"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?

Aloha, my experience of a section was just like yours. Both times I was up within less than a day, and was walking round the ward, in better shape than some of the more complcated normal deliveries! Home within 4 days and back to normal (or what passes for it in this house) within two weeks. Once my 6 week check was done I started aquarobics twice a week. Dd and ds were also fine.

SueW - don't think anyone should have to come up with a good reason for having a c section. If they want one then that is their perogative. So many women are led to believe that they are failures if they don't have a vaginal birth - and this can cause them to make the wrong choices, with terrible results, if the birth doesn't go to plan. IMO people should do what they want and everyone else should just back off.

I haven't had time to read all of the entries in this section but enjoyed some that I read. I have experienced both a 'natural' birth and a c-section. My c-section was an emergency after it was discovered quite late on in my labour that my dd was a footling breach. I too felt I recoved fairly quickly after this operation despite having to climb up and jump off a park fence just 4 days after the birth (with the help of a couple of VERY strong men!). I felt quite doddery for a lot longer after my vaginal delivery and can vividly remember some of the stares I got as I tottered after my dp on the way home from the hospital - I'm sure they thought I was drunk.

I don't care whether women have a caesarian or vaginal birth but it does annoy me a bit the excuses, like Zoe Ball - her mother had a bad birth what sort of excuse is that? Why aren't they just honest about their reasons. Like women who go to back to work, I freely admit I am not a stay at home mam type (tried it didn't like it) I went back to work to keep my sanity. I think they wouldn't get such a hard time about their decisions if they were just honest about it.

I too haven't had chance to read the whole thread but would like to say that I had a cs with DD 10 months ago and it was a very positive experience. I had an "emergency" cs after 3 days of very painful but failed inductions and only ever reaching 2cm. By that stage I would have accepted almost anyway of getting the baby out!!!

But, despite losing a lot of blood and being VERY anaemic, I too was out of bed the next morining, having a shower and making up for lost time of food and tea. I left hospital on the third day, took it easy at home and never had any problems.

If I have another I am still not sure which path I want to take but I never want an induction again!

I was looking for something else on the AIMS website, and came across this....

"At the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport, a mother sued after her baby was cut on the face during an elective section. At the time the hospital believed such injuries were rare - less than 1 in 100, so mothers need not be warned of the risk. The litigation prompted them to do a prospective study for the year 2000. A book was placed next to the resuscitation trolley in which all injuries were to be entered.

There was a 24 per cent caesarean rate (876 women) 1.5 per cent of the babies had skin lacerations (13 babies) - seven of these had emergency sections and six elective sections. Two of the elective sections were done because the baby was breech, two at "maternal request", one because there was a previous section, one for disproportion and one for a transverse lie. Three of the emergency sections were done because of "failure to progress".

A consultant did three of the sections, a registrar did seven (the same registrar did four of them)
"middle grades" did two and a senior house officer supervised by a consultant did one. They say "injury occurred regardless of the grade of operator". However, the fact that four injuries were caused by one doctor "implies a fault in technique" said the authors. One injury was done by scissors, the rest by a scalpel.

Only 7 of the 13 injuries were noted by the surgeon. The authors suggest that is why obstetricians think such injuries are "rare" - the baby is taken away and wrapped, the cut is not seen until later and the obstetrician may not be told.

They suggest that the risk of lacerations to the baby should be something mothers are warned about.
"

Reminds me -- amnio carries a death risk (albeit tiny) for the mother. did you know that? The things they don't tell you in antenatal classes...

Oooh, that's the hospital where dd2 would have been born if she hadn't been in such a hurry to come out

megg - don't be too quick to judge - for all you know Zoe Ball's mum could have suffered terrible injuries that would have left Zoe very scared at the prospect of suffering similar.

Zebra - my son still has scars from his forceps delivery - he's three in a month.

Why is "my mother had a bad birth" a bad excuse? I saw he explaining her easonsonce and it was clear that her mothers experience had so coloured her idea of labour that she was scared stiff. I don't see how that is not a legitimate excuse for opting for a c-section.
And why do we need excuses? Why does anybdy have the right to judge other peoples birth choices. As long as women are given all the info to make their own informed choices, let them.
My c-section was after3 days of failed induction and with an urgent need to get dd out because of Ob. Cholestasis. Zoe Balls wa becasue she was shitting herself about labour. Why is mine considered more acceptable?

I agree prufrock & willow 2. My mother always emphasised what a terrible time she had having me (big baby) and how bad the long-term effects were. There was obviously no information in the early 60's about pelvic floor exercises etc. It left me with the fixed impression that a vaginal birth could be very damaging and no amount of ante-natal classes was going to change that viewpoint.
I opted for an elective caesarian (I had fibroids as well) and although there were many other reasons for that choice my mother's history was definitely a factor in that choice. Women should be able to choose, I simply don't understand the cachet of having a natural birth .

prufrock - I totally agree. There is some sort of snobbery about natural birth which really gets my goat - as though it were superior to intervention birth ! Would the same people advocate amputation without anaesthetic as that is "how they used to do it" ?

Like Zoe Ball I was petrified of giving birth and begged for a section - but the NHS was not having it - but they kindly anaesthetised me so much with an epidural that I couldn't even feel my contractions and then tugged dd out with a ventouse when she became distressed at non-eviction, so all was well - but I worry that I wouldn't be so lucky again !

It's every wonam's right to choose and if she has the money to go private she can indeed choose.

Scatterbrain - it depends where you are as to whether the NHS will allow an elective caesarian - mine was NHS. It's all down to cost at the end of the day and some areas and consultants are more generous than others.

A good friend of mine has had two sections by choice (different from elective - that just means pre-planned, ie in case of placenta praevia, which I had), both on the NHS at Kings. Second time she went into labour early so did get to experience contractions - she just said it made her even more thrilled to have the section! She's now planning no3. I think the reason women feel they need to make 'excuses' for having sections is because people call their reasons 'excuses', which is a pretty judgemental term. Also, when talking about 'death risks' we ought to bear in mind the main causes of maternal death are pregnancy related (eg hypertension/clots), so , of course, anyone reallyworried about 'death risks' wouldn't get pregnant at all!

I was petrified at the thought of a c-section - having major surgery is not something I would have wanted. Thankfully, I had a vaginally birth and although it was painful it was also the most amazing experience. I felt so proud of my body that it could deliver a baby, a feeling I feel would have been robbed off me if I had had a c-section. Maybe that is why people are snobby about having a natural birth as they believe in their own abilities. Some people are so confident they have unassisted births - not sure I could!

Oh, don't be silly! No matter how 'confident' I was in my body, no matter how much I 'believed in my own abilities' if I'd had a natural birth my son and I would have both died in a huge lake of blood. Confidence has bugger all to do with it. Maybe you weren't confident enought to have a section!! This sort of attitude (people who have sections have something wrong with them, morally) makes my blood boil.

Oh and yes, a section is surgery, but so is an episotiomy or the repair of a third-degree tear. It's not a heart by-pass or an amputation, you know.

Forest, do you think I should feel 'proud' that my son is not disabled, or do you think 'lucky' is a better word? Some people are lucky in that they are able to give birth in a way they find not unbearably painful or lastingly traumatic, are not injured in the process and have a healthy baby without help. Not everyone is this lucky. It's NOT because they are defective. Do you honestly think animals die giving birth or have stillborn offspring because of lack of confidence?

Aloha - I was just talking about myself and how I felt about c-sections and vaginal birth. I don't really care how you gave birth but if you are getting that upset it sounds like you have a problem with the way you gave birth. I didn't actually have a natural birth - I was induced and enjoyed the drugs - only the second stage was 'natural' ie no forceps, epi whatevers or stitches. And yes I certainly wasn't confident enough to choose to have a c-section without having attempted to deliever normally but I am sure I would have had one if severe complications had arisen. I am very thankful I never had to make that decision. In reference to my comment about people being snobby re: natural births I was offering an opinion not a fact. I have just recently read a lot about unassisted births and one of the main points women that have given birth this way say is how much they visualised the birth and trusted their bodies and abilities to give birth on their own. And I do believe it takes an incredibly amount of confidence in yourself to deliver a baby on your own with no-one else present.

Jasper - I have a friend who had an elective cs who didn't really need it. She had one the first time as there was problems. However on her 2nd pregnancy there was no medical reason for her to have a normal birth. She admitted she just couldn't be bothered with it. She did have to persuade the hospital to allow it as they weren't too happy (I believe it costs quite a lot relatively for a cs) but at the end of the day she got her way.

So these people do exist!

FOrest - for what it's worth - I completely agree with your last statement... this is IMO one of the reasons women who hire doulas generally tend to have birth with far less interventions...
I can only speak for the way I practise but my first aim with any mum is to give her strong confidence (and she may need to be remimded during labour)... and YES it can end up as a caesarean (Thank god we can do them safely for thse who do need them) as babies can end up in very awckward/dangerous positions...

Aloha - I didn't read Forest's point of view as aggresive towards you (for what it's worth) - I have known you long enough to know how you feel on this very specific subject
Just wanted to quote a senetence from an article which was published last week in the Daily Telegraph :
the caesarean rate has steadily climbed in Britain to 21.5 per cent, while in Holland, it is about 10 per cent*. In Holland, an epidural is used in only six per cent of deliveries, compared with 24 per cent here.

• To my knowledge there are no more baby or mums deaths in Holland then here - yet they have a much lower rate of intervention... I think it says a lot for our culture... that's all

I think I spent longer in theatre being repaired after delivering my 10lb DS1 then it takes to 'repair' a c-section. In the end, I didn't see my son for 4 hours as I was exhausted and in recovery. I could easily have got an elective c-section for DS2 had the thought of someone rummaging about in my stomach not scared me more than the thought of another labour .

I certainly didn't feel any sense of "pride" that my body could deliver a baby afer either of my labours, just a profound sense of relief that the torture was finally over.

I firmly believe that women should be allowed to choose how they have their baby whether that be a completely natural no intervention birth at home or a high tech elective c-section in hospital. They should not have to justify their choice.

Forest, you stated that women failed to have non-assisted births due to lack of confidence etc etc. That's simply rubbish. As I said, I was thrilled with the way I gave birth not least because both my son and I were alive at the end of it, which would not have happened had I had a 'natural birth' - natural sounds so lovely, but when you are talking about corpses which have bled to death, that's not quite so 'Body Shop' cute, is it. So yes, I do feel pissed off when people go on about how having a section is due to some weakness. Do you realise that every year 15million women a year are so severely damaged by pregnancy and childbirth they never regain their full health? That in some countries half the deaths of young women are due to pregnancy and childbirth, and that haemmorrage, infection, hypertensive diseases and prolonged labour are the key causes of those deaths (RCM report)? So I would say that giving birth with nobody else present isn't so much a sign of confidence, as of utter reckless stupidity. Not to mention a totally misplaced romanticism about the real nature of childbirth.

Forest, you stated that women failed to have non-assisted births due to lack of confidence etc etc. That's simply rubbish. As I said, I was thrilled with the way I gave birth not least because both my son and I were alive at the end of it, which would not have happened had I had a 'natural birth' - natural sounds so lovely, but when you are talking about corpses which have bled to death, that's not quite so 'Body Shop' cute, is it. So yes, I do feel pissed off when people go on about how having a section is due to some weakness. Do you realise that every year 15million women a year are so severely damaged by pregnancy and childbirth they never regain their full health? That in some countries half the deaths of young women are due to pregnancy and childbirth, and that haemmorrage, infection, hypertensive diseases and prolonged labour are the key causes of those deaths (RCM report)? So I would say that giving birth with nobody else present isn't so much a sign of confidence, as of utter reckless stupidity. Not to mention a totally misplaced romanticism about the real nature of childbirth.

Aloha - Forest didn't say that

if you or your baby are alive because of a caesarean... GREAT! That doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to have vaginal deliveries when possible.

A caesarean is not safer than a vaginal delivery (all stats I have ever seen say this) but if a woman or a baby need it - then Thank God we have this possibility....

When you have a caesarean you have an operation to get your baby out (an episio is NOT an operation -sorry!), baby may not have been ready to be born... if caesareans were so great you wouldn't have so many doctors NOT advocating them... same is true for epidurals... if both were better than "natural" childbirth... we'd all get them!