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 fought for a vaginal delivery after an emergency c-section first time. I'm currently coping with urinary incontinence, thrush, hemmarhoids a bad back, a second degree tear and a possible prolapse. The labour was long, difficult, often depressing and lead to a haemorage. And I didn't get the 'hey wow isn't my body wonderful'feeling. Wish I'd had a c-section!

The spelling problems are all my own and nothing to do with the birth!

welshmum, agree with you, esp the scaremongering surrounding c-sections. The women I know who have had it (all legitimate reasons), including myself, swear by them, as compared to a highly monitored, interventionist and medicalised "natural" birth. My motto is leave me to labour in peace, otherwise just cut to the chase!

doesn't a c section hurt then?

Cikey, if a c-section isn't a highly monitored, interventionist, medicalised birth, then what is?

An since when are vaginal births highly monitored etc....bit of a sweeping generalistion!

Well, I am going to attempt a VBAC in 9 weeks time. However if I dont go into labour naturally by 41 weeks I am booked for a ceaseran. I dont want to hang on til I am 12 days overdue before they consider it. The stress is too much. Not a medical a reason perhaps but good enough for me and my consultant.

Hi Welshie. I definitely agree that cost is a big factor. It always is, whether we are discussing birth or cancer treatment. All NHS policy has to consider the cost. I'm amazed to see people arguing otherwise.

I firmly believe the push to have vaginal births on the NHS has far more to do with their budget than it does my or my babies' health.

PS Welshie, you coming to the Junie meet up at London zoo?

Cori, in some hospitals, you wouldn't be allowed to go beyond 10 days before they would section you anyway.

WWW, I don't know about emergency c-sections but I haven't had any pain following the electives, had to take ibuprofen and paracetemol religiously after the anaesthetic wore off and the bruising looked like I'd been kicked by a horse but apart from that...
Sometimes I get so scared when I look at gorgeous ds and think thank God for medical progress that they could spot the problem and still manage to deliver him safely, even 10 years ago I think he and I would have been goners.

blueshoes I do agree that in an ideal world vaginal births would be no-fuss affairs and intervention is undesirable and unpleasant.

But if I had a c-section it would be the biggest and most serious operation I had ever had so I would never go into it lightly. Also you can't drive for 6 weeks?

I was doing the supermarket shop when dd2 was 4 days old (why was I?? madness). I think the recovery is generally much quicker from a vaginal birth?

Hi Uwila - haven't kept up with the thread, thanks for the tip off, will check it out x

So Uwila, are you saying that all births should be by c-section, just in case?

Not being able to drive for 6 weeks post caesarean is a myth. I waited 2 weeks after both caesareans.

No, I'm saying the option should always be available. In my case, that is the only option I would want. But, if someone wants a natural birth, then that should be made available as well.

why do they recommend 6 weeks then? Its not a 'myth' its what doctors recommend

But you have to be realistic. There are medical reasons why a routine vaginal birth is better for the mother and baby. When there are medical reasons (physical or psychological), then fair enough.

medical reasons for a section

OK, from the NICE booklet on c sections:

"35 of every 1000 babies born by c section have breathing problems just after the birth, compared with 5 of every 1000 after a vaginal birth."

"...you have more risk of having a blood clot if you have a c section..."

"sometimes the baby's skin may be cut while the opening...this happens to about 2 out of every 100 babies"

"you should be offered antibiotics...because they cut down the risk of getting an infection afterwards"

"Babies born by c section are more likely to have a lower temperature than normal..."

All taken from \link{http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/CG013publicinfoenglish.pdf\here}.

Enid - I can't drive, if I'd been able to 6 weeks after the c-section that would have been another bonus

I don't know. The midwives told me (after both section) that I wouldn't be insured to drive. I called my insurance companies (had different insurance after second section) and both times they said there was no such clause in their policies. I've had this conversation numerous times on and off of mumsnet. And I think once did I come across someone whose insurance said they had to wait 6 weeks. So, perhaps, there is an insurance company out there with this clause. But it certainly isn't the norm.

Agree, no-one (I think) thinks there's anything wrong with medically necessary c sections. But I don't think a c section should become the default for giving birth and that appears to be what Jo Revill is suggesting.

I think this is bonkers and irresponsible - why would anyone undergo major abdominal surgery when they didn't have to (ESP when they are also going to have a newborn to cope with!)

I drove after 3 weeks. As long as you feel fit enough and are capable of doing an emergency stop then is fine

Where's the evidence though for saying that the NHS wants women to give birth vaginally because of cost rather than for clinical reasons? And just saying it doesn't make it so.

The NICE guideline is biased: it is written with the intent to discourage caesareans.

When you look through the guideline, does it quote the risks of vaginal birth? For example, what are the changes of the cord being wrapped around the baby's neck... twice. I bet it's not mentioned (haven't got time to read it right now).

Completely agree with last 2 posters. There is no NHS conspiracy, you know! Just common sense - unpalatable though that may be.

I agree completely that babies were never meant to be born by c-section, a straightforward vaginal delivery is best. But in lots of other cases it isn't. It's up to mothers, with access to expert and trusted advice to make the decision, and it's up to everyone else to support them in that.
None of the things in your list happened to me WWW or to anyone I know (apart from the antibiotics)I have no horror story to tell but a good one and that should be out there too so that mothers who have to have c-sections know it's possible to have a positive experience, with no complications, a very speedy recovery, no fuss breast-feeding and wonderful bond with both children.