Less protection from bacteria if C section

[Xenia]

This is interesting. Obviously anyonewho needs a C sectino for medical reasons does absolutely the right thing but I bet there are lots of natural reasons why vaginal birth is better if you can manage it. I was lucky enough to have 5 vaingal births.

In today's Times

"While a baby is in the womb, his or her gut is sterile and the seed inoculation of their microbiota is picked up during the birthing process as they come into contact with organisms living in and around their mother?s vagina. This initial culture is nurtured further by prebiotics in breast milk that favour the growth of certain species, particularly ?healthy? bifidobacter.

Babies delivered by Caesarean section miss out on this initial inoculation and end up with a very different mix of species ? a difference that can be compounded by formula-feeding instead of breastfeeding. As a result, the immune systems of the two groups of children mature differently because of altered signalling from the microbiota ? one reason thought to explain why babies delivered by Caesarean section are 20 per cent more likely to develop asthma. "

In the past I've seen threads on this board from mums having electives who have considered doing a 'dip and swipe' to introduce their babies to a bit of their vaginal flora!

Xenia - and you point is?
hardly new evidence.

Shagmund - dip and swipe

I wonder what kind of dataset has informed the results of this study? I mean, wouldn't there be variances between babies delivered vaginally who were subsequently breast fed/born vaginally and bottle fed/born via CS then breast fed/born via CS then bottle fed? Where did this study come from?

Surely there would be differences in gut bacteria in these four groups if mode of delivery had a determinate effect?

Also, extant literature so far is contradictory and inconclusive on this subject an these lares findings must be put into context. Studies either find no link (Maitra, Sherriff, Strachan et al 'Mode of Delivery is Not Associated with Asthma or Atropy in Childhood' 2004; Juhn, Weaver, Katusic et al 'Mode of Delivery at Birth and Development of Asthma: A Population Based Cohort Study', 2005) or they include significant other factors, such as prematurity, maternal asthma or allergic parents (Roduit, Scholterns, de Jongste et al 'Asthma at 8 Years of Age on Children Born by Cesarean Section in Former Term and Premature Infants).

I think there is al ot in a vaginal birth people don't realise. The vagina perhaps is one of the most powerful things in creation. The fact its bacteria might help protect the baby is a lovely idea.

However of course if it weren't for C sections plenty of mothers and their babies would die and obviously people should play things by ear in labour and do what is necessary. However I don't think the advantages of a vaginal birth are explained clearly enough always. Some girls think it's easier to have a C section when it's the opposite.

It is quite a bit more complicated tough, isn't it?

Intestinal Microbiota of 6-week-old Infants Across Europe: Geographic Influence Beyond Delivery Mode, Breast-feeding, and Antibiotics
Fallani, M et al. 2010

Sometimes it is 'easier' to have a CS than a vaginal birth. Sometimes it is just on balance better. For mother or baby or both. It's a
more complex picture than you paint, OP.

It makes sense to me.

I think the benefits of breast feeding to the immune system are not fully explained either.

But motherhood is never a smooth road, full of compromises and forced choices. I had three sections and my eldest has asthma.

... and hindsight is just a wonderful thing too.
Some mothers have a plan, some don't. It is hard to account for all the circumstances surrounding birth which may influence decisions on delivery mode.

I've heard this before, along with the fact that a VB means that mucus/fluid is squeezed from the baby's lungs during a VB, making them less snuffly/less likely to heave up gunk afterwards. But my question is this:

What is the effect of an instrumental delivery such as my Keillands forceps birth for DD1? She went from stuck in the pelvis to out in the open in three pulls (consultant not allowed to do more) - will she still have had that lovely beneficial vaginal experience when she was only there momentarily before being dragged out with giant pliers? Or are the benefits really only for those babies who've spent significant time in the birth canal during a delivery without interventions?

Yup, there does seem to be considerable holes in thinking here, where variances are either not being included or even dismissed. It's just not as simple as 'VB = good, CS = bad'. Social, cultural, environmental factors, etc, all play their part when looking at long-term health implications.

But polarity and absolutes are often the case with headline-grabbing media. It's therefore vital to dig deeper and consider personal circumstances as well as wider trends in order to make the best decision for mother and baby. And indeed, avoid scare-mongering statements/statistics read out of context.

I am certanily not saying every one should or can have a vaginal birth. Every birth is different and if it were not for C sections countless women and their babies would die.

I just feel we are increasingly finding hidden advantages in what is natural from the effect of eating something as simple as spinach or kale and its effect on healing to (not) vaginal bacteria being good for the baby as it were and playing in dirt, even digging soil having some health advantages. That that connection to how we were and where we came from (albeit plenty of us would have died in childbirth and it is great we are away from that) to where we are now where the very food most people at is doing them a lot more harm than the foods we used to eat and our modern diseases killing us off perhaps is part of a broader illustration that we hardly have started to know how well we were adapted to where we came from and that we perhaps know 2% of the advantages of breastfeeding, vaginal birth and a fairly natural whole food diet and that there is much more to find out.

I also accept I was terribly lucky to have 5 fairly natural vaginal births.

I'm not sure how much personal feelings regarding birth actually impact on mode of birth anyway. In many hospitals one in three births is a c/s and a fairly big chunk of the rest are instrumental. Bet hardly any of the more than 50% who have this help to birth their baby haven't made a free decision as to how their baby is told - they're just dragged along in the ferocious rip-tide of our rising intervention rates.

And if interference in birth continues to grow at the same rate within two or three decades our daughters will be facing the reality of childbirth where fewer than one in three will have any hope of a birth which doesn't involve instruments or surgery. What's the point of talking about choices in that type of birth culture? The only choice they'll have any chance of realising is the choice to have a planned c/s. Choosing anything else will seem like a foolish gamble.

'have made a free decision'

Oops

IS this a thread going "I'm great you should all do things my way" whilst having no clue whatsoever why women actually choose to have ELCS.

Come back when you've done some research rather than saying because women think its "easier".

Yes the stuff about bacteria is interesting, however you can say that without the accompanying crap.

Ignorant and judgmental. And completely unnecessary.

Well blow me. It's CS/VB bingo with a bonus round of nutritional therapy. Xenia, you sound so wise you should perhaps change your name to Xeniawisewoman. Lucky we've got you.

I think if anyone read my posts above they would say I accept plenty of women have C sections and need them. Nothing I have said is otherwise but the point about vaginal bacteria is interesting, that's all. I have no personal crusade on any of these issues.

"I just feel we are increasingly finding hidden advantages in what is natural from the effect of eating something as simple as spinach or kale and its effect on healing to (not) vaginal bacteria being good for the baby as it were and playing in dirt, even digging soil having some health advantages"

You can have a prize for the most Woo statement of the year!

Plenty of women have c sections and CHOOSE them, making fully informed decisions based on robust replicable published data. You haven't responded to any of the research mentioned.

" However I don't think the advantages of a vaginal birth are explained clearly enough always. Some girls think it's easier to have a C section when it's the opposite."

A sweeping and inaccurate statement based on what???

Bag - I think you'll find that in the uk only a very small percentage of women are currently choosing a c/s. Electives are about 11% of all births but the vast majority of these are done without health grounds.

As for women having real choices - if women are choosing a c/s without the alternative of optimal care for a vaginal birth, well it's not really ideal is it?

Aargh 'on health grounds' not without. Sorry!

Shag, that's true re ELCS. In fact in my local trust it's around 4%. in terms of numbers though, it's still significant. And you're right about choice - it's not a choice if their isn't another viable option.

You know, you and I have v different views on childbirth - (yours based on more births than my 3!) but I really admire the way you put your views over. We're not likely to agree on approach but I like the way you do it!

Waahhh that reads like a Mallory Towers girl-crush on Miss Theobald!

However I don't think the advantages of a vaginal birth are explained clearly enough always.

But VBs and their advantages are stuffed down the throat of just about every pregnant woman in the UK! even if you are under consultant care for birth trauma, it seems like CS are touted as the very last resort, not as an equal let alone superior option.

if you're talking about the US, you might be right, but i don't think this statement reflects the UK tbh

the fact is, in the UK you generally have a CS when there is just no other option and the baby or mum might die or suffer grievous injury. so going on about how much better VB is compared to a CS just serves to make women who were forced into CSs feel shit about themselves for not "managing" a VB

I'm wearing brogues and all tonight!

The original science that found spinach to b do wonderful and had generations eating the stuff acknowledged only a few years ago that they got the decimal point in the wrong place and actually spinach is no more wonderful than most other veg!!!

My point is two fold:

? read the original research for yourself, not just the media's interpretation of it. What is often in the press is only a fraction of the real results and may actually be totally mis-quoted for mis-used (intentionally or otherwise)
? the bacteria/caesarean debate is just another case in point of this. The bacteria and asthma studies have beensufficiently inconclusive and contradictory to render it impossible to make any definative statements. Indeed bias in the asthma studies-including smokering parents and premature babies in the subject base (both of which in isolation have been shown to alter the likelihood of a baby developing asthma), means that by not excluding these conditions it is not possible to draw any scientific conclusion about caesareans and asthma.

'Caesarean Birth: A positive approach to preparation and recover' available on Amazon reviews quite a lot if the current research on bacteria and asthma as well as the other things caesareans are typically blamed for such as respiratory distress. Women planning their birth, caesarean or vaginal, should do so with all the facts. There is so much more to consider and a woman's own assessment of risk should more respected than it is.