Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Thoughts on Elective C-section?

126 replies

mamadiva · 16/04/2009 10:02

Was'nt sure where to put this so decided as it was news related it should go here.

After reading that Colleen Rooney has decided to have an elective C-section as she does'nt want the birth to conflict with Wayne's footie I just started to think more about whether it's really right or not.

I am all for women having choice and all but surely it should be down to her not wanting to go through natural labour than worrying about it clashing with work, is it really right that people can make these kinds of decisions without medcal guidance?

I do think that sections should only be used in emergencies or cases where people are genuinely terrified of child birth etc, but for convenience I think it's wrong.

I had an Emergency CS with my son and whilst it was'nt an horrible experience I would have rather done it naturally I know not everyone has had the same experience.

I just fail to see how people can choose surgery which has quite a slow recovery process for mother and baby (as far as I know) just for the sake of convenience.

So much for Colleen being a 'real woman', a real woman would choose what's right for herself and her abby whether it be natural or CS she has chosen for the sake of a football match.

So do you think it's right that this should be allowed?

OP posts:
FioFio · 16/04/2009 12:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

EldonAve · 16/04/2009 12:49

Her birth, her choice
I think people should be allowed to choose to have a section

She is probably going private anyway

tiggerlovestobounce · 16/04/2009 12:53

Fiofio

The risks to the bay are higher with a C section than with a vaginal delivery.

tiggerlovestobounce · 16/04/2009 12:54

sorry, should say baby, not bay

Original poster
mamadiva · 16/04/2009 12:58

I don't think plastic surgery should be so readily available either.

I am just saying I don't think it's right that poeple should be able to just buy procedures that can have serious risks just for the sake of convenience.

If you can't put your life on hold for a few weeks to have the baby then why bother to get pregnant? At the end of the day birth is just a tiny part if they can't be bothered to work round that then god knows what kind of childhood the little one will have.

Children are not conveniant so why should you be able to muck about with things to fit in with you.

OP posts:
FioFio · 16/04/2009 12:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

lalalonglegs · 16/04/2009 12:59

tigger - I'm not questioning that statistic exactly but is it because more babies born by caesarian - elective or emergency - are thought to be at risk anyway rather than the method by which they are delivered?

lalalonglegs · 16/04/2009 13:00

x-posts with FioFio

FioFio · 16/04/2009 13:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

traceybath · 16/04/2009 13:00

Well its her choice and i doubt she's going to discuss all her personal reasons with the sun.

Perhaps she's terrified of childbirth or knows all the women in her family have had a terrible time.

Also if she's booked in at 39 weeks i'm not sure that its riskier for the baby is it??

Original poster
mamadiva · 16/04/2009 13:01

It's just not right though especially when people fighting for sections can't seem to get them especially not booked in by 16 weeks!

OP posts:
LibrasJusticeLeagueofBiscuits · 16/04/2009 13:02

If people can choose to have home births then I think they should be able to choose to have a c-section as well.

We don't really know if it's because of footie, it might have just been an off the cuff joke that as a celebrity gets analysed into a thousand meanings.

Ewe · 16/04/2009 13:02

I think it is fine, she wants her husband to be present at the birth and he has a job where this would be very difficult with a spontaneous labour, she can afford it so is not burdening the NHS, I don't see a problem.

I would do the same in her shoes actually.

FioFio · 16/04/2009 13:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

traceybath · 16/04/2009 13:02

My elective was booked in at 20 weeks on the nhs after one previous emergency and one elective.

Who knows perhaps she'll change her mind but its up to her - her birth and her choice.

And she will be going privately so not using nhs money either.

FioFio · 16/04/2009 13:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

tiggerlovestobounce · 16/04/2009 13:05

I think that the risks to the baby from a section are mostly around their relative prematurity - ie less likely to be born at 40+ weeks than a vaginal delivery, and the breathing difficulties that they can have.

AtheneNoctua · 16/04/2009 13:07

Whether a vaginal birth is safer the baby is a matter of great debate and is most certainly not a forgone conclusion.

Nasty things like CP are not caused by having a section. There is an increased risk of breathing difficulties before 39 weeks (but not after). Oh and there is an creased rist of cutting the bladder if the surgeon goes in rickshaw with an old lawnmower.

I'd rather have a section than a vaginal delivery any day beacause it is safest for the baby.

I wonder what the stistic is for second births of women whose first babies are damaged by a botched delivery. I bet they have sections in the overwhelming majority. because they are SAFER. If they were cheaper than the NHS would probably recommend them as a matter of routine.

Original poster
mamadiva · 16/04/2009 13:09

I know it's up to her I am just saying I don't think it's right that from what she has said she has decided on this for the sake of a football match.

And the money factor annoys me too rather than worry about the health lets just worry about the cash. It's not the right attitudes for doctors to have.

Operations with such risks to mother and baby or anyone who goes under the knife without need should not be carried out IMO.

OP posts:
LibrasJusticeLeagueofBiscuits · 16/04/2009 13:10

The one thing I don't understand is that I was under the impression one of the reasons for the high c-section rate in the USA was because the doctors were afraid they would get sued if something went wrong during a VB.
Can someone please tell me if that's an urban myth or not?

Original poster
mamadiva · 16/04/2009 13:12

Knowing America it's true I mean no offence to them but you can't fart without being sued there can you

OP posts:
LibrasJusticeLeagueofBiscuits · 16/04/2009 13:14

Yes but if it's true in the USA why isn't it true here? (i.e. c-sections being safer than VB)

AtheneNoctua · 16/04/2009 13:14

I think a lot of things happen in the US (and elsewhere) for the sake of protecting oneself against litigation. But surely litigation happens because something went wrong. So we could extrapolate that more sections happen to prevent things going wrong.

Some people are not prepared to take the risks of vaginal birth. Others are not prepared to take the risks of a section. It should be up to the mum, surely. People are talking about Colleen making an uninformed decision not based in medical facts. But, how can any of you know that from a Sun article of all places. Perhaps she has researched all the risks and decided upon a section.

Original poster
mamadiva · 16/04/2009 13:16

If thats truefair enough but from what she has said on TV and in the sun she has made the decision based on the fact Wayne has a football match roundabout the time!

OP posts:
traceybath · 16/04/2009 13:36

Well to be fair thats easier to say than actually 'i'm shit scared of tearing'.

Its a personal decision after all.

Swipe left for the next trending thread