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????

foreverastudent I am aware of the dangers of any operation and know that a c section poses a risk to the mother. I weighed up my options very carefully before deciding to have another one but the risks of something going wrong with a VBAC are also quite high and my doctor felt opting for a planned c section would be less stressful. Re it making breastfeeding more difficult I maanged to breastfeed my DD for a month before making the personal decision to stop and IMO it hasn't had any detrimental effect on her.

And you are all right. I do normally buy the Times but I live abroad and often the only English newspapers I can find are the Mail or the Sun!!

The Daily Mail is a complete joke in medical and scientific circles. Just ignore anything they say. As someone else said, there are a few people like Ben Goldacre who are trying to make people more aware of how the media mis-represent science and medicine all the time (and get them to change or at least put the reference to the original study).

The most common thing papers and TV do, is take a small study, or a study looking at samples (e.g. in a test tube) and say they've found a cause for a real-life situation when that isn't the case.

lifeinthesun, I'm sorry you were scared by the DM.

I know you're not in the UK, but the NICE guidelines on CS here - guidance.nice.org.uk/CG13/Guidance/pdf/English - are what clinical decisions in the NHS are based on, and are the best source of info I'm aware of.

A shorter version 'For pregnant women, their partners and the public' is here - www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10940/29336/29336.pdf

That said, as Cosmosis and others have pointed out, the 'cause and effect' discussion around CS and risk is not straightforward. Many CS's are carried out because of maternal or foetal health problems which mean they are more likely to experience health issues after birth than mothers and babies who are very low risk - however they are born.

And the NICE guidance is clear about this. The shorter version contains a summary of risks, comparing VB and CS births, but has a disclaimer which reads: - 'It is not clear whether the increased risk of these problems is a RESULT of a caesarean section or BECAUSE of the reasons for needing a CS.' [caps are mine]

If you looked at mortality rates following heart operations, you would see a higher mortality rate than you would for, say, having your tonsils out. However, you wouldn't assume the heart operations were actively causing patient deaths, and cancel them all in the interests of patient safety!

Also, CS statistics do not differentiate between emergency CS's (carried out because there is an immediate and severe problem with mother/baby), and planned CS's, which can be seen more as preventative or pre-emptive action, to avoid emergency problems.

So overall, the risk picture isn't that easy to summarise. (as an aside, something I never see anyone mention is that the risk of physical trauma to the baby is LESS for a CS than for an instrumental VB - and that for mothers, the incidence of bladder incontinence 3 months after the birth is LOWER for those who've had CS births than those who've had VBs. The figure is less than 10 percent for both groups, btw - another thing to be aware of when discussing risk, as others have mentioned. Phrases like 'five times more likely' sound very alarming until you realise that both figures come in at less than 1 percent - like 'death of the mother', for example).

Hi living in the sun,

most sections are arranged early so that there is no chance for you to go into labour naturally. However, for you and your baby it would be much better to have the section closer to baby's natural birth date.
How about postponing by a week. This way baby will be that much more mature.

Look, take it from someone who is a former journalist and also a pregnant mum- the Daily Mail is a dreadful paper and despite being primarily read by women, is one of the least women-friendly papers out there. Just think about the way it portrays single mums, working mums, modern women generally. Seriously, if you want to read about kids, pregnancy etc, either stick to the sensible comments and stories on websites like MN or read the Family section in the Guardian on a Saturday. Incidentally, for anyone out there who has a middle-class middle-England MIL who waves this paper at you, perhaps remind them that the Daily Mail was a fervent supporter of a certain German gentleman with a moustache during the rise of the Far Right. I am not making this up....

here, check [http://vodpod.com/watch/3533751-dan-and-dan-the-daily-mail-song this]] out. He also looks scarily like my DH!! That should sort you out, my love!

ah! try again!
this
should work!

There is a facebook group labelling everthing the Daily Mail has reported as giving you cancer this is from Air travel and allergies to Worcestershire sauce!
The doctor wouldn't deliver if there was any risk and if you have any concerns then speak to them about it. There are plenty of responses here with more information than me but they wouldn't put you or your baby through any unneceseray without reason.
Goodluck for Monday and I bet you can't wait to hold your perfect little baby in your arms after it all.

I agree with MrsGuyOfGisbourne.

The Daily Mail is notorious for scare stories, but in this case they are not the culprit.

The story was widely reported by the BBC first of all and most of the broadsheets.

As with all health/pregnancy related stories, I think you have to read beyond the headlines and preferably, if it is of genuine concern, track down the original research and read the full paper.

The papers prefer the scariest angle (all of them, not just the DM). It is our personal responsibility to take what we read in them with a pinch of salt.

Having worked for several national, including broadsheet, newspapers, I believe very very little that I read in them.