The Observer's health editor says women ought to have C-sections instead of vaginal delivery.

[dizietsma]

\link{http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,,1723873,00.html\link to article}

I'm appalled. I haven't read it all the way through yet, but you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be writing to the Observer to complain about this shocking and irresponsible opinion piece.

I've read it.
It's a pile of shit..demonising midwives.
They should be ashamed of themselves.

There is heck of a lot of bias in this report. I thought the idea was that they gave the reader all the facts, and let them decide. Very bad for the Guardian really.

ive never read such a pile of poo

if this isn't an aloha topic then nothing is!!

(come out,come out.. wherever you are!!!! )

\link{http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/global/jo_revill.html\this is the woman who wrote the article}

But, still IMO it is better for the baby to tell you it is better to come out!! Hormones do rule the day, and surely a natural start for baby is best. Would be interesting to know if any research is done on this. Also it is generally recognised that BF after C section is harder to achieve. This woman is completely barmy IMO.

certainly not true for all animals - we have a bulldog and they are notorious for having small pelvises and large heads. Ceasareans are often needed but they allow a natural birth if possible - as it should be!

Love the way she quotes a representative from the birth trauma association totally out of context as well. What shoddy journalism.

Only difference there being Jackstini is that dogs are cross breeded!

Would they have ended up like that naturally?

What is the average cost of a c-section compared to to a vaginal birth? Just wondering what the cost to/affect on the NHS would be if all women had C-sections instead of vaginal deliveries.

I remember reading an article in Eve magazine. the article was about people in the top of their profession & what would they advise.

A female gynocologist said, if she ever had to give birth she would have a c-section. The reason is that women just aren't designed for vaginal births. Big head, small holes etc etc.

I think that's an interesting point HOWEVER I undestand that when the baby is being squeezed out vaginally, the movement helps to remove the muscus etc from babies lungs. Babies that are c-section don't have this & can have problems (unfortunately not sure what)

Anyway - v-births for me, but please can I have the epidural ?

What a complete load of crap - what a terrible article.

There are certainly many valid indications to deliver by c-section but we are, after all, 'designed' to carry and deliver babies and in the majority of cases a natural delivery is possible and should be desirable. It's the natural way to deliver a baby - it's how it's designed to happen - so how can anyone argue that, valid indications aside, we should be choosing surgery?!?!?

I'm gobsmacked tbh.

Women just aren't designed for vaginal births? Ummm, so how come the human race is still here, then?

I'm all for informed choice but this is piss-poor journalism. And from the woman behind the Better Birth Campaign, too. What a joke.

Aha! \link{http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer/archives/2006/03/04/caesarean_or_natural_childbirth.html\here}
is the "comment on this article" page. I suggest we all do so, and vociferously!

I think it should be a woman's choice, however, at the end of the day, but suggesting that everyone have a surgical birth is ridiculous.

mojom - I'm shocked a gynaecologist would say we aren't designed to deliver vaginally! What rubbish!! Of course we are!!!

Soupy - that would be really interesting - I wonder if we could find that out. However, I wouldn't go under the knife for anyone unless I really had no other option - I'd rather have the baby at home on my own!!

"women just aren't designed for vaginal births." pmsl! Of course we are! Evolution has, however, stuffed up twice by 1) making us walk upright and 2) deveoping our brains too much so we need a large head.

'If you have a caesarean, there is the risk of wound infection. There is a longer recovery time. Women who have a surgical birth will take longer to conceive a second child possibly affecting their fertility. There is also double the risk of the subsequent baby dying in the womb' how in the name of god can you justify proposing that all women be forced to have their stomachs sliced open and the babies dragged out then?

ceasarians are necessary for medical reasons in some cases but that should be the only reason a women has to go through major surgery in order to deliver her baby.

besides anything else, if it's your second baby and you don't have a nanny doing the hard work for you then you can't physically take care of your first child after the birth as your not supposed to lift anything heavier than your newborn. but a posh bitch like her wouldn't think of that would she?

i'm one of those strange evil women she mentions who had a really positive natural birth, i'm not saying nothing went wrong but the feeliings of overwhelming love and happiness when i held my baby afterwards were blisssful and i wouldn't have changed it for the world

C-sections cost NHS approx £2000, vaginal deliveries approx £1000, homebirths approx £600 (off top of my head)

Thanks Snafu! Interesting!

Breathing a sigh of relief now

That is what makes it even more of a joke though SD!! It says in the article - 'Caesareans are twice as expensive as normal births, costing the NHS about £3,500 each, compared with £1,800.'

Unless you are suggesting the NHS are not keen purely for financial reasons?

Jackstini - but bulldogs are a highly 'bred' sort of dog, aren't they? They didn't evolve naturall, afaik.

I read this article more in the spirit of promoting choice for women, and removing the taboo / stigma that goes with elective ceasarian. I don' think that any woman's birth choice, where it falls within healthy parameters, should be annexed to a campaign or to prove a lobbying position.

It must be possible to campaign for better maternity services overall, mustn't it? For me, that would mean greater access to homebirth, waterbirth option in every hospital, one-to-one mw care during labour, epidurals on demand, AND elective ceasarians for women who want them.

re cost - I wondered what the financial cost would be to the nhs and therefore wha services would have to be cut if this ridiculous idea were reality. Not criticising the nhs for not being keen for financial reasons.

"an elective, or routine, caesarean section is just as safe as a normal delivery, thanks to advances in anaesthesia and antibiotics."

Is this true?