underestimated and poorly handled by the medial system.

after seeing my mum give birth 3 times vaginally i always had in my mind to have an elective.
the first 2 were bad enough actually seeing your mums bits being cut and the second her tearing ( 4th degree tear ) and the last where my DB was stuck and came out blue not breathing and ended up with CP and blindness because of it: sorry but there is no way in hell i would ever choose a vaginal birth.
But ive had friends who choose to have a vb and have never ever thought of discouraging them!
I have when asked told them why i choose an elective and 9/10 wince but go on to have THEIR CHOICE of birth because they are determined no matter what, good for them, but im also equaly determined to not have VB and won't listen to ppl harp on about how perfect their VB's were who are trying to sway me.
Because in my mind that perfect VB is such a rareity the odds are against me and im not a gambler.

My consultant had 3 sections after a VB and told me that ELCS are no more riskier than a VB with complications which lets face it is quite common these days.

she simply said the risks are different not worse or better, just different and its up to each woman to decided what risks she is more prepared to accept.
some women are horrified by the thought of being cut open/major surgery, that doesn't bother me, what does bother me is having my fanjo cut/tear, prolapse, baby getting stuck etc.

I was more prepared to accept the risks of an elective than a badly managed and complicated VB.

If i could of been garaunteed a perfect uncomplicated VB i would of taken it, but since there isn't that gaurentee i choose the lesser of 2 evils in my reasoning.