High rates of intervention?

[LorlieS]

The C-Section rate is 40-something percent in my local NHS Trust. This seems remarkably high when considering labour and birth are in essence natural processes? Why might it be? What are rates like nationally I wonder?

I've had 8 pregnancies and 3 births. First birth - hospital induction (in hindsight should have declined). Second birth - "normal" delivery in hospital. Third birth (decade after second!) - "normal" delivery at home with no intervention (no internal exams, natural delivery of placenta etc) with an Independent Midwife.

@CormorantStrikesBack I know there's evidence re continuous monitoring increasing chance of Section? I had an IOL and then epidural with my first as 10 days overdue (declined with next pregnancy) and not once did they beforehand did they explain to me what this would mean in terms of having to have continuous monitoring, fact I would have decreased mobility etc.
I panicked when they put the straps on me and the monitor on as I had no idea what they were doing and baby's heartrate went through the roof. Consultant called. I asked for monitoring to stop but they said no.
I would have declined both induction and IOL had I been fully informed.

It’s an interesting point that a previous poster made about abdominal surgery that wasn’t previously available and is now. I, along with three other women I know had abdominal surgery to the uterus and therefore required a section as pushing had a high chance of splitting the uterus due to the previous surgery. In our cases, the initial surgery was to become pregnant in the first place.

My section was the greatest experience of my life. It was such a magical moment and if I got pregnant again I would have another by choice (I would probably be recommended one anyway, but I would definitely request one).

It will depend on other factors. Where I had my children had higher rates of intervention they also saw all the complicated pregnancies within a large area as they are the socialists for a large area and therefore the stats are skewed.

@LorlieS my baby's heart was being monitored when I had the prolapse. It was the thing that gave the clue that it had occurred as everyone in the room heard the heartbeat slow then stop. How lucky I was that the heartbeat was being monitored.

You continue to astound me with your views that the many many medical resources that keep babies and women safe cause harm more than good. I agree totally with a PP that your views come from a place of luxury. You know, however much you espouse the advantage of a home birth, the NHS with all its resources would have scooped you up and done its best to save your baby had it all gone wrong. I think of all those women who went before us who has no such luxury and would have done anything for the medical intervention options you criticise.

@ilostmyhearttoastarshiptrouper They don't "come from a place of luxury". Had midwives not performed unecessary interventions (and without informed consent) my son would not have a hearing deficit. I hear what you are saying about necessary intervention, but do you not see that some intervention is entirely unecessary and perhaps not done with best interests of mother and/or baby in mind?

• Yes. Which is why i don’t understand why the NICE intrapartum guidel8nes say “it is not associated with a longer first stage of labour or an increased chance of an unplanned caesarean birth” when talking about epidurals.

I suppose if they want to be precise it isn’t the epidural which raises the risk, it’s the ctg. but of the only reason for the ctg is the epidural then surely the causing factor is the epidural? 🤷‍♀️. I think the NICE guidance is badly worded.

and you should have been better informed,the nice guidance talks about this specifically.

@ilostmyhearttoastarshiptrouper Also, had you requested a home birth you would have been advised this was not the safest option for you specifically. I could be wrong but think you said the prolapse was:

1. With your first baby
2. Baby was expected to be big

Also, as a midwife on here said, your labour was prolonged so you'd have been advised to go to hospital before delivery. None of these risk factors applied to me, therefore a home birth could be safely considered. And yes, for low risk pregnancies I make no apology at all for espousing the advantages of home birth. 100% recommend!

@LorlieS it was my second baby where I experienced a cord prolapse. My first was the long labour/episiotomy. My second- I barely experienced labour at all as she was delivered under general anaesthetic.

I don't think we should be trying to reduce the numbers of c-sections and inductions without first funding out why there is an increase. Because if an increase in c-sections and inductions is because women want them then that's fine. Although we do need to do something about managing the increased demand. Women don't all want the same things. There are women on this thread who chose an epidural early on. For me personally I wanted to avoid it until I was forced to have an emergency c-section because not being able to feel/move my legs (especially with the section when I couldn't see them either) was so terrifying, I would rather have the pain any day. Both are completely valid choices though and women should be allowed to choose within reason.