Do women feel as if they're being told 'you shouldn't have a section'???

[tiktok]

Various organisations, including NCT, campaign for choice of place of birth and type of birth, and point to the rising caesarean section rate with concern. This is because the high numbers contrast with the likely figure of women and babies who need a section for medical reasons. It also reflects concern that on the whole, recovery after a section can be longer and more difficult. I don't think this is the equivalent of telling individual women they shouldn't have sections (clearly, the op is life saving for some, anyway), but this is how it seems to be interpreted. Comments?

These priorities - the focus on reducing sections rather than increasing midwives or their pay - reflect the power structure (tends to be dominated by doctors) and the weakness of the Royal College of Midwives (don't get me started on the pathetic way they defend their members' interests and the rights of mothers)....

Agree Aloha, look into also the other 93% re my point about inductions, look at the percentage of failed inductions that result in mothers facing up to 2 days of labour and then an emergency c section, surely much worse scenario for both mother and baby?
I do not think anyone is saying that c sections are evil and by having one makes you a bad mother. C Sections are important to childbirth and provide positive outcomes in challenging situations. They have probably brought down infant mortality that too.
But it is important and advantageous to pursue the physiological route whenever it is possible. But then again a woman with severe fears about vag birth is prob not best advised to have a natural delivery...
I am wanting to train as a doula shortly as superb ante natal support I am sure resulted in two fantastic births for me (watermelom bum or not!)

Not a midwife, BTW, but a watcher of what goes on

Dinosaur - I fully agree with you.

May I add something here from my personal experience.

(To recap - dd was born 12 years ago vaginally following induction after a very fast and aggressive labour. She has CP and complex ld. Two years later I asked for an elective section for my ds. I had to argue my case with health personnel and got one. He is fit and healthy.)

I was confident of a vaginal birth for my dd. I'd attended ante-natal and done all the exercises. But on the day I feel the system let us down. I was booked in for induction at term plus four days. Naively (sp?) I accepted it and allowed it to go ahead despite advising the staff I'd already started in very slow labour. I tried to stick to my birthplan but things went too fast. One of the vividest memories during labour was hearing two midwives at the back of me discussion their pay slips and how much overtime they were due. My dd was already in difficulty and she was born just as the stirrups were being put into place for a forceps delivery (had to wait a while for a obs. to appear too). She was beautiful when she was born but I remember the horror on the midwife's face when the placenta followed. She remarked she'd never seen one as torn!

So I believed I had every right to request a section. After being confident and geared up the first time round, I was apprehensive and wary with ds. I know that if there had been the slightest hint of anything going wrong with him during labour, I'd have freaked out. It wasn't a case of being 'too posh to push' - I'd been there previously and been let down by the system (and the lack of resources at the time).

If I could turn the clock back, I would have questioned the induction and would have only had it if absolutely necessary around term plus 10 days. A few years ago I learned that there is a link between CP and syntocinon (dd was induced by prostoglandin) (please excuse typos?).

Dd was 4 on her first apgar and 5 on her second. She 'sailed' through her paed. check and we thought the only problem was mild jaundice. She was diagnosed with CP at 7 months after she started fitting. I'd even questioned her development with my HV at 5 months who replied that maybe her right sided was developing slower than the left.

I think in a way the request for a c-section with ds was a sort of personal reassurance people were going to have to be attentive at the time they were needed. Does that make sense? It's still hard to justify why I asked for one. But I want to make the point it wasn't easy to get one and I was frowned upon until I backed it up by recounting my previous experience.

Bossykate,

I agree with you that counselling/support is a legitimate route too. My comment was actually more that fear/anxiety shouldn't be dismissed as a factor in decision-making. I had a bad time with number one which led me - not to request a section - but to seek a homebirth. My doctor did the usual thing of seeing "health" narrowly, told me that she would have nothing to do with me if I had a homebirth and that I would be draining NHS resources by having a midwife come to my home. She really didn't care about my emotional / mental health. I've said it before here (and been mocked for it) but I really was terrified of going into hospital again. So I just think that fear is a real concern and should be taken into account and might - in some cases - be a reason for a section. I just hate the thought of genuine fear being dismissed

btw I had my homebirth (no thanks to my GP) and it was great. DD2 delivered by dh. Midwife arrived 5 minutes later!

Don't forget this was 10 years ago - apparently well before the 'too posh to push' culture.

Well, it was only a matter of time before I jumped into the debate. So here, for what they are worth, are my thoughts - and, believe me, I have thought a lot about this over the last few days.

Yes, in a perfect world, we would all "breathe" our babies out "naturally", with no risk to either them or ourselves; whilst filling in our NCT membership forms. But we do not live in a perfect world. My concern is that, by setting what is essentially a quota to aim for, the medical profession will be under increased pressure to deliver babies by any means other than c-sections. This can only mean more intervention along the lines of ventouse and forceps - and, believe me, there is nothing natural about these means of delivery.

(Apologies to any of you who have already heard this story but...) I have spent the last four years wishing that I had had a c-section when ds was born. Instead, having had it drummed in to my head at NCT classes that c-sections were to be avoided at all costs, I'd laboured for 40 hours, aided and abetted by as many bags of Syntocin (have I got that right?)as they could chuck into me. Eventually, I got to second stage, only to push for nearly two hours with nothing to show for it. Finally, a registrar attempted ventouse a couple of times, before reaching for the salad servers. After a couple of attempts, ds was born and I was told "It's a boy. Oh, and you've torn through to your bowel". I didn't take it in at the time, but that's when my life changed for ever.

Since then I have endured terrible problems "down there" (which resulted in my having to give up my job); two bouts of surgery; numerous physio sessions; numerous counselling sessions to help with post-traumatic stress disorder; depression and a spell on Seroxat.

I will always carry the physical scars, but mentally I am in much better shape. Blimey, I've even got to the point where I can contemplate having another child - something I never thought I would be able to do. Sure, it would have to be a c-section - for medical reasons, obviously.

But here's the best bit. Not content with all the above, I've now discovered that I have premature ovarian failure and that it's highly unlikely that I can have another one. Life sucks sometimes.

So yes, I would gladly have swapped all the above for a c-section. A month or so with a sore tummy? Sounds like a good deal to me.

Now, I know some mumsnetters will be thinking, "That's her personal experience - I had a forceps birth and everything was fine". But I am not alone. The specialist hospital I attend sees countless injuries as a result of "intervention" - far, far more than occur "naturally". In fact, so much so that every pregnant member of staff, if faced with the need for intervention during delivery, has opted for a c-section.

Even Michael Odent (he of the "I have several studies that link c-sections with autism, depression, drug addiction, criminality, anorexia and won't go out in Brazil because they are all depraved as a result of their c-section births" has voiced serious concerns about the dangers of replacing c-sections with difficult vaginal births requiring intervention. So sure, set a desired rate for c-sections - but not at all costs.

I'm probably going to wish I hadn't posted this, but what the hell.

Forgot to add, Soapbox - please don't be too quick to write off the problems 3rd (or, as in my case, 4th) degree tears can cause; you were, if stats are to be relied on, lucky.

I am currently in the throes of a preganant and angry moment so will not join in this thread apart from to say, as many have, I think that hardly ANY sections will be by choice, more like as in my case and lots others on here, to save my baby and probably myself.

I have already shouted at the tv today at some smug woman droning on about how everyone can give birth natrually, they just have to try - HA.

Willow2 -- ooouuucch! So sorry to hear your story.

Dino - sorry I may have misunderstood. For information, I can't recall anyone actually recommending or offering me a section for ds. Everyone by that time knew what had gone on previously but worked along the lines of another vaginal birth for me.

Hi Dino - no. I'd said on my birthplan that I wanted to try to give birth naturally. However, I'd also said that, having never done it before, I didn't know what to expect and my only desire was that my baby and I were delivered safely and that I would do what they deemed best. At one point they said that, if the labour continued to fail to progress I would have to have one, but they kept giving my hormones which eventually did the job. It was never a case of "we really think you should have one". Throughout the labour I was given the impression that a c-section should be avoided at all costs so I just went along with what I was being told. I thought they were the experts - silly old me!

When I went into theatre for intervention I was prepped for a c-section, just incase. Afterwards I discovered that DS was, literally, only just (according to my notes; which were debatable) at a low enough level for them to attempt forceps without it being deemed negligent. If I'd been aware of how fine the line was I would have never gone along with it.

Even a second degree tear (or is it third when it goes into muscle?) is a lot more serious for some of us.

willow, that is a really terrible, terrible story. was it the forceps that caused the tear?

Hmmm. Have been dipping in and out of this thread and I'm not quite sure where I stand yet.

Had an emergency c-section (meconium in waters, heart rate through the floor, low blood oxygen etc etc). I'd been in hospital for 3 days at this point. I was poked, prodded and had every available instrument shoved up me during this time - usually twice thanks to an arrogant student doctor who continually ignored her superiors - but anyway! All this was to avoid a section as I was constantly reminded. In the end it couldn't be avoided and I was rushed to theatre.

One beautiful ds later, I found that for 7 months afterwards I was unable to have sex. When I was referred to a specialist dermatologist, she said that the nerve endings in my vagina had been "shot to pieces" due to the intervention during ds' birth and I had developed "vulval vestibulitis". As a result, for months I could only have sex while using a local anaesthetic cream - not much fun for me obviously.

This condition was miserable. It wasn't as a result of my section, it came about because the hospital were trying desperately to *avoid" a section to the point of putting ds' life at risk (according to the blood oxygen results).

The dermatologist I saw said it was increasingly common as more and more women were having instruments etc used excessively during birth. If all this trauma had been explained to me I think I would have requested a section far earlier on in the labour - but whether I would have been listened to I'm not sure.

Incidentally I'm prescribed pain relief for period pain - should I have been panting and breathing it out all this time - it is natural after all?

Motherinferior - not sure whether that is 2nd or 3rd degree. Either way, wasn't trying to belittle problems that a 2nd can cause - sorry if that is how it sounded Mums with bad bums unite.

I asked for & got an elective c-section.
I had two reasons; firstly an enormous fibroid (the nurses often couldn't find ds on the check-ups ) and secondly because I was shit-scared this might be my only chance to have a baby & I didn't want to f*ck it up. My lovely consultant agreed admitting only after I had asked that fibroids could cause problems during delivery (the nurses had denied this). He also said he didn't see why any woman shouldn't have one if they were deeply worried/scared by the birth process.

Women should be allowed to choose, it's as simple as that. Once they understand all the pros & cons that is, & I don't mean just so they can make lunch at the Ivy. The idea that one reaches a moral high ground by giving birth naturally (ie squatting in a field) makes me sick

Hi BK - obviously cannot be sure that I would not have torn equally badly without intervention, but everything points to forceps being the cause. That and a dick of a registrar who couldn't sew for toffee and left the country the minute he thought he was going to be sued.

Oh yeah, DS still has forceps scars on his forehead, although fortunately suffered nothing more. Does seem to suggest that excessive force was used.