Is there a casual and callous attitude towards pregnancy and childbirth in society?

[PeaceAndHope]

Hello everyone:)

I'm sorry if I have posted my question in the wrong section but since I am a newbie I hope you'll all overlook it.

I have spent a lot of time recently wondering about the varied attitudes to childbirth and pregnancy and the lack of proper information regarding the process amongst most people.

I do believe that with the advancement of technology and better care we have been able to make the process a lot safer than it was in say the 1700s when the maternal mortality rate was 35%. However, it is my observation that people tend to take the whole thing for granted and assume all will be well because "women have been doing this for millenia".

I have keenly researched this subject and I have noticed that whenever I point out the risks associated with pregnancy and birth the reactions are those of disbelief and annoyance. I once brought up the possibility of fecal incontinence post childbirth and was admonished (by a man) to stop 'scaring people'.

I recently read a comment on a men's website that said "Pregnancy is the safest thing ever. It's not dangerous-to say that it is dangerous is misleading".
I certainly agree that the mortality rates in the developed world are rather low, but death is not the only thing that makes a process risky.

Pregnancy comes with superficial risks like permanent body changes to more serious ones such as permanent incontinence, diabetes, hypertension, uterine prolapse, obstetric fistulas (although these are rare), and even a permanent colostomy. Even in the developed world women still die of haemorrhage and aneurysms while giving birth.

Why is it that bringing this up tends to anger most people? Why do most people deny that these complications exist despite clear cut medical evidence that they do?

Is it traditionalism by virtue of which women are "meant" to bear children and therefore how can the process not be safe? Or is it just a paternalistic refusal to acknowledge that women do put themselves at risk for a series of complications (irrespective of whether they occur) when they have children?

I am not trying to imply that pregnancy and childbirth are horrible, evil things but I do believe that the attitude towards them is a bit casual and ignorant.

Your thoughts please?

I have given birth in a london borough twice in the last 5 years and have never heard of this emma's diary. The info in the "hello you're pregnant" pack was a big book that I had to take to all appts, and a few leaflets and adverts. I don't remember any comprehensive info or stats.

I think in actual fact the general perception is that childbirth is unbearably painful, likely to result in an emergency situation, likely to damage you, dangerous and will require a long period of recovery after the fact.

i think people are usually extremely surprised if it goes well, if you are fit immediately after the event, if you get to grips with baby straight away.

The general level of discussion of childbirth in my workplace is the swapping of horror stories.

so : i agree that people should know more about the real facts of childbirth. but i don't think the problem is that people think it is easy. I think the problem is people think it is difficult and dangerous but accept this as inevitable rather than looking at ways those dangers can be avoided.

Why are you so set against women being told what risks are associated with VB, in the same way as they are told about risks of CS, pain relief etc?

But SQ that is my point - of people are readers and want to be informed then they can o and get books but lets face it most of out information is anecdotal anyway - a lot of people could be given the print outs of these stats and have no means of interpreting them. I think if you want to know about it all then you can find out for yourself but a lot of people choose not too and ramming it down their throat without that Midwife having a relationship with that person can very counter productive - rather like a tabloid with all the sensationalism and none of the subtlety.

That was to brandy.

What is sensationalist about simply informing women during the ante-natal process about things like tears, incontinence, forceps etc?

Why is it OK to reel off the risks of CS and "scare the shit" out of all the women booked for ELCS and the ones who will end up with EMCS, but not OK to mention teh risks associated with VB?

It seems terribly illogical to me and I simply do not understand it.

Very very good point Edless I do think that people are scared and surprised when it goes well. It does frequently go well and have a great outcome.

No no I am not set against it as such I was saying that is the reason that those interventions are explained - because of informed consent.

OP was mainly talking about pregnancy with that point I think - the old "you're pregnant not ill" thing. Certainly I was given no leeway when commuting or working during my pregnancy and I'm sure that's not uncommon either.

But surely forceps and things need informed consent as well? Yet they were not mentioned at any of my classes.

i also think women need to know about things like tears, incontinence, loss of sexual function and all the rest of it so that if these things happen to them they do not a. feel like they have failed and b. feel able to seek help.

I don't think that women booked for an Elective CS have the shit scared out of them at all. When I had interventions with my first baby it was all explained calmly and in fact I had an epidural put in because there was someone free to do it who was just about to go into theatre for a long time so my Midwife said let's do it just in case the baby deteriorates anymore - I hated having it done but it was in place just in case - all turned out fine as it was but I have been through the process. No one ever tried to scare me with that sort of stuff - it is all explained by nice well meaning people but that is because it is an intervention and does not work in the same way as vaginal birth

Forceps is a consent issue though - it cannot be done without it as generally it is done in theatre for a start. The post natal care is the issue here - if your midwife looks at your note and sees what you have gone through in your labour then the care should be altered to fit - with interventions you have a greater risk of continence probs etc and that should be followed up - how can knowing about this previously actually change anything. You cannot make informed consent about a natural process as such and again my point is that given the current climate how could this be delivered effectively and with care and meaning? stats do no good

You don't think that women sitting in ante natal classes listening to why you must avoid a CS at all costs and all the risks get "the shit scared out of them"

But you absolutely think that women in the same antenatal class would be shit scared to hear about tears and forceps and things.

That doesn't make sense, it really just doesn't.

personally I don't think many people will be "shit scared" of having the facts about pros and cons and risks explained to them, and I think it is a poor reason for not explaining these things.

Peace -

Most women would have no interest in reading research papers on this issue - they want a basic idea of what they can realistically expect labour to be like, and information which will improve their experience of birth. They also need decent postnatal care. Money is limited in the NHS. If there's to be a massive injection of cash into the system I'd rather it be spent on improving outcomes as this is the only responsible thing to do. So more midwives, better care for at risk mothers, more effort to reduce emergency cs rates and instrumental birth rates.

By the way - are you a mother yourself? What is your specific interest in this issue?

First line should be "You don't think that women who know they are likely to have CS or have been booked sitting in ante natal classes listening to why you must avoid a CS at all costs and all the risks get "the shit scared out of them"

And I don't agree with the OP that there is a callous or casual attitude to pregnancy - not at all. I think it is an over medicalised and commercialised thing now which makes me a but sad.

I do think people are assholes for not giving up their seats for pregnant ladies but that is just bad manners and a lack of care for others in our society and that extends to the elderly and disabled as well and is not exclusively a problem for pregnant women

shagmund what an od question. Peace has already said upthread that she has children.

I have no idea why OPs straightforward and interesting OP has caused such a kerfuffle in some quarters. I think it was an interesting OP which raised a good and valid point.

But on that note I am going to go and do something else as past experinece tells me this will go round and round in circles forever

This thread is seriously strange in how Shagmund is being called hostile, I'd say the opposite. Shagmund, you're the (almost singular) voice of reason as far as I can see.

My current experience is I've had it up to here with being told about the risks of pregnancy. Quite frankly if my first birth hadn't been treated so medically I wouldn't have suffered through the unnecessary cascade of interventions and the aftermath of a c-section.

Now I'm having my second I've had to hire an independent midwife to try to avoid the panicked, patronizing scaremongering of the NHS in relation to my wishes for a home birth. Heaven forbid I risk a 1 in 200 chance of rupture against the risks of the interventions and c-sections I likely will encounter in hospital.

Oh, and all the mention of shoulder dystocia, there are some extremely effective methods of dealing with that that more naturally inclined midwives tend to educate themselves on that the more medically 'risk averse' community tend to not do. So you might find outcomes are not necessarily worse for this in home birth (citing home birth as the opposite choice for most women considering pregnancy and childbirth as inherently risky).

So, my wish is that we do the opposite to scaremongering and support women in the belief of what their bodies can do. Provide choice in childbirth, yes, and the understanding of the trauma factor when things go wrong, but please not this litany of potential complications.

Belief in your own body and being as relaxed as possible can only help. When things go wrong we're lucky to have the medical system we do but a climate of fear helps no woman in pregnancy and labour.

But it is desirable to avoid a surgical outcome, for everyone? the recovery rate is slower, the bf is lower for cs mummies - why would they try and promote it - it is generally done as a last ditch thing or if there is something indicating its necessity.

VB is seen as the norm and CS as the fall back position - I don't think that is abnormal

Thank you Cervix, 'tis my belief also.

Im going to be really careful in how I say this but the responses on this thread are so odd towards Shagmund it's like they're almost the same people..

Sardine queen I don't think anyone is making a case for us not discussing these issues with women antenatally.

But peace has a different agenda.

The same argument is used by breastfeeding advocates who think women should be given extensive and detailed information about the research into the risks of ff - you know, go through all the papers showing links between ff and diabetes, childhood cancers, SIDS etc. It's not about empowering women with information, it's about putting them off using formula.

It's pointless giving women massive amounts of detail about the risks associated with c/s OR v/b if they can do nothing with this information.

Another voice of reason, Brandy :)

"I, like sardine had no idea about how damaging instrumental births could be. I had NO IDEA that I could tear my own bumhole, for example. I vaguely knew about episiotomy because a friend of mine had had one, but really had no idea that you could tear. I didn't know anything about ventouse at all (which was pretty terrifying when it got hauled out to use on me).

I had no idea how long the healing process was, and that I would be terrified to have a poo for virtually 6 months in case I ruined myself down there."""

I just wanted to add my 2 cents i dont have children im one of those weird women who use mumsnet anyway and i had no idea before i came on here that any of these things happened at all let alone were common. I had no idea you could tear much less actucally be sliced open...Or any of the long lasting effects to be honest.
Im not sure as i even want to go through childbirth now after learning about it but i cant believe its just never talked about or mentioned at all !

Cervix be careful SQ apparently reported me not only for troll hunting but also general random strangeness (polished weirdo badge)

Am still here though