Whats with the new growing trend of being too posh to push

embee

ArthurDent wrote: »

I had a section and a beautiful healthy baby - the most important result.

This is probably the most important point to any parents - a healthy baby. Not too many care when push comes to shove (or when push doesn't work and the baby comes out the "sunroof" way) how their babies are born.

ArthurDent wrote:

BTW I've yet to meet anyone I know who was "too posh to push"

Me too. I have an aunt who had 2 "elective" caesareans. Her son was breech, and her first pregnancy. Her daughter, born only 18 months afterwards, was born by caesarean due to the risk of the uterine scar rupturing. She isn't in any way bothered by the fact that she's never had a contraction or laboured her baby. She nurtured and grew them both and kept them safe for 9 months apiece - that to her was more important than their route of exit.

lezizi

I cant imagine a doctor agreeing to do a section if there was no medical reason.
I went private as i suffer from a medical condition called myasthenia gravis, I was at high risk during labour, my body could become so weak my lungs and throat would collapse. I was also on crutches for 15 weeks due to SPD. My doctor did not want to agree to an elective section straight away, he said he would prefer if i could try a natural birth, because if i went down the road of a c section it could have more complications in the future.
So i was induced early so they could control my labour but after 2 hours of contractions the doctors decided it would be better if i had a section. So i had an emergency section/
For me it was the best thing as i couldnt have gave birth naturally, I found it very hard to recover after the section i was jealous of the mothers in the ward who had natural births and were standing up walking around and holding their babies. I couldnt pick up my baby for nearly 48 hours and the 6 week recovery was unbearable as i was house bound, unable to drive and because i got an infection in my wound i wasnt up for walking.
I can't believe anyone would be too posh to push and choose that over a natural labour. My doctor wouldnt agree to an elective section even though i had a medical condition, i could imagine what he would have said if i told him i wanted a section because i wanted the bbay on a certain date, or i had a fear of childbirth.

tallaght01

lezizi wrote: »

I cant imagine a doctor agreeing to do a section if there was no medical reason.
I went private as i suffer from a medical condition called myasthenia gravis, I was at high risk during labour, my body could become so weak my lungs and throat would collapse. I was also on crutches for 15 weeks due to SPD. My doctor did not want to agree to an elective section straight away, he said he would prefer if i could try a natural birth, because if i went down the road of a c section it could have more complications in the future.
So i was induced early so they could control my labour but after 2 hours of contractions the doctors decided it would be better if i had a section. So i had an emergency section/
For me it was the best thing as i couldnt have gave birth naturally, I found it very hard to recover after the section i was jealous of the mothers in the ward who had natural births and were standing up walking around and holding their babies. I couldnt pick up my baby for nearly 48 hours and the 6 week recovery was unbearable as i was house bound, unable to drive and because i got an infection in my wound i wasnt up for walking.
I can't believe anyone would be too posh to push and choose that over a natural labour. My doctor wouldnt agree to an elective section even though i had a medical condition, i could imagine what he would have said if i told him i wanted a section because i wanted the bbay on a certain date, or i had a fear of childbirth.

I agree that it's tough to get the obstetricians to agree to do c-sections on the basis of phobia. BUT, they will do it if a woman is scared enough. I go to all the sections in my hospital, in case there's a problem with the baby,a s sections (even the ones with no medical indication) do carry higher risks for babies.

But as long as mum is aware of the risks, then it should be up to them.

The risks are pretty tiny either way. And some women are so petrified about a vaginal delivery that it seems cruel to put them through it.

Somebody said earlier that the majority of elective sections she attends as a student midwife are for non-medical reasons. This can't possibly be true. I would be amazed if this is actually statistically accurate.

lezizi

tallaght01 wrote: »

I agree that it's tough to get the obstetricians to agree to do c-sections on the basis of phobia. BUT, they will do it if a woman is scared enough. I go to all the sections in my hospital, in case there's a problem with the baby,a s sections (even the ones with no medical indication) do carry higher risks for babies.

But as long as mum is aware of the risks, then it should be up to them.

The risks are pretty tiny either way. And some women are so petrified about a vaginal delivery that it seems cruel to put them through it.

Somebody said earlier that the majority of elective sections she attends as a student midwife are for non-medical reasons. This can't possibly be true. I would be amazed if this is actually statistically accurate.

I agree that a woman should have the choice if she has a phobia but i couldnt imagine alot of doctors agreeing to it for that reason.
I wouldnt say it is true that the majority of elective sections that the student midwife attends are for non medical reasons, but there is a big increase in women having c sections. I know three women who had babies this year and they all had c sections, not for a medical reason but because they were offered them. In one case the doctor said to my cousin you can push for 2 more hours if you want or you can have a section now and it will be all over in ten minutes. She believes that the doctor wanted to go home so offered her a section to speed things up, I dont know how true that is but if it is i think it is wrong.

Dee5

l3LoWnA, you sound like you are writing my story!

The exact same thing happened to me. I was 39 wks and had my first contraction. Had a show same day, called hos told me not to come in. This went onuntil Sat morning when I called to tell them I hadn't felt the baby move in around 16 hours. Finally got the go ahead to go in, was 1 cmtr and baby was fine. Finally made it to 4 cm and got epidural. I had been in pain since the Wednesday with no sleep and was knackered, so they thought it best so that I could have a sleep to have energy for pushing time. Finally got to push time at 11:55pm Sat night. Pushed with all I had to get the baby out. MW telling me to push harder over and over agin. Broke wind, and she apologised as she thought I hadn't been pushing properly! The wind breaking proved I was pushing correctly.
Eventually she decided to ge a second opinion at about 1:30 am. Turned out I would have been best with a section, but the theatres were all full! Got a Gynae down had my daughter with the aid of suction.
Had no idea what they were doing to me, I wasn't told an awful lot, it was emergency situation.

I ended up with a 3rd degree tear and an hour and a half of stitching. While I was being stitched I had a reaction to the local anaestethic(sp).
Evenually I was sorted and seen my daughter, she weighed in at a whopping 8lbs 13.5 oz!!! Thank God I didn't go over!

Anyway I couldnt even sit down properly had to sit on one bum cheek to feed. I felt like I was being rail roaded into bfing. Finally got them to "let" me put her on a bottle.

Any how I am now planning my next child, but would like to opt for a section.
I don't think I could let anyone touch me "down there" again. I havent even had my smear over my delivery. I am literally terrified of anyone touching me.

I would try opt for a date if my due date coincided with a special date, but only because I will prob have a section anyway.

metrovelvet

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456

An article on the reasons behind the escalating c section rates, at 31% in the US.

ex_infantry man

metrovelvet wrote: »

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10456

An article on the reasons behind the escalating c section rates, at 31% in the US.

great article. ireland is becoming more Americanised.

di11on

I heard c-section rates were down in the Coombe in 2006:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1211/coombe.html?rss

The Corinthian

I've a friend who chose to have her baby through a c-section. There were two reasons that she wanted to go down this route, the first was that she didn't fancy X hours of labour and the pain that came with it and the second was that both she and her husband wanted to manage the time better.

She is self-employed and thus wanted to literally be able to work up to the last moment, deliver and go back to work in as short a time as possible. He is an works long hours so being able to limit his time off work (and choose when so his diary would be empty) was also important.

This may seem very cold and materialistic to some, but I can understand where they were coming from and why they did it.

shrapnel222

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've a friend who chose to have her baby through a c-section. There were two reasons that she wanted to go down this route, the first was that she didn't fancy X hours of labour and the pain that came with it and the second was that both she and her husband wanted to manage the time better.

She is self-employed and thus wanted to literally be able to work up to the last moment, deliver and go back to work in as short a time as possible. He is an works long hours so being able to limit his time off work (and choose when so his diary would be empty) was also important.

This may seem very cold and materialistic to some, but I can understand where they were coming from and why they did it.

the recovery from a c section is more painful and takes longer than with a normal birth. Did they have nanny lined up so she could go back to work? unfortunately the child is the one who ultimately loses out as the mother takes little or no time off to bond with the baby. I suppose for some, all priorities change with the new arrival, for others, it's get back to normality as quickly as possible.

The Corinthian

shrapnel222 wrote: »

Did they have nanny lined up so she could go back to work?

Yes.

unfortunately the child is the one who ultimately loses out as the mother takes little or no time off to bond with the baby. I suppose for some, all priorities change with the new arrival, for others, it's get back to normality as quickly as possible.

That's an incredibly condescending thing to say. One could retort in kind and suggest that not everyone's reson d'etre in life is to be a breeder...

Or you could just respect other people's parenting styles?

shrapnel222

that is not condescending in any way, it's just an observation as to how things are in this day and age. I'm certainly not judging them. and one could say that we are genetically programmed to be breeders so it is certainly one of our raison d'etre

stinkybum

Its written in my notes that I asked for a section and i dont care.

I'm 29 weeks into a high risk pregnancy and am being given the option of trying for a natural delivery. However, i'm deciding to opt for a caeserian section for a few reasons.

Firstly, because of various medical issues, i would have to be very tightly monitored following an induced early labour, having 3-4 canulas for various medications and "failure to progress" would for me mean being given syntocin or having my waters broken. Secondly I would be unlikely to be allowed to be mobile during labour due to the canulas and drip bags etc and the idea to me of attempting to push a baby out after anything up to 12 hours of being poked and stuck with needles and ordered about while still facing the risk of an emergency C-section if i dont "progress" to their standards to me is the worst possible case scenario. Also, If i dont deliver within 12 hours of labour starting, i'll be given a CS anyway so in my opinion, i'd much rather make the decision to have a section now and at least then i'll have an outside chance of a decent recovery once i KNOW what is ahead of me and have some control over my body.

I dont honestly give a rats ass if people think i'm too posh to push. I am too long in the tooth to think that its going to be all bells and whistles and for my own peace of mind, i'm taking the road of a section. My consultant told me that he thinks i would be perfectly capable and strong enough to give birth naturally if left alone however, due to health issues, I cant be and he thinks i'm making the best decision all around.

Other women have given birth vaginally in my circumstances and whooppee for them. If i could do it in a bath in my own house with my Dh and Mammy and a midwife, i'd be happy out. But its not to be.

ETA: my medical conditions are type 1 diabetes, high BP, shockingly flat veins and a blood clotting disorder just in case you think its a sore knee

embee

stinkybum wrote: »

I would be unlikely to be allowed to be mobile during labour due to the canulas and drip bags etc

I was mobile throughout my entire labour. I was walking the corridors dragging an oxytocin drip whilst my partner dragged the gas and air canister (which was on wheels). Most midwives will encourage as much mobility as possible to bring the babys head down onto the cervix and encourage dilation.

Nevyn

I was the same wheeling the drip with me, when i was having my second and hung out to the last mintue to have the epi but in place.

metrovelvet

Choosing to have a section so you can go back to work as soon as possible makes no sense since recovery from natural labour is quicker - if all goes well. Additionally there is something known as the "cascade effect" meaning that you cant predict things like infections, ruptures, allergies to the pain management, etc. It's not like getting a tooth pulled. Plus you are in pain for weeks after, whereas labour you are in pain [if you opt for no epi - another reason the avoiding the pain of labour excuse doesnt fly - an epi knocks it out] for a limited time.

Brian Capture

Surely a C section means that the vaginal is not stretched thereby leading to future 'looseness' / 'lack of tightness'.
Sorry for being crude but people make comments about women who have given birth to several children - i.e 'like a clown's pocket' etc.

Wouldn't most men / partners / husbands [from a purely selfish perspective] prefer this?
And is it possible that the women are thinking on these lines?

Nevyn

Only women who do not do kengel and pelvic floor excerises end up with the issues of a loose vagina. The six weeks after birth when you are ment to be abstaining from sex is more then enough time for the vagina to recover it's tightness and indeed be tighter then before.

metrovelvet

You have to watch out.

I recently got a hospital bill for over 20,000 for a c-section. It was itemised. One of the things listed on it was a blood transfusion, which i dont recall being consulted on or told about afterwards.

Since you are out cold, they can make all sorts of decisions for you and you cant do anything about it, except pay for it.

...just something to consider.

Nevyn

Things a different here and public health care for a delivery is free.
If a person is concerned then they should have their next of kin with them who can legally make medical calls if they are unable to.

If a person has objection to blood transfusions they would do well to tell this to their team before hand and have it marked on their charts.

If you have ever been a blood donor in this country then you are not charged for blood needed for transfusion, if you have a sliver pelican drop then this is extended to your children.

metrovelvet

I dont have to pay for most of that bill, just a small portion of it, insurance covers the rest.

And in Ireland, yes the individual may not have to pay for it,the state [the public purse,the taxpayer] does, but the consultants, surgeons, anesthesiologists, etc still make a whopping profit from them.

As for the transfusion, I wasnt even made aware this was a possibility and I should have been told that it was and I should have been told that I had one. Moreover, it does not say on the bill whether or not I or the baby or both of us had one.

If I had a next of kin available to me, sure I would have had one, but I didnt, I had a doula with me and she had no legal authority to make such decisions.

Nevyn

She could have been given it with a simple forum granting her that and lodged with a lawyer.

If you are not married then your father is your next of kin, if your parents are not married or if they were and your father is dead then your mother is your next of kin but
medical guardianship/next of kin can be signed over to any competent adult if you wish to make it happen.

As for the transfusion,
you weren't aware that there may be bleeding even with a vaginal birth ?

That is normal and sometimes if there are complications it can be a lot of blood hence the need for a transfusion.
My sister had to have one due to blood loss, it is with in the range of 'normal' when a woman is giving birth.
Blood loss and infection were the greatest killers of women giving birth.
So hurrah for blood transfusions and antibiotics.

A blood transfusion for a child usually only happens when the baby is born blue,
that is the child and the mother are rhesus opposed and the child needs a transfusion
with blood that is the correct rhesus. This usually happens due to the parents being rhesus opposed.

If you are unclear as to what medical proceedures were carried out on you and your child and your coach/doula was not able or acknowledgeable to fill you in then I would suggest that you ask for a copy of your medical files from the birth.

And that reminds me I have to make time to go in and give a pint of blood before the xmas rush.

stinkybum

embee wrote: »

I was mobile throughout my entire labour. I was walking the corridors dragging an oxytocin drip whilst my partner dragged the gas and air canister (which was on wheels). Most midwives will encourage as much mobility as possible to bring the babys head down onto the cervix and encourage dilation.

Not me. I was told that the amount of drips i'll have will make that difficult. If mobility was my ONLY issue, it would be fine but its not. Since then anyway, i've developed borderline pre-eclampsia so everything has changed.

BostonB

Maternity practices 'vary too widely'

In private maternity hospital Mount Carmel in Dublin, 37pc of all mothers had caesarean sections, compared to 18.3pc at the National Maternity Hospital in Holles St.

http://www.independent.ie/health/lastest-news/maternity-practices-vary-too-widely-1250804.html

metrovelvet

stinkybum wrote: »

Not me. I was told that the amount of drips i'll have will make that difficult. If mobility was my ONLY issue, it would be fine but its not. Since then anyway, i've developed borderline pre-eclampsia so everything has changed.

Its kind of hard to move around with a fetal heart rate monitor, a gazillion drips, and a paralysing epidural.

BostonB

Once you get a epidural you can't move.

embee

BostonB wrote: »

Once you get a epidural you can't move.

Not strictly speaking true. There are mobile epidurals which allow women to walk, empty their bladders and sit up fine. They aren't available particularly widely in Ireland, but they do exist and I'm sure it is only a matter of time before they are commonplace here.

embee

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its kind of hard to move around with a fetal heart rate monitor, a gazillion drips, and a paralysing epidural.

The CTG is not worn constantly, and generally speaking, most women labouring don't have any drips, unless they are being induced with oxytocin or are receiving IV antibiotics for an intra-uterine infection.

stinkybum wrote: »

Not me. I was told that the amount of drips i'll have will make that difficult. If mobility was my ONLY issue, it would be fine but its not. Since then anyway, i've developed borderline pre-eclampsia so everything has changed.

Sorry to hear about the pre-eclampsia, stinkybum. Hope you and baby have a (relatively) easy and safe time of it. Good luck

BostonB

embee wrote: »

Not strictly speaking true. There are mobile epidurals which allow women to walk, empty their bladders and sit up fine. They aren't available particularly widely in Ireland, but they do exist and I'm sure it is only a matter of time before they are commonplace here.

From what I've heard most people aren't that mobile even with a mobile epidurals. So what do you mean by being able to walk fine?

embee

BostonB wrote: »

From what I've heard most people aren't that mobile even with a mobile epidurals. So what do you mean by being able to walk fine?

You can walk. You might not be as quick and nimble on your feet (you wouldn't be exactly dancing in the aisles when you're in labour anyway), but you can walk. My cousin had one in the UK and said it was fantastic - she was walking around about 10 minutes after she had it. Some women report that the mobile epidural doesn't work and they can't walk. These things are variable, about as variable as regular epidurals. Some people have regular epidurals that take on one side of the body only, that leave a woman with too little sensation (can't feel crowning or urge to push), or don't take at all. Tis the same with any analgesic to be honest, what works for one woman won't work for the next etc (for example I found TENS crap but gas and air was my savour). The hospital I gave birth in doesn't offer them (but I wasn't having an epidural or spinal of any kind anyway). Most hospitals in Ireland don't offer mobile epidurals at the moment though.

metrovelvet

From what I was told by the hospital in the US, walking epidurals are not all they are cracked up to be and the name is misguiding. Additionally, because of the drug coctail that makes them up, can cause potential harm to the baby.

BostonB

embee wrote: »

You can walk. ....Some women report that the mobile epidural doesn't work and they can't walk. These things are variable, about as variable as regular epidurals. ....Most hospitals in Ireland don't offer mobile epidurals at the moment though.

You've gone from you can walk fine, to they may not work, to they all vary, and they're not available anyway. So from a sure thing to not such a sure thing.

embee

metrovelvet wrote: »

From what I was told by the hospital in the US, walking epidurals are not all they are cracked up to be and the name is misguiding. Additionally, because of the drug coctail that makes them up, can cause potential harm to the baby.

The drugs in any sort of epidural do not cross the placenta, therefore they have no side effects on the baby. Only drugs that cross the placenta (like pethidine) can affect the baby - some babies who have come into contact with pethidine are floppy and a bit lazy to breath when they're born.

BostonB wrote: »

You've gone from you can walk fine, to they may not work, to they all vary, and they're not available anyway. So from a sure thing to not such a sure thing.

You edited my post there very selectively, BostonB.

I never said that a mobile epidural was a sure thing. All I said that it is an alternative to standard epidural - I just replied to your post saying that if you have an epidural, you can't move. Very few if any of the pain relieving methods used in childbirth are bang on the money. Most women who opt for an epidural have it with no problems. All I was saying that a standard epidural is as variable in terms of its effectiveness as most other drugs (prime example - Entonox. I loved it. It makes other women feel dizzy and nauseous).

Don't start telling me what I am and am not saying by use of questionable editing of quotes, please.

tallaght01

embee wrote: »

some babies who have come into contact with pethidine are floppy and a bit lazy to breath when they're born.

when they come up with non-lazy-baby-breathing drugs for use during labour, I will personally hug the inventor

BostonB

embee wrote: »

Not strictly speaking true. There are mobile epidurals which allow women to walk, empty their bladders and sit up fine. ..

Selective editing???I'm only quoting the specific bit I'm responding to. If something works fine, I take that to mean it pretty much a sure thing.

Heres your parachute, works fine. Sorry I meant it usually works. Actually its quite variable, it might slow you down, a bit. But it might work fine.

metrovelvet

Then why EMBEE, did the hospital say that?

tallaght01

Metrovelvet, I think I might know what the hospital are talking about here.

In the past there has been concern about babies and epidurals. This was because epidurals can give a mother a high temperature during labour. A maternal high temperature can be "passed on" to the baby.

In the neonatal unit, if I have a baby with a high temperature, I can assume that it's just because the mother has a high temp....but what if the temp is due to an infection. How can we be sure? Well, we can't.

So, we have to go looking for an infection.

This involves some of the following, depending on the unit you work in

a) an intravenous drip and intravenous antibiotics for the baby for at least 2 days

b) A "suprapubic aspirate"....this is a way of getting a urine sample from the baby. It involves me sticking a needle through the baby's abdominal wall into the bladder and pulling some urine out

c) a lumbar puncture (or "spinal tap") which involves sticking a needle into the baby's spine to take some fluid out to test for meningitis

We do these tests often, mostly without incident. But they aren't without risks.

It had been thought for a long time that we were doing more of these tests on babies of mums who had epidurals, purely because their mums were more likely to have a high temperature, if that makes sense?

But, the studies have shown that we don't do any more of these invasive tests on kids born to mums who have an epidural.

I don't know why this is...possibly because the temp has usually settled by the time the baby is settled in the neonatal unit and has been evaluated?

embee

BostonB wrote: »

Selective editing???I'm only quoting the specific bit I'm responding to. If something works fine, I take that to mean it pretty much a sure thing.

Heres your parachute, works fine. Sorry I meant it usually works. Actually its quite variable, it might slow you down, a bit. But it might work fine.

BostonB, call it what you like. I call it selective editing. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth that I neither said nor implied, so stop it.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Then why EMBEE, did the hospital say that?

How the hell am I supposed to know why you were told that? I don't know. I'm not a doctor or a mindreader, METROVELVET :rolleyes:. If you have an issue with you being told that, then contact the hospital. Epidural drugs do not cross the placenta and can't affect the baby.

BostonB

I don't think it makes sense to quote the whole comment, but since you do...

embee wrote: »

Not strictly speaking true. There are mobile epidurals which allow women to walk, empty their bladders and sit up fine. They aren't available particularly widely in Ireland, but they do exist and I'm sure it is only a matter of time before they are commonplace here.

No where in that do you say, it may not work.

embee wrote: »

You can walk. You might not be as quick and nimble on your feet (you wouldn't be exactly dancing in the aisles when you're in labour anyway), but you can walk. My cousin had one in the UK and said it was fantastic - she was walking around about 10 minutes after she had it. Some women report that the mobile epidural doesn't work and they can't walk. These things are variable, about as variable as regular epidurals. Some people have regular epidurals that take on one side of the body only, that leave a woman with too little sensation (can't feel crowning or urge to push), or don't take at all. Tis the same with any analgesic to be honest, what works for one woman won't work for the next etc (for example I found TENS crap but gas and air was my savour). The hospital I gave birth in doesn't offer them (but I wasn't having an epidural or spinal of any kind anyway). Most hospitals in Ireland
don't offer mobile epidurals at the moment though.

You only qualified what you meant by "fine" when called on it. Personally I wouldn't call what you describe in your 2nd comment as "fine".

FakeRedHead

Well, I only read the first 6 pages of this thread so I'm not sure if the OP is still looking for an answer to her question why women choose elective sections.

If she is, this is my reason.

I chose an elective section (yes, I went private and picked the doctor as I knew she would do it...). I picked this option as I thought it was the safest way for the baby to be born. I don't like suprises and I don't like babies getting into distress during delivery and staff faffing about while they lose oxygen etc.

I could cope with a c-section as I knew exactly what would be happening and I don't like pain that is not quantifiable.

Actually, and I can only speak for myself, it was a doddle. Took morphine for two days then a couple of paracetamol and I was walking about. Okay so I had a husband with ten days off which helps.

My baby arrived quickly and safely, scoring full marks on all the checks they do upon birth and is the healthiest thing ever since. I had no complications or infection.

So I have a slight scar...I don't care. My child was born in a safe, controlled, organised fashion with two surgeons and three mid-wives assisting. I just felt it was the way to go to avoid errors.

I am so grateful I did it this way and wasn't put off by people who were shocked at the idea of a woman actually being able to choose her method of delivery.

embee

BostonB wrote: »

You only qualified what you meant by "fine" when called on it. Personally I wouldn't call what you describe in your 2nd comment as "fine".

BostonB,

You are getting tied down in pedantics. For me to say you can walk "fine" when you're in labour is a relative thing. No woman can walk what your idea of "fine" is when she's labouring, epidural or not. If you have nothing further to add (other than picking at every word I say and tangling yourself up in a big ball of pedantics) to the original topic, then don't post at all.

The topic here is elective caesareans, and you and I have both been guilty of dragging it off-topic - it stops now.

BostonB

Elective caesareans is misnomer as it includes situations where effectively no choice has been made as is implied by "too posh to push". I made that point earlier about the stats being misleading for the same reason. People should be aware that medical staff often use terms that don't mean quite the same thing as they do in non medical use, and you can always ask for a 2nd opinion, for another educated best guess.

Ellen Ryan

I did it because I did not want to pee myself everytime I laughed for the next 60 years or any other number of extremly unpleasant side effects of vaginal birth... i have a small scar that is 2 1/3 inches long and took nothing more than a couple of advils afterward. My child is a dream and very happy - no negative impacts becuase of this.

I had my child in NYC and my insurance payed for all of the costs for the c section aside from about 200 Euros. Insurance in the US actually pays most or all of hospital / doctors visits / prescrition medication costs.

littlebug

Ellen Ryan wrote: »

I did it because I did not want to pee myself everytime I laughed for the next 60 years or any other number of extremly unpleasant side effects of vaginal birth...

Thanks for sharing Ellen. It is interesting to see what motivates the choices women make.
However I do want to point out to any first time mothers to be that such side effects are not inevitable. Having had 2 babies vaginally I have yet to pee myself laughing:D I also didn't have any pain or problems whatsoever "down there" afterwards. These things can happen to some women but not everyone.

Actually to me the thought of being cut open was much scarier! I wonder what it is that makes women form such different views on childbirth Did any of your friends or relatives have c sections or particularly nastly side effects form natural births?

ravydavygravy

My wife recently had a public elective c-section, but it was not really elective since the baby was breech. She was very worried beforehand but in hindsight, it was quick, relativly painless and she felt fine about a week after the surgery. She was only on tylex (parecetemol + codeine) for post-op analgesia, and that worked for her. There were tons of staff in the OR, and she felt well looked after the whole time. I was also allowed in for the birth...

It changed her opinion of elective sections for sure.

Kernel32

ravydavygravy wrote: »

My wife recently had a public elective c-section, but it was not really elective since the baby was breech. She was very worried beforehand but in hindsight, it was quick, relativly painless and she felt fine about a week after the surgery. She was only on tylex (parecetemol + codeine) for post-op analgesia, and that worked for her. There were tons of staff in the OR, and she felt well looked after the whole time. I was also allowed in for the birth...

It changed her opinion of elective sections for sure.

Out of interest, for anyone who did have a c-section, how did the taking of pain killers afterwards impact the ability to breast feed or if it even was advised based on how much pain killers you were on?

ArthurDent

Kernel32 wrote: »

Out of interest, for anyone who did have a c-section, how did the taking of pain killers afterwards impact the ability to breast feed or if it even was advised based on how much pain killers you were on?

Had a section on my last child - I was feeding her 20 minutes after she was delivered - was really keen to ensure milk supply was well established. The took my off my morphine after 12 hours and gave me suppositories for the next 5 nights - after I came home from hospital I took tylex for about 3 days - didn't have any effect on my ability to feed. 15 months later still feeding my little one. She is my third so that probably helped - I have heard that many first time mothers who are sectioned find breastfeeding difficult

ex_infantry man

Ellen Ryan wrote: »

I did it because I did not want to pee myself everytime I laughed for the next 60 years or any other number of extremly unpleasant side effects of vaginal birth... i have a small scar that is 2 1/3 inches long and took nothing more than a couple of advils afterward. My child is a dream and very happy - no negative impacts becuase of this.

hi ellen my girlfriend had a csection 2 years ago it was an emergency at 36 weeks. even now when she laughs or coughs she pees and when she needs to go to the loo she literally has two minutes to get to a toilet. she definately wants a normal delivery next time as she wants to be able to walk, pick up the baby and pee without too much pain!!her scar is minimal but thats just cosmetic

metrovelvet

I had one also in NYC after a failed induction and the babys heart rate dropped. I swelled up to enormous immobile proportions. The nurses faces dropped when they walked into the room. I was on morphine, the vicodin, and couldnt move to get to the baby. And my legs were too heavy fro the swelling to lift them up onto the bed. It was awful.

I wanted everything to be au natural. Not ONE thing happened during the birth that I wanted to. EVERYTHING had intervention. Oh well I got to choose what television station could be on at the time.

Insurance covered everythig, except for the blood transfusion that showed up on a bill that I didnt know I had.

I had initial colostrum but no let down. In my unprofessional opinion I think my body was too toxic to feed/

Hrududu

Did any of your friends or relatives have c sections or particularly nastly side effects form natural births?

I can chip in with an anecdote on this. A relative of mine has had an elective section. She was terrified of giving birth and found a consultant who would do it. There were no complications, the recovery had no hitches, the baby was perfectly healthy. Looking back on it now she wouldnt have it any other way.

A good friend of mine had a horrendous time giving birth naturally. So horrendous that the baby ended up dying.

Now I know that these are only 2 stories, and I'm sure someone else will have friends/relatives with directly opposite experiences. But from a personal point of view if I were to get pregnant I would give serious thought towards having an elective.