Why is everyone so anti elective c-section?

[Gangle]

I'm only 7 weeks pregnant but am sure I want an elective c-section. I've read extensively around the subject and think I'm well informed on the pros and cons of elective c-section v VBAC but it seems there is so much stigma attached to elective c-sections and that people will do/say anything to attempt to dissuade you from having one. Just wondering why there isn't more respect for your wishes about how you want to give birth.

"If you have a phobia about giving birth then surely you should get treatment for it before you become pregnant?"

Yes, but the treatments don't always help. I saw a counsellor and did loads of research/reading about childbirth and so on - everybody said to me that when you become pregnant your body will take over your mind and you will somehow cope, which is why I decided to try getting pregnant - but sadly my phobia didn't go away. Why should I be made to miss out on having a child because of this? That's a little like saying that a child who breaks its leg falling out of a tree shouldn't be treated on the NHS because it was the child's own fault!

Also, I don't think the OP actually gave specific reasons, she just said it's not for her, which could mean any number of things. So it's not fair to judge her on that...

What about people who eat sweets - should we refuse them NHS dental treatment?

Kittywitts, I think your attitude is pretty appalling - you're basically saying the woman has no choice in how she gives birth and that she has to give birth naturally no matter how against it she is. I think that's pretty barbaric. This is the 4th richests country in the world and the NHS throws money away on other things and on people much less deserving.

Labour and giving birth is the easy part of parenting. If you're turned off by that now, Gangle, you've got a loooonnngggg road ahead of you!

Message withdrawn

"It sounds to me that she simply fancies having a section, which I think is really appalling."

Well Gangle can speak for herself but I'm sure no one approaches the decision about how they give birth in such a banal way as to say "oh I just fancy this or that". We all have lots of different reasons and contexts for making the decisions we do.

And why is is so appalling anyway? I respect other people's decisions to have home births etc but would personally favour a more medical/interventionist approach if I gave birth again. Why can't we live and let live?

oh yeah, totally agree. The pain of shoving them into the world is like a pinprick compared to the next few years!

Oh, yes, DD1 the stroppy 4-year-old struck again this morning, Pruni, after a night of DD2, the incredible puking machine .

My mother had a terrible time with my birth and I would not have a sister if her doc had not offered her an elCS. I can see that in some cases a woman might be best served by an elCS if she cannot get her head around a VB. And with the best will in the world we don't all have access to the right kind of therapy to deal with these issues, especially if the fear doesn't rear it's head until after conception.

However, I STRONGLY recommend counselling to deal with fear about birth to enable women to make a more informed birth choice. I will defend a woman's right to the birth of her choice, if it is an informed decision, even if it's against my principles.

I am an out and out VBACtivist and make no apologies for this!

Right, as for why not to have an elCS without a good medical reason or even a valid psychological one:

Risk to baby at birth
Risk to baby long term, including respiratory illness.

Jean Sutton, of OFP fame, says that in her 45+ year experience she has come to recognise the elCS babies as children and adults, they are angry people! (Having been floating quite peacefully and then plucked out into the cold and light and had things stuck down their throats to clear the mucus that labour would have gently squeezed out) This also ties in with Michel Odent's theories on Primal Health and that during pg and birth what our babies experience affects their future. We don't give enough thought to our babies future adulthood

Risk to mum at birth. It is MAJOR abdominal surgery. VB is statistically safer than elCS which is statistically safer than emCS, but by teeny tiny amounts!

Risk to mum in future PG

Risk to each future foetus.

And much more I haven't time to go into now. www.caesarean.org.uk/ gives you info about Caesareans and also VBACs.

I would also consider that the Cesarean process needs to be adjusted to serve the baby rather than the surgeons scheduling, time and costs 'Natural' CS

So Gangle, if you're still reading this thread, continue with your research and reading but please find someone qualified to talk you through your fears so that you are making an informed decision. I wish you a healthy, happy pg and the right birth for you and your babies (cos it affects all future babies).

I work in the NHS, and yes there are inefficiencies (or "throwing money away", as you so charmingly put it, Gangle), but you are in no position to say who is deserving or not, much less to say that you are more deserving than others. What arrogance!

As for the idea that you pay 40% tax, so you should get what you want- absolutely not! For a start, only a small proportion of the tax you pay goes on healthcare. If for example, you had just had a heart transplant, and were on benefits, as you were unable to work, do you think you should be sent a bill for the amount of money the NHS had spent on you over and above your "fair share"?

Elective section is a major operation with significant risks to baby and mother. Of course there are times when the risks of vaginal delivery are higher (in my case we both would have died without it), but it shouldn't be handed out to all those who want it, just because that's what they want. There is a very grey area around elective section for "psychological reasons"- at what point does a fear turn into a phobia? I don't know. Someone has to decide how cost-effective a treatment is- if they didn't, we would all be paying higher taxes than we do already.

Then, Gangle, if it's 'not for you', why don't you go out and buy the birth you want - csection?

Sounds like you're well placed to do so.

There's a lot of stuff that's 'for me' that I don't expect the NHS to pay for and that I consider would be more beneficial for me, like dental implants, for example.

Tissy, I can apply the same comment to you - you are in no position to say that I'm less deserving than others! What if I only have only one child by c-section? Surely that's cheaper than having 2 or 3 naturally? If we're saying cost is the only factor here? As usual, this thread has descended into the usual witch hunt for those who dare to say they want an elective c-section - what a surprise! Turns out I named the thread very appropriately!

I see a lot of folks here trying to help you come to terms with what you fear about giving birth, Gangle, and sharing their experiences both good and bad.

You seem to have a lot of issues regarding childbirth and if you think having a csection will make everything better, please think again.

Gangle: "you're basically saying the woman has no choice in how she gives birth and that she has to give birth naturally no matter how against it she is." - how can you be "against" natural childbirth. I would defend anyones right to choose (as long as they are prepared to pay for it maybe?) but I just simply don't understand this viewpoint. How can you be against the biological mechanism through which all mammals are designed to come into this world? Why would you want to get pregnant and have a baby if you felt that? If there are specific things that make you feel like that maybe some counselling etc would be beneficial? Or if you are adamant (and earn enough to pay that much tax) have your baby privately where no one will question your choice or complain about the cost and there will be staff that have time to make sure your c section is done well and you have plenty of help afterwards.

"This is the 4th richests country in the world and the NHS throws money away on other things and on people much less deserving"

I didn't say you did not deserve a section, Gangle, I said that there is a grey area around whether section is necessary for psychological reasons.

You, however, said that the NHS throws away money on people much less deserving- you don't specify what sort of person is much less deserving than you, would you care to elaborate?

xpats + tissy - I agree that if women want elective caesareans for reasons aside from serious medical or psychological illness - then they should definitely pay for the operation.

Interested in yr post Klaw - I'm not medically qualified but isn't natural birth often quite stressful to baby (emerging red and screaming with mishapen head - stress signs such as meconium in birth fluid etc etc)??

OK so it's just one person's experience but my c-section was really calm and lovely. DD emerged peaceful and happy and so far, eats well and sleeps well and no sign of anger! Bit of a generalisation to say that all people born by c-section are angry surely!!

plastic surgery, people being hospitalised after binge drinking . . .

well ..the odd 4yr old dd strop about getting dressed . but not unusual degree of anger iyswim

Gangle - if you are frightened about giving birth (and I was as many TV programmes present giving birth naturally as very painful and scary) you could try Hypnobirthing - and Pregnancy Yoga (this will help with toning up ready for the birth and the classes I did focused on pelvic floor excercises which should help with prevention of incontinence)- and there is a nice book called The Gentle Birth Method which explains why so many women end up with intervention. I tried this mixed approach and refused to hear any negative birth stories and had a pain free and intervention free birth. The problem with giving birth today is that it has becomed very medicalised and although I support intervention when needed I don't think the psychological aspect of birthing is really considered.

The point about the NHS spending money is a valid one. Why should more money than necessary be spent, especially as so many wards do not have enough money and staff are already stretched? I have worked in the NHS and apart from the fact that it is not good to spend more time in a hospital then necessary, there is increased risk of infections etc but many staff feel that on a busy ward it is very sad turning an urgent case away because someone who doesn't really need to be there is filling a bed.

"plastic" surgery is usually necessary. Cosmetic surgery is only available on the NHS after assessment by a psychologist (in this region at least.

Binge drinkers, smokers, obese people, drivers who crash their cars, footballers....we could argue till the cows come home about whether the NHS should fund these. Someone, somewhere will be making choices on behalf of all of us. We pay our taxes, we elected the government, we live in this country, we're stuck with it.

If you bang on enough doors, and make enough fuss, you will probably manage to persuade someone to do your elective section for you.

It's a longish thread, I'm sorry, I've skimmed. Also apologies for the length of this.

I had an elective c-section due to a medical condition that means I can't give birth vaginally. I didn't want to share that with a friend so told her just that I was having an elective c-s. She spent weeks telling me I wouldn't bond with the baby, that it was major surgery, a lot of the things mentioned below: my stomach would never be the same, recovery time was slower. The most hurtful was that I wouldn't bond with the baby. I've had a lot of operations in my life and wasn't remotely afraid of another.

As it happens, the operation was very easy (I'm used to general anaesthetics) and I was taking nothing more than Advil for pain relief the next day. Nine months later, I haven't exercised, but my stomach is flat and toned and my husband can punch it jokily, the way he used to before I got pregnant. I have a lot of much uglier scars. But again, I'm a bit of a surgery veteran, so that doesn't mean all women will find it an easy op.

What I want to say is there are a lot of scary things you're told about c-s that aren't, in my opinion, true. Like the op, I was aware of a horrified response to the perceived vanity or frivolity of opting for this procedure. I really believe women aren't casually making these decisions because they want tight vaginas. It's not helpful to presume we understand another woman's reasons for choosing any birth method - home or hospital, birthing pool or c-s.

Having said all of that, I wouldn't recommend a c-s to anyone just because I found it easy, because I had some problems that were probably exacerbated by my c-s. First of all, my baby was born smaller than she would have been naturally, because you're booked in at least a week before you're due. Because the baby's lungs aren't squeezed, the way they are with vaginal birth, the baby can have problems breathing at the moment of birth. This happened to mine. All very easily dealt with - she was pumped full of air immediately and breathing seconds later. But that procedure is associated with a higher risk of difficulty breastfeeding. That still means it's by no means certain, and the chances are there'll be no problems. But I had the problems. And my tiny baby's mouth was too small, and my milk didn't come in for ages, which was again due to the c-s, I think. On the other hand, there were so many factors not related to the c-s that made breast feeding difficult. I could talk about my scary and unpleasant maternity department for ever. But the c-s was a very plausible factor. I was very miserable about this for a long time.

For the baby, the healthiest way of being born is an uncomplicated vaginal birth. But there are complications, and a c-s is pretty safe option. I agree loudly with everyone who is telling you to do research. It's an important decision, and you don't want to regret it. And see how you feel later in your pregnancy, you don't have to decide now.

Gangle - you asked in your tile why people are anti elective c-section. You got answers - not necessarily the answers you owuld have liked, but you go the answers to your question.

It is a major operation, with possible detrimental consequences for both mother and child. That is not to say that there are not occasions when an elective s-section is the ost appropriate choice: when something has been idenitifed in advance that affects the risk parameters, eg full placenta previa, breech, some other physiological reason, HIV positve mother, etc and yes, in some occasions, the mother's profound fear of giving birth.

But the sort of c-section you are talking about is a choice - and it has costs. You will no doubt get one if you shout enough about it - but it will be diverting resources away from where they could be more usefully spent (unless you do end up in one of the categroeis above)

I am also a higher rate tax payer, who has paid many, many thousands over the last 20 odd years. I don't count up how much I have contributed, becasue I don't see my taxes in that way. I see it as investment in the health of the nation - I can afford to pay more, so I do.

ha ha ha ha, Gangle, are you honestly trying to say that because you paid £35k in tax last year you think you're entitled to a c section? Really? It's a specious argument I think.

I also think we're (people in general) entitled to have a view on how c sections are offered. Plenty of us don't think birth is ALL about 'choice' - it's about safety (and a section is NOT AS SAFE as vaginal birth although sometimes yes, it is medically necessary) and all sorts of things but you're not buying a pashmina here, choice isn't the only consideration.

I think you need to examine why you're so scared of normal, vaginal childbirth.

In my view 'don't fancy childbirth much' (as opposed to genuine phobia/trauma/medical reasons) shouldn't entitle a woman to a section.

Countingthegreyhairs, babies are designed for birth. Their heads are mishapen because the skull bones are not fused in order that they may overlap each other thus making the head a tad smaller to fit through the birth canal. The shaped head may get more defined the longer it spends in the canal. And very often poor support during labour and lack of guidance by the very people we naively expect to be experienced in childbirth ensures that women like Gangle and many 2nd timers to boot are terrified. We are being let down by the system which has far too few good mw like Mears and far too many protocols which do not save enough more lives but increase risks of further intervention! Sorry as a VBACer I do tend to get on my soap box and there's never enough time in the day....

I merely mention a very experienced MW's theory because it intrigues me and I can see logic in it. Of course, not everyone will fit to this, as we are all individuals, and those with very good parents will not suffer the same anger tendancies as others. There needs to be much more research into this before we might know if this is a valid theory but I do have to wonder considering the rising crime rate and rising mental health problems...

adn I think the section rate is now at 25% - I really don't believe that 25% of women NEED a section, I think other factors as another poster describes (litigation etc, medicalisation of childbirth) may well apply.