Natural - v - Caesarean - a new thread

[JoolsToo]

sorry to be bossy but can we carry on here?

I'm for natural when possible

I'm with you, Scummymummy. I would really like to feel strongly either way but I'd never even considered it as an issue until mumsnet. I still dont get why it matters how your baby comes out.
I wish I'd been more aware of having a choice.

I also hate the no pain relief better person crap. I cannot begin to imagine how I would have survived without an epidural- it was awful with one each time never mind without
If I'd have been told I couldnt have one I would have freaked out more than i was anyway.

ha ha aloha at that conversation. I suppose I'm concerned (and you could say it's none of my business but you could say that about lots of things that I think about and worry about!) that the rise in the c section risk is as a result of something other than women's choice. It could be

as a result of an over medicalisation of childbirth and of a paternalistic medical profession deciding it will make childbirth choices for women (America is a good example of a place where medicalisation of childbirth happens. Women do have their legs in stirrups, home birth is pretty rare)
as a result of the way women are told about their choices - vb = hard, painful, cs = scheduled, painless?
or as a result of women's fear of childbirth.

I suppose you either think women should do whatever they want and if they want a c section they should be given one on demand. Or you think that it should be presented as a major operation with higher risks than vb and should only be performed when medically necessary. I'm in the latter camp pretty much. Got to go, back later¬

aloha - I mentioned Kate Winslet, not because she'd had a c-section but because she illustrated the 'moral highground of a natural birth' by pretending she had a natural birth. No criticism of her CS at all - just the lying about it!

I think that yes, the fact that we have a rising CS rate currently over 20% is concerning, purely because I don't think that that reflects what women want, ie 20+% of women aren't voluntarily having sections, which would seem to be backed up by the numbers of women going for VBAC (I have read somewhere that this is over 60%). Some of it will presumably be down to choice, as sections seem more routine and become safer. Some of it will be down to better ability to detect problems before birth so people aren't starting a labour which they have no chance of completing. But neither of those will cover off the whole rise, which means that, unless women are suddenly becoming less biologically able to have a vb, there must be a problem with the medical care and support they are getting during childbirth. If this comes down to the pressures on the NHS (which I personally rather suspect is at least a large part of it) then that is very sad. Someone can now come along and tell me that is rubbish !

But I don't think any of that should detract from the basic notion that whatever is right for the individual woman and her baby is the right course of action.

I felt really sorry for Kate Winslet actually, imagine how low she must have felt about the whole experience and how much she must have felt she would be judged to lie about it.

getting on to the no-pain relief issue

I really don't understand what on earth that is all about?

why does it mean its a 'better birth' because you feel the pain, what difference does it make if an analgesic takes the edge off or numbs it entirely? and why do people feel that by saying "And I didn't have any pain relief / I just had gas and air" it makes them worthy of praise?

what is that all about

if it was me, and I could have a vaginal delivery, I'd be all for making the process easier on me

I don't have any problem with women getting all the pain relief they want and can't understand why people are competitive about that.

In hospital with dd a woman there raged on and to all her visitors, staff, other parents and on the phone how she managed with nothing and couldnt understand what the fuss was about. T

WWW (re 10.47 post)

There is an assumption that CS in the UK is safer than CS in the developing world for a whole host of reasons.

Therefore the relative risk of CS vs VB in the developing world is greater that that in the UK. That's why more births in the UK fall under the CS umbrella (eg frank breech births and twin births) that wouldn't even get a look-in in developing countries.

After two nights of back breaking contractions (which got me bloody nowhere) I welcomed the lovely anaesthetist with the needleful of something nice to take the pain away. I don't feel any less of a woman because of that.
Many women I cared for as a midwife told me that of the two types of birth they preferred the "normal" birth as they recovered very rapidly afterwards. I've only a CS to go on but I was up and about the day after and even got in and out of the bath - it was fine.
There's so much in the way of pain relief out there and as long as you know all the benefits and disadvantages of them then you can make a choice. My epidural was fantastic and I'd have one again anyday.
Liked aloha's analogy of the office chat - likewise it's the same as going into a supermarket and asking for fresh fish only to be told "well you can have fish but all we've got is frozen" You get your fish - it's just not quite what you wanted. I think it sums up the maternity services pretty well.
I worry about the rising emergency cs rate simply because a large number of these will be due to complications caused by a cascade of intervention and interference in a normally progressing labour (breaking the waters un-neccessarily, leading to extra contractions before the baby is ready to cope with them, fetal distress, caesarean section). Many could be avoided if only they left well alone and got on with the job of supporting women adequately - not leaving them to labour alone. The elective cs rate is not a big problem - some women will always want this and that's fine. It's those who don't want it but end up with it due to intervention that have the big problems coping afterwards IMO.

There's absolutely no glory in going without pain relief when you need it. Quite the opposite, really.

The key think about childbirth, is that pharmacological pain relief is not the only choice women have.

There are so many factors in your typical hospital experience that make it hard to cope with the pain without drugs. It seems to make more sense to me to deal with the issues that make it hard for women to cope, rather than throwing drugs at the situation (and risking cascade of intervention).

Of course, if you are already in a situation for whatever reason, that no amount of puffing and panting is going to make one iota of difference, then yes, use the other coping methods that are available (ie drugs).

:
I rememeber my antenatal classes.
We were told about how wonderful the birthing pool was and those balls you sit on.
We were told about how Tens machines are used and you can rent them out.
We were told about pethidine and Epidurials and forceps and how they are used for more pain relief but they can affect the whole process.
We were shown a video of a birth experience- this being a third child and at home and without pain relief. One minute the lady walking around like a chicken the next sat against the sofa pushing and producing a baby.
Very helful for a first time mum to learn form?
And cannot really recall the mention of c sections and problems/ special care. My point being surely better antenatal care and labour care too?

I often hear people say that vaginal birth even vbac is safer and better for both mother and baby. I have thus far failed to understand why. I hear lots of statistics the present positive correlations, but none that actually demonstrate cause and effect. What about the confounding variable that led to the c-section (especially if an emergency)?

I asked these very question of a consultant at my booking appointment (16 weeks pregnant at Queen Charlotte) and gave her the opportunity to convince my that VBAC was in some way better for me or for baby. I basically said I want an elective caessarean, but If you can convince me itherwise, I'll reconsider. She had two points. One was that a second caesarean would mean that every baby after that MUST be caesarean. This is not a problem because 1- This is the last child I plan to have and 2- at this point I would prefer it that way anyway. And her second point was that when they go in and start rummaging around your bits can get rearranged, and not placed neatly in there exactly as nature intended... I asked why this would be a problem. And she said nothing.

So, what is it about caesareans that is so bad that is not a result of the complications that led to the caesarean but rather a result of the surgical procedure itself?

I open the floor... please. Although I have a reputation on this site as a "caesarean evangelist" I would really like for someone to convince me that my views are based in some irrational fear rather than sound medical advice.

Furthermore, I'd just like to add that even after being induced (and before fetal distress) the thought of having a caesarean had never even occurred to me. Not once. But, looking back on the experience and what I know believe could have happened to my baby, and wonder why no one thought to advise me of this, I simply don't trust the medical profession to give me all the facts and risks at hand. So, I see an elective caesarean as sort of an insurance policy that ensures this baby doesn't go through what the first one went through. Why is that bad?

And her second point was that when they go in and start rummaging around your bits can get rearranged, and not placed neatly in there exactly as nature intended... I asked why this would be a problem. And she said nothing.

So she didn't actually give the 'whole' truth there then did she (not intended as an 'insult' at you Uwila - but rather at the information you were given). There's a risk (as with any abdominable surgery) that you could suffer 'injury' to some of you're 'bits' - bladder, bowel etc..

Injury? Such as?

A friend of mine had her bladder fused to her uterus.

Pierced? You mean like the durgeon just sort of oh whoops aimed at the wrong organ? I would say eeek oh come on those things must be rare. But, I have heard comparable stories on non-caesarean surgeries.

MRSA