If childbirth was as dangerous as it was a few hundred years ago, would you do it?

[CuppaTeaJanice]

We are so fortunate in this country, and in this millennium, to be able to give birth in relative safety and comfort, and to have medical interventions and technology available to us when necessary which have saved the lives of many mothers and babies.

Just a few hundred years ago, when our great great.....great grandmothers were having children, the experience must have been very different. I know society would have been unrecognisable from what it is now, and they didn't know any different, and it was probably expected of women to produce children (more so than now). But it must still have been an incredibly scary experience to give birth without proper pain relief or midwifery care, even assuming that the birth was straightforward.

Antenatal scans, C-sections, epidurals, syntocin(sp?) drips, heartbeat monitors, forceps, kiwis, anaesthetic, special care baby units, NCT classes - just a few of the things not available to our ancestors.

So, assuming that our society was the same in all other ways, but modern birthing methods and assistance weren't available, and so giving birth was as dangerous as it was hundreds of years ago, would you still choose to have children?

yes

Yes

I don't think women had much choice a 100 years ago!

no

certainly not again- but that would be due to my being dead.

oh and I wouldnt have been here to start with as my mum would have died giving birth to my older sister

Sorry, didn't read properly

But yes I would - biological urges and all that.

I'm not sure. But we now have much more choice also about whether we actually have babies. Contraception 100 years ago was pretty ropey....

I don't know the stats on the history of maternal mortality - seems a bit of a scary thing to Google. But I'm guessing it was considerably higher than it is today.

Those women must have been so incredibly brave.

Yes.

The absolute peak maternal mortality rate was slightly less than 1 in a 100, and that was in a population where many people were crowded into cities and living in slums (late Victorian period). Prior to industrialisation I wouldn't have been suprised if the maternal mortality rates were lower but I don't think any official figures exist.

Think about how many people smoke these days who'll die from their habit. Horribly.

IMO babies are vastly more addictive than fags!

"Antenatal scans, C-sections, epidurals, syntocin(sp?) drips, heartbeat monitors, forceps, kiwis, anaesthetic, special care baby units, NCT classes - just a few of the things not available to our ancestors".

Meant to add that the hugest falls in maternal mortality happened before the advent of most of these things.

Maternal mortality rates started to plummet in the late 1940's and it was good nutrition, good antenatal care and antibiotics that made the difference. Most women in the 1940's were still having their babies at home in those days.

That surprises me Cleofartra - I assumed it would have been more like the rates in some third world countries today (as high as 1 in 8 in Sierra Leone I think)

Maybe I would have decided to have children then, although my 2 year old DS might still be inside me now, unless they had some sort of forceps back then?

Agree babies are better than fags - smell nicer too, even with a dirty nappy!

Yes, because you wouldn't have known anything different.

Also as wonderful as a lot of the medical advancements are (when used appropriately), they can also be the cause of problems.

Yup - they've had forceps since the 17th century, but they were very, very rarely used prior to the last century.

It is terrible what happens to pregnant women in places like Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. I also can't imagine which their rates are so incredibly high. I think the 1 in 8 figure is over a lifetime, rather than per birth, so that probably affects the figures overall. They have very high birth rates in those countries, plus in a lot of Africa malaria is a massive problem for pregnant women, and very dangerous.

For anyone who is interested:

a great blog here made by a British MW currently working for the VSO in Sierra Leone

Do you think our great great...great granddaughters will look back at the way we give birth and think that it was very primitive, scary and dangerous? I wonder how things will change in the future?

Yes. Probably about a dozen times - whether I wanted to or not. Family plannning has come along in leaps and bounds too.

I think the tide will turn and things will take a more natural/holistic turn.

People's beliefs/understanding of childbirth have been slowly changing for the past 30 years, but each year the changes seem to have been a bit faster - imo.

I think it would be nice to just have some balance in the future.

and then some Molly I have a maternal G (or GG) grandmother who had 22 children(3 sets of twins in there) but only 11 of whom survived .

Family planning has played a massive part in improving maternal (and foetal) health.

I think I probably would have done as the urge to have a child must be the same whatever ?

However I don't think I would have probably survived my first son's birth in those days sadly.

Well yes if you were married as what were your options - no birth control, no vote, no voice etc.

Yes

But I don't know what would have happened to me. I had placenta previa - which they saw in a scan and so had c-section.

We're so lucky nowadays.

nutrition and living conditions did little to reduce maternal mortality (althoug it did reduce child mortality). It dropped a bit as a result of improved hygiene at delivery (i.e. doctors washing thier hands) and it's believed to have dropped on it's own partly due to the reduced virulence of particular strains of streptococcal bacteria. Antibiotics, C-sections,improved management of haemorrhage and treatment for eclapmsia did the rest in the 1940s / 50s. If we didn't have these our maternal mortality would probably be little different to developing countries.
Louden "death in childbirth" is a really good read if you're interested.

I would.

But then I have given birth without utilising antenatal scans, C-sections, epidurals, syntocinon drips, heartbeat monitors, forceps, kiwis, anaesthetic, special care baby units, NCT classes...or gas and air, stitches, syntometrine, hospitals, cord clamps, birth pools etc etc etc.

Though the MW did arrive in a car not on a horse and we did put the placenta in a plastic bowl

I understand the large difference between not using them and not having them. And that is largely not a matter of choice because nature doesn't care about your preferences. But I still would.

I read a fascinating book on birth through the ages called 'Birth' by Tina Cassidy when I was pregnant. It actually made me realise I wanted as natural birth as possible, which I did get to have - but I guess I was very lucky that there were no complications...

Anyway the book tells all about birthing 'fads' through the ages, the times when midwives started to have their profession taken over by doctors, and also interestingly when it was discovered that washing of the hands could save many babies and mothers from death after giving birth..

well worth a read if you're interested in this subject