Cesarean Birth Statistics

[iknowitsmadbutiwantit]

Hi.
I am not currently pregnant (unfortunately)(dd and ds already), but my sister is and we have had some interesting conversations recently. One of these concerned the alarming figures I read somewhere that 1 in 4 women in America have cesareans. Imagine our suprise, when we checked out the national birth statistics in Great Britain! A 25% cesarean rate is not uncommon in this country either! My local hospital, Colchester General, has cesarean statistics of 25 - 28% depending on where you research. I personally know of someone who was told she would have to have a cesarean if the maternity ward was short staffed!
Do these figures worry anyone else? or is it just us? Id be interested to hear other peoples opinions. x

Seriously, we get it titty, c-section is not for you.

It's not up to you to dictate whatever anyone else wants or does though.

Why is that so hard for you to get your head around?

barkfox "Elective" is a bit of a misnomer. Mine is classed as "elective" but there was no "election" about it, unless you count "have this or you die" as a choice!

gailforce1 well said. We seemed to be getting somewhere before!

Well titty, it's an interesting scenario! - but I just don't think it's a realistic one (a leap to a 45 percent CS rate in the space of 12 months).

I think that's just scaremongering, of the 'whatever next?' school of thought. With all due respect, I think you're kind of flipping around a bit from post to post, so I'm finding it hard to find much consistency in your arguments.

Atm, it seems to be - VB experiences on the NHS are depressing and chaotic - and that's why women will opt in such large numbers for CS's if given the choice - but they mustn't be allowed to, for if they do, maternity services for the women who don't have CS's will get worse, and more women will die as a result.

Hmmm. All I can say is -

I support the idea of choice for women in birth, whether it's homebirth or consultant led or anything in between. I respect the rights of other women to make choices that would not be mine. I wish it was easier for women to make well informed choices, and not have to sift through the barrage of propaganda and misinformation that gets thrown at them from all directions instead. I'd like to see maternity services improved overall, and holistically - and for a wider and more informative perspective on birth than 'cost on the day.' I'd also like to see less 'blaming' of individual women for the cost of their maternity care, and more of a shared understanding of the need to bring more resources into mother and baby care in general from the NHS.

And if I knew for a fact that a particular birth experience was very likely to be a bad experience for a mother, then no, I absolutely would not force her to have it because of some imaginary scenario, or abstract policy.

All I can say, really. I think some things posted on this thread have been quite interesting, but I think I've probably spent too much time here!

I'm very sorry for the women on this thread who have had awful VB and CSection experiences. I think it's really valuable hearing about them, personally - there are so many different experiences out there, it's an eye opener.

Argh - PS! yes shaz10, you're right, sorry - I've been careful once or twice to distinguish between elective and maternal request CS, but mostly I haven't, and I should. I know that 'elective' often implies choice, whereas 'non emergency' or 'planned' CS might be a bit more accurate.

No worries barkfox, I do make a point of reminding people because I still encounter that view. Which is understandable given the name!

"Seriously, we get it titty, c-section is not for you.

It's not up to you to dictate whatever anyone else wants or does though.

Why is that so hard for you to get your head around? It's not up to you to dictate whatever anyone else wants or does though."

Where have I told anyone what sort of birth they 'should' have?

Really - what are you talking about?

Arse. Go take your cs angst out on someone else.

"Atm, it seems to be - VB experiences on the NHS are depressing and chaotic - and that's why women will opt in such large numbers for CS's if given the choice - but they mustn't be allowed to, for if they do, maternity services for the women who don't have CS's will get worse, and more women will die as a result"

And where's your proof that it wouldn't increase dramatically if all women were told they could have a cs on demand? Given the very, very high c/s rates in other countries where elective c/s are easy to obtain? And given the fact that our own c/s rate has practically doubled over the course of the past decade alone.

And the point I made wasn't that 'maternity services for the women who don't have CS's will get worse'. At the moment NHS maternity services are working to capacity and many hospitals don't have 24 hour consultant cover. More operative births will mean that these doctors will be spread even more thinly, and that means all women who really need medical input will lose out. Try reading my posts properly next time.

I'd love to know what interest you have in making me out to be an unreasonable extremist, when the views I've expressed on this thread are common currency in midwifery circles and among those in the UK involved in maternity care. Everyone agrees that an increased rate of c/s would put strain on maternity services and lead to worse maternal and infant mortality and morbidity. Everyone agrees that more midwives and better birth environments would result in better outcome for all women.

And there has been no 'blaming' of individual women for the cost of their maternity care - just a realistic acknowledgment that if resources for maternity care are limited they need to be spent in a way which leads to the least loss of life and health for mothers and babies.

"And if I knew for a fact that a particular birth experience was very likely to be a bad experience for a mother, then no, I absolutely would not force her to have it because of some imaginary scenario, or abstract policy."

I can only assume you have said this because you believe there are people on this thread or elsewhere who would be quite happy to put a mother through a traumatic birth experience because of some 'imaginary scenario' or 'abstract policy'. Would you like to point us in their direction please, so we can see what they've said for ourselves?

Arse? It certainly takes one to know one.

Go grind your axe somewhere else titty.

I don't have any c-section angst, thanks, but your assumption speaks volumes about you/

Judgey arse.

Flameproofsuit - sorry, expressing a view on CS rates on a thread on a childbirth board entitled: 'CS Birth statistics' is 'grinding an axe'?

I suggest you hide this thread if it's upsetting you. No one's forcing you to read these posts and respond. If you have a serious point to make then make it. Otherwise why bother?

Not read all this but I've had 3 sections, one almost killed me. An artery was severed. My hospital rate is 24%, 10% elective. I have also had natural births and would much prefer that to a section anyday. Hated being stuck on the ward with few staff helping and got no sleep for 3 days as on a 4 lady ward, there was always one baby crying. I hope the rates come down, they never used to be this high.

Must have been so scary jellybeans.

But 24% is pretty average I think.

"I've had 3 sections/I have also had natural births"

How many births have you had? ,

flameproofsuit. would be kinder if you took off the namechange and flame away under your usual ID.

oh, but that would be considered brave.

nevermind.

this is my usual ID, I de-regged a little while ago and haven't built up much of a history under this name yet.

Still, titty seems more than capable of stalking everything I've ever written under this name so I wouoldn't worry too much about looking after her.

I don't look after anyone on this board. I just call 'em as I see 'em.

from all the evidence I have seen thus far. I think you are confused about who is stalking whom.

flameproofsuit - I searched because I was looking for an answer as to why you might be posting in such a vindictive way: nothing I've said on this thread merits the comments you've made about me.

titty, i have had 7 births, sadly 2 were too prem to make it
With my DC..
3 sections (1 crash, one emergency, one elective)
2 VBACs at full term

Sorry about the loss of your two precious babies.

You've really birth every which way - so many different memories.

I disagree with some of what tittybangbang says - as I presume she does with me - but I have absolutely no issue with the way that she says it.

Dunno if anyone's still interested in this thread, or if it's just degenerated into two entrenched factions lobbing missiles at each other , but I had another thought about why this rate is increasing - could it be more continuous monitoring. Watching OBEM it seemed most sections were sparked after a period of de-cels during monitoring in what seemed like an otherwise uneventful labour - a scenario that would have gone unnoticed in the 60s, 70s and even 80s. Now medics know that most de-cels are totally harmless, but because one in 10 can be potentially life threatening, no mum is likely to turn down a section in that situation are they? Unfortunately analysing this form of monitoring is still in its infancy so I guess until we know more about what the de-cels mean, more sections will be carried out, using the precautionary principle. Of course some _judgmental birth nazis 'members of the sisterhood' won't like this as much since it's not the mums' fault for being too old, fat, in-love with their undercarriages, pain-averse or descended from inferior genes that should have been wiped out in previous childbirth - but I think it could be pretty relevant.

Good point poppet45, similar to one I made a long long time ago about ultrasound. But maybe it's good that we can monitor the baby, even though "reducing CS births" implies that Caesareans are A Bad Thing, without much to back it up. At least we've not worked that out yet!

LOL poppet45 the last two sentences gave me a much needed laugh in this thread and the rest makes excellent sense.

What's wrong with a cesarean section as a way of giving birth? i do believe some of you have lost sight of the big picture.

What's wrong if every birth is a cesarean birth?

Why are these statistics being touted around as if having a cesarean is bad, and that more of them is somehow worse.

For sure a cesarean birth takes more nursing to get over - and a longer stay in hospital - so maybe we are missing the HUGE economic agenda running behind these shock - a quarter of all births are sections - statistics.

Personally I didn't have the care I needed either before or after my section birth - three days in labour without any drugs - and very little compassion afterwards - mostly inconsiderate comments from foolish virgin nurses "oh poor you, you had to have a section in the end"... like I only got the cuddly toy from the generation game line up.

I say it's all about the money in the end and that is why cesarean sections are termed BAD, as they are more expensive. My hospital was so cheap everyone got a raw deal no matter how you birthed your babe.

The economics of birth have given a value to birth experiences independent of any other reality or attribute, and it looks like we are all forgetting that someone has to pay for all the procedures, and longer hospital stays..

so repeat after me...

Expensive cesarean = bad,
Cheap vaginal = good. [ehumm]

Follow the money and there's your answer.

Why are we giving out to each other about whethere birth A is somehow better / more satistying - allocate value here - than birth B.. when really we could spend our time more usefully campaigning that every woman who gives birth has the resources available that she needs.

It's the bean counters who are running the show.

Zazen - what an awful experience. How did they justify leaving you for three days without pain relief?

Well said zazen.

Zazen,
For an individual mum making the decision for herself as to how she gives birth - particularly for a first baby - c-section can seem like a sensible choice: it's a very safe operation.

However, extrapolate these decisions to a population level, where you are dealing with all sorts of issues which pose added risks and complications, such as subsequent pregnancies and obesity, then you would be looking at many more deaths and serious health problems for women if c-sections for maternal request became the norm. I think that people who are involved with making policy when it comes to maternity services are accutely aware of this. Why would they chose to make changes which would result in the deaths of more young mothers, while at the same time impoverishing other areas of the health service. What would be their rationale?

I also would want to draw your attention to the views of the VAST majority of midwives on this issue. I don't know a midwife who wouldn't be absolutely horrified and distraught at the idea of a doubling, let alone a tripling of the c-section rate. And they are not 'bean counters'. They don't give a damn about the finances. Not your common hands on midwife. They are the ones shouting most loudly about reducing the c-section rate - far louder than politicians or mothers themselves, and they are the ones who are most aware of how hard birth can be, and how much mothers can suffer when birth goes wrong.

Most midwives I know are motivated in their work by a love for women - they're in awe of mothers and the power of their bodies. They have a very complex understanding of the psychosocial role of birth in women's lives, or at least the good ones, do, the ones who have really researched this subject and spent a lot of time talking to and listening to mothers!

If you doubt this, try talking to midwives about the issue, and have a look at the Royal College of Midwives normal birth website. Look at some of the midwifery forums - they would open up the debate for you in a very interesting way. here