natural childbirth - never possible?

[Lil]

When I hear the rally cry to 'natural childbirth' and the cynicism of modern intervention, I am always curious as to how many women/babies in current times would 'probably' have died without today's medical help?

Although my own 2 were easy 'natural' births (plus gas 'n air). I know my mother and therefore me, would not have survived, as baby Lil had to be induced 2 months early on due to my mother's kidney failure. Without sounding morbid, does anyone else here think their lives were saved through modern intervention?

My eldest sister was a nightmare birth, but both mother and daughter survived, although it was a close call. The next was an emergency c/s and the rest of us were planned c/s. None of us would have survived if not for medical intervention - my mum's pevic bones were the wrong shape (?? don't know too much about it, that's what my mum told us).

My Mum had a HUGE pph with my brother. SO I would be here but she wouldn't be, if she'd not been in hospital, and my sister wouldn't be here at all.

Yes. I was persistent transverse lie and when my mother (in 1963) was wibbling on about a c-section, which was considered much less safe then, the consultant suavely informed her that before c-sections were available I would definitely have died and she probably would too.
Funnily enough my first ds was persistent transverse too and although I did not enjoy the elective c-section experience I was extremely grateful for it all round.
I think anyone on this thread is particularly aware of the resonances of "you're having a baby, not a birth". Good call, Lil.

Natural? Stuff that! I always planned for medication at the very least and ended up with an emergency section after a very traumatic labour during which it was pointed out that 10 years ago we would have both died (helpful to have this pointed out as your having anaesthetic). I'm already 99% sure that I'll damn well be having an elective section next time (if there is one.)

My mum had disgustingly easy births with my brother and me (DB arriving in 35 minutes). I didn't find it quite so easy and I always felt she thought I hadn't tried hard enough!

Sadly, in Indonesia the maternal mortality rate is increasing and is now approaching 400 in 100,000, which translates into about 250 women a week. Most women don't have access to care and this is the end result. Having spoken to people who work in the field, I was surprised to hear that the intervention that would save most lives is an extremely simple one. Iron tablets. 80% of maternal deaths are due to haemorrhage and 80% of those are due to anaemia. By a rough reckoning 250 lives out of 400 could be saved, which I think is astonishing. Presumably, the UK once had death rates like that, before the levels of care improved.

Suedonim how weird that women's bodies are so short of iron during pregnancy? It doesn't make sense does it - how did the human race survive up until now? other mammals manage it all. Are there any evolutionary experts out there in mumsnet?

That's an interesting thought Lil. Maybe left to nature, humans would have a high attrition rate anyway? For the vast majority of people here, the diet is very poor. It's mainly rice or noodles with a tiny bit of meat and/or veg. I think average veg consumption is 29lbs a year, which is about half a pound a week. You see some sad souls about the place, you wonder how they have the strength to stand, let alone walk. Also terrible birth defects and conditions like rickets.

My ds was born by emergency c-section after 40 hours of labor. I'm not sure he would be alive if it weren't for the c-section. I had a huge post partum haemmorage after the birth of my dd....I certainly wouldn't be alive if it weren't for modern intervention. Personally I think there is a nice medium between the old and the new. I chose to have as little intervention as possible in my births, but wouldn't have dreamt of having them at home without modern medical technology nearby.

My Mum had pre-eclampsia with my elder sister and had to be induced, so I might well not have been here without that intervention. Then I had a horrendous 50 hour labour with ds - culminating in a very tricky ventouse where they had to turn him (in theatre so they could perform a c/s PDQ if necessary) after 4.5 hours in second stage. I rather suspect neither of us would have survived without the intervention. He wasn't small and I am, very.

I suspect that what is happening now, to some extent, is that we are no longer selecting against women who would not survive natural childbirth. In fact this could contribute to the increasing use of intervention, but it would be impossible to assess by how much.

Message withdrawn

About 4 days after DS was born (by c/s) I had a huge emotional reaction to the whole thing as it occurred to me that had it not been for intervention my DH would have come home from the hospital with no wife and no baby. It scared the hell out of me and made me feel very lucky that I lived in modern times. Also ... when DS was 4 weeks old he had a condition that meant a simple op to sort it out ... had we lived 50 years ago he would have starved slowly to death ... Again I had a massive emotional overload on that one ...
Thank God for modern medicine ...

I was born by emergency ceasarian as my mum was placenta previa. Pre ultrasound days, and she only had one tiny spot of blood as a warning, but fortunately the consultant insisted she came in to hospital at 36 weeks. Her waters broke unexpectedly at 37, and I was born. She was told afterwards that even if the "flying squad" had raced to her house, she and I would both have died, so being in hospital saved us both.
Also my best friend has twins, one of whom spent first 6 months in hospital and had to have an op, without which she wouldn't be able to eat.

So yes, lets hear it for modern medicine!

I think it's very tempting to get sentimental about 'traditional cultures', whereas as S has pointed out the reality in many places is very different. It makes me very cross...

I would not be here without medical invervention as my mother is RH -ve, I'm +ve. I was induced a month early and given exchange blood transfusions. Had I gone to term to be born "naturally" I suspect I would not be boring you now

You do have to wonder about the reasons why some (industrialised) countries have much higher or lower rate of aneasthesia or cesareans....

There is no doubt that modern obstetrics are a life-saviour but they are also some time very arrogant as to what a woman should have regardeless of her wishes. I read (I think on the other natural birth thread) that one would prefer to listen and follow her OB's advice.... yes but his advice may be very different to that of his/her colleague.... because you follow your OB's advice does not mean you are necessaroily following the best advice. After all they have their views, opinion, experience of it.... 30% of all woemn OB in London would opt for an elective section.... what does THAT tell you?

This is a really interesting thread. Suedonim you've really put things in perspective! I was born in the 60's sixteen weeks early and definately would not be here if it wasn't for medical intervention.

I wouldn't be here either, had huge pph with dd (10 litre blood transfusion, 10hrs under GA while they tried to stop it).

I agree pupuce. The availability of high tech medicine should not mean that it has to be applied. As you say in other indutrialised nations they don't have high c-section rates.

I've been reading a bok recently called 'Episiotomy - Challenging Obstetric Intervention' (yep someone has manage to write a whole book - 200 pages - on it!) which explores the history of episiotomy and why it became so routine.

I also agree though that we shouldn't walk round in rose-coloured specs believing that the way women gave birth thousands of years ago or do so in 'traditional' cultures is necessarily the best thing. There is a thread raging on UKMidwifery at the moment about female genital mutilation in Africa and the lack of care for women there who are outcasts from their tribes for whatever reason.

I'm no expert - just an article in a Sunday paper! Buat, sorry - I'll be even more boring than you, olddragon!, we humans had our birthing equipment designed before we learnt to be upright, so it's pretty much the wrong shape. That's why giving birth alone is pretty much unheard of in any culture - midwives are a necessity to our survival, unlike other mamals, who don't seem to have so much trouble (and are probably also blissfully unaware! While knowledge is power, I wish I didn't know quite so much sometimes!

Probably also why us humans have so many other porblems like pph?? Dunno - like I said, I'm not an expert. I don't think I would have lost either of mine without medical intervention, but I know for certain I would have been in a lot more pain 7 fear - ds1 undiagnosed breech. Had e,mergency section. I guess in the 'old days' midwives were more skilled at delivering breeches. Unfortunately mine couldn't even spot it!

If that's true monkey then perhaps it explains why many women feel it is more comfortable to give birth on all fours.

The lying-on-the-back-clutch-your-knees scenario isn't natural for any mammal, is it? From what I understand it was designed solely for the benefit of those who want an easy view/easy access to 'help' the mother.

Also I have heard that many anatomical drawings are incorrect since they are taken from cadavers - gravity isn't having the same effect on organs in a body that lying down as it would on one that is upright.

Pupuce, I utterly agree with your comments... unnecessary intervention is outrageous and does seem to happen almost routinely. I won't repeat myself and bore you all with my 2nd birth story but it was (IMHO)made very much worse by the unnecessary intervention & bullying by the medics. However, I do have to say I've had two natural births but know that intervention is sometimes necessary and a lifesaver. People do forget that woman and babies can die in childbirth.

I think Pupuce et al have interpreted the situation as I would. WRT countries like Indonesia, it's A/N care and low-tech intervention that could save the majority of lives. Hi-tech has its place, we all know that, and I feel that even if we have never required it, many of us are happy to know that it is available. It's unfortunate that sometimes hi-tech has come to be regarded as the norm.

I'm learning alot from this thread too. Discussions like this really need to be viewed and listened to by midwives, ob.'s, and pedia.'s as much as mothers and mums-to-be. Sometimes they just aren't aware of our views (thru lack of time, maybe)and do things the way they were taught in text books.

well I think it does matter - when you've been put through unnecessary procedures which not only make the process more painful but can often have long term - possibly lifelong consequences.