After my first DC I developed a mildish uterine prolapse. I have a family history of it - after DC2 my mum prolapsed spectacularly and my grandmother also suffered. I have been horribly upset with the thought that I am heading down the same path and it has taken me a long time to come to terms with even the mild issue I have.
I'm now 14 weeks pregnant with my second DC and my GP and midwife started talking immediately about a c section. I was referred to see the consultant's team and have been told:
(a) they recommend vaginal birth because the damage is already done and it's likely that the pregnancy itself will encourage the prolapse to worsen however I deliver;
(b) if I need prolapse surgery later in life, a c-section scar will make that more difficult; so
(c) they are going to wait until I've had my 32 week scan before letting me know whether ELCS is an option for me.
I just cannot get my head around the idea that a c-section would offer no protection. Surely it has to be gentler on my uterus/cervix than vaginal birth? My baby had an enormous head and I can't conceive that him passing through the birth canal wouldn't have caused damage that you don't get with c-sections.
I realised as I was discussing this with the doctor that I cannot cope with the idea of vaginal birth - it seems inevitable that it would pit me in the same position as my mum who suffered so badly, for years.
Am I being ridiculous?
Please don't say I shouldn't have fallen pregnant; this baby is much wanted.