I had a emcs but I absolutely love this!

[RubyBuckleberry]

"When women understand what?s available to us at birth, then we won?t ever give that over to an expert? the birth power, the orgasmic power that?s in our bodies. When you meet a woman who has had an ecstatic birth, you can?t talk her into taking drugs that aren?t good for her body. You can?t talk her into a hysterectomy that she doesn?t need. You can?t talk her into a crummy diet. She?s come home to her body. She knows what this body is capable of. She loves this body. This body loves her. And there?s nothing like the transformation available at birth to nail that in there in such a way that she becomes illuminated, because she?s a channel for life. And then she becomes a channel for life in all its forms."

and

"What we?re finding is that it does matter?it absolutely does matter?how somebody comes into the world. And it doesn?t mean all babies should be born this way or that way. It just means that we have to pay attention and recognize that those babies are having experiences. And the way that birth happens when it?s left to happen naturally, without drugs and without forceps, is really what the baby?s body is expecting. There?s a biological readying that?s happening. So it?s incredibly important that we start thinking about this time period in a new way, and we start caring for moms and babies and families around the birth experience in much more thoughtful and mindful ways than we are doing right now."

from this website

Sounds like bollocks to me!

hahaha really?

fair enough

Yep, me too.

lol well i just think its a lovely way to look at it! positive and optimistic for the future of the woman and her birth experience, no?

LOL at the website. Childbirth like an orgasm must mean orgasm is like childbirth.

Sounds like time to send DH off to brush up his technique:)

Sorry RubyBuckleberry, for taking the mick. Did not mean to offend - messages crossed.

lol lol no problem it is funny! i want to watch the documentary . i suppose i am totally intrigued as to what this experience could be like! and it sounds fabulous!

I'm trying hard to read it in the spirit in which it's meant, but I'm finding it hard not to think about what a load of patronising nonsense it is, and piles yet more pressure on women the give birth This way and not That way.
And it's very interesting to note the mention of low mortality in Netherlands Births when there's a thread and study on here showing the very opposite.

BagofHolly, interesting...

I agree that pressure is no good for women. I suppose that I do think that the whole medicalisation of birth is a bit of an issue. I am seduced by the fact that it has come from Ina May Gaskin who has a 97% (or thereabouts) natural birth rate and some states in the USA have a 40% caesarean birth rate. In the hospital I was in, it is 25% caesarean rate. These figures just seem a bit bonkers.

But ina May followers are self selecting. You're unlikely to give the Ina philosophy a shot if you've had complications before, eg in my case placenta previa - the risks would be just too great. So Ina may well have a 97% non-assisted birth rate, but only in her patient group. Compare this with your av. NHS hospital, and you're comparing a different and wider patient group, which includes everyone who DIDN'T have an independent midwife, and suddenly the rate of assistance rises.
I'm sure there are IMs out there today who have similar rates to IMG but they're only dealing with a small subset of patients.
And personally I dislike the inference from this article and site that intervention is BAD and natural is GOOD. Give me drugs. Big drugs!

The extracts sound like a load of self indulgent bollocks....

BUT having said that, it seems absolutely logical that being pulled out by forceps is NOT the optimum birth experience for a baby if it COULD be born without such intervention.
Of course, every birth is different, and sometimes medical factors mean that a specific type of birth is the best given all the other complicating factors.

Personally, in the two straightforward, medically 'normal' pregnancies I had, I was very keen to avoid heavy duty drugs, instrumental delivery or major surgery - simply because everything comes with a side effect. That just seems very logical to me.

However, I feel it's perfectly possible and desirable to express this point of view without mentioning orgasms, illumination or channels of life! It's just straightforward common sense about not wanting my babies to have a delivery that was any more stressful than being born probably is anyway!

yep - and does anyone remember how they were born anyway? Am I a different person than I should be because I was born by CS? I think not!

Ha ha ha. Glad everyone else seems to agree that childbirth if the pits. People who have a good, natural birth are SO-O-O lucky. Babies are just ludicrously too large for vaginas (mine tore right through to my anal canal).
Isn't it in a book by Sheila Kitzinger that a woman's body in childbirth 'opens like a flower'! What a load of bollocks.
Caesarians for all, that's what I say....

Just because you don't have a conscious memory of something, doesn't mean it hasn't had an effect though.

I would find the idea of Caesarians for all really worrying - the evidence shows that it is less safe than vb, all things being equal. Why would anyone choose a procedure which increases the risk factors for their child?

Hmm, I wonder what the effect has been on me. Maybe I would have been more sucessful in life if I had a natural birth. maybe they should survey people and find out if those born by csec are more likely to be unhappy, unsuccesful, unhealthy etc...

Would probably be a very inaccurate survey, because by the time you're an adult, there are so many variable to add into the mix, that it would be impossible to prove causation. How could you possibly say whether someone's success at something was due to their birth experience, or some aspect of their upbringing etc etc

For me, there's enough evidence about what can happen at the birth to make it a fairly simple decision that unless there is a medical need otherwise, the optimum birth experience is a natural one. Forceps can and do cause injury/trauma to babies. Caesarians are higher risk than Vaginal births - unless, of course, there is a specific medical need for CS. It therefore makes sense, IMO, where there is no medical complication, to avoid procedures which incease the risk of forceps or cs. I don't think it has anything to do with orgasmic experiences for the mother (birth HURTS, orgasms don't!) or life channels or other hyperbole. It's straightforward common sense

Violet, you're right to say that natural birth is probably the safest but the problem is that you can't choose natural birth. You can plan it but what you might end up with is a 36 hour horrendous labour, an attempt at forceps and a crash caesarean with the baby being whisked off to special care. My consultant said he would let me into the best kept secret - that elective caesarean section is SAFER for babies (although not as safe for women if they need more than one c/s). Being the cynic I am, I actually looked on pubmed and researched this - and he is right. Caesareans overall are riskier but not the elective ones - it is the emergency ones that carry virtually all the risk. I'm not advocating caesareans but I do think we ought to get honest information ought there and I was REALLY surprised by this.

ushy thats exactly what my consultant told me too. ELCS safer for baby, and I have an article from the Telegraph that says the same.

I totally agree that you can't choose a natural birth, but you can make choices which make that the most likely outcome, given your particular pregnancy and risk factors.

If a woman has a straightforward pregnancy and no high risk factors, she can minimise the risk of intervention during birth by certain things - eg keeping mobile, avoiding an epidural. Ok, there are no 100% guarantees, but it's a myth that there is nothing you can do to increase your chance of a natural birth.

For some births, there is no way they will happen naturally, and right from the outset, a cs, or other intervention is necessary. For many births, there are several possible outcomes. It COULD be natural, or the mother COULD have an epidural, or it COULD end with forceps or it COULD end in CS.

An elective cs in NOT the safest, lowest risk way to give birth - all things being equal, a vaginal natural delivery is least risky to mother and baby. I would be very interested to have a link to the Telegraph article that claims otherwise!!

I'm half way through the Orgasmic Birth book and can highly recommend it, even if you think having an orgasmic birth is a load of bunkem .

There's a whole chapter on the hormones and processes involved with labour and birth that makes a LOT of sense. Reading that does make orgasmic (or at least enjoyable) birth seem not that strange or unlikely, assuming you can be in an environment that doesn't hinder the normal hormonal process.

Sadly these days with medically managed births in hospitals being the norm it does hinder the whole process and it's not surprising that we've lost sight of how birth can and should be

I think it sounds lovely and positive, exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to focus on right now when I get scared about the birth. I know that things can go wrong, I know that not everyone is the same - but to stop myself from worrying I find it helpful to think about the birth coming up as a positive, beautiful thing which can enrich my life - rather than just freaking out about how terrifying it is and all the things that can go wrong!

Thanks for posting this quote, it's nice to read :)

"intervention is BAD and natural is GOOD. Give me drugs. Big drugs"

Intervention which is avoidable, unwanted by the mother and doesn't result in a healthier mum or baby IS BAD!

Sorry!

And there's a lot of it going on.

Thanks for the quote Ruby - I think I understand the point that's being made.

"and I have an article from the Telegraph that says the same"

Oh well then, it must be true!

Did your consultant talk about the increased risks to babies born to mothers who've had c/s in previous pregnancies? You know, the risks that come with scar rupture, placenta praevia, placeta percreta and placenta accreta? Or the questions which are being asked about increased rates of stillbirth in pregnancies following c/s?

Weeeell, I do think that some births can have a negative effect on babies.

My first DD was very distressed after birth and as a newborn and I'm sure it's related to being stuck, having a ventouse stuck to her head til it bled, then being delivered by forceps.

My second DD is the most chilled out, happy little baby ever and has been since the moment she was born. She was born by ELCS so I don't for one minute believe that natural birth is the only 'good' birth experience a baby can have.

"My consultant said he would let me into the best kept secret"

Have to say, if my consultant said this to me I'd think he was a patronising git.

If there's reliable information based on good quality research which shows that babies born after elective c/s are significantly less likely to die, then why on earth is it being kept 'secret'?

Maybe it's because the actual decrease in risk to baby is not actually that significant when compared to the risks of a mother losing her womb or becoming seriously ill during a c/s that this information isn't highlighted in RCOG literature on the risks and benefits of c/s.