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.

Yes I’m not sure how realistic it would be to try and lower rates.

I just find it very interesting what this may mean for birth culture in the UK in coming decades. Could elective cesareans just become the default mode of birth eventually? When I had my DC that would have seemed unthinkable but looking at the statistics now, I think it’s a very real possibility.

Better care in labour would help reduce sections. I felt really pushed to have an induction when the increased risks were only slight but it’s just policy to have induction if you go overdue with diabetes. I don’t know if they were under staffed but I was left alone a fair bit on the prolactin drip and I’m sure that’s not supposed to happen. It felt like I was being tortured. Contractions came to fast too strong baby got stuck so I had an emergency section. A more natural progression in an environment I felt cared for may have had a different outcome.

one of my previous vaginal births I was left alone for hours and they were too busy to check me. Had the baby head out before they found staff for me. The labour itself was not bad at all but the treatment at the hospital was traumatic.

I will opt for a planned section if I ever have another child. Not because I feel there is a medical need but because I refuse to go through labour with such poor care ever again.

My guess is that a genuine change to default ELCS wouldn't happen without change in the point at which maternal request CS is offered. Currently that's 39 weeks if you have no indication other than preference. As well as premies, where women are less likely to be exercising much choice, there's always going to be a cohort of women who go into labour from 39-37 weeks. Probably at least some of those women will prefer to pursue a vaginal birth when it appears to be progressing well instead of choosing an EMCS, even if their first choice was ELCS well before onset of labour.

But I do think there probably won't be a default any more, particularly as it doesn't look like the birthing population will get younger any time soon. Maybe the rise of WLIs means there'll be fewer obese mothers, perhaps? That could have an impact.

I'll need to add to the elective c section statistics if I get pregnant again (but doubtful, because there might be too much damage from the first c section)

I was given no choice and had to have a GA for my first C section. If I'm able to have a second baby I'll need to have an elective, as it's the only way I know I'll be awake. I wouldn't risk a VBAC knowing there's a chance I could end up with another GA in an emergency.

I have heard many women say that based on all the horror stories there are about how poor the care is in maternity services these days, they chose to have an ELCS as they thought it would be a safer method of delivery for the baby i.e there was a higher chance of her going home with her healthy (and alive) baby if it was born via section.

It’s definitely problematic that if you don’t naturally go into labour by 40 weeks, you’re straight on the induction pathway now.

Really they should be able to monitor you more, if really concerned about the health of the placenta etc after this point.

I had an EMCS in December after a six-day failed induction; DS’ heart rate plummeted twice and I was probably too exhausted to push by that point anyway as I’d been contracting for the entire six days. I would have an ELCS if I decided to have another child as I can’t even begin to contemplate putting myself in that kind of pain again, not to mention losing every shred of dignity I had!

I had an infection in the wound and was readmitted when DS was 5 days old for IV antibiotics. I also have a couple of injuries from pregnancy; my coccyx is still incredibly painful due to the way DS was lying, and I had polyhydramnios. I suspect I also have a mild bladder prolapse from the pressure of DS and the increased amniotic fluid as I feel quite uncomfortable when inserting tampons. Most of the damage is psychological; I haven’t had sex since as I’m terrified it will be painful as all I can associate it with now is the agony of the 20-30 cervical exams I had during my induction and I also can’t shake some of the disappointment (almost guilt?) I feel that I couldn’t give birth vaginally as I had really wanted to. I cannot fault the care I received; the midwives and consultants were committed to helping me achieve the vaginal birth I wanted so kept trying different induction methods, but it wasn’t to be.

Sorry to waffle on, I don’t talk about it much IRL as I still find it a bit upsetting so it’s quite cathartic to be able to dump it all out to strangers!

I was under Consultant care for both of my pregnancies due to a health condition I have and my Consultant said that it would be risky for me to have a standard vaginal birth so she suggested that I either have an induction under epidural, or I have an ELCS.

Her final words of advice were that the huge majority of inductions end in either traumatic instrumental deliveries or emergency sections anyway, so it was probably best to just go straight for the CS.

Higher maternal age plays a part, there are more complications later in life.

I had an emergency C-section because DD's heart rate dropped really badly, it could have been avoided if I had stuck to my guns.

She was underweight and the consultant wanted to induce at 38 weeks, I did the research and saw that IUGR babies often have trouble during labour, especially inductions. It was my position that if she needed to come out early, quickly and safely then a cesarean would be best for her.

They sat me down and lectured me for over an hour pushing me towards the induction quoted stats that were actually corelations not proven facts until I didn't know what to think and ended up listening to the "experts".

I was right, her heartbeat dropped lower than mine and the whole thing was so much more traumatic than it should have been and would have been if it was planned.

@hereismydog
Your story sounds awful! I am so sorry. Birth is such a lottery and it absolutely isn't a reflection on you if you are unlucky and experience complications.

I always find it strange how such an emphasis is placed on birth and also some odd moral judgement when we don't do this with any other part of life. Do we judge those that use glasses to see as failures because they need intervention to see? Do we judge people that have had hip or knee replacements as failures because their natural joints haven't lasted a lifetime? We willingly accept medical intervention in almost all other aspects of our lives without stressing so much about what is natural. In fact most people would see someone suffering unnecessarily and choosing not to take available pain relief with incredible suspicion and probably judge them as some odd martyr type. Yet the emphasis on a 'natural' birth is completely disproportionate to every other aspect of our lives.

Don't get me wrong. Natural probably is best, in the same way that we all know that we ideally shouldn't eat UPF, take antibiotics or drink alcohol. There will be links with so many things most people do on a daily basis and negative health outcomes. Being born via C-section is just one of a million things that a person will encounter in their lives and we need to research how to mitigate any risks or adverse consequences but we also need to keep this all in proportion. What any parent does over the next two decades of their baby's life will almost certainly have a bigger impact on their long term health (and other outcomes) than the mode of birth you choose.

I'd be really interested to see the research on schizophrenia and caesarean rates if that's something you can share?

Do you have a cite for that which demonstrates a causal link?

I remember this claim being mad about 30 years ago at a time when I was greedily hoovering up stats on maternity and birth. It was based on a lab study done with rats, never proven that the CS was the defining factor and never replicated in human cohort studies.

It was touted around by the usual culprits, presumably because women didn’t have enough to worry about already with the shocking state of maternity care at the time (and now).

Elective can also be misleading. My last birth was classed as an elective section, but it was done because of the medical complications my DD had so we knew she'd need intensive care straight away.

Oh look, I’ve found an old link to a BBC news item:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/216831.stm

Note the scary “schizophrenia linked to CS” headline in bold letters and the much smaller print at the end of the article from the National Schizophrenia Society politely pointing out that it was not evidenced/no need for alarm.

Quality science reporting from the BBC, but who cares if sloppy reporting just causes anxiety to a bunch of silly women?

There is other work looking at birth trauma impact (which may include a CS) on those with a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia but for planned CS.

I had an elective for my first and will for my second as well. I dont know many women who have positive birth stories, they nearly all felt alone, terrified, in pain, not listened to etc they felt that either they or their babies were in danger..... why on earth would anyone want to do that.
I also know many women who because of first births being traumatic and horrible recoveries are having sections for their second birth.
The nhs does not give enough support to woman either before, during or after birth so how can we blame women for wanting a section where things are controlled and you have actual doctors monitoring you.

@Hardhaton1 Not now unfortunately. There doesn't have to be a medical reason as it is purely down to the choice of the mother. So if the only reason is that she wants to be home for Wimbledon on the TV or because her husband is a teacher so doesn't want pat leave to fall in half-term then that has to be respected and an elective C-Section booked.
Or of course she can give another reason of her choosing.

@MidnightPatrol One can always decline induction and request these instead.

@Burntt Would you consider home birth?

I had an elective c-section because I had twins and didn't want to try a vaginal birth with twins. It was very easy to request a c-section and I'm glad that women have that choice.

Not having more now but I'd request a c section again if I was. Good experience.

Leaving aside older maternal age and higher number of obese/overweight mothers - there is very clear data that women do well in pregnancy and birth if they are supported by one/a small number of midwives who provide high quality care and get to know their clients - the Albany model. That is not the model of care currently being prioritised in the NHS. It hasn't been for some time.

The great irony is that properly staffing midwifery services would bring down overall costs considerably, since it would mean fewer CSs and I'd wager less NHS lawsuits for births gone wrong.

Though she's very unlikely to get it before 39 weeks, of course. Anyone wishing to talk up the possibility of the NHS providing MRCS so women can watch Wimbledon should really spell this part out. If you're 37-38 weeks over half term you're shit out of luck and it would not in fact be purely down to the choice of the mother.

Urgh your tone is terrible. I take it you would prefer for women to lose their right to choose the method of birth that they feel is most appropriate for them? It's important to remember that there isn't one definitive mode of birth that is better for all women. C-Sections and vaginal deliveries simply hold different risk profiles. Those risks must be weighed up by the individual and they should select the method that they are most comfortable with. There are no guarantees either way.

I was open to / in favour of natural births until I got pregnant and researched it.

In the UK you simply cannot trust your local NHS hospital will provide adequate care / follow actual recommended guidelines should anything go away... due to natural is best brainwashing and the chronic underfunding of midwifes....and thus the inadequate care the existing ones provide (not suggesting this is midwives fault its systemic)

Given that and my desire to avoid a EMCS / grade 3 or 4 tear the only sensible option I had was to go straight to ELCS.

I am quite sure the number you quote if correct is total c sections, including emcs... not just maternal request.

I would bet a lot of the increase in EMCS is down to piss poor maternity care.

Inductions are often a problem because:

a) they are started too late
b) there are no staff or beds available when waters need to be broken so women are left in limbo

Many women who had an EMCS then go on to have a ELCS with subsequent children instead of VBACs. So ELCS increase is also a result of EMCS increase.

Maternity care and training has become more difficult over the years due to more complex cases.

Important to note that in the context of the NHS that elective simply means planned. All episodes of care in a hospital are elective (planned) or emergency (except for ‘natural’ childbirth which is recorded as non elective non emergency as it isn’t planned). The reason for elective caesarians may well be for medical reasons. No one is questioning elective heart surgery after all…

I had an elective c section by maternal choice after my first ‘natural’ birth - best decision I ever made!