Cesarean or (natural) birth

Hannibal Smith

Grawns wrote: »

When you're right you're right! I guess we'll agree to disagree then. I had a look at your posting history and you could be considered to have an agenda. I've nothing against your agenda per se. However I will continue to give feedback on the very positive experience of elective section that I had and you can continue with your agenda.

Here is the evidence you dismiss ( nothing scary here). Does it support my claim that elective sections are safer for babies than so-called natural childbirth? Um...Yes it does! Does it back up the reality that sections are inherently riskier for the Mother... Yes it does
I didn't chose a section because of the statistically safer outcome for my baby ( that was just a happy bonus) I chose it because I was nervous that ( due to a combination of family history, my age and hospital statistics) that I would have ended up having a non-spontaneous protracted and painful labour followed by fetal distress and an emergency section.
Unfortunately this is not a rare outcome of labour and it's something that should be discussed with more openess and less judgement.

I guess San Fran is the authority on what links qualify as informative :eek:

SanFran07

Grawns wrote: »

When you're right you're right! I guess we'll agree to disagree then. I had a look at your posting history and you could be considered to have an agenda. I've nothing against your agenda per se. However I will continue to give feedback on the very positive experience of elective section that I had and you can continue with your agenda.

Here is the evidence you dismiss ( nothing scary here). Does it support my claim that elective sections are safer for babies than so-called natural childbirth? Um...Yes it does!
Does it back up the reality that sections are inherently riskier for the Mother... Yes it does
I didn't chose a section because of the statistically safer outcome for my baby ( that was just a happy bonus) I chose it because I was nervous that ( due to a combination of family history, my age and hospital statistics) that I would have ended up having a non-spontaneous protracted and painful labour followed by fetal distress and an emergency section.
Unfortunately this is not a rare outcome of labour and it's something that should be discussed with more openess and less judgement.

In case anyone hasn't time to read through this paper here are the conclusions.....


Conclusions: The incidence of cesarean delivery without medical or obstetric indications is increasing in the United States, and a component of this increase is cesarean delivery on maternal request. Given the tools available, the magnitude of this component is difficult to quantify.

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate fully the benefits and risks of cesarean delivery on maternal request as compared to planned vaginal delivery, and more research is needed.

Until quality evidence becomes available, any decision to perform a cesarean delivery on maternal request should be carefully individualized and consistent with ethical principles.

Given that the risks of placenta previa and accreta rise with each cesarean delivery, cesarean delivery on maternal request is not recommended for women desiring several children.

Cesarean delivery on maternal request should not be performed prior to 39 weeks of gestation or without verification of lung maturity, because of the significant danger of neonatal respiratory complications.

Maternal request for cesarean delivery should not be motivated by unavailability of effective pain management. Efforts must be made to assure availability of pain management services for all women.

NIH or another appropriate Federal agency should establish and maintain a Web site to provide up-to-date information on the benefits and risks of all modes of delivery.






If anyone would like to explore this area further this is a very helpful site regarding the information presented by the NIH at this conference.

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10375

"The panel's statement and commissioned evidence report failed to report a single study with any data about

• the extent to which U.S. women are initiating and planning an initial or "primary" cesarean with the understanding there is no medical reason
• the panel's assertion that "limited evidence suggests that cesarean delivery on maternal request is increasing"
• the short- and long-term effects on mothers and babies of such a strategy in comparison with planned vaginal birth
• the many well-established ways for women and providers to increase the likelihood of safe, spontaneous vaginal birth, in contrast to present record-level trends for surgical birth.

Deeply flawed analyses used proxy studies rated as "weak" for nearly all reported outcomes. Flaws included: failure to search for and include many relevant outcomes, including numerous studies that were too small to measure specific outcomes, including numerous studies with no vaginal birth comparison groups, and including numerous studies focusing on the unique question of mode of birth for women with breech presentation (see question 2, below). These poor-quality analyses should not be used to guide policy, practice, education and research."


Hannibal - my post wasn't that the links weren't informative but they would not be considered evidence based research.....

Grawns - please feel free to share the other links you sent to me and others so everyone can determine for themselves how informative they feel they are.

Grawns

I love your selective editing Here's some from me

"neurologic injuries such as intracranial hemorrhage and brachial plexus injury are less common with elective cesarean"

"More than one in four women who do not have a cesarean
section by choice will end up having one anyway, and their morbidity and mortality will exceed that sustained by women whose surgeries are scheduled."

"one can conservatively estimate that delivery by scheduled cesarean section at 39 weeks would prevent 2 fetal deaths per 1,000 ongoing living pregnancies"

"infants born to women who had not undergone
labor, which would necessitate a scheduled delivery by cesarean section, had an 83 percent reduction in moderate to severe encephalopathy."

"In summary, the risk of maternal death with primary elective cesarean delivery is less than that associated with vaginal delivery. In addition, death directly due to the surgery itself is extremely rare."

Now what about that agenda of yours I mentioned.

January

Grawns, can you take the question of SanFran having an agenda to PM between yourselves please?

axel rose

Feck it. (this thread has become so damn predictable anyway).

I admit it- I demanded my CS because I am a terrible mother and dont really love my child. I also wanted to get the tummy tuck out of the way as soon as I could.

Anyone want to borrow my kid for a week?

Hannibal Smith

axel rose wrote: »

Feck it. (this thread has become so damn predictable anyway).

I admit it- I demanded my CS because I am a terrible mother and dont really love my child. I also wanted to get the tummy tuck out of the way as soon as I could.

Anyone want to borrow my kid for a week?

lol....don't forget the bonding...you never bonded with your child either did you?

axel rose

Bond????
LOL you're sooo working class- why would I bond when I've a perfectly good nanny to do the grunt work for me?

Chuchu

Too funny!!!
In all seriousness though, I think it might have been mentioned in this thread in passing already, but if that bonding stuff is brought up I will lose the plot! Just how is 'bonding' quantified?? And if someone tries to answer that I will be sure to take issue with their methodology.:p

Chuchu

Oh and poor darrenon... I think we lost him on page 2!!!!!

wmpdd3

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Have to disagree, we all got help from our nurse at night regardless of how we all gave birth!

I had my son by section, I was walking around within 3 hours. It was sore but not excruciating! It was sitting down was sore!

Everyone is different, I would think natural is easier, but never having had one. I couldn't tell you for sure!

Wow, I can't believe you were up and walking within 3 hrs, that's faster than me after the epi.

I never really saw anyone after a section until i was in hospital. Being able to move and look after you baby after 3 hrs is totally different to what i saw.

Fair play to you.

wolfpawnat

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Wow, I can't believe you were up and walking within 3 hrs, that's faster than me after the epi.

I never really saw anyone after a section until i was in hospital. Being able to move and look after you baby after 3 hrs is totally different to what i saw.

Fair play to you.

I had the epidural, but I had that about 3.30am, was out of bed by 8.30, given out to by midwives at 8.31am promptly. I didn't have my baby for the first 12 hours after he was born, he was in Neo-nates. I kept telling them, I was well enough to see him, obviously wouldn't let me though!

I was bored and just wandered around with my catheter bag in my hand

I had him on the Tuesday, was left out at 1pm Saturday, then walked from Rathmines into Stephens Green and back home again because I had to get a sterilizer. I didn't really think about it, to me my baby needed me and I just got on with it!

She Devil

My experience C Section :

My baby was breech all the way through, he never moved, we got scanned once a week for the whole pregnancy, towards the end I was praying and hoping he would turn, I did everything to avoid surgery, I am so scared of needles etc (heard you had to get lots in the bum the days after a csection aswell) so there I was on hands and knees trying to get that baby to move, bouncing on balls the lot, but to no avail!
Went in at 7am, was so excited to know I was going to have him that day but the stress of it, the no sleeping worrying about the operation etc !!!!!
Have to be fair to say, it was grand, the injections didnt hurt, the surgery was uncomfortable, I was shaking, the baby was firmly stuck, I felt so bad for him to be dragged out so quickly from his comfy spot, but he was safe and well and I got to see him a week early YAY \o/

But the aftermath :
Oh it was torture to me, My fiance had the first feed the first hold the first nappy change, the first cuddle, I couldnt get my own baby without him being handed to me all the time, I felt so helpless, and it really got me down!! I didn't get the guilty feeling of not being able to push but I did honestly feel like I couldn't enjoy my baby the way I wanted to!!
Next thing visitors were on top of us, I was feeling really ill, no energy and couldnt walk, tried to walk to the shower and fell, lost alot of bloody after the surgery and ended up getting a blood transfusion, more time in hospital!!!
Now I didnt experience the other but if I have the luck to go again, I will hope that I can go natural!

I think (this is my opinion only) that when you get pregnant you shouldn't be saying hmmm I wonder which I'll go for, it should like always be expected natural unless there is a problem!

But for me, either way once the baby is here, then happy days!

Oh and I did experience PND, I dont know if it was down to the section or not, but I suppose they will put me down as a statistic anyways! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hannibal Smith

axel rose wrote: »

Bond????
LOL you're sooo working class- why would I bond when I've a perfectly good nanny to do the grunt work for me?

hehe *sits back and sips on her can of stella while the sprog drags around a 3 day old dirty nappy*

January

Please stop the off-topic posting

axel rose

Apologies January. I guess the point I was trying to make is that I get a bit piddled off when people who do not know me or my child tell me that


A-I have made a medically unsafe decision for both of us-despite the trained professional dealing with my case knowing better.

B- somehow not bonded with my child properly


Sometimes its easier not to fight the stereotype

GoerGirl

I have had natural vaginal births but on my last baby I had to plan for an elective section at 38 weeks due to the position - baby was transverse. In that time I did alot of reasearch on caesarean sections and spoke about the implications and risks with quite a few members of staff at my hospital.

I ended up not needing a section as baby turned just in time!

From my reading and discussions with medical professionals - consultant and midwives alike - I cannot find any evidence to support elective caesareans for non-medically indicated reasons. In fact, there is evidence which shows that babies who experience labour before a caesarean have less problems with lung maturity and breathing than those who have elective sections.

There are several factors contributing to Ireland's high caesarean rate (27%) - loss of skill to deliver "malpositioned" babies vaginally (breech/unstable lie), litigation fears, staffing and time constraints (Active Management of Labour gives women a set amount of time to birth) and the heavy reliance of interventions which have been proven to increase risk of intolerence of labour in the baby or mother (distress) like oxytocin. I would strongly feel that as it is recognised internationally that caesarean rates should be 10-15%, that the evidence does not support elective or routine use of caesarean section.

The risks of Caesarean over vaginal birth include:

increased risk of fertility problems in future pregnancies
Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in future pregnancies
increased risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies
increased risk of placenta accreta in future pregnancies
increased risk of blood clots
increased risk of pph
increased risk of infection


For me, the lack of post natal care and the fact that it is a major surgery would deter me from a caesarean unless medically indicated. I shared an 8 bed ward with 3 women who had caesareans last year and each one relied on myself and other mothers to help them. The care from post natal staff just wasn't there - especially at night.

Grawns

GoerGirl wrote: »

The risks of Caesarean over vaginal birth include:

increased risk of fertility problems in future pregnancies - False although a large family is out of the question due to the actual increased risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy
Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in future pregnancies - False - totally made up
increased risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies -True but very rare
increased risk of placenta accreta in future pregnancies- True but very rare
increased risk of blood clots - True but very rare and is carefully monitored for
increased risk of pph -False more common in vaginal deliveries
increased risk of infection -False unless you can prove otherwise

QUOTE]

The actual dangers associated with ceasarian sections are well documented. What this discussion needs now is someone who suffered a 4th degree laceration on vaginal birth to tell their story. Maybe they hypnotized themselves that it didn't happen.

Hannibal Smith

Grawns wrote: »

GoerGirl wrote: »

The risks of Caesarean over vaginal birth include:

increased risk of fertility problems in future pregnancies - False although a large family is out of the question due to the actual increased risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy
Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in future pregnancies - False - totally made up
increased risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies -True but very rare
increased risk of placenta accreta in future pregnancies- True but very rare
increased risk of blood clots - True but very rare and is carefully monitored for
increased risk of pph -False more common in vaginal deliveries
increased risk of infection -False unless you can prove otherwise

The actual dangers associated with ceasarian sections are well documented. What this discussion needs now is someone who suffered a 4th degree laceration on vaginal birth to tell their story. Maybe they hypnotized themselves that it didn't happen.

I shared a ward with a girl who had an episiotomy and the girl could barely walk. The toilet wasn't that far away and she struggled to get there and back and screamed while she was in there. I had a section and was up and about unaided the next day. The only reason why I needed assistance getting to and from the toilet was on morning 1 when I had all the attachments and catheter. Both the girl in the hospital, and a number of friends have said they would rather a section over an episiotomy any day.

Likewise however, I know I was lucky and I know that either I was stitched back well, or have a high pain threshold or whatever. I know there are women who have suffered horrendously after a c-section. But the risks and after effects of episiotomies make equally uncomfortable reading and can pose health problems not only reproductively but in your general health if the cut isn't done right.

GoerGirl

Grawns wrote: »

GoerGirl wrote: »

The risks of Caesarean over vaginal birth include:

increased risk of fertility problems in future pregnancies - False although a large family is out of the question due to the actual increased risk of uterine rupture and hysterectomy
Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in future pregnancies - False - totally made up
increased risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies -True but very rare
increased risk of placenta accreta in future pregnancies- True but very rare
increased risk of blood clots - True but very rare and is carefully monitored for
increased risk of pph -False more common in vaginal deliveries
increased risk of infection -False unless you can prove otherwise

QUOTE]

The actual dangers associated with ceasarian sections are well documented. What this discussion needs now is someone who suffered a 4th degree laceration on vaginal birth to tell their story. Maybe they hypnotized themselves that it didn't happen.

Sorry? Really don't understand what you are implying at in your reply to me.

Yes, the risks associated to caesarean sections are well documented - but that was questioned in several places - hence the information provided in my reply.

I do understand why some women choose a caesarean over a vaginal birth after an emotionally or physically traumatic previous experience;
My best friend is one of them. The risks remain the same regardless though.

Unfortunately, many women don't have all the information when making decisions - caesareans are sold to women as routine, harmless procedures rather than the life-saving surgeries they were designed to be.

Squiggler

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

But the risks and after effects of episiotomies make equally uncomfortable reading and can pose health problems not only reproductively but in your general health if the cut isn't done right.

Episiotomies are a medical intervention that is not necessary and is now generally regarded as being WORSE for the mother than if she was allowed to tear naturally. In my opinion it's a barbaric practice, right up there with trepanning.

There have been studies done that show that these so called clean cuts take longer to heal, tend to result in a higher incidence of severe tears and cause greater scarring than unassisted tears.

liliq

I have a feeling I should get "No Scalpel zone" tattooed/biroed/ whatever is acceptable on skin while pregnant in a number of places... :eek: :rolleyes:

Grawns

GoerGirl wrote: »

Grawns wrote: »

Sorry? Really don't understand what you are implying at in your reply to me.

Yes, the risks associated to caesarean sections are well documented - but that was questioned in several places - hence the information provided in my reply.

I do understand why some women choose a caesarean over a vaginal birth after an emotionally or physically traumatic previous experience;
My best friend is one of them. The risks remain the same regardless though.

Unfortunately, many women don't have all the information when making decisions - caesareans are sold to women as routine, harmless procedures rather than the life-saving surgeries they were designed to be.

What am I implying - well I'm beginning to see undeclared interests everywhere. My apologies if you are genuine. It's just that you are new and have no posting history. Your information was false though and scaremongering. Where did you get this juicy titbit? "In fact, there is evidence which shows that babies who experience labour before a caesarean have less problems with lung maturity and breathing than those who have elective sections." What evidence? Babies who have experienced labour and then been delivered by section have most likely suffered fetal distress. The fact that labour can and does go spectacularily wrong is a good enough reason for plenty of people to want to avoid it. (My Opinion and your friends)

Squiggler

LiliQ - Birth plan, birth plan.

The easiest reported hospital births among my friends and acquaintances were the ones where the mother didn't go near the hospital until she was so far along that there was barely time to get her to a bed, and no time for interventions

Not that interventions don't have their place where necessary, but sometimes I think that they've become the convenient option for hospitals, keep the conveyor belt moving....

Grawns

Squiggler wrote: »

LiliQ - Birth plan, birth plan.

The easiest reported hospital births among my friends and acquaintances were the ones where the mother didn't go near the hospital until she was so far along that there was barely time to get her to a bed, and no time for interventions

Not that interventions don't have their place where necessary, but sometimes I think that they've become the convenient option for hospitals, keep the conveyor belt moving....

Well my friend stayed at home using her tens machine and counting the contractions so by the time she got into hospital she was exhausted and it turned out she was breech which inexplicably the midwife had totally missed. She had a very unpleasant emergency section. ( no problems with bonding or breastfeeding though)

Ever a tryer though she went for a vbac the next time but the cord was wrapped around her baby's neck and there were nearly fatal consequences. The fact that her labour was being very closely monitored as it was a vbac was what averted disaster. Emergency section number 2.

If and when she goes again she will have a planned section and I have reassured her that it is nothing like what she has experienced before. None of the fear or panic or chaos that some of us choose to avoid.

Squiggler

Grawns wrote: »

None of the fear or panic or chaos that some of us choose to avoid.

Not all women experience fear, panic or chaos during pregnancy, labour or birth. And for many women giving up control to a surgeon with a scalpel would induce fear and panic. You did what you thought was best for YOU and YOUR baby. I respect that. But it doesn't mean that your approach is the best for EVERYONE. We are all different.

Some of your posts in this thread appear to be suggesting that any woman who opts for a natural birth is, at the very best, guilty of risking the life of her baby, if not actively trying to murder it. The majority of babies delivered vaginally do not suffer any trauma. It's what our bodies (and the babies) were designed or have evolved to do.

Mods- Sorry if I am taking the thread off topic, and perhaps this should have been pm'd but I think it is important for the OP (if he hasn't had a fit already) to realise that the only people in a position to decide what is best for him and his partner are them and their healthcare providers. If her mother and sisters have managed to give birth normally then the odds are very high that she can too. If there is a history of breach presentation, reason to believe that her pelvis might be too tight, she has some pre-existing condition that might make labour dangerous (heart problem etc) then a c-section might be the better and safer option.

Hannibal Smith

Squiggler wrote: »

Not all women experience fear, panic or chaos during pregnancy, labour or birth. And for many women giving up control to a surgeon with a scalpel would induce fear and panic. You did what you thought was best for YOU and YOUR baby. I respect that. But it doesn't mean that your approach is the best for EVERYONE. We are all different.

That's exactly it. One person's approach to child birth is different to the next. It's whatever gets you through the ordeal in one piece:D

GoerGirl

Grawns wrote: »

GoerGirl wrote: »

Your information was false though and scaremongering. Where did you get this juicy titbit? "In fact, there is evidence which shows that babies who experience labour before a caesarean have less problems with lung maturity and breathing than those who have elective sections." What evidence? Babies who have experienced labour and then been delivered by section have most likely suffered fetal distress.

My consultant told me that a baby benefits from going through labour - that the contractions squeeze the baby's lungs preparing them for birth and that babies who experience labour have less breathing difficulties. It was one of the main reasons I decided that if baby went from transverse to breech that I would go for a trial of labour. Do a google search - you will see this is documented.

As for the rest of my information - I only noticed you have challenged the risks I have posted. I would be happy to post the links I have filed. As I mentioned before, having been faced with an elective section recently, I did a substantial amount of reading.

GoerGirl

Here are some articles of interest for you with regards to the risk factors I posted up earlier.

Placenta: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15191444

Risk of caesarean vs vaginal birth: http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10210#c-section

infection: http://www.physorg.com/news183387263.html

ectopic pregnancy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9882987

fertility: http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20040114/c-section-may-affect-future-fertility

http://www.pregnancy-info.net/csections_future.html

pph: http://www.babycenter.com/0_postpartum-hemorrhage_1152328.bc and http://www.csections.org/versus.php

I have more I'd be happy to share but don't want to overload anyone.
HTHs:)

Oh, and just on something you posted earlier..about 4th degree tears...4th degree tears are generally associated with episiotomies and assisted delivery...so again, this goes back to my OP with regards to routine medical interventions and routine active management of labour. It doesn't make sense for every instance.

axel rose

GoerGirl wrote: »

Grawns wrote: »

Unfortunately, many women don't have all the information when making decisions - cesareans are sold to women as routine, harmless procedures rather than the life-saving surgeries they were designed to be.

Where in the name of god did you get this nugget? Where do you think I went for my C Section? Tesco?

I would be more concerned with doctors who are more concerned with forcing a woman go through a traumatic labour in order to keep their CS rates down. I am trying to find the report that shows that female obstetricians have far higher rates of c sections than the general population. (Do as I say not as I do)

Did anyone who posted on the pros of opting for a sc give ANY indication that the consultant agreed on nothing more a whim?
( Sorry my bad- had to get the CS as I had a hair appointment the following day :rolleyes:)

Edit- now I know Grawns didnt say this-Blame my bad cut and paste!

SanFran07

Hi Axel,

There was a famous survey done in the UK that found around 30% of London area female Obs would choose a planned caesarean - and then the same survey was done in Scotland with very different results...around 15% would willing choose surgery.

http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol14No4/ResearchRoundup.htm#3

What's interesting is that in countries where c-section rates are lower - so are the Ob's preferences for planned caesareans for themselves.

Here's the results from the Danish studies.

Of Danish specialists in obstetrics and gynecology, 1.1% would prefer an elective cesarean section in an uncomplicated pregnancy at 37 weeks of gestation with fetal weight estimation of 3.0 kg. This rose to 22.5% when the fetal weight estimation was 4.5 kg at 37 weeks.

I think Goer does have a point that in some cases especially when it comes to having a vaginal birth after a previous caesarean that it's offered as two equals without fully discussing the pros and cons of each option with the Mum so she can make an informed decision.

Nobody is saying that this was your experience but it does happen.

axel rose

Thanks for that link-Its great to know where to look eh? I could only find the book but not the actual report- thanks.

I wonder if it is related to the quality of healthcare for the particular countries.

It would be interesting to know similiar figures for Ireland.

I know when I discussed my choice with my consultant he sent me home to research the matter- and only with a good and reasoned research did I get his agreement. I absolutely knew what I was choosing for the two of us, and my consultant wanted me to know.

GoerGirl

axel rose wrote: »

GoerGirl wrote: »

Where in the name of god did you get this nugget? Where do you think I went for my C Section? Tesco?

I stand by my point and think there are posts on this thread that clearly illustrate that all the information is not given, such as some of the risks I posted earlier. I also feel that all the information is not readily available for interventions in labour which put women at higher risk for their labour to be heavily managed or ending in c-section. There is a reason why its called a cascade of interventions.

I have been there myself - I had to be the lead when meeting with consultants during my own pregnancy and information was not readily available. I was told I was putting my baby at risk. I am not saying this is for all cases - and my post clearly says "many women", not all women. For me it was the case and I changed care providers in late pregnancy to find a person who would give me all my options and all the facts.

If you read my full post you will see that I am not anti-caesarean section - I just feel that A) women should be given all benefits and risks for medical interventions the proportion of caesarean sections is not representative of the evidence or recommendations 10-15% - Ireland's rate according to ESRI this year was near 27% and on the rise. Caesareans are either not being performed appropriately in some instances or the system is not supporting vaginal birth in labour resulting in a sharp rise in c-sections. Either way - caesareans are being used as routine rather than life-saving operations.

For what its worth - I am aware of the statistic that more female physicians elect for caesarean over vaginal birth and I would expect this to be the case as we make decisions based on our own personal truths. It is the same reason why statistically you are more likely to have intervention if you chose consultant led care - medically trained professionals practice with a medical care model.

GoerGirl

axel rose wrote: »

I know when I discussed my choice with my consultant he sent me home to research the matter- and only with a good and reasoned research did I get his agreement. I absolutely knew what I was choosing for the two of us, and my consultant wanted me to know.

Your consultant sounds wonderful - they should all be like that!

axel rose

My consultant was brilliant- he didn't just write me off as a spoiled b1tch who was demanding a cs. I really needed to be heard and was crapping myself even asking but the worse alternative was being forced to have my child in a room full of patronising 'care' staff telling me I was 'doing great' while I was ripping my vee jay jay to shreds! (my personal perception )

You know you dont exactly come accross as neutral when it come to the old v birth V cs debate but I do agree women should have all the information and choices to hand.

GoerGirl

axel rose wrote: »

You know you dont exactly come accross as neutral when it come to the old v birth V cs debate but I do agree women should have all the information and choices to hand.

In terms of a topical debate, I am always more general and therefore just focusing on benefits/risks, etc. Its two separate issues for me.

1. I believe in science - the evidence - and therefore feel that in most instances, a vaginal birth is preferable.

BUT

2. I also believe (very strongly I might add) that this is only a choice the mother can make. I am very pro "information" and extremely pro "choice" in maternity care - its up to a mother to decide how to use that information and make a decision. That goes for any instance in her maternity care.

Personally speaking, I would do pretty much anything to avoid a caesarean section - its my worst nightmare!!! I was incredibly traumatised when I was told I would need one - nightmares, fear, panic, you name it! As I said before, I did my research and worked hard to find a consultant who would support my decision to go for a trial of labour with a baby who was not head down. It ended up working itself out in the end (baby turned). It was just the best decision for me, just as you made the best decision for you.

axel rose

I hear you- and agree!

Grawns

Squiggler wrote: »

Some of your posts in this thread appear to be suggesting that any woman who opts for a natural birth is, at the very best, guilty of risking the life of her baby, if not actively trying to murder it. The majority of babies delivered vaginally do not suffer any trauma. It's what our bodies (and the babies) were designed or have evolved to do.

I am very offended by this, I have done so such thing, I mentioned in passing that my doctor told me that ceasarian births were safer for the baby. I didn't make a big deal of it. Others did and I merely defended my position. I don't care if you want to give birth to your babies standing on your head, in a pond full of flowers with loads of hippies singing at you. And I would defend your right to it just as strongly as I defend the rights of any woman to be informed about all the risks and options in childbirth. What makes me most angry is that most have no clue of the very high risks for intervention and the promoters of natural childbirth are determined to keep them in the dark.

This debate delights me as it will inform people of the other side of the argument despite the best efforts of some to silence rational discussion.

Grawns

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/kirstie-allsopp-stigma-surrounding-caesareans-has-to-stop-2551216.html

Very interesting;)

wolfpawnat

Completely true though, I never got any support from anyone after my section. I had to google after care and everything. All I was told to do is "be careful when you sneeze" :rolleyes:

mumtoe&e

Grawns wrote: »

I am very offended by this, I have done so such thing, I mentioned in passing that my doctor told me that ceasarian births were safer for the baby. I didn't make a big deal of it. Others did and I merely defended my position. I don't care if you want to give birth to your babies standing on your head, in a pond full of flowers with loads of hippies singing at you. And I would defend your right to it just as strongly as I defend the rights of any woman to be informed about all the risks and options in childbirth. What makes me most angry is that most have no clue of the very high risks for intervention and the promoters of natural childbirth are determined to keep them in the dark.

This debate delights me as it will inform people of the other side of the argument despite the best efforts of some to silence rational discussion.

Oh I beg to differ with you there - I think many of us on board here are a lot more up to speed on the risks of interventions, than your good self.

mumtoe&e

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Completely true though, I never got any support from anyone after my section. I had to google after care and everything. All I was told to do is "be careful when you sneeze" :rolleyes:

True wolfpawnat - but I would say many woman feel unsupported post delivery, no matter what way the baby came into the world, unfortunately - not just women who have had csections.

liliq

So OP,

Have you and your girlfriend thought more about your choices?
I'm in a similar situation to you in so far as I'm a few months into my first pregnancy.

I think the most important thing that anyone can take away from the backwards and forwards of this threads, regardless of the validity of all the arguments, or any other actual information that's been given, is that everyone really is different, and different options will suit different people.
Half the time, I think things won't go exactly as planned anyway, so my plan is to just try and go with whatever's happening!

Hope everyone hasn't scared the sh1te outta ya!

liliq

mumtoe&e wrote: »

Oh I beg to differ with you there - I think many of us on board here are a lot more up to speed on the risks of interventions, than your good self.

I'm sorry, I (somewhat sarcastically, I suppose) attempted to drag this thread back to the OP, but I have to comment that I haven't noticed anywhere that Grawns has claimed to be more informed than anyone else on any matter, only that having information on all aspects is important for an individual to make the choice that suits them best.

mumtoe&e

liliq wrote: »

I'm sorry, I (somewhat sarcastically, I suppose) attempted to drag this thread back to the OP, but I have to comment that I haven't noticed anywhere that Grawns has claimed to be more informed than anyone else on any matter, only that having information on all aspects is important for an individual to make the choice that suits them best.

Liliq, people take what they want out of threads, some selectively read them, and take what suits from them. I guess we will all have to agree to disagree on this one. It is somewhat like a breast-v-bottle feeding thread, they are all destined to go around in circles.

OP best of luck to you and your wife no matter what choice you make - as you see there are many a debate surrounding birth choices.

Hannibal Smith

mumtoe&e wrote: »

Oh I beg to differ with you there - I think many of us on board here are a lot more up to speed on the risks of interventions, than your good self.

I think there was a moderator warning a while back about personal jibes? I don't see the reason for personally attacking another forum member

January

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

I think there was a moderator warning a while back about personal jibes? I don't see the reason for personally attacking another forum member

There was, and as you can see from the post there was an infraction given for it. So I think we'll leave it at that

SanFran07

Grawns wrote: »

What makes me most angry is that most have no clue of the very high risks for intervention and the promoters of natural childbirth are determined to keep them in the dark.

This debate delights me as it will inform people of the other side of the argument despite the best efforts of some to silence rational discussion.

Hi Grawns,

Isn't it a bit contradictory to include the terms 'intervention' and 'natural childbirth' in the same sentence? A natural childbirth is without intervention... It sounds like you feel there is some kind of conspiracy going on? Yes there is plenty of routine intervention happening in our hospitals and it has become something to almost expect but there are ways to avoid unnecessary intervention - discussing your birth preferences with your caregiver or having a homebirth. It is more than possible to have an intervention free very positive hospital birth by doing a bit of homework ahead of time.

GoerGirl

Grawns wrote: »

And I would defend your right to it just as strongly as I defend the rights of any woman to be informed about all the risks and options in childbirth. What makes me most angry is that most have no clue of the very high risks for intervention and the promoters of natural childbirth are determined to keep them in the dark.

I'm with SanFran on this one...

I prefer the term "normal birth" to natural birth - the World Health Organisation defines normal birth as being spontaneous, un-accelerated, and born vaginally without interfering in the normal process.

I think you will find that most of the women who advocate "normal birth" are very aware and forthcoming with the huge issue of routine intervention in modern maternity care and are very concerned with its use.

Routine intervention is not "normal birth", regardless of how innocent and small it may appear, it has been shown to put women at higher risk for ending up with everything and anything. For most women who have an interest in normal birth, its not a case of "anything but a caesarean" or that vaginal birth is somehow better - but that all interventions when used as routine put mothers and babies at risk. Something as simple as bringing the induction rate down would have a huge affect on the rate of intervention during labour, the need of assistance during a vaginal birth (forceps/ventouse), and the caesarean rate. We know from the evidence that they are heavily linked and that intervention rates during normal birth are significantly lower than managed births.

On my babies, I was very specific in my birth preferences. There were times I had to decline routine intervention - offers to sweep or induce early, breaking water for no other reason than to get things going, staying upright rather than giving birth on bed, etc. I managed to have no interventions on any of them and with the help of amazing midwives (my consultant never made it for any of them!) I gave birth with little to no damage. At most I had 2 stitches - on my first - others none.

I just want women to understand, vaginal birth doesn't have to be scary or highly medicalised - you have choices!!

crofty28

Hi all,

Wat a debate this is! Well.... I said I wanted an all natural birth with my 1st child.... By 2cm I was begging 4 an epi the pain was soooo horrific!& there was little sympathy from maternity staff i should add. Anyway, long story short, baby was in distress & I had to have an emergency c-section, baby's heart rate had plummetted. Was so delighted to hear that 1st eventual cry I can tell u. Nurses helped 1st 2 nights, as I was young & a 1st time mom. 2nd & 3rd time round, it was fantastic to have planned c-sections, so organised & panic free. Nurses were much more stretched, so not as much help, but I was out of bed within 3 hours, which suprised every1, but I felt great! had imediate skin 2 skin contact & help if I needed it. Recovery was grand, have nothing to compare it to only friends who had vaginal births, some of whom were really sore.
Anyway, I think some moms are so afraid of labour, that it ruins their whole pregnancy, & makes them dread giving birth, so I can understand why they mite choose a c-section. However risks are def higher for mom & baby & 1 friend of mine nearly died from blodd loss after her c-section & ended up in intensive care. & from my own knowledge, public patients, cannot choose c-section, without a medical reason for it. But I don't judge those who have a choice & choose a section. If mom is happy & relaxed, baby will enter the world in the same way. So each to their own I say.Best of luck to all making this decision, what a lovely decision to be able to make !

wmpdd3

I was always afraid of labour... until I got pregnant then I just made it my mission to find out as much as possible and that helped.