Stupid article in the Daily Mail left me terrified

[lifeinthesun]

DD1 was born by c section at 38 weeks as she was breech. Although initially really wanted to try for a VBAC this time I have decided to have another c section, booked for this coming Monday. The baby will be 38.5 weeks. Was feeling very calm about my decision until saw article in Daily Mail that said babies born just 1 wwek early are more likley to have learning difficlites and that babies born by c section are 2x more likely to die in the first month. WTF!!!! I know there are risks with any surgery but I wasn't aware that there were risks to the baby. I thought it was just the mother. Any one know more about this????

I don't know much about that specific case, but remeber they can use statistics to show anything they want. Perhaps they are 2x more likely, but its very very rare for babies to die anyway. The doctors wouldn't let you have this c-section if it wasn't safe.

I saw it on the news this morning as well, am reminding myself that it's only 1 research project in Glasgow and often these things are based on wonky statisitcs and just scarethe nation for no real reason like swine flu, bird flu, salminella and more to the point the whole MMR jab thing which it transpired was unfounded but took many years to prove!

Sounds like yet another reason not to read that pile of pants the Daily Mail, if you ask me...

Sorry you are feeling so anxious and hope someone with more knowledge can reassure you

Statistically it can be proven that elective cs is more dangerous, but only because there are often reasons leading to the elective cs that means the baby / mother already has problems ? so it?s a bit of a red herring.

As for the thing about babies born a week early ? due dates are so much guess work anyway so I have no idea how that one works!

seriously hate that newspaper! scared me witless during the swine flu nonsense. Think I would have learnt my lesson and stopped reading it! I am just feeling anxious anyway as having surgery and nervous about anything going wrong as have my DD who needs me but now scared by this stupid statistic about the baby

if you read the article it says near the bottom

'Some 4.7 per cent of the babies born at 39 weeks had special needs, compared with 4.4 of those who went to term' thats a 0.3% difference not really very much at all.

If 1000 babies were born at term and 1000 born at 39 weeks then there would be 44 with SEN in the term group and 47 in the 39 week group.

In those small numbers this includes children with a number of conditions quoting the article 'The term covers learning disabilities such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and dyslexia, and physical problems such as deafness and poor vision. '

i'd recommend reading bad science the book as its really good at showing what scare tactics newspapers use to sell stories which really aren't there.

Can you talk it through with your midwife or a doctor at all?

Btw when you give consent to have surgery, doctors HAVE to inform you of all the possible risks, however miniscule - so if there really was a proven risk they would have to discuss it with you.

Like Cosmosis, I can't believe the stats on babies born just 1 week early are remotely reliable since this is never set in stone anyway.

I know that's easy for me to say since I'm not in your situation (yet). I do hope you can try to relax a bit... and find some new reading material

I'm with Cosmosis - there must be a certain number of babies born by CS precisely because they (or the mother) are not well, therefore they will have complications (or even die) afterwards.

As for the autism point, it is in the BBC too. The research suggests that whereas 5% of babies born at 39 weeks have autism, 4.1% of babies born at or after 40 weeks have it. Not the biggest difference in the world....

I'm a paediatrician and I have NEVER seen a baby die after elective section just because they were delivered by Caesarean. Obviously if the delivery is due to fetal or maternal ill health that is different, but even then we lose very few babies these days. Elective sections do carry a small risk to the baby, a small number will have breathing problems afterwards (think of them not "going through the mangle" and not clearing lung fluid as effectively - though that is a very crude explanation) - but even these babies are the exception rather than the rule and the problems can be easily managed.

Your baby is considered full term at 37 weeks and we would not expect any complications simply as a result of coming 1 or 2 weeks ahead of your due date.

Babies and mothers are too precious to put at any unnecessary risk and your doctor would not want to expose you to any danger.

Ignore the Daily Mail - it's hardly a journal of scientific excellence.

The main thing to remember about this 'twice as likely' business, is that if you take a very small number, and double it, it's still a very small number.

Newspaper reports often ignore this in their excitement to have a scare-mongering headline... and the Daily Mail is the worst offender IMO.

Looking at the article, the 'more likely to have problems at 39 weeks' is 9% more, which is bugger all really. Plus, it includes natural and C-section births, so there's no indication of whether these babies might have been born a little early because they were already having problems, like growth restriction for example. So it could be that arriving early is a symptom of a problem, rather than the cause of it...

Seriously though - DO NOT read the Mail, it is the biggest load of crap around. And it's not doing you any good worrying about stuff like this, is it?

I think this has been really badly reported (not unsurprisingly) by the Daily Mail.

The study can be found here:

www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000289#abstract2

The researchers are just making the point that this is something to be considered when patients and doctors decide when to plan an elective Caesarean section.

The risk to each individual baby is tiny but they mention that they are talking about thinking about the increased risk over the whole population.

It is all a balance though. You and your doctors will have discussed the very good reasons for you have a section, which will outbalance the POTENTIAL risks.

Overall, the moral of the story is to stop reading the Daily Mail!

Someone needs to ban the Daily Mail - my MIL prints off "health articles" from it and takes them into the GP to ask if she's suffering from it

I agree with Katz - Ben Goldacre who writes bad science is on a life long campaign to stop c**p like this being printed. Read him, it will show you how even 'respectable' media (and that doesnt include the DM) twist miniscule scientific research to generate sensational headlines. Ignore the DM, focus on the positive and keep calm for your own sake and your baby's. Good luck!

you are so right. Thanks all. Hormones going crazy. Have to stop worrying. KittyKatzen thank you so much for your post. Feel better after reading what you wrote. I was a very anxious first time mum and worried so much about SIDS etc and I think maybe this article just brought all that up again.

I haven't read the article, but if you think about it, c-sections are often done because there is something wrong with the mother or baby, for example seriously prem babies, so this will completely effect the stats and this will have been completely ignored by the Daily Mail who just want to make a scary story out of it. This is a nervous enough time as it is - stop reading the Daily Mail for goodness sake, why people read that guff is beyond me.

Your c-section and baby will be fine, best wishes for Monday.

Its just something to weigh up when having a CS, why is it surprising that there were risks to the baby in having a CS (or being born early), just need to weigh these up against the risks of having a VB.

If a CS was always safer for the baby then no babies would be born vaginally at all. For some babies, a CS is safer. If your doctor is happy for you to have a CS then for your baby a CS must be safer.

This is a very good reason for why the DM should not be allowed to cover health stories - they would rather tell a shocking story than a true one. I once spoke to a DM journo in a professional capacity and I was amazed by how ignorant she was on some issues that were fairly basic to her remit.

Sorry, DM rant. As MumNWLondon says, your doctors surely know best on this one. Good luck for Monday.

Born 1 month early myself
Ended up doing my undergraduate at Oxford, generally not seen as with learning difficulties

So don't let DailyMoan spook you!

DSes1 and 3 were both a week early and they are completely fine. I was 2 weeks early, my sister was 4 weeks early and my other sister was 5 weeks early. We are also fine, no learning difficulties or disabilities, all graduates with good jobs. I read somewhere that actually babies born at 30 weeks do as well as ones that go full term.

Maybe read the Times instead?

The daily mail is full of complete and utter bollocks. It is the worst newspaper published in Britain by a country mile.I am baffled by anyone who chooses to buy it. Don't believe anything you read in it! I am surprised they are able to fit their alarmist, irresponsible and inaccurate healthcare reporting in the paper at all, what with all the space taken up by casual racism about asylum seekers and muslims and stories about princess diana.

ditto. The daily mail is a dreadful paper. Whenever i have read their coverage of a subject i know a bit about I am horrified. Don't take any advice they give you seriously.

And to think their journalists must be educated to degree level. They should know better than the facts they are twisting and selling as news.

The Daily Mail should be ignored at all costs.

I don't get it, but once picked up a copy on the tube and happened to read an article about a subject which I am very knowledgable in (it was basically about my job (I am a solicitor and it was my field) and I had that very day taken advice from counsel (a barrister) about the question/issue in the article - the barrister is quite simply the world expert on the matter)... the article was, to put it bluntly, TOTAL crock. Not a grain of truth in it. I had never really read the Daily Mail before and hadn't realised the extent of the nonsense (ie LIES!) it spouts!! And the article was presented as gospel truth!

Anyway, I wouldn't even grant the article in question a grain of salt in terms of worry! As for slightly early babies (one week early is not even prem - 37 weeks plus is term) having learning difficulties - PAH! I was four weeks early myself. Pretty sure I have no learning difficulties!

All will be fine for you, I am sure. Good luck with the CS, not that you will need it as you are in the hands of expert healthcare professionals (and thankfully not Daily Mail journalists)!

ps - I would think about getting another newspaper in the future...

Why blame the Daily Mail? I read about this in the Times. Presumably other papers also have it. okay, not news anyone wants to hear, but if there is a corrrelation would be shhocking for it to be suppressed.

you mean they did a section on you without exlaining the risks to the baby?

I thought it was fairly common knowledge that c-sections were more dangerous for mother AND child than vaginal birth? This sin't really NEWS is it?

As the paediatrician above said c-section babies dont get the opportuntiy to squeeze the fluid out of their lungs which often leads to breathing difficulties.

Also having a c-section tends to lead to difficulties in breastfeeding which then has a detrimental effect on the baby in the long run.

Did you think that all the anti-c-section people were just so for the sake of the mother and not because natural birth's also better for the child?

saw it this morning in the news on tv.what a lot of c*. I was born a week early and i dont think that i have any learning difficulties;-). My sister was born via c-section and she is perfectly fine!!i am sure you and the baby will be fine. dont worry!! good luck