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

girlwitcurls

im a midwifery student and a mother and i cannot get over the increasing numbers of woman who put themselves and their child through an operation (c-section).For no good reason!!I understand if the mother or baby is at risk but why go through a major operation if everything i normal.And the pain after far outways the pain of labour!6 weeks unable to drive.Why are irish women in particular giving into this trend??

Shelli

Vanity I guess. Obviously if there is no valid reason for a section it's pure vanity.

Please dont get me wrong, I know that many women need sections for thier own health or that of the babies.

Nevyn

I don't think it is the too posh to push I think it has more to do with the wanting to pick the day of arival or having a cut of date so they are not left waiting.

but I think it has to be said that it should only be when needed and not when wanted and the dr adn surgeons play a part in that.

loyatemu

are they cutting themselves open? the doctors who are agreeing to it are just as much to blame.

Oryx

It could be vanity, obviously. Or as mentioned, knowing the date allows you to fit it into your life better and not be waiting. Its not something I would agree with but I realise some women have highly pressurised lives.

It could also be a fear of labour and that pain. We live now in a world where real pain is not familiar, we have painkillers for almost every ache. We're all familiar with how operations go, you dont feel pain during it, someone else does the 'fixing', and you wake up and pop more painkillers. We are conditioned into feeling that the medical profession will be able to medicate away our discomfort. Or at least thats how I percieve it.

Labour is a whole other thing. Pain is a natural and expected part of it, half the time you are pregnant you are being told how to prepare for dealing with labour and pain. Even with epidurals you will still have to experience the onset and initial stages. That can be extremely frightening if your not sure how you might cope with that level of pain. So a c-section might seem like the easier option, because its dealt with as a medical problem (not a natural process) the physical aspects of birth are taken away from the women, and medicated accordingly.

As an aside, I was shocked in hospital how freely the medical staff doled out painkillers to new mums. They were offering them like smarties to girls who hadnt asked and didnt think about them till they were offered.

girlwitcurls

yes your correct, you would see a surge of women going for elective sections and demanding to be induced to be home in time for christmas.is the world gone mad????is anyone thinking wats best for these women and babies.fear of labour, i mean when you get pregnant you have nine months to prepare what else would you expect!!and with pain relief readily available(the ball, tens, bath, entonox, pethidine, epidural) which are far less traumatic to the baby why are women opting for a major surgery??

BostonB

How do you choose a C section? Is that not a medial decision made by the medical staff, or can the mother just insist on a C section?

girlwitcurls

money money money. going private you can insist on anything!

High&Low

Hospitals are far quicker to recommend C sections than in the past.

My daughter was breech, there was not enough fluid left to turn her, so my wife was told she had to have a section and this went fine. I was suprised though that on some form I saw at a later stage that this was considered an "elective" c section.

Beruthiel

wow
I never knew you could insist to have one.
Old age..

girlwitcurls

Hospitals are far quicker to recommend C sections than in the past.

My daughter was breech, there was not enough fluid left to turn her, so my wife was told she had to have a section


well doctors are far more likely to recommend csection due to legislation!!!p.s a breech baby can be delivered vaginally but only a few consultants do it.il glad you recovered well but really it wasnt elective for you, you werent given another option.

High&Low

girlwitcurls wrote: »

well doctors are far more likely to recommend csection due to legislation!!!p.s a breech baby can be delivered vaginally but only a few consultants do it.il glad you recovered well but really it wasnt elective for you, you werent given another option.

My point was that I was surprised that it was considered elective when it really wasn't elective, as you said, my wife wasn't given any choice.

Maybe some of the statistics are skewed as a result of these non-elective sections being considered on paper as elective, or are you speaking from personal experience?

girlwitcurls

i am speaking from my placement in maternity hospitals and on booking visits the first thing women ask for is either a, epidural or b, c-section! an emergency c-section in when either the mother or the baby are at risk. i do see your point though and will have to investigate further into why a breech presentation was called elective.did anyone say about a vaginal delivary?how big was your baby?

Oryx

High&Low wrote: »

Hospitals are far quicker to recommend C sections than in the past.

My daughter was breech, there was not enough fluid left to turn her, so my wife was told she had to have a section and this went fine. I was suprised though that on some form I saw at a later stage that this was considered an "elective" c section.

Elective being planned rather than emergency. For good reason in your case I would think.

I know hospitals are quicker to elect to do sections when a child is breech or with twins, because of the risk of complications (and of course legal action). But I do worry that if these types of pregnancy are no longer delivered vaginally, ever, medical staff will have no experience of how to even try them. Which would consign them to the history books. Is that necessarily a good thing?

NextSteps

Forgive my ignorance, but what has vanity to do with how you deliver?

nesf

KtK wrote: »

I know hospitals are quicker to elect to do sections when a child is breech or with twins, because of the risk of complications (and of course legal action). But I do worry that if these types of pregnancy are no longer delivered vaginally, ever, medical staff will have no experience of how to even try them. Which would consign them to the history books. Is that necessarily a good thing?

Compared to chancing them every so often and risk losing the child? I know what you're saying, I just can't see the extra risk involved in practising being worth it.

girlwitcurls

a woman is not exactly looking her best in labour!!!!!!!!!!!thats wat vanity has to do wit it!

nesf

Surely fear of pain and/or complications would be the major driving factor?

High&Low

girlwitcurls wrote: »

i am speaking from my placement in maternity hospitals and on booking visits the first thing women ask for is either a, epidural or b, c-section! an emergency c-section in when either the mother or the baby are at risk. i do see your point though and will have to investigate further into why a breech presentation was called elective.did anyone say about a vaginal delivary?how big was your baby?

She was 7lb 9 and as far as I know normal delivery wasn't considered, it was in Holles street. She was sent to the breech clinic the day before, where she was scanned and told it wasn't possible to turn baby and to come in the following morning at 7.30am for a section.

metrovelvet

girlwitcurls wrote: »

a woman is not exactly looking her best in labour!!!!!!!!!!!thats wat vanity has to do wit it!

You think you look great pumped up with drugs, tubes stuck in your nose, your uterus taking out of your body and blood everywhere?

girlwitcurls

so putting your baby at risk by undergoing a major operation is better than fearing pain in labour?????

girlwitcurls

metrovelvet wrote: »

You think you look great pumped up with drugs, tubes stuck in your nose, your uterus taking out of your body and blood everywhere?

im agreeing with you!!!!!!im studying to be a midwife and i dont understand the mindset of women who WILLINGLY want this!

girlwitcurls

High&Low wrote: »

She was 7lb 9 and as far as I know normal delivery wasn't considered, it was in Holles street. She was sent to the breech clinic the day before, where she was scanned and told it wasn't possible to turn baby and to come in the following morning at 7.30am for a section.

well maybe the consultants thought the baby was too big to try a vaginal delivary. you werent given a choice in the matter. yours wasnt elective.

metrovelvet

girlwitcurls wrote: »

im agreeing with you!!!!!!im studying to be a midwife and i dont understand the mindset of women who WILLINGLY want this!

It baffles me too. I dont get it. You put your baby and yourself at serious risk. If its vanity thats behind it, it makes no sense, you look a lot worse sliced open and lying in the hospital with a catheter for two days. Yeah, those staples are just stunning!

littlebug

Beruthiel wrote: »

wow
I never knew you could insist to have one.
Old age..

In general, as far as I know, you can't. Most elective c sections are because the mother has had a previous section or because of the way the baby is breech etc. Most hospitals/ obstetricians won't do a c section for no good reason. I know of one person who travelled to have her baby in a different town because none of the Galway obs would do it. She was scared of natural birth to the point of phobia apparently. So it's not just a case of ask and you shall receive but if you really want a c sec you'll find someone to do it.
I don't really think it's a too posh to push thing... I think it's a fear of the unknown. The only other person I know who didn't elect to have a c sec but was very glad when she was told she needed one was much happier to have an operation because she'd had surgery before and knew how it worked and how she would feel after. I think the idea of tearing and stitches in the nethers really scares people as well as the fear of labour pain.
I wish there were more "good" birth stories around so people mightn't get so scared.

ETA. isnt it the case that all non emergency sections i.e because of previous section(s), breech, twins etc are called elective? Even though the mother herself hasn't elected for the surgery but is having it on Drs recommendations/ orders? Therefore IMO only a very small number of these are truly "elective" i.e just because the mother wants it but there are no real medical gounds for it.

girlwitcurls

littlebug wrote: »

In general, as far as I know, you can't. Most elective c sections are because the mother has had a previous section,

you can have a normal vaginal delivary after one c section

So it's not just a case of ask and you shall receive but if you really want a c sec you'll find someone to do it.

it is nowdays that case im afraid,they say in ireland there is no such thing as elective c-sections!im sorry to tell you there is very much elective most hospital even have one or two days dedicated to electives!

I think the idea of tearing and stitches in the nethers really scares people as well as the fear of labour pain.

i think i would prefer one stitch rather than a big scare with staples on it and possible not been able to walk properly for a week.fear of labour pain what about the fear of surgery??

I wish there were more "good" birth stories around so people mightn't get so scared.

people always want to tell you the horror stories dont believe it!!!

littlebug

Girlwitcurls are you talking about all electives i.e all non emergencies...i.e people who are recommended/ told they need c secs because they had previous sections/ breech etc?

All non emergency sections are called elective regardless of whether it's Dr recomended/ ordered or mothers choice.... aren't they?

I would be interested to see the "true" elective stats.

girlwitcurls

im talking about true elective caesareans.women who plan months in advance and book a date to have the operation.and believe me i am seeing growing numbers you wouldnt believe.

littlebug

girlwitcurls wrote: »

im talking about true elective caesareans.women who plan months in advance and book a date to have the operation.and believe me i am seeing growing numbers you wouldnt believe.

Are most of those not booked in advance because the mother has had a previous section? Is it not the case that mothers who have had one c sec will automatically be offered a sec second time round. in fact I've heard of women having to battle to try for a vbac. Would that not account for a lot of your electives given that 20+% of births are caesareans?

I really want to know because I'm really shocked if all of those are women who elect themselves for a section "just coz" :eek:

ETA: sorry.. I know I'm repeating myself. I just can't bring myself to believe it!

girlwitcurls

ok firstly after TWO sections you cannot have a normal delivary not after ONE!!!!!!!!!!

secondly i am not talking about woman who for the medical reasons of her or her baby have a section.

Thirdly woman are seeing it as a way out of the pain in labour and not seing the consequences!!

Fourtly In one hospital mondays and wednesdays are elective section days for women with NO medical reason to have a section but are PRIVATE and just want one.

Kernel32

I know here in the states their has also been a huge rise in c-sections. What I have read though is that it is due to doctors versus midwifes. Doctors pay huge malpractice insurance premiums. When you are using a doctor for a delivery and there is the smallest sign of a complication they advise c-section. They do that because for them it removes some of the unpredictability of the delivery by turning it into a medical procedure. If something were to go wrong during the c-section there are less gray areas medically which protects the doctor.

We used a midwife for our two children. They don't think of the delivery as a medical procedure but as a natural process. When a complication comes up they are much more likely to try and work through it. My wife's first labor lasted 3 days, we were in and out of the hospital and it really wore her down. If we had a doctor he would have been pushing hard for a c-section, pun not intended! The mid-wife never even mentioned the possibility. My guess is if we did use a doctor though the baby would have been delivered c-section because in these situations it's very difficult to second guess what a doctor is telling you.

metrovelvet

^Yep. And they make a bomb from sections.

Kernel32

metrovelvet wrote: »

^Yep. And they make a bomb from sections.

Don't even get me started on that. Without insurance a normal delivery is around $10k, c-section and your closer to $20k. We need some socialized health care!

BostonB

metrovelvet wrote: »

It baffles me too. I dont get it. You put your baby and yourself at serious risk. If its vanity thats behind it, it makes no sense, you look a lot worse sliced open and lying in the hospital with a catheter for two days. Yeah, those staples are just stunning!

Your suggesting that C-Section is more risky. Do you have any stats to back that up. Neither is a carefree option from my experience.

girlwitcurls

BostonB wrote: »

Your suggesting that C-Section is more risky. Do you have any stats to back that up. Neither is a carefree option from my experience.

Because a c-section is a surgical procedure, it carries more risk to both the mother and the baby. The maternal death rate is less than 0.02%, but that is four times the maternal death rate associated with vaginal delivery. Complications occur in less than 10% of cases.
The mother is at risk for increased bleeding (a c-section may result in twice the blood loss of a vaginal delivery) from the two incisions, the placental attachment site, and possible damage to a uterine artery. The mother may develop infection of the incision, the urinary tract, or the tissue lining the uterus (endometritis); infections occur in approximately 7% of women after having a c-section. Less commonly, she may receive injury to the surrounding organs such as the bladder and bowel. When a general anesthesia is used, she may experience complications from the anesthesia. Very rarely, she may develop a wound hematoma at the site of either incision or other blood clots leading to pelvic thrombophlebitis (inflammation of the major vein running from the pelvis into the leg) or a pulmonary embolus (a blood clot lodging in the lung).
Undergoing a c-section may also inflict psychological distress on the mother, beyond hormonal mood swings and postpartum depression ("baby blues").

Lizzykins

I have four kids all born in a private hospital and I just cannot see my obstetrician ever having agreed to a section if I had asked. I went into labour on my first 3 weeks before his due date and on the way to the hospital was gearing myself up to an emergency section. Thank God even though the baby was in distress I went on to deliver with the aid of forceps. No bother since I had an epidural. C section seems like a nice idea at the time,maybe in the eyes of some people but from talking to women I know, the recovery period can be up to six months.

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

Because a c-section is a surgical procedure, it carries more risk to both the mother and the baby. The maternal death rate is less than 0.02%, but that is four times the maternal death rate associated with vaginal delivery. Complications occur in less than 10% of cases.....

Does those figures include C-sections those that were done when a normal delivery wasn't possible, or was done in emergency. Or are these only elective C-Sections (if thats the correct term).

girlwitcurls

the risks apply to all

you asked was a c section riskier than a normal delivery i gave you the stats

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

the risks apply to all

you asked was a c section riskier than a normal delivery i gave you the stats

I asked in the context of the thread. But (I assume) those statistic includes C-Sections in emergencies and situations where a normal delivery wasn't viable or was preferable due to some factor not included in the stats. So its not useful to include those in the stats.

Whereas what were really looking for (in the context of this thread-too proud to push) is the stats where theres no migrating medical factors that would give a C-Section preference.

girlwitcurls

BostonB wrote: »

I asked in the context of the thread. But (I assume) those statistic includes C-Sections in emergencies and situations where a normal delivery wasn't viable or was preferable due to some factor not included in the stats. So its not useful to include those in the stats.

Whereas what were really looking for (in the context of this thread-too proud to push) is the stats where theres no migrating medical factors that would give a C-Section preference.

you asked was a c section riskier than a normal birth which i think is blattently clear and i gave yiou the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of a section whether it is elective or emergency.a risk of an operation is the same in either cause which is why i made this thread why are women taking a much greater risk in sections than normal vaginal birth

ex_infantry man

BostonB wrote: »

I asked in the context of the thread. But (I assume) those statistic includes C-Sections in emergencies and situations where a normal delivery wasn't viable or was preferable due to some factor not included in the stats. So its not useful to include those in the stats.

Whereas what were really looking for (in the context of this thread-too proud to push) is the stats where theres no migrating medical factors that would give a C-Section preference.

you lose on this one i think girlwitcurls knows her **** and has given you a very professional answer to a c-section and i have to agree with her!!!!! she could also include mrsa as a risk with a c-section and thats something nobody would want to pick up

ceidefields

Obviously anyone who elects to have a C-Section for pure vanity reasons has never had major abdominal surgery in their LIVES!

The pain of walking around after having an incision is huge and lasts a really long time. The recovery is much longer and you're much more tired right at a time when you need all your strength to look after your new-born.

Plus you're left with a big scar.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but are people going around thinking that having a C-section is easier than a normal birth?

girlwitcurls

ceidefields wrote: »

Obviously anyone who elects to have a C-Section for pure vanity reasons has never had major abdominal surgery in their LIVES!

The pain of walking around after having an incision is huge and lasts a really long time. The recovery is much longer and you're much more tired right at a time when you need all your strength to look after your new-born.

Plus you're left with a big scar.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but are people going around thinking that having a C-section is easier than a normal birth?

yes thats the point cause people are thinking its easier to have a major operation than pushing!i have had a LOT of abdominal operations including an EMERGENCY csection so i am speaking from a personal and professional view!

Dee5

Girlwithcurls,

Can you tell me what complications may occur with a "normal" delivery?

girlwitcurls

dee do u mean what complictions would occur in labour to consider a section or in general?

Goldenquick

Actually I think it's more a matter of being scared of the delivery. I know before my first baby was born I was scared stiff, to the point that I sobbed my eyes out one day because I really was terrified of the birth pain, couldn't imagine a baby pushing out of that little place lol. If I had had a choice then, I would have asked for a section I promise!!

But I had the first one by normal birth, then the 2nd I had to have a section with because of complications and I knew then that I would rather have a normal birth any day of the week. Years later the scar from my section is still giving me trouble and I always tell anyone this that is thinking of having a section now when it's not needed.

silja

KtK wrote: »

I know hospitals are quicker to elect to do sections when a child is breech or with twins, because of the risk of complications (and of course legal action). But I do worry that if these types of pregnancy are no longer delivered vaginally, ever, medical staff will have no experience of how to even try them. Which would consign them to the history books. Is that necessarily a good thing?

I think a lot depends on the hospital too- I remember a few weeks ago seeing stats for c-sections per hospital in the Irish Independant, and they ranged from from 18% to 35% of births. One of the reasons I chose the hospital I did (NMH, ie Holles Street) is because they aren't too quick off the mark for c-sections. I am carrying twins, and so I know a c-section is a possibility, but I want a vaginal birth and have been told there is more than 50% chances of having one. They will even try for vaginal birth if a baby is breech, as they can get it out manually.

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

you asked was a c section riskier than a normal birth which i think is blattently clear and i gave yiou the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of a section whether it is elective or emergency.a risk of an operation is the same in either cause which is why i made this thread why are women taking a much greater risk in sections than normal vaginal birth

Obviously having surgery is riskier than not having it, IF you don't need it. Thats just common sense. But if you DO need surgery isn't it more riskier Not to have it.

If you trying to make a comparative between choosing to have a natural delivery and choosing to have C-section I think its not useful to include situations where there was no choice but to have a C-section.

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

dee do u mean what complictions would occur in labour to consider a section or in general?

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/childbirth/complic.htm#complication_list

girlwitcurls

BostonB wrote: »

Obviously having surgery is riskier than not having it, IF you don't need it. Thats just common sense. But if you DO need surgery isn't it more riskier Not to have it.

If you trying to make a comparative between choosing to have a natural delivery and choosing to have C-section I think its not useful to include situations where there was no choice but to have a C-section.

i am not ruling out all sections i am saying about ELECTIVE sections.and the risks which you asked for !! obviously apply to both!

BostonB

girlwitcurls wrote: »

i am not ruling out all sections i am saying about ELECTIVE sections.and the risks which you asked for !! obviously apply to both!

Theres normal deliveries and emergency deliveries. There should be a distinction. otherwise the stats are misleading.
Should people insist on a normal delivery instead of a C-section in emergencies because according these stats their odds are better? I don't think so.