Caesareans - anyone read this?

[Sweetypie]

This was published in the independent yesterday... anyone else read it? Thought it was interesting myself!

What a load of cobblers! How many other factors are at play in defining the two different cultures? You can just as easily say that speaking Dutch makes you kinder! This sort of crappy, half thought out, cod-science drives me nuts.

And on an N of 2, I have two very loving children, who were both born by sections. I was a normal birth and used to flinch when someone kissed me!

Ladies, ladies, slow down. I think that the Independent has done a terrible disservice. What a muddled and badly written article! I saw Michel Odent speak last year to a group of midwives and doctors. He was extremely articulate and what he said made absolute sense. The basic gist of it was that if a labor is NOT progressing, it is better for the mother and baby for a c-section to take place rather than trying to further induce the labor or use other methods (like forceps). There was less risk to both the baby and mother. He also said that he thought early induction of labor (ie a week before term) was not a good idea (quoted a correlation with higher incidence of autism). He backed up everything he said with references to medical studies. He was very clear and informed.
By the way, it is not uncommon for scientists to change their minds over the years as they do research and find out new things. It is perfectly possible that 20 years ago he was totally against the idea of c-section for any reason and as he did further studies realized that it might be a good idea in some cases. Or perhaps he had put forward a hypothesis and was not able to prove it or in fact disproved it.

I've not had a section....
Yet lol
2 very quick natural births...
but even so...
I stand by what I said way earlier in the day
Rather my belly than my bits

SofiaAims, I doubt that he backed up the nonsense about holland with medical studies! I like a good debate, based on scientific studies, but linking the behavior of two very different cultures, with wildly different histories to one factor, ie the incidence of Csections is just plain daft. And as other have said, detracts from the rest of his arguments.

message withdrawn

Hang on your juging the man based on a journalist's article.... BEST to read the book and debate it rather than base your views on a single article.... don't you think?
Actually I thought that he made sense about the REST of the article....

message withdrawn

I've read the book!!! And yes he does suggest that because early c-sections (ie when you are not in labour) don't involve the cascade of hormones involved in the natural chain of events that lead to labour, this may have implications for infant brain development, including interfering with the hormone release required to bond with the mother (including the oxytocin in breastmilk). I have to say I am not totally convinced, and of course, ds is ridiculously loving and was trying desperately to kiss his big sister over the table at Cafe Rouge on Sunday. However, I do think he is right in the bulk of his book to say that modern obstetrics is getting things very wrong and it is arse about tt to ask drs to reduce the c-section rate while they also interfere with labour with interventions, monitoring, noise, bright lights etc etc so making sections inevitable. And I agree that it is a risky strategy in which woman are at the sharp end. He is certainly not criticising home births at all and he - rather refreshingly IMO - says sections are safe and often lifesavers. I also agree drs are often keen to section too early in pregnancy. I felt this instinctively and argued for ds to be born closer to 38 weeks than 37, and he was placenta praevia.

Hm. The only consequence I have been aware of with my 4 sections is that their prematurity made them crap at breastfeeding. Nothing wrong with their brain or emotional development otherwise as far as I can tell.

Janh- If it was that obvious - cesareans would not be performed ! I think ....

Also just before Twigglet's quote there is this one... which I think is important :
"He argues, controversially, that Caesareans may actually impair children's ability to love - an impairment that may be scarcely noticeable at an individual level but which could wreak havoc at a population level."

You can't draw conclusion based on your own child(ren) - it is at a society level that you can draw conclusions. Statistically BF are healthier but we all know BF who are not very healthy and bottle fed babies who are healthy as a rock.... still BF babies are statistically far healthier!

Sorry, pupuce? If what was that obvious? I was just comparing with aloha's example of her DS.

message withdrawn

Totally agree with you Pupuce that we can't make judgements based on our own children (hard not to get outrageously defensive when someone suggests that your child may have an inability to love/ be the next evil Richard though!) but, as Twiglett, aloha, hmb, Zebra etc. have pointed out neither can he make judgements based on comparing one society with another when he fails to account for innumerable other variables. Maybe he does in his book....seems unlikely though. Why doesn't he compare the Netherlands with Belgium, France or the UK, which I think have much higher levels of intervention in childbirth? Seems to me (certainly no expert) that the social problems experienced in these countries seem to be pretty similar. Have to say that the natural birth/attachment parenting establishment seem to harm their own arguments again and again with sweeping sweeping statements of this sort. I seem to remember the 3 in a bed author arguing that putting babies in cots was the primary reason for war in the western world! And I co sleep so can't be accused of being defensive on this one but you what???? Why do historians/sociologists bother at all when its all so simple. Don't know why Odent et al can't just argue that minimal intervention in birth is cheaper, safer and nicer for mum and baby without going off on one and trying to suggest that a birthing ball and a darkened room could solve all the worlds problems at a stroke.

Doh Twiglett, you can tell I'm new (well born again new anyway) - you just said what I was trying to in two sentences and were much funnier at the same time...think I need more practice at this

I think even Pupuce might think that particular comparison is a bit dodgy tbh. It's one of those things that overshadows the rest of the book rather, and perhaps unfairly. And you know I loved my section and think my boy is too perfect for this world

JanH -I meant if it was obvious that sections were affecting babies brains and behaviour.... then sections would be viewed very differently. That's what I meant.

Twiglett - I think I would prefer to read the book before I commented on the Sao Paulo/Amsterdam issue ...... don't think it can be that simple. Also the article suggests far more than this sentence.... and I found the article quie interesting in other respects.

pupuce, I was just responding to this bit of aloha's post:

"I've read the book!!! And yes he does suggest that because early c-sections (ie when you are not in labour) don't involve the cascade of hormones involved in the natural chain of events that lead to labour, this may have implications for infant brain development, including interfering with the hormone release required to bond with the mother (including the oxytocin in breastmilk). I have to say I am not totally convinced, and of course, ds is ridiculously loving and was trying desperately to kiss his big sister over the table at Cafe Rouge on Sunday. "

so obviously I am not totally convinced either. That's all.

I think there might be something in the cascade of hormones argument, as aloha points out, but I can't see why anyone makes the sudden leap from there to the lack of love hypothesis. It's very odd.

I am going to get extremely personal...

well then 'statistically' my dd is doomed - caesarean - could have died if not born then and there... 'incapable of loving' .... ( oops no one told her )

not even bottle fed for the first two months of her life....

Poor us

Sorry but I think it is twaddle - anyone with a half a brain can detect what is wrong with society and it is absolute nonsense ( even at a societal level) to relate it to someone's birth.....

According to an article last year in the guardian Michel Odent actually said that in some hospitals in Sao Paolo 80% of babies are born by c-section.
That sounds more believable.

I thought the gist of his article was very interesting (I have been planning a home birth due in 6 weeks but now have a breech baby so may have a c-section). I am quite convinced by his argument that either a low-tech home birth or an elective section is the way to go, rather than high intervention hospital vaginal birth.

message withdrawn

Everything is being related to how people were born, nowadays. As well as birthweight, and womb environment. It's interesting research... but it's getting huge headlines while the odds are rarely skewed more than 1-5% of any change in subsequent outcomes. Other factors: how we're raised, how we live, native temperment and preferences (last 2 mostly genetic), still make up 80-95% of how we turn out. But NO, stating the obvious doesn't make careers or a good newspaper story. Let's go around giving parents even more to worry about, instead, eh?