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?

Interesting article here about 'natural c-sections' which should reduce the risks of respiratory problems in babies.

Perhaps thats what colleen is going to opt for?

I do still think its her decision and a valid one to ensure wayne is there.

ladidadi I'm not sure that's true - many women on MN have electives for all sorts of non medical reasons - I may have one this time after an emergency CS last time - they have given me the choice - and I wouldn't feel that if I chose a CS I would be going against the majority view on MN at all...

Well, I've been on similar debates before and I definitely felt in the minority. Hopefully times are changing BBBB .

ladidadi

Certainly where women have electives for non medical reasons on the NHS, I haven't spotted much in the way of negative comments.

Although a lot of those electives are due to trauma of previous birth, so maybe it's a bit different than straight choice with first baby.

Either way I stand by my earlier comments, birth in this country is incredibly safe whichever way you do it, Colleen will have the best medical team that money can buy, and if she has decided to have a CS then naturally she will book it for a time when her DH can be there...

Aah, I've argued from the pov of a first timer so perhaps we were coming across different views because of that.

Aaah well that may well explain it then!

As long as they areen't whipping the little tykes out at 35 weeks to allow mummy to get back to the modelling quickly then personally I can't really be bothered to get in a lather about this one...

Cote

Im not aware of any specific studies looking at mortality on newborns in elective sections done only after 39 weeks. So I dont know the answer to your question.
In addition to respiratory factors Im also aware that babies born afer elective CS are more likely to spend time in NICU, and more likely to have poor Apgars. There will be some interplay between NICU admission, Apgar scores and Respiratory symptoms, so I dont know the individual strength of each of those factors.

You keep saying that the study regarding respiratory risk didnt show an increase in respiratory problems, though the paper said "Even when elective caesarean section was carried out at 39 completed weeks of gestation an increased risk of respiratory morbidity remained evident in our study, as is the case in a few other studies." The increase was not statistically significant. I dont think that allows you to insist that there is is no increased risk, just that on the basis of that study we cant say for sure that there is any increased risk of respiratory problems at 39 weeks.

Increase is not statistically significant = We couldn't find an increase we can confidently speak of = There might very well have been no increase.

I studied this stuff, and "not statistically significant" means the results are null and void.

My understanding is that respiratory problems are the only real danger to a baby born by CS rather than VB. On every other count, VB is much more dangerous than CS for the baby - shoulder dyctocia and/or ventouse delivery leading to cerebral palsy, oxygen deprivation during labour/delivery causing mental retardation, etc.

And now the research you have kindly posted says there is no real increase in risk of respiratory morbidity in babies born by CS at 39 weeks (which, incidentally, is what my doctor said and why he is doing my CS at a day shy of 40 weeks).

I hope that with this, we can put to rest the claims that CS increases risk of mortality for baby. Thanks for that

There might have been no increase is not the same as being confident that there is no increase.

You have clearly made up your mind, I dont think that the evidence says what you think it does, but we will have to agree to differ on that.

I honestly didn't understand what you just said.

I studied statistics, and "not statistically significant" means the results are null and void. As if it were "zero".

This is not something "to agree to disagree" on. It is a mathematical study, not psychoanalysis. There is only one way to understand it.

Suggest OP gets their facts straight. Slow painful recovery is a massive over generalisation. I had an emergency CS, no real pain at any point and a quick recovery, infact my birth story is a lot more positive than 6 friends I know who had VB. Why do you care why type of birth she has? Can't imagine they will go NHS anyway.

If you are pro-choice then it's inevitable that some women will choose CS.

You can't be pro-choice but only approve of your own choice!

My sister had an elective cs, her husband is a teacher and it coincided nicely with half term. Like you Gangle she recovered very quickly, which I'm sure is mind over matter as she was so exhilarated at being granted what she wanted. She made an informed choice and knew all the risks.

I had VBs, eldest was 10lbs and I've since cost the NHS a lot in pelvic floor surgery So I find the cost argument which is often quoted a bit counter-productive.

I dont know how many different ways there are to say it.
The increase in that study was not statistically significant. That means that we cannot say for definite that there is an increased risk.
It does not mean that we can say for sure that there is no increased risk.

You are suggesting that one study, which has shown a non-statistically significant increase in the risk of something, is definitive proof that that risk does not exist.

If you are correct there would never be any reason to perform meta-analysis, or any attempt to replicate the results of a study.
I believe that you are incorrect.
So we will have to agree to disagree.

As someone who had a horrendous VB - delivering the placenta was actually worse than delivering the baby! Every complication and intervention known to man through both!!!! I do feel very strongly that there should be a choice for those that have had this experience. My DD is now 2 and so I'm thinking about the possiblity of a sister or brother for her but my GP won't commit to whether I would definitely get an elective even though she actually described my birth as the worst case she has ever come across!!! Celebrity choice though is a different thing - even for how bad it was I think you should give VB a shot....because for some people VB is relatively straightfoward

it seems to me that there are two issues here:

1. is there or is there not an increased risk to the baby through having an elective section at 39 weeks- seems we haven't come to a conclusion about this yet; if it is proved that there is an added risk, then yes I probably would judge her. But no more than I would judge a woman who knew she had a slightly higher than normal risk for pregnancy complications and still chose a homebirth.

2. is having a section such a stressful experience for a woman that she would be a fool to choose that- surely that risk is for her to assess? I personally found my emergency caesarian almost totally unstressful- does that make me a fool? recovery far more slow and painful with the VB I had.

He reason is due to a football match being played around the time of the birth.

In my head that tells me that him taking part in the match takes priority over the baby, so in order to avoid this she is having a cs.

Which must mean the match is very very important.

If thats the case, perhaps she should have timed it better.

If it is because she is worried about the birth, health risks of frightened of giving birth then fair play to her.

But she didnt.

What Colleen chooses to do is her own business - or rather was until she blabbed to whatever crappy sleb magazine/tabloid that she was scheduling it around the football season.

It's pissed me off because it trivialises an important debate and perpetuates this "too push to push" twaddle.

There are lots of good reasons why an elective section may be best for some people. Football isn't one of them.

"perhaps she should have timed it better"

Lol. Because everyone really can always plan these things?

If you believe that c-sections are a womens choice you don't get to pick and choose the reasons.

"That means that we cannot say for definite that there is an increased risk"

Exactly.

Let's repeat that:

We cannot say for sure that elCS at 39 weeks has any more risk of respiratory problems for baby than vaginal birth.

"You are suggesting that one study ... is definitive proof that that risk does not exist."

Hey, it's the study you posted. I only read it - a practice you might like to emulate in the future, before posting studies thinking they support your views

I started a thread about this that turned into a CS v VB thread. I don't really have an issue with el CS for most reasons but I am a bit [shocked] if the CS is scheduled for when the baby will be 37ish weeks - that's what I have an issue with.

Yes. Thats right, it suggests an increased risk but does not definately prove it.
I did read it, and posted it because I thought the information might be interesting to people. People need to make up their own minds.
Im not posting studies because I think they support my views. My views are formed from reading the research evidence. If I read something that suggests that what I believed was inaccurate, then my opinion would change. Thats the way it works isnt it?

If Colleen Rooney is paying for her treatment and is not doing anything which is harmful to her and her or her baby why shouldn't she have a c-section on a date that is convenient to her and her husband?

I can't see why anyone should seek to take issue with her choice, or to want to get on their high horse about it.

I can't understand why some women seem to find it so hard to believe that not every woman wants to have a vaginal birth - I certainly didn't and never would.

I asked for an elective c-section at my first consultants appointment, setting out my reasons, and was told no. I ended up having an emergency c-section in the end anyway, so got my wish, but I would have preferred not to have gone through 24 hours of extremely painful and non-productive labour and put my baby's life at risk first.

After having a nightmare induction and emergency section i cant understand why anyone would actually pay money for a c section, when a VB may be straightforward. She has the money and support to have it done, but i dont like that it perpetuates the whole too posh to push thing.Saying that, at least shes not using the whole 'medical' reasons excuse.