Are assisted deliveries more risky for baby than a c section?

[nutelladipper]

Just that really...
I'm meeting with a consultant on Friday to discuss birth options. I've had two assisted delivery one ventouse one forceps. Forceps was due to mild shoulder dystocia.

I'd prefer a c section after two fairly traumatic births. Risk of another shoulder dystocia and general fear of more bad tears/scars and more damage to my already painful and damaged coccyx.

I'm trying to prepare for meeting my doing lots of reading but most compare a c section to a natural simple delivery. Given the odds I suspect is have another assisted so wanted to know about the risks to baby?

I know I can obviously ask consultant but trying to prepare!

Thanks

"However I do not think she is mentally ill. And as someone who has mental illness issues I find the comment sickening and stigmatising."

Oh simmer down. One in three adults has had a mental health diagnosis, me included.

Amy Tuteur is a trained doctor who messages women who have lost babies at homebirths blaming them for their children's deaths. Only a psychopath would behave like that. She has a monstrous ego.

"I tend not to take her blog terribly seriously"

She is the 'go to' person on line for a huge and vociferous anti-natural childbirth movement.

Furthermore Amy Tuteur was trying to make the new information about bacterial colonisation of the baby from the mother's vaginal flora a diatribe against home births. It's nothing of the sort - it is just as applicable in a hospital birth, even a highly medicalised one. I believe the person who made the Microbirth film had a hospital birth.

Here here RedToothBrush. Armchair diagnoses of psychopathy are just completely inappropriate and stigmatising. Telling someone who has just disclosed MH problems to 'simmer down' is also patronising as fuck. Do people really think that if they have a mental health diagnosis themselves, nothing they have to say on the matter could possibly be problematic?

As for not taking Dr Amy's blog seriously, she certainly has her moments, but equally her criticisms of some of the more objectionable aspects of the NCB fringe are a useful antidote. I appreciate her calling out ableism where she sees it, for example.

The consultant midwife who was trying to convince me not to have an ELCS told me that if the safety of the baby was the only consideration, all children would be delivered by ELCS. All of the reading I have done supports that.

Provided it is carried out at or shortly before term, the serious risks of ELCS are all to the mother - bleeding especially. The baby is spared all of the oxygen starvation risks associated with VB - through getting stuck, placental abruption etc.

The lists given above that put VB first in terms of "safety" - well, I'd dispute anyway, but they certainly would factor in risks to the mother to have any chance of coming out that way.

If you're concerned about the death or long term disability of your child - if that is your paramount concern I mean - an ELCS is indisputably the best option.

Telling someone who has just disclosed MH problems to 'simmer down' is also patronising as fuck

Telling ANYONE that is patronising.

The woman is out to make money. That's all. She's the Katie Hopkins of the childbirth world. She makes money from being so extreme. That's about the level of it.

I do not think KH is mentally ill. I just think she sees her comments as being a business unique point of sale.