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.

Hey, don't elephants have a 2 year gestation. Now that would suck.

I have many friends and relatives who are doctors and it amazes me how so many of them are in favour of c-sections. My brother did a 6-month stint in O&G/labour ward in a major hospital. Whereas previously, he did not hold any view, he came out of that stint calling his colleagues (doctors and midwives alike) "butchers". When I confided in him that I was considering a second c-section, a flash of relief went across his face. I know doctors tend to be called in only when there is a problem, so that must skew their view of normal vaginal deliveries. But if you compare the chance of a doctor on a labour ward experiencing a mortality (I don't think my bro saw one in 6 months) versus the chance of a doctor attending a traumatic vaginal birth (it is almost ALL they see when they are on shift), it must surely mean that the chances of your bits being ripped/cut is much much higher than the chance of dying in an operation.

I certainly planned for a natural birth but ended up with an emergency c-section under GA. Scary as that was, I came out of it thinking: hey, I thought it would be much worse - and includes my recovery. I started out thinking that it would be OTT to allow first time mothers the routine choice of c-sections. But seeing how first time births tend to be at highest risk of something going wrong and reading other posts on this thread, I am not so sure now. Due weight must be given to the (potential) emotional devastation of a traumatic delivery (whether interventionist vaginal and/or crash section). I am tending towards informed choice, even where there are no compelling medical reasons for a section except for the risk of a traumatic birth/crash section.

What the NHS seriously needs to improve on is informing women of the risks of an emergency section - BEFORE it becomes a reality. The risks are at two levels: firstly, the risk of the choice of vaginal birth ending up in crash sections (particularly for inductions and VBAC) AND the increased risk that comes with a crash section as opposed to an elective.

We all roughly know the risks of a section. But it was not until I read this thread that I found out a crash section is much more risky than an elective. Nobody explained that to me. In my case, all the hospital got was my consent to the crash section. There was no time to explain risks to me. I signed the consent form upside down lying on the operating table - I remember I used the paper to block out the theatre lights from my eyes. The next second, there was pressure on my throat and a mask descended on my face. I was out before they counted to 3. What informed choice was that??

Totally disagree with this article, unfortunately I had to have a caesarian which left me infertile - In my case I had no choice but wonder if people who decide to have a caesarian are given all the relevant info ie possibility of scarring & infection (which happened in my case).

blueshoes - at least you got a form to sign. My sister was not even told she was having a crash section. She was out before counting 1, 2, 3 and baby zipped out. To this day she has no idea WHY. She had the crash section after trying for natural birth.

The same hospital (St Mary's, Paddington) had tried to get her to abort the baby when she went in, bleeding at 3 months pregnant. They thought the baby was dead, hadn't bothered to check properly .

She refused to take the tablet to abort a dead baby and it turned out he was NOT dead. My sister saved her baby's life on instinct.

I decided not to go into hospital on the basis of the trauma caused to my sister in a London hospital. I would rather have given birth in the middle of a field all on my own or on the kitchen floor (like one of my friends) rather than risk being cut up unnecessarily in a hospital.

I left the birth centre after a long labour in water with no stiches. No cutting up, no stiches, no trauma. I thank the skill and kindness of my midwife and my own ability to realise that if my grandmother had given birth naturally to 10 children (the first died when he became ill when he was a few months old) and my mother and my 5 aunts had each given birth naturally to 2- 3 children each, then I could do it too.

I was enourmous too, 5 kilos and my mother had me naturally with practically no pain relief.

Interesting blueshoes. Although I have been planning to try a vbac, I must admit that what I want least is another crash cs. am starting to question my belief that it will all be cherry pie with a vbac, just siome gas and air and a brithing ball. I think I will discuss the possibility of a planned cs with my obstetrician. She was VERY anti cs last tine I spoke to her so I may be out of luck.

Blueshoes, totally disagree, sorry. The idea that women should have elective sections just to avoid the possibility of an emergency section is just mad imo. Flossam's appendix example explains why very well I think.

Tonton, if you want an elective, you will probably have to go to the consultant very determined to get it and not be peruaded otherwise. But, of course, do what you want. Don't be persuaded by me.

Whe I was giving queen charlotte the oppotunity to talk me out of an elective section (previous birth was crash section) I asked the success rate of VBAC. And he said I had a 70% chance, which of course meant 30% of a repeat emergency caesarean. You may do what you like with this statistic, but for me I though 30% failure is not a risk I would like to take. It was important to me to avoid an emergency section.

So I had a lovely planned section. I was there to enjoy it, unlike with DD when I was knocked out with a GA because the block wasn't taking effect fast enough.

WWW, there are degrees of risk, which only a individual can decide beyond which it is not acceptable. Uwila's example of a 30% risk of an emergency section for VBAC is NOT the same as pre-emptive appendix removal. Then there is induction, particularly for first time mums ... What if a mother is for some psychological reason pathogically afraid of childbirth, with or without previous birth trauma? It is about informed choice.

What if the babies are too posh to be pushed?

yeas, degrees of risk but still, statistically, vaginal birth is safer than a section. And you are still arguing that an elective is a good idea in order to avoid an emergency aren't you? If not, ok. If so, oh well, I disagree!

Yo Viper, think you should go have an induction followed a day and half later by a crash section under general anaesthesia before you go telling people what lengths are reasonable to avoid repeating the experience.

What is mad is you telling me what is reasonable for the birth of my child.

And, the statistics are conflicting. We can all find some to support our views. I. however, can't be bothered at this time to do that. I'm too busy freaking out over whether or not I'm going to get a nursery place for DD at the school of my choice.

FairyMum - I find as a naturally posh woman with a posh accent and posh upbringing and therefore a son who is rather posh, quite offensive that you think my baby may have been too posh to have been pushed

Or should I have obtained his consent (in writing) before he was born ?

Will he sue me later on for pushing him out without his consent ?

Well, I'm not very posh these days. But maybe there's hope for my children.

I've just read the article and it does sound very biased.

I had a crash section after a quick (6hr) labour. I was allowed 2 hrs pushing, but dd was big and wouldn't come out, she was getting distressed. I wouldn't say that I enjoyed the labour, but it was nowhere near as bad as I had envisaged, just TENS and gas + air.

I recovered really quickly from the op, walked 5 miles after 8 days and never looked back. I have said ever since that I would have an elective section for a second birth.

Whilst the experience of a crash section was fine for me, it was traumatic for dh and so I would not want to put him through that again.

I realise that this is only my experience, but absolutely believe in choice.

Why should those who want a section be told we can't, we're not telling other people that they can't have a vaginal birth.

uwila, er, this is a parenting forum, I don't have to have had an induction and a crash section before I'm entitled to have a view on this you know! I didn't really expect that from you. But hey, I suppose if you're defensive about sections, you're defensive about sections, nothing I can say (or statistics! or FACT!) will change your mind.

Yes, you can have a view. But if you did have a crash section you would probably have a better understanding of why people like me get a bit peeved when other tell me that it isn't really that important to avoid the repeat crash section.

I find it very offensive. Anf, from reading this threaad, I am far from alone.

I haven't said it isn't important to avoid a repeat crash section, not at all! I've said that booking an elective IN ORDER to avoid a crash doesn't make sense but perhaps I wasn't clear: I meant where there hadn't been a prev medical or em reason, i.e. booking an elective section for, say, a first baby in a completely normal pregnancy, I abolutely didn't mean you had no right to be concerned about not having an em section again, not at all. I can see why you were peeved with me if that's what you thought I was saying!

So basically I was disagreeing with whoever said

best to have an elective in order to avoid the possibility of an emergency section

which was one of the arguments the writer of the original article had for all women being offered sections for all pregnancies no matter what, i.e. you might end up with an emergency section so why not have an elective to make absolutely 100% sure you won't? THAT was what I disagred with. I completely understand why you wanted to avoid a second em section.

WVW - what abput if you're planning an elective cs top avoid a crash cs because last time you had a crash cs? Or does that still seem silly? I can see both points of view to be honest.

No, I understand that tonton, I just disagree with the writer of the article and anyone who uses 'to avoid an em cs' as a reason for an elective WITHOUT ANY OTHER reason. I hope that's clearer!

Oh, ok. I still disagree, but not quite so stongly. Sorry for jumping on you....

But you are still wrong.

That's ok Uwila, I understand why you were peeved at me. But, obviously, you're wrong too! So, shall we all have one of \link{http://img52.exs.cx/img52/176/30ec.jpg\these?}

That was a joke, obv!