This article has me fuming....thoughts?

[PrincessZ]

I just read this article and I am so shocked at how they can categorically ban cesarean sections!
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2028443/Hospitals-ban-pregnant-women-having-c-sections-cost-cutting-move.html?ITO=google_news_rss_feed

I'm pregnant and I was going to ask for a cesarean. Reading this article has made me lose all hope.

Does anyone know anything about the possibility of sexual sensation being reduced after abdominal surgery? I read about it years ago but can't remember the details

Not heard about that, northernruth- but would be interested to read it.

Might have to google it later. Was years ago before having a section was a remote possibilty for me. But the female sexual nervous system is not well understood. For example, there is a theory that the G spot is part of a large sexually responsive group of nerves that pass down the thighs and up to the breasts. I am not normally sexually responsive to boob stimulation (was different when pg, sorry if TMI) but you can well imagine that the path from the nipples to the clitoris that the nerves responsible for that would take would pass directly through the site of a c section scar. Just a thought.

What is a graze? Do I even want to know?

I don't think I had one...

tethers it's a good q about fear of cs/fear of vb...both are scary but one is physiologically "normal" and lower risk so to my mind one fear is more explainable (though both are understandable).

I understand completely what you are saying re stats, and agree in some cases complications necessitate pain relief. But i don't believe that this explains away the correlation. I have seen the "cascade of intervention" in action and feel sure it does explain a good proportion of said correlation.

Roger ime in rl the general consensus is that birth is scary. You get a more mixed view on here but we are not representative of the general populace

yank it's a slight tear that doesn't need stitching i believe.

Haven't got time to read whole thread but there has been a change of policy. I've just given birth to dts by vbac. Ds was emcs for ftp @ 8cm following failed induction for type 1 diabetes . I was very keen to vbac but when dts discovered every ob said elcs is only safe way to go until at 25 weeks one said if no 1 head down and starts spontaneously we can see what happens. Next said the same until the 8th who said I would vbac I had no choice and they would break waters if didn't happen. I was not happy with this and birth plan was to turn up on day refuse any VE as would only agree to elcs if nothing happened. Anyway waters went 2 sats ago at 33+4 and managed a successful vbac with small tear. So I got the outcome I wanted but with a lot of stress as I received the strong impression that the whole switch was just down to costs.

Thought this article was interesting.

tiggers, sorry if I'm reading your post wrong, but are you saying that you were told that you had to have a vbac?

Yes. Line changed from you must have elcs to you must have vbac with arm. I objected to any form of induction . Ob who said the latter admitted after intense questioning that it was due to costs.

That's very interesting tigger- and has potentially huge ramifications for the hospital should anything go wrong from a legal POV, I would have thought.

So are we now looking at a situation where VBACs are compulsory in every hospital, or just some PCTs?

Well I have a different tale here (lincolnshire) I have had 2 previous emsc due to pelvis being too small and am now PG again with number 3. I went to my consultant appointment all prepared for a VBAC discussion, but he opened the conversation by saying " I see you have had 2 CS, so that pretty much seals your delivery fate for this one, I will book you in for one at 39 weeks"

Roger - really? why is that? if so that's awful.

Also, I don't know whether she had a CS with all her previous DC's, I don't think this was her first CS but it may not have been the 4th one iyswim

"booboo but surely if there was any indication that vb would lead to disability there would be no question of cs in that case. The point is we can't/don't offer a cs to every low risk woman in case of oxygen deprivation because it costs more and the risks associated with non necessary cs are greater."

MoonFaceMamaaargh I don't think this is statistically correct. I believe that a number of VB start off that way, then forcepts are used and if these fail they result in an EMCS. Both VB with forcepts and EMCS are more risky than ELCS. If we could predict which VBs would end up with complications in advance that would be great, but for a large number of cases we cannot. This is than a numbers game and since the care of one disabled individual is so incredibly costly, if the main consideration is cost, ELCSs are cheaper.

This is very similar to another fallacious argument, i.e. smokers cost the public money because they get cancer. In fact they do not, smokers are cheaper on the public purse because they get cancer and die young. Their cancer care has some associated costs, but these are tiny compared to the costs of living a longer life, drawing a pension for years, requiring elderly care and dying of something else which will still cost the NHS money anyway. Based purely on cost, smokers are doing the rest of us a financial favour.

A graze is when you get off the delivery bed,slip in the pool of blood on the floor below and graze your knee cheerful yank. :)

Hmmm, all very interesting reading. I am due to see consultant in a couple of weeks to discuss CS so feel a bit more prepared now (I am only 10wks). Have to say the Times article did make me a bit unsure of my options as it seemed fairly matter of fact (before descending into usual 'CS is lifestyle choice' bobbins).

Consultant did state last time (2yrs ago) that I would have the option of CS if I became pg again. This was after pre-eclampsia, failed 4 day induction, failed epidural and eventual horrible delivery by forceps followed by infection, burst stitches and subsequent op 4 months later to repair scar and muscle damage. Will be interesting to see if offer of CS is still on the table as for me the thought of only having the option of another VB is a very grim thought, but not sure I would qualify as a serious concern medically. Technically I suppose there is nothing stopping me from having a VB, even if it meant further damage? Shudder.

Wormshuffler for various reasons with ds1&2 ( 1 was an emergency ds was effectively 'dead' and a cs was the only way to get him out was a cs.....ds2 was breech and my mil was dying and desperate to see a baby grandchild so I had cs and he went home to see his nanna aged only 2 hours) ds3 a unplanned baby when I was older and more aware we hoped that Id deliver naturally - however being classed as high risk I was under a senior ob. who told Dh - 'the baby will be fine,most cases involve failed trial of labour and we then C.s baby but mum can be a very different story' Dh asked the ob. for his honest opinion -'if she were my wife I wouldnt entertain labour' -we went for cs ......they left parts of placenta in i haemorraged at home alone in bathroom,nearly died,wound became infected and I was ill for 12 months at one point I was on 27 tablets a day.

Sounds Nasty nickschick !! Does that mean you wish you had gone for the VBAC with number 3? Seems like a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

I've been an on and off lurker on these boards, especially because I'm very (personally) interested in the VB vs. ELCS on maternal request debate and this is the only place where it is being thoroughly discussed.

I never felt the need to reply, but today I have more time on my hands than usually, so here it is....

I've seen it so many times on this type of discussions that I begin to wonder. How on earth can the VB or even HB brigade claim to be all peace and love for all when in fact in all these debates they keep insisting on inflicting excruciating pain and long term suffering on women who are mature adults and quite able to decide about their health choices themselves?
How is pain ever good for something except torture?
How is suffering so great that you have PTSD or PND good for you or your baby and family?
How is not respecting your wishes good for you?
And most of all, how is fear of being double incontinent for the rest of your life, fear of being humiliated while in unbearable pain and fear of that pain itself ever immature or irrational?

When it comes to pain and complications in other areas of human health, no one ever doubts that it is better to eradicate pain or possible complications with every technological advance possible, but childbirth is somehow different in this. It's like as if society and even medical staff wish their patients to suffer for their sexuality and wish to procreate. If this isn't so, then I can't really grasp the concept that adult people can actually wish suffering on someone else and mock them and patronize them for that.

The VB + HB brigade always starts out with exclamations of surprise (OMG, how can anyone wish for an ELCS, are you out of your mind?)
then questions about age of the OP
questions about the moral values and vanity of the OP
questions about mental health of the OP
questions about the OP's partner's pressure
and do simply all their best to belittle and devalue the OP's concerns.
They never bother to answer OP's clearly stated questions, but banter on about how peaceful and beautiful it is to have babies at home blah, blah, blah....

Come on, ladies, are you really that close-minded and fanatical that you can't talk about this issue rationally and without trying to humiliate people who simply disagree with you with epitaphs such too posh to push or pampered or whatever because they just have no wish to push their baby out of their vagina and have their very valid and real reasons?

Rant over.

RalucaV, I have been involved in several discussions about elcs/vb and can't say that I am seeing what you describe at all.

The trouble is that elcs is often seen as the easy option v difficult vb. But this isn't always the case, lots of people have good csections, and lots of people have good vaginal births. The trouble comes when you have to make a decision between the two, because no outcome is guaranteed.

In my case, I had complications from both vb and elcs, so I can see that this choice is not an easy one. Its not a case of saying, 'well I've researched and understood the risks of cs and I'm fine with them', because how can you know what the outcome is going to be.

RV, an ELCS is not pain free, nor is the pain of natural childbirth unbearable. That is emotional language designed to elicit support for your POV

Hazyjane,

" I have been involved in several discussions about elcs/vb and can't say that I am seeing what you describe at all."

I will have to disagree with you on this point becase if you read this thread closely, more or less all those offensive hints that I mentioned are here.

"The trouble is that elcs is often seen as the easy option v difficult vb. But this isn't always the case, lots of people have good csections, and lots of people have good vaginal births."

I completely agree and it's actually a good argument for maternal choice because both choices can end up badly and it should be left to the individual what risks are more acceptable for them and not to society, NHS or the Bible.

"Its not a case of saying, 'well I've researched and understood the risks of cs and I'm fine with them', because how can you know what the outcome is going to be."

It is exactly that case, though. It is your health and you are responsible for it, so you should make that choice. Without a crystal ball, no one can guarantee anything to you in childbirth, so why shouldn't you decide what risks you are willing to take yourself?
Someone above mentioned, that if they could get a signed statement that they will not end up incontinent or otherwise damaged and their baby won't be afflicted, then yes, they would have a VB. But no OB can guarantee that because our bodies are so different. Without that guarantee, though, many people will simply prefer not to take that risk and they will choose the CS route.

RV, that's fine if they're paying for it, but if I'm paying for it (through my taxes) then I think I'd rather let the health professionals decide which is the less risky option.

northernruth

Many women even on this thread said that VB was excruciatingly painful for them and that they were traumatised by the pain. Are you suggesting that they are all lying? BTW. pain cannot be an issue taken without emotion becase it is simply PAIN. That's something that doctors have been trying to fight against since time immemorial.

RV, I don't recall that many women saying they were traumatised by the pain. I didn't say it wasn't painful, just that it wasn't unbearable (if it were no one would have more than one child).

What was your experience of labour?