Should c/s rates be published? Naming & shaming...

[dlworth1]

quote;Quote:
Originally Posted by dlworth1
But as Kelly points out, the WHO rate is inclusive of emergencies..honestly there is no other medical reason for having a planned one except rare instances of placenta praevia.

Just out of interest, my medical reason for having a c/s is NOT placenta Praevia, and yes, I have sought several opinions on this matter and they have all said the same thing. C/s or extremely high risk delivery.For me it's just not worth the risk.
l.b.


Sorry hadnt meant to imply there was only ONE reason, i left off the "etc", my point is that they are for the most part rare and exceptional reasons... : )

[ShootingStar]

Kellxx, I don't know about anyone else, but your words have kind of offended me. Maybe you could think about re-wording you first post?

As for there being nothing wrong with caesareans....well as long as they're necessary! Which obviously some are, they do save lives. But you are aware that a caesarean is major surgery? That is not without risks?

Um.. im an unsure how my post offended you?? Saying that as long as mum and baby are ok at the end of the day is offending? i dont get it. I have reread my post and i dont think i needed to reword it, because its how i feel. If i did offended you, i would think you would do the right thing and pm me regarding this.

And yes i know it is major surgery, but the thing is vaginal birth is pushed to be this most beautiful pleasant easy experience when it always isnt the case. c/s are put to shame because they are major surgery, you may have a longer recovery period and the baby may need assistance once born.. but what i was trying to put across in my post is, what is most important is that mother and baby are ok and are both alive to see the next day. As i also said, in my case, my first vaginal birth was a nightmare. It put my son's life at risk. Thankful he was born before quite fast otherwise i would have had a c/s and would have totally agreed to it. As for recover, i could not walk for 3 months afterwards, nor stand for longer than 10 minutes at a time. I could not DTD without being in pain to the point my eyes watered until my DD was born. So not every vaginal birth is wonderful. I just dont see the whole negative aspect of c/s that the article is trying to portray, when the majority of the time they are there for a reason.. to save lives.

???
I have never heard of a mother, IRL, or on this forum, or any other, try a vaginal birth if they have been told it is too risky for mum or bub.

I dont know anyone who would do this to their child???

And even if some do, I doubt the numbers would be very high at all, enough to sway the c'section rates anyway....

A good friend of mine lost their child because they refused to have a c/s when they were advised it was the best option for mother and baby.. but she had her mind set on a vaginal birth. I also know of another 2 people who i dont know personally, but have lost their babies due to the same reason. It does happen, and i think these OBs give advice that a c/s is neccesary because they are trained in that area and know what they are talking about.

[Bathsheba]

QUOTE: Saying that as long as mum and baby are ok at the end of the day is offending?

I would say it could be quite upsetting... birth trauma is a very real situation and by telling a mother that she shouldn't be traumatised (by either a c/section or vaginal birth) because her baby is safe is very dismissive and will make the trauma worse. But that is off topic. If women feel fully informed then trauma is less likely to occur. A policy allowing women to be informed could reduce birth trauma.

ETA: and I would suspect that if there were less women with birth trauma there would be less women with PND. This is why being dismissive of "how a woman gives birth" can be upsetting.

[ShootingStar]

QUOTE: Saying that as long as mum and baby are ok at the end of the day is offending?

I would say it could be quite upsetting... birth trauma is a very real situation and by telling a mother that she shouldn't be traumatised (by either a c/section or vaginal birth) because her baby is safe is very dismissive and will make the trauma worse. But that is off topic. If women feel fully informed then trauma is less likely to occur. A policy allowing women to be informed could reduce birth trauma.

ok so you would prefer me saying the opposite?
ETA.. im sorry, but i dont see where i said a mother shouldnt be traumatised, nor that giving birth is easy.. If you would read what i said about my birth with my son, youll see it wasnt easy sailing for me either.

[Pretty Butterfly]

A good friend of mine lost their child because they refused to have a c/s when they were advised it was the best option for mother and baby.. but she had her mind set on a vaginal birth. .

I find it extremely sad that anyone would put a vaginal birth over the true safety of their baby.....

Actually, I find it a little disturbing.....



ETA... By true safety I mean, REAL stats, not just a Ob saying so... My ob said a c/section would be safer if Little Girl stayed breach, and that is JUST NOT TRUE....

[ShootingStar]

I find it extremely sad that anyone would put a vaginal birth over the true safety of their baby.....

Actually, I find it a little disturbing.....

As do i.. that is what i was trying to say.

[Bathsheba]

I believe it would be best if all women had realistic expectations of the kind of birth that is right for them. A women who enters a hospital who has an expectation far removed from reality is going to be at risk of birth trauma.

I fail to see how fully informing women will be against their best interests. There is nothing wrong with having an emergency c/section, that goes without saying.... but there is something very wrong with allowing women to attempt to give birth in an environment that is going to statistically lead to a very different outcome to what the women believes will be true... and that applies equally to natural or c/section births.