NICE recommend all women should be able to have a cs

[LoveBeingAWitch]

Just seen tomorrow's front page of the Sunday times saying that NICE are saying cd has become such a safe op that every woman should be able to have one if that's what they want. Im quite surprised by this.

Also, this talk of VB being the way that you bond with your child undermines that value of relationships that CS born children have with their parents and even of adopted children. My mum and dad don't love me less because she didn't give birth to me I hope...a crass comment I think.

I do believe that many women are genuinely shocked and taken aback by the effect on their bodies of giving birth. It is foolish to pretend that this is not teh case.

If all teh risks of CS are told, then so should all the risks of VB. Only they aren't, are they, as VB is "natural" and women need to find out what can go wrong the hard way.

X post sardinequeen, I agree, VB risks are not discussed in as much detail as CS. At least where I live that is certainly the case.

I'd love to see some research on the cost to the NHS of v births years down the line.

Re the risks of vbirth sadly many women are embarrassed by the risks and don't even discuss it amongst themselves let alone with a doctor.I suspect a lot of it is brushed under the carpet for fear more women will ask for a c/s.

Monsti where does that figure come from?

How many of these babies died because they were born by CS rather than despite having been born by CS?

In those figures there will (I imagine) be babies who were born by CS because they were prem, those whose mothers were given a CS too late, those suffering various disorders that would've made a VB even riskier still.

I do not believe that, all things being equal, a baby born by CS is almost 3 times more likely to die than one born vaginally, to put it simply.

I have had 1 VB and 1 ELCS.

Think you should be able to have what you want,
but also be fully informed of risks/aftercare issues with both options.

My VB and associated aftercare/further surgery was far costlier to the NHS than my simple ELCS., and far riskier for me.

not an unbiased source! but I'm sure you can find similar elsewhere independent midwives stats which include large numbers of higher-risk women, many in a hospital setting.

as usual, the caveat is that the women who go this path are a self-selecting minority and therefore it is really hard to draw proper comparisons - still, i find it plausible that there is a significant benefit - many women on MN have seemed to confirm anecdotally.

I don't think the risks and complications of VB are discussed to Amy great extent at all, in the current NHS especially if you're mw-led, because what's the point? There isn't an alternative way to get the baby out! And certainly NCT don't talk about stitches, recon surgery, incontinence, painful sex, etc. But they're happy to, in the words if my NCT leader "talk avout c section and other things that can go wrong."

I accept that complications of VB are discussed on MN and similar sites but that hardly represents all women, just a fairly narrow and relatively well informed group.

It's amazing what people will class as appositive experience. My lovely friend describes her recent birth as fantastic yet she tore up past her clitoris. To me, that's far from fantastic. My ideal of a highly interventionalist ELCS is her idea of hell.

SardineQueen:
"I was told at the hospital that CS was marginally safer for the baby and marginally more dangerous for the mother."

MrsHeffley:
"My highly respected consultant told me a c/s was safer for baby.When you consider all they have to go through during a v birth as opposed to a c/s it's not rocket science to see why."

I was told exactly this at the hospital by my consultant - can anybody confirm or dispute this stat/fact? I really would like to know if it is true. Maybe it applies to just hospital births?

My consultants, from two totally different hospitals told me that the burden of risk in ELCS is on the mother, not the baby, and that's why I chose it.

In fact I was told this by several professionals.

My twins were IVF twins after years of infertility.My birth plan consisted on me wanting 100% the safest option for my babies.I wasn't the slightest bit concerned about my welfare. All I came across knew this,were very supportive and said several times a c/s was safer for babies(singletons as well as twins)with a slightly bigger risk for the mother than the risks with a vbirth. I then became pg with dd and again wanted the best for her. Different consultants said exactly the same.

my feeling on all of this is that we need to be looking at improving ALL of the service provided by the midwifery units, and this is going to take money. In many cases ecs could be prevented by being given a better service during labour. If more support was provided during labour then potentially the Mother and baby could have a better experience, less trauma etc and therefore reducing the need for caesarian. im quite interested by how many people think it is a good idea for caesarians to be given by choice. We do seem to have the attitude of 'everything is my right, I pay my taxes' in this country. My gut feeling is that it would be a bad move. My experience of births was that my first was very traumatic, in hospital and a lot of intervention and subsequently violent delivery occurred, I felt traumatised afterwards, and suffered for a long time. My next 2 children I had at home, without bragging, they were perfect birth experiences, no pain relief(plenty of pain but productive pain!) My point is that it is perfectly possible to have a hard time but then go onto deliver normally and successfully. Some may disagree with me, but I think your environment has everything to do with how you labour and deliver. In hospital i was prodded, poked, monitored, had arms shoved up inside me mid contraction, put on drip to speed things up, waters artificially broken which all led to very distressed baby and panic stations to get baby out with forceps, failed ventouse and full episiotomy. I firmly believe that if I had been left to get on with it I would have probably had a better time of it. Just because we manage vaginal births doesnt mean that it is 'natural', in hospitals there is much that can hinder a labour (even just the car journey there can halt things and make it difficult). With my 3rd child, he was very, very late. We were at the point that I would have gone into hospital the next day to have a scan and the midwives would have presumably talked about inducing labour. IF that had happened I think I would have begged for a caesarian rather than go through all of that because I think that once you start messing with your body and telling it what to do, having a 'natural' delivery is pretty unlikely, and I think I would have been perfectly entitled to one. Im not saying this is always the case before anybody starts telling me their babys head was stuck inside their pelvis, breech etc...that kind of case is a no brainer...caesarian, get the baby out and safe...NOW! But I think to just give it as an option..this is how you have a baby is just, so wrong, each case should be individual. If caesarian becomes the option, it will soon become the rule, and normal delivery will be viewed as unnatural...which is bonkers! A bit like breastfeeding, the preferred option nowadays is bottle feeding, it used to be for emergency situations, but now it is just another option and breastfeeding is viewed as quite unusual.
Im quite amused by the amount of people who are saying that the dont think it will increase caesarian rates...of course it will. How many people in our society are influenced by the celebrity culture. How many people, when faced with pain will opt out, of course they will because they think it will be easier. As for the people saying 'it is the more civilised way'...speechless! When did we become such clinical robots?! Next year I plan to become a midwife though, so maybe I will find lots more out and feel differently, but my overwhelming feeling about it right now, is that it is wrong.

Yes, none of the official information I got from the NHS classes, midwives, leaflets discussed the risks and complications of VB.

You can imagine how fast my jaw hit the floor when I found the MN childbirth section.

Mrs Heffley, my situation was identical! IVF singleton, and id fought SO hard to get and to stay pregnant that I wanted THE safest option and wouldn't feel happy until I saw the whites of his eyes! Had ELCS, lovely experience. And second round of IVF had twins, and another ELCS.

This is what gets me about the likes of Iggly et al, who assume that I, or you, could have been "shown the facts" which would have swayed us towards a natural birth. The fact is that there would have been an increased risk on my son's health which I wasn't prepared to tolerate. I don't have tokophobia. I'm perfectly able to assimilate clinical data. And I had the concurrent opinions of two consultant obstetricians who thankfully saw my point.

"As for the people saying 'it is the more civilised way'...speechless!"

I said it was more civilised than using Kielland's forceps after an induction where CS was probably indicated (malposition, large baby, SROM, long drip-induced labour). Totally taken out of context here, again.

Surely 'celebrities' have got the funds to get a private CS if desired? Those sporting their flat tums in bikinis in a very short time would have been highly unlikely to have had a CS I would have thought because of the 'shelf' it gives most people. I suspect that is why Victoria Beckham has not stepped into a bikini since giving birth, but that is just speculation on my part and I could be very wrong.

I don't think the majority of people are influenced to have medical procedures because of celebs. Surely more people would be walking around with botox, boob jobs, nose jobs etc.

Bag always nice to meet another ACE baby(and twin) mummy.

workingyou said Britain has high rates of infant mortality in late pregnancy and shortly after delivery - do you have the statistics for an international comparison - I'd be interested to know.

I was told also by my doctor that CS is safest for baby if there is any chance of complications. However, she told me that if everything looks like it will go smoothly, a VB is ideal. The problem is you never know if it will go smoothly or not. The main thing which is not ideal for a baby about CS is more likelihood of breathing difficulties after birth because they have more fluid in the lungs which hasn't been 'squeezed out' during vaginal delivery. Because of that known risk a pediatricin has to be present in theatre for a CS to help with those potential breathing difficulties. I presume that's also true in the UK?(I'm abroad).

I've had one of each and would go for VB - my eldest had to come out CS due to undiagnosed breech - and ever since she has been a textbook CS - more prone to chest infections, breathing troubles and allergies. There IS a risk for the child - the physical squeezing action of VB prepares the lungs for life. (and no I am not an advocate of the NCT, just a mum who has experienced the after effects)

i was talking about this....by dogsbeastfiend really working9while5............
'A planned section is worth every penny of that extra £800 IMHO and is the civilised way to have a baby.'

3 obstetricians gave me this fact (this is purely for low risk elective caesareans vs low risk VBs and not multiples/breech etc..). I am not a medical expert (I should have stated that apologies) but possibly naively believe what I'm told by medical professionals...as I said the difference was marginal...

From what I have read on this thread the reason for most of your/your friend's bad experiences has been improper care/negligence. Much of this is due to overworked staff and lack of resources. What I would be concerned about is that more time/staff are needed for CS births/aftercare not to mention the fact that the mothers who go down this route will require a longer hospital stay thus taking up beds. The mothers who opt for the VB route could well be sent home until they are almost ready to deliver/standing in corridors in full active labour (which it seems is already happening) thus resulting in extremely traumatic experiences for them which may well lead them to opt for a CS next time round...Yes more staff would help but who pays for this parti. in the current climate?

I had a CS in a private hospital abroad and, although the staff were ordinarily competent (and there were lots of them) they just couldn't cope with 8 C-sections in one day (all pre-planned bar 1) - no VBs. Until I was in that position I didn't realize how much care is needed for a C-section mother. They were taking BP/changing babies nappies as we couldn't lift them/changing our sanitary towels etc.. (lovely) as we had catheters for the first day/night/administering painkillers etc...