"Too posh to push" ?

[jasper]

I know this is a clumsy phrase but at least we all know what it means.
Does anyone actually know of a woman ( themselves even) for whom this is/was the case?

Exactly, all I want to hug my little one now......I can feel him or her all snuggled up waiting for me to make my decision, when all I want is for someone else to make the CORRECT decision and deliver this precious baby, SAFELY and HEALTHY.

It won't be long. You should just go for the option that you feel most relaxed and confident with. The professionals are there to make sure it all goes smoothly don't you worry.

So babies are still delivered by the Stork or found under the cabbage patch then Tillysmummy!

If only eh!

awwwww

honestly don't worry. When it comes to the time you will be fine and just keen to get it over. I think everyone's nervous beforehand.

One plus of going into labour naturally even if you do end up with a C section is that your body will release all those hormones to prepare you (I think this helps mental preparation too).

Sorry if I confused you again

Tillysmummy, I think you are right. Instincts/hormones all take over.

Better go, have a nice weekend. I'll update you on Monday after I've seen the consultant.

xxxxx

Good luck xx

Kicsr, you asked if I agreed there should be equal choice between section and non-section....50/50.

I don't see it that way. There are lots of ways to give birth, and each experience should be individually matched to the needs, mental, emotional , physical, social of the mother and her baby. I do think the mother should have the last word....and the chance to talk through fears, concerns, expectations with someone who is truly on her side.

I think experience (eg in Brazil) shows that if there are more sections than are obstetrically justified, we risk losing a lot, and that restricts the choice for all women.

Just as the emphasis on hospital birth (with no obstetric justification) has made it far harder for women to choose to have a home birth, the present tisuation, with 'creeping' caesareans, statistically speaking, is likely to de-skill midwives and doctors, and medicalise childbirth for all women, including the ones who don't want it that way.

I am ok about women genuinely choosing to have a section because they desperately fear normal birth. I think that number is very small.

Hi kiscr - my last posting on this subject I promise!! As you have just said you want someone to make a healthy and safe decision. Much as I really enjoy mumsnet that decision needs to made by you and your consultant, not any of the rest of us out here.

As we see in other threads obstetricians are criticised for unnecessary medical interventios in the labour process. Your consultant will have reasons for suggesting any particular course of action regarding type of delivery. Please speak to him/her frankly. Write down all the questions you have before your next visit. That way you will be confident about any decision you make.

Good luck, hope all goes well for you.

Good point about the de-skilling, Tiktok. When I was pg with dd they kept telling me she was breech, and that I would need a c-section. This upset me, and when I told my aunt (who used to be a midwife 30 years ago) she was amazed - she delivered many breech babies in her time. From talking to the medical staff I encountered during the pregnancy, it seems that they are reluctant to deliver breeches vaginally these days because they don't have the experience to be confident doing it - but unless they do it they'll never have the experience. Catch 22. In the end I had an ultrasound at 38 weeks and found out that dd had been firmly head down all the time, so I had a very straightforward vaginal delivery. However, looking back I think it is a real shame that if she had been breech I would have effectively been denied the choice to try a 'normal' delivery because of the loss of skill within the medical fraternity.

Before both my labours at about 38 weeks or so I wanted a c-section... I was petrified of the pain (it didn't help that there was a TV programme on labours at that time which showed women in "severe" pain/screaming,...) luckily the support I got from midwives and friends gave me the courage to face my fears... and I am SO happy I have been able to have vaginal births as I personally feel that unless there is a medical reason for a c-section... vb is (usually) better for the baby - less (usually again!) traumatic. My first labour was hell but still I did it again. And yes 2nd time around was far easier even if as painful but mainly much shorter.
We should spend more time listening to women who are scared of labour rather than showing them the theatre door... this way please !
A lot of the worries comes from the fear of pain and the unknown...

When pg with ds (my 1st) I really wanted a cs - I felt that I knew what to expect with an operation, whereas labour and delivery were a great and scary unknown. I would probably have gone for a cs if the choice had been offered. In the end I had a very straightforward vaginal delivery. Then when I was pg with dd and faced with a possible cs I was very upset and frightened, because I really wanted another 'ordinary' delivery - what I knew about, in other words. Thewiseone is very right - we need to take more time to discuss fears. I felt at the time that I would have been a lot happier if I had had the opportunity to discuss in detail with somebody medically trained exactly what was going to happen if I had a cs. I never got that opportunity.

kicsr, I haven't read anything like all the comments on here but I hope my experiences will make you feel better about an elective CS if that's what you end up with.

First child (born in NY) - regular monitoring because she was small for dates, 10 days overdue, monitoring then indicated foetal distress, elective CS performed, baby fine - just v small (5lbs 11oz - now, aged 20, 5'7" and v healthy.)

Second child - supposed to be allowed trial of labour. Scan date 2 weeks earlier than mine. OB's due date ran into Easter weekend - admitted for induction - my OB on holiday, duty OB not to my liking - pessaries failed to work after 24 hours and I was worried about 3-yr-old at home so requested CS (on Good Friday, had to have general anaesthetic) which happened at 9pm and was OK eventually though waking fully next morning was weird!

Third child - scheduled CS. Scan date again 2 weeks early (my kids have big heads or something) so delivery at "40" weeks was actually at 38 and feeding was a nightmare.

Fourth child - scheduled again, obviously! Different hosp, different OB, scan date 2 weeks early again, delivery at 37 weeks. Feeding still fairly impossible.

Actually feeding is my biggest argument against elective CS's, if the baby is not ready to be born then it just doesn't seem to have an adequate rooting/sucking reflex, possibly exacerbated by the anaesthetic. But in the long term it doesn't seem to make much difference.

As far as the surgery and recovery were concerned, even after 4 it wasn't that much of a problem (once I got moving...) And my "bits" are impeccable!

Kicsr - you may have read my comments about this subject much earlier on this thread so apologies for repeating myself but - and these are just my personal thoughts - I really wish I had been more assertive & asked for an elective c.s. I did ask, & was told that there was ' no good reason ' to have one, I was too 'polite' to make an issue out of it. I do not believe that 'anyone' can have a cs just by asking - in the event, to cut a long story short, I had to be induced, the baby got distressed and I had to have an emergency cs under general aneasthetic, DH not allowed in the theatre, all rather traumatic - my DS had a medical condition which, had he been born naturally, would have probably killed us both (SORRY, I AM CONSCIOUS THAT I MIGHT BE SCARING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ABOUT TO HAVE A BABY BUT I AM JUST BEING HONEST) - anyway, the story has a happy ending as my DS had a successful op at 6 months to correct his condition & I had absolutely no complications following the cs - so, in conclusion, if I had the choice again ( & I am sticking at one child !!) I would definately choose an elective cs.

GOOD LUCK, WHATEVER YOU DECIDE.

SueDonim - I've been trying to get on the NCT website to give you the reference for the outrageous stuff about women who have c-s who must feel 'less of a woman' etc, but it doesn't appear to be working properly. You say that women must feel this way for the NCT to say so, but I think,why would women feel this way if it wasn't for NCT brainwashing? You say you're sick of people slagging off the NCT. Well, I'm sick of the NCT slagging off people like me who have c-sections - and I'm a paid-up member!

I see people keep raising the cost issue. I get so p... off by people blaming me for the collapse of the NHS. You know, birthing pools cost money. Birthing centres cost money. Gas and bloody air costs money. When did you last see anyone challenge those on the issue of costs? Yet none are 'essential' to deliver babies. Why are c-s so different? In any case, what about the poor babies hideously damaged by NOT having c-s? Those who suffer catastrophic injuries due to oxygen starvation? I bet just one such child costs the NHS more than all the c-s than happen in a year.
Tik Tok - you think I have a go at women who have vaginal deliveries. This thread is full of women saying they can't imagine anyone wanting to have a c-s, and yet when I say exactly the same thing about vaginal birth, you have a go - double standards, I think. As for the main costs of c-s being the aftercare, yes, and I think it's exaggerated. If I have another baby and another c-section, I shall go home a lot earlier. It wasn't so long ago that women who had vaginal deliveries were made to stay in for ten days - now you're chucked out after a few hours - times change. I certainly think I could have gone home a lot earlier. As for the safety of breech birth. No, it isn't less safe because midwives don't get the experience. It is simply less safe, and a new extensive Toronto study has proved that beyond doubt. It is a mark of the hysterical prejudice against c-section that so many people refuse to believe that c-sections can be safer than vaginal birth, even when a major study proves it to be so. And the Toronto study also showed that when c-sections were planned in advance, women were no more likely to suffer complications than with vaginal birth. I was extremely well informed about c-sections before I had mine. And I was confident that not only was I having the only possible safe birth for me and my son, but that I was much less likely to have a child damaged by the birth. I notice people talk about the risks to mothers (which I dispute) but never about the risks to babies. A good friend's first baby died during delivery, which would have lived if he'd been delivered by c-section. Another friend is still is pain ten weeks after a vaginal birth and episiotomy. Another friend's baby spend months in plaster after hip dislocation during a breech birth. I don't suppose any of them show up in the statistics about c-sections. As I said in my first post, each to their own, if you want to go into labour and relish the 'challenge' that's totally your decision. I happen to think it's horrible - and no, I'm not ill-informed, I'm as informed as anyone. But I am sick of scaremongering about c-sections. Last year some nasty and unprofessional midwife at the national conference was slagging off Patsy Kensit (by name) for have a section. Whatever you think of her, Patsy Kensit had pre-eclampsia, an emergency c-section and spent weeks in special care breastfeeding her son. I bet she was thrilled that some know-nothing midwife was attacking her in public. Sadly, I think that woman's attitude is typical of the whole c-section debate. I don't think midwives should be woman-haters. That really worries me.

One more thing. Birth is nothing really. Babies are everything. We spend at most a day or so giving birth. We spend the rest of our lives being mothers. That's the important bit.

One more thing. There are no usable statistics on c-sections. No stats filter out women with medical conditions which make c-sections essential/desirable from women who choose them for preference. So there is no way of telling if the complications women suffer after c-sections are due to the procedure or the pre-existing condition. I had placenta praevia, and lost a lot of blood, but I would have lost a lot more and probably died without a c-section. If my c-section had gone wrong it would have almost certainly been due to the placental condition, not the op,but would have gone down in statistics as a c-section casualty. Also, they are only described as 'elective' or 'emergency' and the common misconception is that 'elective' means 'chosen for social reasons', which of course is wrong. It merely means pre-planned, like mine. Yet even if I had yearned for a vaginal birth and been desperately upset to have section, it would still have been 'elective'. This is why I think all those scary stats are so misleading.

Wells1 - I've not read all of this thread but I think you're scaremongering for those who might be about to give birth. What's all this talk of "horribly torn" etc? I have a friend who has given birth by both c-section and vaginally and would choose the latter anyday. I have another friend who, like you, is terrified of pain and has had 2 c-sections and had an infection after one of them. Off the top of my head, 3 friends have had c-sections and feel a sense of disappointment and of having "missed out." I had a trouble free delivery with no stitches, certainly not "torn to ribbons."

It's not a competition. Because you're terrified of the pain I'm sure that it's right for you to have section. But don't try to suggest that it's odd to not want a c-section.

Someone may have already said this but, don't the majority of female obstetricians say they'd want a c-section and the majority of midwives say they'd go for natural.

For anyone about to give birth, of course it hurts but the endorphins kicking in instantly after the birth gave me the most serene feeling of bliss.

For your information, Wells, I've seen the quote on NCT and it describes exactly how I felt after my first, traumatic, labour and failure to breastfeed. What's more, I can assure you that my feelings had nothing to do with NCT because I'd never heard of them, 27 years ago.

Something no one else has mentioned is that there is some evidence the rise in cs rates is behind the rise in diagnosis of children with ADHD and dyspraxia. It is thought that babies have mechanisms in the brain designed to help them through vaginal birth but when the mechanisms are not 'primed', as when born by CS, they can give rise to dyspraxia and associated disorders of the brain.

Wells, your comments are by far the angriest and most disparaging to women who have different choices from you. I have just read the whole board, and it's you who uses words like 'vile', 'torn to ribbons', 'can't imagine having a lovely time in labour', 'mad', 'hideously damaged' and so on. One person said they couldn't imagine someone who 'just fancies' having a section (and she had had one!). Other people (including me) have been mainly supportive of women having a choice if they are very fearful of labour, but many have sensibly pointed out that having a chance to talk through these fears is also important.

I think the most insulting bit of your posts is that you suggest the women who feel sad about their sections only feel that way because of 'NCT brainwashing'. Leaving aside the fact that only a tiny minority of women attend NCT classes anyway, it is unfair of you to suggest they don't have genuinely-held emotional responses to their experience. Why can you not allow women to feel what they feel?

Where is this pressure you talk about to have a vaginal birth? The section rate is going up year on year! Some of the examples you give of babies who die because of a lack of caesarean section are examples of poor care in labour - of course mothers should have a section if they need one, and of course professional attendants should spot when this become necessary. Good midwifery and medical care involves knowing when intervention is needed. I don't agree with any midwife publicly naming anyone famous and commenting on her birth - that's just poor professionalism, and nothing to do with choice of birth.

SueDonim - where's this evidence from re dyspraxia and ADHD? Surely if this was substantiated there would be much more info about it given to women when trying to dissuade them from having elective sections? If this is true, it's v.worrying. The trouble with all of this is that we're (mothers) easy pickings for any survey or set of findings regarding the way we give birth and/or bring up our children. I've never had so many opinions thrown at me than since I've become a mum.

Rachael, it was an article about children with those types of problem, in the Daily Telegraph, a while back - 18mths or two yrs ago, maybe? A search on their site might bring it up. HTH.

Wells 1 your aggressiveness re this is alarming. No-one is being critical of you because you had a C/S as you told us is was due to placenta previa, of course a C/S was the safest option for both you and your baby under these circumstances and I don't think anyone who has commented on this thread would think otherwise. However I still cannot see how you would think C/S was preferable to natural childbirth under favourable circumstances, ie no complications that would make C/S the safer choice.

It worries me that it 'worries' Batters that midwives are 'woman haters'. I'm sure Mears would agree, we work bloody hard every day to bring professional care to all women. I personally go out of my way to provide special care, little extra touches etc. I don't preach, just advise - and work my little socks off. Then I look at mumsnet, and discover how worthwhile it all was! I can only assume Batters has some underlying problem.
As everyone else has pointed out, we're not 'dissing' c/s when medically indicated - indeed, they can be life saving. My problem does arise tho', when women feel they have the'right' to opt for major surgery just because that is what they want. I know the debate has raged about c/s vs vaginal delivery, and the very real complications of c/s have been covered - of course there can be complications with vaginal delivery, but in reality these are generally less serious than those which can arise post c/s.
We should also consider the risk to the baby during/after c/s, as risks to the baby during vaginal delivery have been mentioned. I have seen many babies admitted to special care post c/s with respiratory distress, as they did not have the thoracic 'squeeze' that occurs when a baby is delivered vaginally. It seems a common misconception that c/s is safer all round for babies - this is not the case. Of course, we can say again that c/s can be life saving, and it would be ludicrous to criticize the decision for c/s in certain cases i.e. placenta praevia etc - again, this is not in dispute. I'm not even convinced that women who are frightened of labour should be given the right to opt for c/s. there are other ways to deal with such fears than surgery, and a longer hospital stay.
I love the term 'no-nothing midwife' - don't you Mears? Next time I'm racing round the ward removing the sixth post op catheter, the second drain, Mrs X's sutures, helping everyone on a thirty bedded ward to breastfeed, and giving out my 'know-nothing' advice, I shall remember this and chuckle!

Apologies Batters - got you and Wells1 mixed up in a state of caesarean frenzy!

Rachel, there is evidence that caesareans have an effect on the baby...see for example

www.nature.com/nsu/000720/000720-2.html

This study is very speculative, and looks at rats only, who develop ADHD behaviour after caesaeans, so that would be a long way from saying the same thing would deffo apply to humans.

And

www.mercola.com/2001/jan/7/childbirth_asthma.htm

This is more convincing, and looks at asthma, but forceps are even more linked with asthma.

There are several studies that link sections to a higher incidence of allergies. I don't think that's especially controversial.

Your view - 'it can't really be true, can it, or else they would tell us, wouldn't they?' - is a bit too cosy for comfort, sorry! There are many things that happen in health and maternity care which have longer-term or untoward effects, that health professionals on the frontline are not aware of, or don't regard as important. Not only that, it will always be hard to be very sure about links between an obstetric procedure and a behavioural diagnosis, and proving cause and effect is even harder.

Add to that , that sometimes longer-term effects are known, and are just deliberately ignored. It was known for years that routine episiotomy led to problems of several different kinds, but it took years and years for maternity units to reduce the incidence of this intervention.