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.

The implication is definately that C-Sections aren't done routinely 'cos the NHS is too cheap isn't it? How ridiculous.

I have no problems with women choosing which way they prefer to deliver their babies, but with scaremongering articles like this I'm not surprised that more and more women are electing to have C-sections because vaginal birth seems such a scary option. And it really isn't.

That's what I'd thought the Better Birth Campaign was about, Blu, but that's certainly not what this article is saying though, Blu - "...it's time for women to consider surgical births as the best for mother and baby". What, all mothers, all babies?

And the only real argument she can come up with is 'have a planned c-section to avoid the risk of an emergency one' which is just about the most appallingly reductionist rubbish I've ever read.

I really do believe that c-sections have saved many lives and I don't want to demonise them or the women that have them at all but honestly, this article really saddens me.

Sorry, delete 2nd 'Blu'! Must preview, must preview...

"birth can be a blissful experience"

I only found it blissful afterwards! Especially with DD (home waterbirth) which was the first time I really got to snuggle my newborn baby (didn't really happen like that with DSs). The cessation of the pain and the relief were blissful and instant.

Yes, you're right.
I blinked at the logic for having an elective CS, too.

Blu, I think you're ignoring the very negative slant on vaginal delivery. If she were simply advocating women who choose a C-Section as having a right to that choice I'd have no problem with the article. I sincerely believe a woman should have a right to the birth she chooses, but I don't feel the article was supportive of different choices- it was advocating that ALL births should be C-Sections and that vaginal delivery is outdated and needlessly dangerous.

As in 'yes, Snafu, you're right snafu'

a c-section is still a major operation, you have the risk from the aneasthetic and there are post op complications to take into account, such as infection and also deep vein thrombosis, not to mention the 6 week recovery period afterwards.

Blu

I agree with a lot in this article. I think the quote from the RCM seems to suggest that vaginal births are more rewarding than others and that I think is highly individual. I have had one emergency c-section, one natural vaginal delivery and one elective c-section (breech baby). My elective c-section was certainly the better of the 3 births expericences. Everything was lovely and calm. I think we should have a choice and I know what I would choose should I do it all again.

Her births were "unremarkable"?

She's jealous of her sister.

And a wanker.

IMO.

Some reasons against c section.

Surgical proceedure, increased numbers of staff.

Cost.

Baby often (IIRC) has lower APGar score and more breathing difficulties (lungs have not released steriod which kick starts labour).

BF'ing rates are further reduced.

Surgical wound requires care, complications of wounds are freqently seen where I work, I can't believe C sections are exempt from this.

Mobility may be reduced following C/S, more so than natural labour, unable to lift/drive etc (although tell that to a woman with stitches!)

Hospital stays are longer.

Associated risks from necessary anaeasthesia (spinal block, epidural, full GA).

Urinary incontinence can occaisionally be linked to the usual proceedure of a urinary catheter.

I still believe the complications are greater for a C section, but then, as she said, it is indeed possible that this is due to complicated vaginal deliveries which have proceeded to C/s.

For all those who believe GA is safe, tell that the father of a 20yr old who had a minor surgical proceedure and who is now lying in a hospital bed nearly a year later getting repeated infections and basically dying a very slow death.

That is just one case, but a most tragic one, so indeed, there is still a risk.

I've had two natural deliveries and four abdominal surgeries (appendectomy and three extensive laseroscopies).

Abdominal surgery took far longer to recover from IME.

This is just really lazy journalism - I too thought it was bad the way the lady from the Birth Trauma Assoc was quoted. And it's a biased opinion piece masquerading as researched journalism.

It's also a case of light the touch paper and retire - people on the blog immediately got into the usual debate about which birth was best for them, and pointing out examples when C-Sections should have been performed - none of which is strictly relevant to Jo Revill's statement that "We are fast approaching the point where logically we should encourage women to have a caesarean whether or not they have a medical or psychological reason for wanting one. This is because women are having babies later and because the babies themselves are becoming bigger". That's not about choice! And it certainly isn't about what's best for the baby or the mother.

Anyhow, I lost any sympathy with the author or her sister when it said they played a Coldplay CD in the deliver room. Now THAT really is an unforgiveable way to bring a baby into the world

PMSL georgina! I did think the same but - obviously - am far too polite to say so

georginars PMSL re: Coldplay comment.

Agree that abdominal surgery is NOT the way to go if at all possible.

I have had my appendix out (at 17 weeks pg no less!) and was out of action for a good 5 weeks.... couldnt really walk for the first 10 days. The thought of that and a newborn fills me with dread.

I am lucky in that I have had 2 natural deliveries (all be it with epidurals both time although second one didnt work) and have always been up and about within hours and walking round town within days.

BARMY BARMY article.... What a load of TOSH

Just wanted to comment re: Nick Fisk - I had my second child at Queen Charlotte's under him. I had had a previous section (for a large baby, small hole problem :) ) but he fully supported my decision to attempt a VBAC - indeed, even when I was screaming for a section his team kept me going and I delivered a baby even larger than the first....he ran through the risks with me, but said that they were equally bad if I chose a section or VBAC and he supported my choice (even though, by reading articles about him, I guess he wouldn't have chosen it!)

the problem with "natural" labour is that the risks, both mental and physical, are not fully disucussed with women beforehand. Tearing, foetal distress, the trauma - all tend to be brushed under the carpet. For any other medical procedure, clinicans have a duty of care to fully and frankly discuss side-effects with the patient and the patient then makes informed consent. I believe that this does not happen in ante-natal classes or midwife consultations. Women's concerns regarding labour are often not listened to, or the woman is made to feel silly for being terrified of labour and requesting a CS.

Given the genetics of head size in DH's family, my gut feeling was that "natural" birth would result in either foetal distress and an emergency CS or hideous damage to my perineum. I opted for an elective CS, much to my OB's distaste. What happened? DS's head had to be measured every day in hospital and the OB said, 'be thankful you didn't try to push him out'. I was furious that she would have made me try anyway.

Women have a right to make the birth choice that suits them, and not be bullied into the cheapest option. A CS isn't for everyone, but it's absolutely the best choice for a lot of us.

You're right, Highlander. I do agree w/you in that and my initial response to this thread stated that. I think it should be a woman's choice.

what a lazy, illogical heap of crap.

"By having a planned surgical delivery, you simply avoid the biggest risk factor of all: the possibility of an emergency caesarean" - yes, ladies, have a caesarean so you don't need to have...um...a caesarean.

And the bit linking Kate Winslet's comment about feeling a failure for having an em cs to "the guilt that a woman can be made to feel for exercising choice" just makes no sense at all.

All v disappointing after the Better Birth Campaign.

I don't know, I never had a csection. I just know from having had major surgery how much it sux afterwards. But then, it didn't result in a baby.

"the problem with "natural" labour is that the risks, both mental and physical, are not fully disucussed with women beforehand. Tearing, foetal distress, the trauma - all tend to be brushed under the carpet. I believe that this does not happen in ante-natal classes or midwife consultations. Women's concerns regarding labour are often not listened to, or the woman is made to feel silly for being terrified of labour and requesting a CS."

Hmm, I have to disagree with you Highlander.

I attended both NHS and NCT antenatal classes and feel all the eventualities were well covered. Frankly, I got rather tired of being repeatedly lectured on the various ills that awaited me and my babe. Perhaps you had a bad class?

I think it is natural to be aprehensive of labour and birth, and whilst I would support any woman who wanted a C-Section because she had an unresolvable fear of birth, I think that would be a sad reason to have one. Perhaps a more healthy option would be counselling to investigate and put to rest the source of such fears? If after such counselling a woman still felt unable to attempt a normal birth THEN I believe a C-Section would be appropriate.