Caesarean for "stupid" reasons?

[GloriaInEleusis]

Following on from this thread, I just wondered how many people have caesareans for stupid reasons?

I've had two, one crash and one planned. Neither was for a stupid reason.

ooooo.... so you have a pristine fanjo, do you? I'll have to ask DH to rate mine and let you know where it ranks.

what counts as a 'stupid' reason?

Beats me. Can't think of one.

my stupid reason was I wanted one and it's my body. How stupid.

That's not stupid. That's assertive. And that's a good quality isn't it. Men who are assertive are praised and promoted, aren't they?

I was born by c section and my two were by c section also because of being breech and so rooted down that anyother way would have been to risky... Oh and there are 16 months between both so risk of scar rupture with DD2......

I guess some people would say that a 'stupid' reason would be to have major surgery if there was no medical or mental health (i.e an extreme fear of vaginal birth.)indication to.

Some people would say that me23. I would say that their reasoning is stupid, actually. My CS was one of the nicest experiences of my life whereas my sister's VB was one of the worst of hers and she's still living with the consequences.

Honestly wish "some people" including some elements of the medical profession, would get on with letting women make their own decisions about what to do with their own bodies.

Rumour has it that some stars schedule a c section at 8 months plus to avoid the last few weeks of baby weight. Now THAT'S a stupid reason and I don't suspect that many MNers would argue otherwise...

i gave birth twice NOT via a section. and i rate my fanjo as pristine, ta very much.

ribena I'd be surprised if many drs would countenance that

i am endebted to the surgeon and team who delivered me a health live birth baby - nothing else matters.without it baby would have died as result of fetal distress. call it "stupid" i call it clinically necessary life saving surgery.

I wanted a c.section for a "stupid reason", ie fear of getting a third or fourth degree tear.

I got one for a "proper reason", ie pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome at 32 weeks.

I'd happily have another .

I had to have an emergency CS and my only regret is that I wish it had been a planned one. My body my choice. And frankly i wish I'd been given a tummy tuck as well. (although I don't honestly expect NHS to pay for that).
Why does it bother anyone else how we choose to give birth? I couldn't care less if anyone chooses to have their baby in a teepee with a bunch of sage instead of an epidural, why should anyone give a toss if anyone chooses a CS? Honestly, I don't care if people choose a CS to keep their frigging ladygarden intact, or to stop stretch marks. Bloody good idea and if only I'd thought of it first.

I'd say having it early to avoid last few weeks is just a poisonous mysonginistic myth, elective sections just normally are scheduled earlier to ensure it takes place safely before labour, otherwise it becomes more of an emergency situation. I am having an elective section this time (GOd, I'm so selfish and 'stupid' and clearly should never have got pg in the 1st place, according to the other thread, as I'm not prepared to go through another vaginaly delivery), and the doc has already said it'll prob. be scheduled 2 weeks before edd. Maybe I should push it forward by another couple fo weeks and get a tummy tuck to boot, just to piss everybody off?

ernest you are right about it being a myth. Along with women who do it for "convenience" so that they can still fit in their gym sessions and pedicures or whatever. Big myth. And anyway, heaven forbid that anyone should have any choice about this.

well, meandmymonkey, it is an issue because a c.s costs the NHS a lot more than a vaginal birth. so that impacts on all users of maternity services. an elective section should take place at 39 weeks ideally to reduce the risk of breathing difficulties for the baby....

i had one c.s for failure to progress, which was entirely avoidable, and one v.b . fanjo is pristine whereas areas of my tummy are still numb 8 years later

ernest - congratulations on your impending birthyes i agree push (pardon the pun) it forward and get a wee nip and tuck and st tropez tan too - cos you are worth it

Camilla, chicken, you are right, sorry, i was being rather flippant. My point is simply that i don't think women should be judged for how they choose to have their baby.. but yes, I do completely take your point about nhs resources.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti any kind of birth at all, it's just that I think any woman's reason for her choice is a valid one.
And I still want a tummy tuck .

good idea, hadn't thought of the tan. maybe I can arrange to have my nails done while they stitch me up. dh can hold the baby after all, can't he?

Camilla that's a good point (I had my cs privately fwiw). However, I do wonder if the NHS has factored into its costings the ongoing costs of dealing with failed vbs compared with elective css. I'm thinking of tears, repairs, and incontinence as well as probs caused to babies by failed vbs.

I'm not trying to be controversial here - I just suspect that they give the costs of one procedure over the other without taking into account long term issues.

FWIW my dr told me the order of safety is:

1. VB without intervention
2. Elective CS
3. VB with intervention (ventouse, forceps)
4. Emergency CS

50% of women aiming for outcome number 1 will end up with outcome number one. 25% will end up with 3 and 25% with end up with 4.

On that basis, your chances of achieving the safest form of delivery if you go for option 1 are roughly 50:50. That's (partly) why I decided to go for the second option - to avoid the chances of ending up with the worst option. Also, as so many VBs end in intervention, I assume the average cost of a VB is higher than the quoted price of an ideal VB.

ernest - gosh yeas!let him hold you dont want to snap yer acrylics after all hun