42% of UK births are c-sections

[searchinghere]

Is anyone else surprised at this statistic? I’m sure it was only something like 20% when my now-teen was born.

Although I had noticed how so many of my friends/family members/colleagues having babies recently all seem to have had cesareans.

It looks as though the shift will only continue so potentially c-section will exceed 50% of births and be the more common mode of birth in a few years.

I think it’s really interesting! Will there be drive to try and push numbers down and increase vaginal births again? Or will it eventually become standard for most women to just book in for an elective section as standard and ‘attempting natural’ will be seen as a more unusual choice like home birth is currently.

@Hardhaton1 Unfortunately some are. One lady I know of opted for an elective C-Section for no other reason than she wanted to be back home in time to watch the start of Wimbledon on the TV.

I was very upset when my failed vbac left me with what they classed as an elective rather than emergency c section. I certainly didn't elect to have it, rather had no safe choice.
My first was a real emergency, no doubts about that.

Bullshit.
That might be what she told you not wanting to share the intimate details of her Medical history.
But it would be against the code of ethics if any surgeon carried out such a request, which they wouldn’t.

That sounds like a joke someone's made that you've taken seriously! It's impossible to know her/anyone's entire obstetric and medical history, there could be many details you aren't party to. Unless you were in fact her obstetrician who agreed to do the section for that reason but as you're saying that's not appropriate I doubt that.

True but im not sure whether outcomes are also improving. Also there are countries like Norway with much lower rates (15% or so) but better maternal mortality rates.

It was lame when l gave birth 2 years ago. Super helpful when l had twins, a c section and no husband as they sent him home 👍

The twins were both breech so not much choice. Plus l was 43 and they were IVF. I probably would have had caesarean anyway as l didn't especially trust the hospital. They were poor communicators with bad organisation skills through out antenatal and the birth. I had visions of a protracted induction is they weren't breach and then having to have an emergency caesarean

I had my first 30 years ago. He was posterior presentation and had the cord wrapped rightly round his neck. Twice the midwife made an excuse for his heart rate dropping badly and said it was due to a faulty monitor. The third time my dh intervened, went to the door and yelled that he wanted a doctor in the room and right now. The senior midwife appeared, identified the baby was in trouble and hit the red button.

I had time for one more push and managed to get him out with just a tear as the forceps were being got ready. He was purple and took an age to resuscitate and spent his first night in SCBU. I suffered a bladder prolapse as a result.

When I had dd, initially she was a planned section due to being breech but turned at the last minute. On the basis that I could not justify major surgery I went for a vaginal birth (the damage to me was already done) and she ended up being a successful induction. The birth was wonderful and deeply cathartic. However, I only agreed because I had consultant led care and a promise that I would be attended by an experienced midwife. In the event the Head of Midwives was present alongside the most wonderful midwife from Senegal.

My experiences were late 94 and 98 when we were supposed to be in the halcyon days of super duper care and a big initiative for women. With ds the care was crap, with dd it was superb but only because I had the experience to really put my foot down.

After dd was born I had my bladder prolapse repaired privately, the NHS didn't give a flying fuck about putting it right after a botched birth.

DD and DIL will be offered private maternity care, paid for by me and if they want an elective CSection, they will have our support.

There is a real issue relating to birth injuries arising from vaginal births and this is not properly acknowledged.

The World Health Organisation quotes caesarean rates in excess of 8-14% confer no benefit to maternal or neonatal outcomes.

Being born by caesarean increases the risk of asthma, allergies, crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, type 1 diabetes, leukaemia, among others. There’s a wealth of research ongoing. Having an emergency caesarean is protective of some of these, compared to an elective caesarean.

Caesareans are wonderful things to save the life of a baby and mother. But we’ve got it so wrong at the current rates. These 42% of women will be back having more babies, with greater risk of bleeding, placental problems and increased risks of still birth. We’ll see rates of maternal morbidity and mortality increase, the headlines will report it, and the blame will be laid at crap midwives and overweight and old pregnant women - rather than the litigation culture and lack of antenatal education regarding why choosing to have a caesarean without medical indication isn’t a banging idea.

Yes, both of my ELCS were ‘maternal request’ with medical reasons behind them.

I don’t see a downside really - efficient, cost-effective apparently, easing women’s recovery and avoiding people labouring for days on end for example. 4/5 of us in our household were born by c section (2 adults 3 kids) and we’ve had no ill effects 🤷‍♀️

Having too many CS is no healthier than having too few

if you are a person who through no fault of their own needed one - fine - that’s what they should be for

if everyone who had one needed one that suggests very poor maternal health in this country which should be causing an outcry

I wonder if it would save money if more births were elective sections. Mums who have sections only spend on average half a day longer after birth in hospital, and for electives, you skip the entire bit before, which obviously requires midwives, doctors and other resources.

Rather than many hours in pain and a slow labour at hospital, even slower inductions, than the possibility of interventions and then possible C-section, for my maternal request sections, I have my babies both times within 2 hours of arriving at hospital. In those 2 hours I needed some orbs and the various people came to talk to me, but not the intensive support that I'd need if I was in active labour.

With sections, they can be scheduled in, timed efficiently etc (for the hospital). It is also useful for parents to sometimes be able to schedule.

Virtually everyone ends up with a scar from childbirth, the question is where!

How we give birth is an intensely personal decision and I don't think we should be pressured either way. For me, my sections were wonderful births, full of joy and pain-free. Recovery was a doddle. I can't understand why anybody would put themselves through the protracted agony of childbirth for it. But others think I'm bonkers for choosing surgery rather than a natural process. And who knows, I could have been in the 10% of women that don't require stitching up after birth. Pretty unlikely though!

I don't get the obsession with vaginal births, we have happily medicalised everything else why not birth?

The people I know with serious birth injuries are all vaginal.

Elective C-sections are safer than problematic vaginal and EMCS.

My thoughts on this:

How does this correlate with the increasing rate of inductions (a third of births are induced now) - where further medical intervention is very likely.

No one seems to be questioning the rise in inductions - despite my observation being that they seem to be behind a lot of failed vaginal births, instrumental deliveries, emergency c-sections and birth trauma. And - now hospitals seem to be advising on induction at 40+5 rather than 41+5 - meaning even more and more women are being induced when well within the realms of normal gestation.

And secondly… I know many, many women who have elected for a c-section for a second birth following birth trauma. Usually linked to the above - induction dragged out over days, all the interventions you can imagine concluding in forceps or emergency c-section having been awake for days. Birth injuries, crap follow up care etc. Elective c-section does at least seem to provide a calm arrival into the world, without all the uncertainty of the above.

I’ve told my midwife if they want to induce me again, I want a c-section. Putting myself through that absolute horror show again (and multi-month recovery) when there is an alternative… no thanks. I don’t believe the hospital is necessarily looking out for patients best interests at times in maternity services - it’s about cost (and ideology!).

Does anyone here look at research and statistics? Does everyone really live their life going ‘Aunty Jane was fine when they cut through seven layers of her abdomen. Everyone should be like Aunty Jane because she was fine’

Please all do some research before you spread these misinformations to your daughters.

Birth is risky. There’s no easy route out. You take risks either way. But the gamble on vaginal birth can give you the biggest payout, and the gamble on caesarean can give you the biggest loss. I know what gamble I’d take.

Most people who had electives I know (including me), were due to medical reasons. I know two people who chose to have one and both were after horrendous vaginal births. It’s the woman’s body and I believe she has a right to choose how she wants to deliver her baby where possible (home, hospital, vaginal, pain relief, section, etc.).

@MidnightPatrol induction and birth trauma are very relevant to this rise. There’s money and drug companies behind induction. All very good points.

I don’t understand this? I did lots of research and didn’t come to the same conclusions you have? What are all these biggest payoffs and biggest losses you are talking about? You’re giving birth, not having a night out at a casino. Please stop spreading this misinformation. You cannot say one is better than the other without taking into account personal information. There is no one size fits all.

As far as I was aware, opting for an elective c-section is not anymore risky nor costly to the NHS than attempting a vaginal birth is.

Out of the 10 or so women in my baby massage class (so babies born within the last few months), three of us had c-sections - all of which were emergency.

@Mumbletoomuch thank you for your posts. When maternity units are not just well staffed, but staffed with Midwives who are respectful, courteous and who listen to women and there is adequate one to one care, with pain relief and Consultants present in maternity units, and also acceptable standards of post natal care where women are able to recover in a quiet and dignified way with excellent midwifery and nursing care available at all times, your arguments would have a little more agency.

Until that happens my future grandchildren will have the opportunity to be born under consultant care and privately to afford my dd and dil excellent standards of ante natal, delivery and post natal care.

Surgery always carries extra risks but for me the biggest risks of CS are to the baby

even 20 years ago they knew schizophrenia was much more common on CS babies

it strikes me as odd that parents are generally much more risk adverse and yet are happy to increase risk to baby in this way

Can I remind you of the Shrewsbury maternity scandal where there was a culture of keeping c-section rates low and hundreds of babies died or were left with brain damage.

I wouldn’t bank on it, my experience of private healthcare was laziness that start watching TV whilst ignoring buzzers.

I am sorry. Can you share where, and did you complain?

Can you link to the research?