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.

Yes, and I'm sorry for the lack of clarification. I used the 1 in 10 because it was true but of course it is a skewed statistic. My point being that if it were 3 it could have been 5 etc.

Of course it is absolutely true that there is no point in educating pg women if all their wishes and plans are discouraged and ignored by overstretched maternity staff.

FWIW, I am not actually against women choosing to have an elective CS. Their birth, their choice. I do think that fewer would make that choice if their were less horror stories because those that wanted to and were able to have a straightforward VB were helped to do so.
Everyone wants to see a reduction in the amount of emergency CS needed though.

what does bother me is the implication that women who have not had children, or have all had natural deliveries assume that when you have a section you are deviod of feelings / love.

When I had DD, I had bleeding at 12 weeks and had to wait til 14 weeks for them to scan me - I spend two weeks in fear I'd lost her.
Not long after the scan - I was exposed to fifth disease, I had to wait two awful weeks to see whether I'd been exposed as a child and therefore was not at risk of a miscarriage.
I had to go on monitoring several times as DD moved very little and all times I'd been monitored she hadn't moved for two days, and only one movement picked up on the monitor. I therefore kept having to go back and have scans etc.
Two months before my due date, my blood pressure shot up, I was monitored daily until the day of my section - at the time trekking up to the hospital to see consultants re turning / sections / further monitoring.
I had the section and DD wasn't breathing and I FELT so much, despite the medication and despite not pushing her out myself, and when they gave her to me (original score was only 3 so she needed some help) I really felt I would die with the amazement she was actually there, that I had bought her into the world sucsessfully. It did not matter to me that it was via the skilled hand of a doctor, or under medication, what mattered was how I felt, and I felt lots.

What bothers me greatly is that misconception that some women have that women who have a section dont feel that "rush of love".

cushioncover I'm not sure if this is correct but if the csec rate is broken down into all the different types I think the highest number of electives is for repeat csecs after an initial emergency cs. Suggesting that the best way to reduce elective rates is by reducing emergency. I think it's in the NICE report.

Elf, completely agree with you. That rush of love is such an amazing thing- mother nature at its best and I've had it with both vaginal and Caesarean births. It was probably the strongest with my first child (heavily medicalised vaginal birth) but that was only because I had never had a baby before. It's so amazing when you look at them and think "my God it's a baby!" and then they just need and depend on you so much. Lovely.

I agree about the rush of love. I had two caesareans and could not have loved both my babies more at the very moment of birth, not possible. So maybe those hormones come out with a caesarean too. Or those feelings of love are in the heart as much as the hormones.

I have never heard anyone express that, ELF.
It's very sad that you have encountered this. As I understand it, the rush of love/bonding does not happen instantly in some cases regardless of the method of delivery. For many mums it may take a few minutes/hours/days whatever.

FWIW, with my 1st child, it hit me in the face immediately, instantly. With my 2nd, it took me about an hour to feel the rush. I can say with absolute certainty that within hours I loved them both equally.

I have to say I've never heard that implied either ELF.

Anyone spouting that kind of rubbish would have to be highly ignorant. Surely it can't be a commonly held view?

I've not heard it, but I think a poster earlier mentioned how her friend had had different experiences with the 'rush of love' so maybe some people do feel differently depending on the type of birth. However I do not think that is a reasonable assumption to make on the majority of mothers.
FWIW, I found bonding with DD incredibly hard, still think now sometimes that I ahve a better relationship with DS and that it comes easier, and I also think that was partly to do with my birth, that was the trauma of the birth though, not the type of birth, IMO.

I've had two VBs and never a 'rush' of love. Bonding (or falling in love with my babies) was a quiet, gradual (in the sense of opening up new facets all the time, bit like a flower opening ), gorgeous process. ds2 felt sort of intangible, almost 'not mine', for a good week after his birth - but in a lovely, close way.

Tbh, my main focus immediately after both births was to remember the exact time of birth, as everyone else in the room was too focused on other things to bother. Doctor: 'he's perfect' Me: '10.23, 10.23...'

i agree w/berolina and mckenzie.

i gave birth to DD2 on all fours, and my body just wanted to stay in that position until after the placenta was out.

i wasn't pressured to hold DD2 right away against my chest, just to go with what my body felt, and my body wanted to stay up a bit, helping get that placenta out.

soon enough, i wanted to turn round and have a shot of DD2, but with both girls the bond wasn't a rush at all.

i fail to see what mode of birth has to do with this.

i mean, do we tell adoptive mothers they won't bond with their children because they didn't give birth to them vaginally and have them naked against their chests breastfeeding right away?