To 'miss out' on a vaginal birth?

[dancingqueen345]

I had an emergency c-section with my first, only got to about 3cm but was in so much pain and couldn't have imagined going through full birth. My recovery was great/easy and I now only have really positive feelings about my birth.

I'm pregnant with no2 (definitely our last) and I've found myself being really blasé about going straight for a planned c-section this time round, but just a tiny niggle of doubt is creeping in that I'll miss not having the experience of a vaginal birth!

Am I romanticising it?

I thought I had quite a high pain threshold before no.1 but now I'm not so sure. I'm also very aware I could end up in an emergency c-section again and I would definitely prefer a planned one over emergency.

Just looking for opinions/experiences please!

I feel exactly like this after 2 emc the recovery was brutal yes partly from labouring for over 24 hours first both times.
I'm currently pregnant and planning a vba2c.
Sometimes I do think people don't realise having major abdominal surgery for no medical reason isn't a walk in the park

Not missing out on anything other than lots of pain for hours and sore bits after.

My birth experience was incredible, vaginal waterbirth, and I'm glad I got to go through that although it was long and hard. It was a life altering experience for me in ways I never imagined, normally I can't even relax let alone go to the places I did during birth. My choice was a general anesthetic CS or natural, so it was the best of a limited choice. Labouring in water helped to have no tears, as well as the birth itself and all the mental and emotional part of it, it was also lovely to walk straight through to bed after as though nothing had happened. Baby was born very peacefully, I delivered myself and she just looked around calmly. It was very peaceful and private, just really relaxed and special and I really owned the experience.

I've known people to have a calm emergency CS too, just because it was called an emergency, it wasn't panicked like some might expect, they still got to choose music and hold baby straight away.

Neither is a tattered vagina and incontinence for life.

But that doesn’t happen to everyone. I had two vaginal births with an episiotomy and ten stitches for the first one. I have a tiny scar and am still continent decades later.

I totally support every woman’s right to choose but it should be an informed choice, spreading horror stories doesn’t help anyone. I heard so many dreadful stories that I said after my first birth that it was nowhere near as bad as I was expecting.

@BIossomtoes

I accept that. Certainly friends and family of mine had much easier births. Elective sections weren't a thing 30 years ago either. And at the time it wouldn't have occurred to me to ask for one.

I sadly got the short straw.

An informed choice means hearing the good and the bad.

I’m sorry that happened to you. Agreed that informed choice means hearing both sides but the bad tends to drown out the good.

For me, the idea of painful genitals and longterm problems down there is WAY worse than a scar and some aching in the lower abdomen before it heals

Vast majority of people don't have 'long term problems' 'down there' after a vaginal birth

Many women do though.

And the older you are as a first time mum, the more likely a VB will have difficulties - and more pain, and risk of damage/tearing/long term problems. (Especially first time mums 31-32+.)

Of course, it's not a given, but the odds of issues during a VB (for older first-time mums) is high enough to consider a C-section. IMO.

I had my last baby in my 40s. No injury and, in fact, more comfortable down there than previous births. I discussed a section with my OB because my pregnancy was high risk. She said a vaginal birth was safer for both baby and me. I wanted to be 100% sure so I interrogated her about everything (including tears, prolapses, etc etc). There was zero mention of more pain or damage down there.

The women in obvious pain on the post-delivery were those that had sections. They were constantly being attended by midwives, they shuffled round in obvious discomfort. Not one of the women who’d given birth vaginally had anything more than a minor tear or commonly no damage whatsoever.

While I appreciate that some births can go horribly wrong for the woman, this constant ‘if you give birth vaginally, you’ll rip up to your chest, your arse will fall out and you won’t be able to walk for 15 years’ is actually misogynistic, scaremongering rubbish.

C-sections also have long term health consequences, including potentially adhesions which can cause chronic pain and reduce fertility.

A straightforward vaginal birth is better for the health, both long term and short term, for both baby and mother than a section. The problem is that nobody knows in advance which vaginal births are going to be straightforward. But the increase in c-sections is having real knock-on effects on population health. Including an increase in maternal and neonatal mortality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10196217/

I had a serious tear that left me with incontinence issues. Wish I’d had a c section!

Missing out on vaginal birth is not missing out, trust me.

Your not missing out on anything 8 mths after having son ended up with a prolapse and 2 surgeries definitely overrated

@BreatheAndFocus 9/10 first time mothers tear during childbirth according to RCOG. That's not mysogyny, that's a fact.

Others my feel differently, but personally I do not like those odds, so a baby will never enter this world though my vagina.

Actually that's not a fact. The link to the article you quoted actually says 9/10 experience of first time vaginal births have some sort of "tear, graze or episiotomy". It does not specify the type of grade nor provide any indication on recovery or long term consequences.

I experienced an external graze with my VBAC. It was very minor and caused me no issues or recovery. I had two small stitches purely for cosmetic reasons. I loved my VBAC and I would consider myself to have missed out if you told me I had to forgo it.

@supercalafragilisticexpealidocious Glad it went well for you and that you had a positive experience, but tears, grazes and episiotomies are a hard no from me. I absolutely do not want those things happening to my body, and as I previously mentioned, a 9/10 chance is too much for me.

I've had 2 very quick vaginal births and this time I'm considering a c section but I worry about the surgeon accidentally cutting the baby and scarring them.

A graze is literally nothing though. I had a graze both times, which is to say that I was fine. I had no pain and no healing needed. I was never off my feet. I only know the grazes were there because they were in my notes.

Tears usually heal very well, better and faster than episotomies do. It is your prerogative to prefer the certainty of having your abdomen cut into to the possibility of having your vulva tear, graze or cut, but the risk data is on the side of vaginal birth on the whole.

I had all my babies vaginally. Yes, it’s painful but manageable with pain relief. All positive experiences and I was up and about within hours. A bit bruised for a couple of days but no long term issues. I think that’s fairly representative of women who deliver vagi ally despite what this thread might lead you to believe!

I was so glad I’d done it that way when I watched the women who’d had c sections hobbling about the ward with weeks of recovery ahead of them.

If you take the best outcome vaginal delivery and compare it to the best outcome c section when all goes to plan then it’s obvious the vaginal delivery is a better option in terms of maternal and baby’s health. People trivialise c sections but they are major abdominal surgery and can lead to infections, foetal injury and poor health outcomes.

That is one poor quality article. I've only followed up on a few bits of it, and even that's enough to pick a lot of holes. Vague claims, cherry picking and generalisations.

The authors get off to a worrying start with the claim that only a 10-15% CS rate is acceptable to the WHO, and repeat this multiple times. Despite the fact that this was dropped years ago, they thought it was appropriate to keep repeating it in 2023. So that's either disingenuous or badly informed. It doesn't get any better.

They claim that instrumental delivery should be encouraged as an alternative to CS, with no attempt made to discuss the known, certain risks there or ascertain whether the mother prefers those to ELCS. It's just ideology. As there's no mode of birth that's risk free, presenting only one set of risks and no others is so biased as to be worthless, as well as being morally suspect.

Another example of this is where they grudgingly accept that medically necessary CS can be of benefit to the mother and child, but fail to mention the definite benefits to elective CS too, such as the entire removal of the tearing risk. It would be fair enough if they just argued that the benefits don't justify the risks, but they don't even acknowledge them.

One of the references they use for their increased costs claim is a study from 2001! It in turn has multiple references from the mid 90s and one as early as 1987. To use such out of date data in the 2020s is appallingly disingenuous.

Basically, any article that doesn't even attempt to balance the risks and benefits and then airily tells us all that CS rates are too high isn't worth paying attention to.

Thanks @Ineedamanicure really needed to read this after this thread terrifying me whilst pregnant with no 3 x

Having had both a section and a vaginal birth I can wholeheartedly say the vaginal was better in every way if that's any reassurance.

The problem is there are no guarantees with labour and delivery so you may end up with a straightforward vaginal delivery or you may end up with something that requires more recovery. However, having had a straightforward vaginal delivery it is far superior in terms of recovery and experience than a section (in my view). Lots of women who have only had sections believe them to be the best option and at the end of the day the right choice is the one that's best for you but there's no denying the risks and side effects of a section. To name a few of mine:

• throwing up from the meds after delivery which meant I couldn't hold me baby
• significant loss of blood which meant I couldn't hold my baby properly
• numbness in the scar site afterward for quite a long time (it did get better)
• difficulty moving around afterwards and even standing up
• blood thinning injections for weeks afterwards which I found so painful I used to cry (not everyone finds this)

Having had both a section and a vaginal birth I can wholeheartedly say the vaginal was better in every way if that's any reassurance

I agree. I felt lousy after a section, stairs were difficult, major op and having to care for a baby - numb tummy, stitches, water logged legs.

then had twins vaginally and felt like I could run a marathon even after a 36 hour labour:

Up and about and felt I could cope really well with 3 under 2.

I had to insist they let me try being twins, and so grateful to the midwife who let me do so:

Do what you need to do.

I totally agree, having also had both CS and vaginal birth, vaginal birth was so much better ime. I am really surprised at so many people saying otherwise. It would be interesting to know if they have all experienced both?