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.

Did you know, ladies, that the newsest plastic-surgery craze is for post-birth vaginal tightening?
And I saw a magazine ad in the States once that said: "Keep your vagina honeymoon fresh. have a Caesarean"

how utterly repulsive

I think it's rediculous to be arguing to ob/gyn are not qualified on the subject of normal births. They are far more qualified to speak on the matter than any of us here.

Are there any OB/GYNs on this website... Please join us now and offer your expert opinions on the matter of the safety of elective caesareans vs vaginal birth.

I know. A friend of mine had a rather repulsive doctor stitching her up after delivery, who actually said, 'Don't worry. I'll make you nice and tight again, dear'

Uwila, please ask your or any obstetrician the last time he or she watched a normal, uninduced, uninterfered with, non forceps/ventouse birth from start to finish.

Then ask a midwife that last time she or he saw one.

Honestly, will be really interested in the answer. And I don't think its preposterous to say obstetricians aren't experts in normal birth. Some consultants working in obs/gyn and advising pregnant women specialise in matters that have little to do with birth: one I had, for example, was an expert on colposcopy - cancer and other conditions of the cervix. He had specialised in that for many, many years and was a great authority. However, he was most certainly not up to date with current thinking on handling VBACs and gave advice that was undisputably WRONG. The Trust apologised for that when it was brought to their attention. Other women have been given statistics on uterine rupture by qualified consultants that are utterly ridiculous: with no research backing them up at all.

Don't get me wrong, there are lovely obstetricians who are very well informed and support normal birth, even homebirth (gasp!!). But it seems to me more and more that they are in the minority, unfortunately. I was lucky enough to have one who was willing to change and learn for my third baby ... though he started off saying one thing, he read research I presented him with and talked to medical authorities on the subject and educated himself on the particular circumstances I was facing. He totally changed his mind and supported me in the end, and was terrific. But HE had to change and learn, and if I hadn't pushed, he would not have done. Who says that sometimes, about a particular issue or our own bodies, we don't know better?

totally agree rachd

obstetricians and gynaes almost NEVER get to see a normal, uninterventionist vaginal delivery

But obs/gyns get to see the LEGACIES of "normal deliveries" - the problems that may occur for months or years afterwards, which midwives do NOT get to see.

But MP, that is still not the majority of women is it? I had a second degree tear myself. I found it a struggle to walk for a couple of weeks, TBH and sex was a joke for the first few months. I do appreciate some of how horrible it is. However, now I am absolutely fine. I'm sorry you are not, but you are a small minority. If you were to have another would you have a C/S?

I had one 'natural', terrifying delivery which ended in stirrups, panicking doctors, ventouse and the baby being diagnosed with Erb's Palsy, as a result of being yanked out of the birth canal.
He got better, luckily, but I don't think I could go through that again. It was the worst day of my life. The contractions alone were so violently painful that I wanted to jump out of a window. I don't think I've recovered from the shock and trauma of it, two years later.
This controversial article actually cheered me up a bit. I don't think I could give birth like that again. I'd have to go for a CS. I wish people would be more honest about how painful and traumatic birth can be and celebrate the fact that our babies can be born via surgical intervention. I would probably actually have enjoyed and bonded with my newborn baby a lot faster had I had a CS. Even if I couldn't walk.

Isn't that the point? Isn't birth just something to endure and get though with the woman and baby alive rather than this mystical 'fulfilling' rite of passage that some women talk about?
Are we not trying to glamourise something that is actually an appalling, bloody and life-threatening necessity? Just a thought.

Floss: I don't know (about the c/s). I really don't know. It's the after-effects (recovery period) that I worry about. With my first (and second) I was up and about (and hoovering of course) within a few hours. BUT I was also (with the first and probably the second) still seeing consultants about the after-effects two years' later (internal anal tearing with both, perineal tearing and scarring with both. A lot of ongoing pain).

It's a horrible decision to have to make and I don't know how to make it.

Regarding statistics and what is normal, we don't seem to know. There don't see to BE good and reliable statistics available. So all we are really comparing here is anecdotal. But a lot of my friends have had ongoing problems (and probably share them because I'm so vocal about mine :)) whereas my friends who had sections were back in the saddle with no problems after the initial recovery period.

Sorry to go slightly off-topic... but just in response to Enid's comment about skin-to-skin delivery being essential for establishing good breastfeeding: I would disagree with you on that - purely based on my own personal experience of course, I had an emergency c-section, no skin-to-skin delivery, my DH held our baby until I was wheeled into recovery. There I got my hands on my DD, she latched on and sucked away happily for the next hour or so. I breastfed exclusively, and apart from suffering a blocked duct about 4 weeks in, found it very straightforward.

Anyway, hope that reassures you that it can work well, even if you don't get the skin-to-skin delivery that you want.

MP, poor you. Were you offered a C/S for your second after all the problems with the 1st?

I actually thought it was a very good article. Essentially it is all about choice. I firmly believe every woman should have a choice of how to give birth be it a homebirth or an elective cesearean or anything in between. I think that ALL women are capable of making an informed decision and I think ALl women usually have a very good reason for making a certain choice.

Now to my personal experience, my waters broke 5 weeks before my due date and they found that my baby had turned herself breech. I spent a night in the ante-natal ward and the next morning I had a scheduled cesearean. It was an excellent experience, the staff were very professional and kind, they listened to my fears and wishes. The OP itself was incredibly quick, after 10 mins my gorgeous baby girl was born and after 30 mins I was in the recovery room. The atmoshpere was very relaxed. The Dr's explained everything they were doing, a nice tape of music played in the background, brave hubby watched baby girl being born, the midwife put her on my chest and the mood was happy and congratulatory. I felt no pain or fear throughout. Although wee baby girl had to go into the neo-natal unit for two days because she was so premature I had no problems getting her to breastfeed and we bonded instantly. I got out of bed to visit her the next morning and went home a few days later. My scar didn't hurt very much and after two weeks I had already forgotten about it. After three weeks I felt fit as a fiddle again. The scar has now completely faded and I can't really see it anymore as the cut was made below the hairline.

I felt very lucky to have had a cesearean section as I was very afraid of a vaginal delivery. I don't think I could have coped with the pain and after effects of a vaginal delivery. I am not ashamed to admit that. I never felt the need to experience vaginal childbirth.

I found it also very interesting to listen to the experiences of my fellow NHS Ante-natal class women. There are 9 of us, three had a section (one for premature twins, one in a dire emergency after a 3 day labour and failed ventouse and forceps and myself with my scheduled c/s), 3 forceps/failed ventouse, 2 ventouse and only one 'straight-forward- vaginal delivery (but she ended up with a very nasty infected tear). Now, I don't think we are a particularly unusual lot, my NCT class statistic is almost identical. The interesting thing is that the two of us who had scheduled c/s had the quickest (yes quickest) recovery time. We were up and running after 3-4 weeks and (sorry if TMI) we had our sex life back months before the others. On the other hand some of the ladies with the forceps and ventouse deliveries are still having problems (6-7 months down the line)either with infections which won't clear up of their epi's, incontinence problems or simply the 'feeling as if bits are falling out when running' sympthom. Four of our girls have had really traumatic births and are still upset when they talk about it. Now, to me (and that's just my opinion after speaking to our group) is that the two of us with the scheduled c/s had the best deal and the easiest time, thus I can see what the writer of the article is arguing for.

...as I've said above, women should be given the choice, and that's all the writer of the article is asking for.

Oh and regarding the cost, I'm sure my 30 min c/s cost no more than the assisted delieveries in our group.

See. I have company. When are you going to admit that not everyone thinks natural birth is best? Not everyone wants one. And that those views are just as credible as your preference for a natural/vaginal birth?

"I think that ALL women are capable of making an informed decision and I think ALl women usually have a very good reason for making a certain choice."

So why is it OK for the author of this article to say, and I quote once again, "our Health Editor says that it's time for women to consider surgical births as the best for mother and baby" the article is NOT about choice, it is about one misdirected journalist deciding she thinks she knows what's best for us all based on anecedotal evidence of one woman's delivery, one contentious obstetrician's opinion and an interview with the birth trauma association taken enitirely out of context.

I too fully support the ultimate choice of every woman to choose where and how she gives birth, but I absolutely disagree with anyone claiming that this article does so.

Floss: Every ob/gyn I have seen have said such problems are "extremely common". My Doctor suggested that another vaginal delivery would be the best solution ("Tear it open again and see how it heals next time eh?!") and to just take painkillers in the meantime. No one ever suggested it was anything other than extremely common, if not normal.

I thought the article seemed like a very balanced opinion piece. (More than I can say for a lot of the articles that are published by the "National Childbirth Trust"...)

MP balanced in what way? How many women who had delivered vaginally without trauma were quoted or described in the article? Perhaps I missed them. I don't think you can call an article balanced just because you agree with it.

there has been a move towards mass c/s in brazil, where rates in wealthy women have been as high as 80%

It was clearly an opinion piece. It wasn't propaganda. I don't see why it upsets anyone.

rochwen I really enjoyed your post up until the bit where you felt the need to compare yourself with the other women at your ante natal group.

I had a terribly traumatic birth with high forceps and tbh my poor fanjo was cut to ribbons. But it healed very well with absoultely no lasting effects.

A bit like a c-section scar really

"It was clearly an opinion piece. It wasn't propaganda. I don't see why it upsets anyone."

Then can I suggest you read this thread again?

I didn't have DD2 delivered right onto me b/c I gave birth on all fours. My body just felt best staying in that position until I'd birthed the placenta as well. I literally was unable to move. When I felt like moving, I did, turned round and held DD2. She didn't latch straightaway. She wasn't really hungry till about 1AM.

But breastfeeding was fine!

Fanjo.

:o

Yeah, Morningpaper. The whole thing. Right now. Get on with it. [GRIN]