Thoughts on Elective C-section?

[mamadiva]

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?

mamadiva, I take it you are not a football fan, eh?

I couldn't care less how she gives birth as long as I'm not paying for it.

Maybe she's trying to fit in with OK! magazine's print schedules - she is a 'journalist' after all

It's laughable to schedule a birth to fit in with your life. Kids aren't accessories, what happens when the little darling gets a bad illness when it's older? Can't schedule that, can you? I suppose if you're that rich you can just let nanny deal with it. Not what I'd call parenting though.

So you think it would be better that the baby's father missed the birth although he wanted to be there or the mother wanted him to be there? I think they have more chance of scheduling the birth than they have of re-scheduling the football match.

ditzie - a lovely lady I know got doctors to agree to an induction, so her sea-going husband would be there for the birth/immediate postnatal period. it's not just an issue for the wag brigade.

thoughts - couldn't give a flying fcuk and it's none of my business.

I think the baby's father should prioritise his childs birth and his wifes health over his damned job! I don't care how famous and important he thinks it is!

Isn't he under contract? Don't think he can pick and choose whether he plays or not. Of course, he could always resign, I suppose

If my employer wouldn't let me take a day off to attend the birth of my child, I would resign.

I'm sorry but this commodification of kids is unacceptable.

You would resign? Really?
They might consider it an honour for him to play for his country and wouldn't want to let the team/country down.
They might both want him to be at the birth of their child.
If they can have their cake and eat it, why not? That way they probably believe that no-one is let down.

Actually, for the purposes of accuracy that article doesn't say that she's having a section on 10th October, it says that that's her due date.

It also says a 'friend' says that Colleen: "has consulted doctors about having a Caesarean in late September."

Still not worth getting your knickers in a twist about.

im confused this exact situation happens every day with the WAGs and their 'too posh to push' mentality so what exactly is the new issue here??
i think she may be scared to be left worrying that she could be giving birth while her husband is kicking a ball around in the ukraine. if i was given a choice in that situation then i would choose the same as she apparantly has. there is barely a difference between her situation and the girls who book a CS to coinside with their soldier/oil rig/ travelling husbands leave time! but if someone posted about her booking in 3 weeks early for cs as her husband is back from his tour of duty for example there would be nothing but support!!
give the girl a break and remember there are loads of reasons why someone may choose CS over natural birth and they most likely wouldnt be reported in the sun newspaper
xx ei xx

Hmm, well its her choice and her baby, BUT I had a c-section, found out I needed one the night before as LO was in the wrong position, I was devastated and I think doing it for the reason of 'timing' is wrong IMO and she may well regret it?

But again its up to her really!

Can't bear the woman and this has confirmed my dislike of her even more.

Babies are not some accessory that you can dress up in little Burberry outfits. God, why can't the woman get a grip?

If you decide to become a parent, then your child's needs should take priority over your whims. Who gives a damn if it's football season or not. Her child's health should be the foremost focus in her mind, not whether the birth will somehow inconvenience her. C-sections pose a higher risk to the baby, health-wise. Why anyone with that knowledge would nonetheless go down the elective C-section route just because they have the option to is beyond me.

And, yes, I'm judging her.

Stupid girl! I have just decided to have an elective section and it's not been an easy decision my far and I'm not over the moon about it and do NOT see it as an easier option. I had a really bad 3rd degree tear with first PG and recently found out the tear was very close to leaving me with a colostomy bag. I hated every min of my labour and had awful care but have still been considering home water birth. Anyhow the more PG I am (28wks) the more pain I'm having down there and TBH don't like the thought of pushing a poo out let alone a baby - hence my decision and I think I have a good reason and consultant agreed

Collen is just making the decision because of Wayne's matches WTF!!! It's the whole too posh to push thing I reckon and I think it's just because she can and people with loads of money can just have a private section.

Just annoys me that it has taken me 7 months and sleepless nights and endless chats with MW's etc to make the decision to have the biggest op I will of ever had and she's doing it becuase of football....nob!

She has every right to the birth she wants.

If that's a stress free birth, with her husband present and not having to try and juggle work committments.

Was EXACTLY why I chose an El CS. I wanted my DH present and the only way I could make sure that happened was to book an EL CS on a Saturday.

I got a lot of hassle when I first told people and it upset me greatly. Now, I couldn't give a rats arse.

If a bunch of strangers don't like the decision I made for me, my baby and my family, it's their problem not mine.

And I very much hope Coleen Rooney takes the same stance.

TRUE womens rights means that women are allowed to choose the birth they want. Not what they are TOLD they can have!

Why is the focus on the woman rather than the baby though? Frankly, I think the baby's needs should be paramount, rather than the mother's wishes, unless of course, there's a health reason that dictates that a C-secion is necessary.

Giving birth is not about feminist principles IMO, but about what's best for the baby.

I think wanting your DH/DP there for the birth is a health reason.

Well, not sure about a health reason, but a very valid reason IMHO.

Rockin - it's about the mother because she is the one giving birth! The birth plan is something the mother writes, and that ought to be adhered to - whether she wishes a drug free natural home birth or a CS.

I'm considering an elective section (currently pg with second child, first was vaginal birth).

I tried very hard to research the relative risks to the baby and to me of an elective section versus a vaginal birth. The most authoritative source I could find was the NICE guidance (as it is an overview of a number of studies, and it gives an assessment of the strength of the evidence for each of its suggestions). However even this source is practically useless for making the decision for one reason - the majority of the statistics on the risks attached to caesarean delivery do not distinguish between emergency and elective caesareans. And it goes without saying that if you put all the situations where something went wrong in the 'caesarean' category, then of course it ends up looking riskier than a vaginal birth.

I've talked to my consultant about it, explained my difficulty, and asked for HER assessment of what the relative risks were. Her response (and yes, it's one doctor's opinion but it's all I have to go on) was that the only risks she would be concerned about were risks to me in subsequent pregnancies. She recommended that I attempt a second vaginal birth because even though we don't plan to have another child she sees many people who change their mind on this point. But if this really is our last child then she did not think there were any significant risks.

So my question to all of you making sweeping statements about how an elective caesarean is dangerous for the baby is - where are you getting this information from? Because I looked really hard and couldn't find any evidence. And, to return to the OP, maybe Colleen did too?

This study from the US

link

gives a neonatal mortality rates of 1.77 for cesarean section (with no medical indication) and 0.62 for vaginal delivery.

But, Tigger, that includes Em CS.

That does NOT give a true figure for El CS.

El CS are TOTALLY different!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was over the moon with my El CS and would happily advocate one to anyone considering one.

It doesnt include emergencies. It is about elective C sections for no medical indication.

This news article discusses the paper in more detail than the abstract gives.

Sorry, forgot to add link

link

How did it account for women who started off having a VB but then delivered via c-section?

Sorry - I cant see any reference to that?