Why are so many women anti c-section?

[jivegirl]

Despite planning a peaceful waterbirth at home, I ended up having a very scary OP/ventouse delivery with my daugher nearly 2 years ago (delayed second stage, retained placenta, 3rd degree tear, plus internal tearing which had not healed after 6 months and required cauterising)

I have been offered a C-section and will see the consultant again to make my decision in just over a week. At present (35wks) bump is transverse, so the decision to have a section may yet be taken out of my hands. However part of me is secretly hoping the baby stays transverse so I don't have to justify having a section.

I can't understand why so many women seem to be anti-sections. It seems admitting a preference for a section is almost taboo.
I still get horrific flashbacks to delivering my daughter and can't think of anything worse than going through that again (my DP rates it as the most traumatic day of his life!! ) The thought of a calm, planned c-section sounds like bliss. Am I being naive?

I should also say that I will have excellent support from friends and family to help me cope with caring for an active toddler and a newborn in the weeks that follow - so I am sure I am luckier than many..

Would love to hear some opinions on this ladies!

Jivegirl - I think maybe for you (like me) it boils down to some sort of control over the situation - and no I am not saying that in a bad way.

I had 25 hour labour, failure to progress and a baby in distress that ended in an emergency c section (Dh almost didn't make it into the theatre it was that rushed)

2nd time round I chose an elective c section which was agreed when I was 21 weeks pregnant. I wanted to know how this one would turn out, to have some control over what my body went through. Even if I attempted a vbac there was no guarentee that I would have a vaginal delivery.

It was calmer and seemed to take forever which just shows how out of it I was the first time. the sheer relief of the first one stays with me, the loveliness of the staff for the second. They were both magical in their own way and I experienced labour so don't feel like I missed out by not pushing them out.

I have lots of friends who are stress incontinet, who have been re-cut and sewn back up and who have had surgery to correct botched vaginal deliveries.

"I think that those who want them should not have to endure being chastised for the desire"

Is it the 'too posh to push' thing that makes you cross?

"But I dilated very slowly. Tbh, I wasn't worried about the scar rupturing because I know that's rare, and I was sure I'd be able to do it myself the second time round. But after 24 hours it became apparent that he wasn't going to come out without a bit of help"

Can I just describe my third birth briefly? It involved 50-odd hours in ACTIVE labour (5cm at 10am Monday, baby born 4pm Wednesday. I spent 24 hours 'stuck' at 8cm). Luckily for me I had a very, very patient and skilled (and private) midwife. If I'd been in hospital for the majority of the labour (instead of just the end bit) I would have ended up with shed loads of interventions, including a c-section I suspect, as I was high risk (gestational diabetes) and wouldn't have been 'allowed' to carry on labouring that long - hospital protocols. I don't think the fact that I had complications in my labour means my body is 'crap' at giving birth. It got the job done - admittedly with a bit of help, but we got there and me and my baby were fine in the end. I think I did brilliantly!

Good for you, fabs.

I'm glad you were supported in your choice.

Why shouldn't those who chose otherwise be equally supported in theirs?

"I have lots of friends who are stress incontinet, who have been re-cut and sewn back up and who have had surgery to correct botched vaginal deliveries"

If you don't mind me saying, you probably have lots of friends who gave birth sitting on their arses, or after having had epidurals...... both of which things are hugely common in UK hospitals and both linked to higher levels of perineal damage.

And if we're going to discuss birth injuries - I know two people who have lost their wombs after c-sections (one nearly lost her life and her baby as well after her placenta grew through a previous c-section scar and attached itself to her bowel); I also know someone who ended up with a colostomy bag after the surgeon nicked her bowel during her c-section......

Not read all the thread, I'm one of those women who are up and showered minutes after giving birth, doesn't mean it's not traumatic and intensely painful especially first time around when you are told you are making a fuss when actually you are fully dilated and needing to push.

Anyway I watched a few poor women in hospital in the aftermath of a section and I wouldn't wish that on anyone it's not an easy option.

In saying that I think that if any woman for whatever reason whats a section she should have one and shouldn't need to justify it. Her body her choice how she brings her baby into the world.

"Why shouldn't those who chose otherwise be equally supported in theirs?"

Absolutely.

They should.

Given the NHS has enough staff and enough money to provide elective sections for healthy, low risk mums and not compromise the safety of everyone else at the same time, well, why not? I'd even pay another couple of quid a week on my taxes for the additional intensive care beds that would be needed for women suffering from post-operative complications like thrombosis (the major cause of maternal mortality in the UK today I think), PPH and infections.... Not forgetting the extra cots in SCBU of course - for the additional babies suffering from respitory difficulties after birth (much more common after elective sections). Oh yes - won't forget the problems with drug-resistent infections a few years down the line as all those hundreds of thousands of extra doses antibiotics make their presence felt. You can't bang the drum for freedom of choice in childbirth and not be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

Well, hey, fabs, how about all that one on one 'support' you received? Did you get that for free, too, at no extra cost to the taxpayer?

Would you have expected the NHS to pick up the tab for you and your baby had any complications arisen from your decision on how you gave birth considering your GD?

Because freedom of choice works both ways .

The way you chose to give birth was what you felt was right for YOU, fabsmum, and people respected your choice.

But you don't do the same for folks who chose differently from you. Funny, that .

Especially when you bring up the cost issue.

You know, the NHS funds a lot of not strictly medically necessary procedures I don't agree with.

But I'll be damned if I'll start preaching fire and brimstone at those folks just because they feel a different choice is what is best for htem.

Hmm, I'm starting to get the impression that you're anti-CS fabsmum
For what it's worth, DS1 was an emergency CS and he was absolutely fine.
DS2 was a vaginal delivery and he had very low apgar scores and was in scbu after his birth.
So, I quote: "Not forgetting the extra cots in SCBU of course - for the additional babies suffering from respitory difficulties after birth (much more common after elective sections)" isn't always the case.

I'm sorry, I havent read the thread but disagree with the 2nd poster who said it was more dangerous than giving birth naturally. I had an 'elective' section (NOT elective as I wanted a natural home birth but DS was breech so 'they' elected it!) Despite fighting it until the last minute I found it the calmest most relaxed experience. In comparison, my friend lost her baby through a natural birth and my SIL is physically and emotionaly scarred for life after her vaginal delivery and is unlikely to have another! I only know of 1 person (out of a good 15) who had a decent VB in our hospital and she seems to be the exception.
I am ttc #2 and will 'elect' for a cs for every next one! Sod being too posh to push - being able to arrange your child care, wax your legs, plan your matty leave is great! I would highly reccommend it!

I had 2 sections (1st cos of medical reasons, 2nd elective). I loved both of them, but the 2nd involved loads more pulling & pushing. The consultant actually elbowed my husband in the chest.

What was lovely with the 2nd one, though, was the long hospital stay afterwards. We really bonded. As my husband couldn't come in as mkuch because he was looking after DS1, I had long lovely days and nights, just me & Ds2. He really feels like he's all mine... which might not be healthy, but I love it.

Also, my DR allowed me to drive after 3 weeks. If you get your Dr's permission, you are covered on your insurance again. And the aftercare was no bother, I was walking after the 2nd section within 2 hours.

Despite myt positive 1st c-section experience, I still really wrestled over deciding how to have DS2, vbac vs another section. What (I think) made the decision for me was knowing that I might have to end up having an emergency section if I went the vbac route... The stories I've heard of emergency sections describe an experience far removed from the relative peace of an elective.

Good luck whichever you choose!

I had a 3rd degree tear first time around, and bowel trouble for 12 months afterwards

When i got pg with my ds, i just decided i would talk to the consultant and go with whatever they thought best - they thought a elective section was the best option.

Even now after almost 2 years since that section, the memories have not faded, i found an elective section horrible, my BP went through the floor while they were stitching me up and i almost lost consiousness (i for some reason thought i was dying), my ds was all grunty and had low oxygen levels and was very close to being carted off to the neonatal unit which was extremely worrying at the time, and my recovery was not good at all.

The pain getting out of that bed the day after, will stay with me forever, much much worse than the pain i got after my previous tear, i also ended up with infections inside and in my wound.

To me, having been through both a traumatic vaginal birth and a section, i feel i can give my opinion, i, tbh, preferred the 3rd degree tear! and how anyone can think an elective section is the "easy route" is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Pucca, sections aren't all like yours. Mine was nothing like yours.

Maybe not, guess i was just unlucky then, but i found there to be less complications with my vaginal delivery than my section, i regretted not going for the vaginal delivery 2nd time around, at least when i had my tear once the spinal had worn off after being repaired, i was up and about in not much pain.

I also hated not being able to see to my baby as i was stuck in the bed and had to buzz the MW to help me.

Oh and less dignity too, having the MW to help me shower.

Vaginal birth = the pain before.

Section = the pain afterwards.

I know which i prefer now.

Pucca, you found the vaginal birth easier, I found the section easier. It just goes to show that there's no right answer for everybody and everyone needs to make a personal choice based on their own personal circumstances.

Very true, but i remember posting asking about elective sections before i had mine, and with the replies i got i was not prepared at all for what was ahead of me, i got lots of "oh it was great, so relaxed" etc etc.

I just think both sides of the story should be heard.

Beautiful - I must admit I'm pro - CS but would take time to think about it as wonder if I would feel I was missing out if I didnt VBAC? Would I get the chance after 3, 4 etc??? But after weighing up the pro's cons I am of the same opinion - I could go for the vbac but end up with the E-cs

Having read a few posts now I am now slightly at Fabs mum - I pay a shed load of tax for wot I consider butt all. I had my CS early and 'elective' but luckily he didnt need SCUBU due to respiritory probs. Not all CS that are classed as 'elective' are actually that!
That said - Had he needed SCUBU I would have paid enough friggin taxes to cover it thankyou very much And having breastfed for 13 months and counting, there is no danger of my son draining your resources when it comes to "not forgetting the problems with drug-resistent infections a few years down the line as all those hundreds of thousands of extra doses antibiotics make their presence felt" Never had an infection and never had anti B's ta V much!

I have read through this thread and my comment would be that it is a pity some people believe that their choices are being questioned or 'judged' by others who chose or had to take a different path. I think this type of 'i know better than you' attitude is hugely detrimental and as we have seen here can be hugely divisive. Childbirth carries risks and each one of us will have different actual and perceived risks; no one has the 'same' experience and therefore it is impossible and unhelpful to impose a standard approach. My advice would be to listen to the experts, do a bit of research and listen to your gut instinct; ultimately what you want is a healthy baby and however you achieve that is a great result. I personally ended up having an emergency c-section following an induction and was just delighted that I had a healthy baby - he would have died if I had continued to give birth 'naturally' and so felt very positive about the c-section and had a good recovery experience. Equally, had I had had a vaginal birth which delivered a healthy baby, I would no doubt feel very positively about a vaginal birth.

"The way you chose to give birth was what you felt was right for YOU, fabsmum, and people respected your choice."

Actually expat I DID pay for my one to one care at home. I had an independent midwife.

One to one care wasn't generally available at my local hospital, except if you're a mum having an epidural.

As for the tax payer picking up the tab for my decision to have a homebirth had things gone wrong....

Well - my take on it was that things were LESS LIKELY to go wrong if I stayed at home with one to one care.

This is certainly true for most women who have homebirths - they are halving their chance of having c-sections and are increasing the chances of their baby staying out of SCBU, compared to low risk mums going into hospital.

In other words, though they're having one to one care at home, as a group they're probably saving the tax payer money in the long run.

"there is no danger of my son draining your resources when it comes to "not forgetting the problems with drug-resistent infections a few years down the line as all those hundreds of thousands of extra doses antibiotics make their presence felt" Never had an infection and never had anti B's ta V much!"

No - I was referring to the tens of thousands of extra doses of anti-b's that would have been taken by MUMS if many thousands of low risk mums had elective c-sections. All women having c-sections are given prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the chance of post-operative infection.

I, perhaps wrongly, thought expatinscotland was making a case for elective c-sections being made available on the NHS for low risk mums with no medical need of them. (by the way, I include primary and secondary tokophobia within the category of medical need).

The point I was making spottyshoes is that the NHS is at breaking point without enough midwives already. If there were 10's of thousands of extra cases of c-section because low risk mums were given the option to choose c-section without there being a medical need for it, it would make life very difficult for everyone else using the service. We'd have to put A LOT more money in, A LOT.

And Lyrasilvertongue - I'm not 'anti c-section'. I think c-section is a godsend if it's needed for a mum and baby to get through birth safely.

"So, I quote: "Not forgetting the extra cots in SCBU of course - for the additional babies suffering from respitory difficulties after birth (much more common after elective sections)" isn't always the case."

No - of course not. There will always be individual cases where babies born after vb need help and treatment. And of course the vast majority of all babies, born by cs or vb don't need to go to scbu!

But overall more babies born to low risk mums after elective c-sections need SCBU than babies born to low risk mums who have opted for a vaginal birth.

If we are going to require the financial cost of c-section to be justified, then I believe we need to apply the same logic to all NHS treatment. Why start with maternity?

Let's not give bypass surgery to fat people, unless of course they want to pay the bill. An let's not offer chmoe on the NHS to people who smoke. And by all means let's cut off fertility treatment to people who collect any working tax credits or any other benefits. Oh, and sports injuries, surely those are self induced. I mean you knew when you went out to play football that you might tear a ligament.

How bout we just bin the whole NHS and let everyone fend for themselves?

But DON'T suggest we start with maternity services.