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?

Willow2 - your story does indeed sound terrible. Just to reiterate though what I was trying to say is that by the time one tries to take into consideration tearing or not and the degree of tearing, the birth process is too far advanced to change the nature of it.

I don't think it is an option to elect for all births to be CS because some mothers may have 2/3/4 degree tears. I do however think that where there is a decision point earlier in the process, i.e. that the birth is turning out to be very difficult, then the mother should have the options for a CS discussed with her. One of course cannot mandate that she then has a CS.

Were you induced, Willow, or was the syntocinon given after you went into labour?

That is a horrible story of terrible, verging-on-the-negligent medical and midwifery care. No wonder you are angry.

I think sections seem to be on a spectrum of intervention which starts with inductions - so many awful experiences with forceps and then sections for failed forceps or not sections when there should have been a section, seem to begin with induction.

I should clarify: the point I was trying to get across is that I was made so aware of the dangers of a c-section; but nobody explained just how badly you could tear or the link with forcep deliveries. If I'd known what I know now - hindsight eh? - I'd have demanded a c-section. (I remember dh asking our NCT teacher about third degree tears - "Oh, you don't want to worry yourself about those" was the reply).

Hi tiktok - given it because labour failed to progress.

Willow2 brilliant post, I know you've been thinking about this a lot lately and you are being incredibly brave about it - think I would be walking around in a puddle of tears if it was me.

I think your point about the NCT drumming the anti-C-Section message into people is very true, I was terrified of having one as a result of all the negative publicity.

I always think that the old adage "no medals for bravery" is so true.

I feel the same about the LACK of info about induction. I think they hide it from you. No-one tells you that if you are induced it can take weeks. I thought I would be having a baby the next day!

Thanks chapesses for your kind messages. Am off to a 3 year old's birthday party now, so will log back on tonight.

Another inductioon cock up here.

Was induced at 40 weeks with ds1- low platelets + big baby. All was going fine.Contractions started at 3am byt 8am they were building up I was marching up and down the hospital corridor- was checked and was 1cm,. Then STUPID STUPID (female but childless I assume) junior doctor decided it wasn't happening fast enough and broke my waters, That was it I was flat on my back unable to move. 12 hours later - 12 hours of very strong contractions which were all over the shop timing wise (and tried to control with syntocinon) I was still 1cm. I had been awake since 6am the previous day, my right leg was swelling up rather alarmingly- ds1 was flinging himself from side to side and I demanded a section. I knew that I wasn't going anywhere and I knew that I wouldn't have been able to push a pea out let alone a baby. Section was lovely. Quick recovery.

2nd baby- another 98th centile head and low platelets again. The consultant recommended a c section. Which I had - and was awful. I had bad adhesions from the previous section (bladder and uterus stuck together)- but mainly no-one told me what was going on. I heard "quick call a consultant , get him here now he needs to be quick where is he" but everyone seemed to forget I was awake. When I aksed what was going on I got a pat on the head and told not to worry, VERY different from my first section when they told me what they were doing "ovaries, fallopian tubes- yep you're all present and correct we like to check while we have the chance".

Now expecting baby number 3 and quite frankly I am terrified. It's due new years eve so I'll probably go for another section as I don't trust the NHS to be able to deal with an emergency at a holiday period. And this baby will probably be 98th centile as well!

Some people link syntocinon with autism as well. Maybe coincidence but in our case out autistic child had the syntocinon- so there's no way I'd agree to that again. If I do go for VBA2C it's completely non-intervention. As soon as fiddling is needed I'll be requesting a section.

And to add to eveyone else- that sounds just awful willow2

I was also a long, failure to progress case with my first. Once it became obvious that I was not going to have the baby without quite a bit of intervention I made it clear that I would rather have a section than a high forceps delivery, to avoid the dreadful things that happened to willow2.

You do deserve a medal willow! A damn big, gold one!

I think very sadly that as a result of these new guidelines there will be more "Willows" around. Women damaged by forceps etc who should have been offered cs. The cost of Willow's natural birth in total - including repair, therapy etc - would pay for quite a few sections methinks. Let alone lifelong care for a damaged baby.

The government is clearly trying to save money hence the recent reports.

But can I clear something up Aloha. It is not a big fat lie that it takes 6 weeks to recover from a c/sec. I've had 3 to date (medical reasons) and the proper recovery period is actually longer than that. Yes, you can do lots of things before you were pregnant but the body takes a while to heal properly and its worth taking it easy for the longer term benefits. That doesn't mean that a natural birth doesn't have a similar recovery time.

After my first section I was out of hospital before (and in a lot less pain) than the woman who had been induced the same time as me. She'd had a forceps delivery

This is a very complex issue and does need full discussion. I think that many women believe that C/S is very simple, straightforward and totally safe. They must know the facts before they make a decision - there are risks involved. In the same way that there are risks involved with induction of labour. That should not be done 'on request' IMO. There should be reasons for induction and reasons for C/S. Now it may well be that there are psychological reasons why women want C/S or induction and they need to be respected.

However, I have seen complications at elective C/S where there has been bladder injury, massive haemorrhage and in fact a hysterectomy needed to be performed. All after a so called simple operation. I am not trying to scare monger but to point out that complications are possible. I have also seen babies admitted to SCBU with breathing difficulties after C/S.

I do think C/S should be done instead of difficult forcep deliveries. Forcep deliveries could be avoided more if women were not time limited in the second stage as still is the practice in a lot of places. If the fetal heart is fine then there should be more patience.

There needs to be more emphasis on reducing the induction rate and promting normality which will have an impact on the C/S rate. Until we can stop the unnecessary intervention, we will not reduce unnecessary C/S deliveries.

May I point out that although Willow2 is going through such a trying time she STILL manages to go to AT LEAST 6 birthday parties a day (sometimes more) Honestly Willow, you are always at parties!

It's true, my son has an infinitely better social life than I do!

It is an interesting debate but I really think NOONE has the right to belittle c-section. I had one, all fab, recoved very fast. But I spent the last 4 months of pregnancy terrified that I would have to go through a 'natural' birth as baby wrong position etc etc. A midwife actually joked with me and said if you don't move that baby you will have an extremly difficult time and need all the pain relief available! So how natural is that? In the end I was lucky and was given the c-section straight away. However, 3 friends who delivered at the same time ended up with emergancy sections all of whom had the most horrific time trying to deliver 'properly". In conclusion I would say it is eay to point out the negatives of a section - until it is the thing that saves you and your baby and if that means you electing for that choice, then it is YOUR choice and noone else's. Nature is an amazing thing everyone forgets qiuite how many women used to die in childbirth.

Haven't read all this message but started at the beginning and the 6 week recovery time after a c-section is certainly not propaganda - If you managed to drive before that time you were very lucky. I agree that ultimate body recovery is probably better but don't think c-section is the easy option - it certainly isn't. How would you feel if you missed the precious first moments of your child's life because you were out-of-it on drugs and then couldn't pick them up because of the pain. Certainly have a choice but know all the facts first.

It is an interesting debate but I really think NOONE has the right to belittle c-section. I had one, all fab, recoved very fast. But I spent the last 4 months of pregnancy terrified that I would have to go through a 'natural' birth as baby wrong position etc etc. A midwife actually joked with me and said if you don't move that baby you will have an extremly difficult time and need all the pain relief available! So how natural is that? In the end I was lucky and was given the c-section straight away. However, 3 friends who delivered at the same time ended up with emergancy sections all of whom had the most horrific time trying to deliver 'properly". In conclusion I would say it is eay to point out the negatives of a section - until it is the thing that saves you and your baby and if that means you electing for that choice, then it is YOUR choice and noone else's. Nature is an amazing thing everyone forgets qiuite how many women used to die in childbirth.

I had two sections and was obviousl lucky as I was driving at about 3-4 weeks. At six weeks, having been given the all clear from my gp I started an aquarobics class.....and I hadn't done anything like that in my life before and was very, very unfit.

I clearly remember walking down the corridor of the hospital and one of the other mums commenting on how well I was walking compared to her, and she had a normal delivery.

I also found that I recoverd quicker from my second, planned c-section than from my first emergency one. It seems to me that you recover a lot faster from the surgery if you haven't been deprived of sleep for two days and spent the better part of a day having contractions every 3 minutes.

Jeeling - er, what drugs are you out of it on? You normally have a section with a spinal block or an epidural, neither of which affect the mind! And if you are in pain during the first moments of your baby's life, then you are the victim of a hideous medical error. In fact you are completely numb from the chest down and totally pain free. So for the first moments of my child's life I was happy, excited, pain-free and wide-awke - ie not so exhausted by the rigours of labour that I wanted someone to take him away, as I have heard of many times from friends who had vaginal births.
And it is a big fat lie that it takes "at least" six weeks to recover (that is a direct quote by the way, not a paraphrase). Of course things are still changing internally, but so are they after a vaginal birth, or indeed a pregnancy, but 'recovery' implies feeling good, resuming normal activities and being pain free. In which case I was fine after a couple of weeks. So clearly it does not take "at least" six weeks. It may take six weeks for some people, but to make a blanket statement like that is just wrong.

I also wonder if when costing sections v vaginal birth the costs of repairs to women with tears, incontinence etc, plus the lifelong care of children who suffer oxygen starvation during birth are factored in as the hidden costs of vaginal birth. I don't know if they are, but I suspect they are not.
What I do find infuriating & frustrating is that there is so much emphasis on criticising women who request sections, instead of on providing/funding the changes in the NHS that might prevent sections for women who DON'T want them. I am also concerned that doctors will be so keen to make their targets that forceps deliveries will increase rather than decrease. And repairs for those won't be cheap or pleasant.

Aloha, I'm guessing that Jeeling was referring to the first 24 hours, when you're on the ward (some with their morphine drips - yet another postcode lottery!).

Jeeling, I'm not denying that c/sections aren't to be undertaken lightly, but as for the propaganda I don't happen to know anyone who has had a c/section (and who was able to drive under normal conditions) who was not driving by 6 weeks. That is not to say that it does not happen - but there are a reasonable number of women driving within that time. All of the doctors whom I have quizzed on this point put 6 weeks as an "outside" limit with an element of safety, rather than a minimum time limit.

And is it just me, or is anyone else having difficulty accessing the NICE report? Have read the guardian's reporting, but would prefer to read the original - doesn't seem to want to open for me....
The previous condoc did still seem to permit electives, though there had to be documented record that reasons were discussed and risks explained.