is a natural birth the best way?

[MiniN]

I read an article on the guardian website the other day about half of all gynacaelogy doctors would opt for a caeserian rather than a natural birth due to risks.

there was this horrible quote by a dr who said she had been put off natural birth when the midwife sewing the mother back up after a natural birth asked the dr, 'do you think this bit should go here?'.

so is giving birth naturally the best way?

[cazzz1975]

hmm, well natural birth is natural, its what our bodies were designed to do, c-sections pose risk of infection and a long period of recovery

[andrea81]

Having had 2 C sections, I would give my hind teeth to have given birrth naturally!

And as it is a major op, the risks are more and recovery is slow! Dealing with a newborn after having an op is no fun believe you me!

[B00]

I've never had a C-Section, however I've heard that the recovery time is far longer from such a birth.

What kind of risks are they talking about from natural births?

I can only assume its quicker and easier for the hospital to dole out C-Sections, but not for the mums!

[cazzz1975]

I dont understand why doctors would be in favour of c-sections? unless they wanted control over when the baby was born. women having c-sections spend longer in hospital than natural births so it cannot be cost effective.

[redcrx]

the best way will always be the safest way for mother and baby.

C-sections are the best way when baby is in distress or mother and or baby are ill.

Vaginally is better if baby is in correct position, mother is healthy and fit and neither are in danger.

C-section cuts can go wrong too, and they can limit what a mother can do for first 6 weeks and boyond. I know a woman who had infection after infection in a c-sect scar.

I have had 2 babies vaginally but if either were in danger Id have gone for c-section immediately.

[andrea81]

There are about 15 people in a theater when having a c-section, it costs a lot of money to do it, I wonder why a Dr would endorce it, they arn't doing the NHS any favours!

[redcrx]

heres the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/11/ nhs.health1 so they are opting for them theirselves purely because of the extreme cases they have seen at work,

well thats fair enough. Its a bit like someone who works in a car plant refusing to buy that brand of car. Or someone who works in a chicken processing company refusing to eat chicken nuggets or something.

Generally Obstiatricians will only see women who are ill and need more care than just a midwife can give them so its understandable that they may see more than their fair shair of traumatic births.

[k8bailey]

I gave birth naturally, I wish I hadn't and I certainly wouldn't do it again. It's different for everyone tho, and the main thing is that both mother and baby are safe and healthy.

[MiniN]

thanks for finding the link red, that's exactly what I was talking about.

this is a bit of a personal question for mums that have done it naturally. If you tear or are cut and you have stitches, do you look the same afterwards down there?

[Mully79]

I've only had a C-section. Maybe I'm in the minority but I had no problems, and very little post-op pain, no infections and my scar is tiny. My recovery was quick, but I went against advice and was doing my normal stuff within days (supposed to rest for 6 weeks). I just can't stand sitting about.

Although it was a very quick procedure, there were at least half a dozen people in theatre so I can't see it being cost effective.

I've heard horror stories relating to both natural births and C-secs, so as I say I think I was very lucky.

[tigwig]

yes you do look the same after! Maybe not immediately but after a few days or weeks depending on the tear everything is back as normal. I remember feeling myself tentatively the evening after I had given birth and it felt awful!! I thought oh god thats it my fannys ruined!! But no it wasn't and 3 weeks later I was having sex again!

[redcrx]

i couldnt tell you, i havnt ever studied it to know what it looked like before. I only had a slight nick, no stitches for each of mine but i can now feel a small scar there. It doesnt bother me.

[naflharrison]

it always looks like a gappin canyon straight after but if your stitched properly it can make your sex life even better. i tore with both my two and have a slightly prolapsed uterus but my hubby always swore that our sex life got better and better after having the children. as for the debate as to whether a section is safer and better i cant say as ive never had a section but after giving birth totally naturally to my daughter who was 8lb and my son who was 10lb 10ozs i would hae to say natural all the way. its what were meant to do and the best feeling in the world to give birth to your baby. and at 28 and 2 big babies i do not have a bucket below so natural all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ethanryan]

both of mine were born by section and i would ahve given anything to have given birth naturally.but at the time my first was in distress so it was best for him to get him out quickly. my second was a total **** up. they made me have a section 4weeks early as they said he had stopped growing at 3lb, when he was born he was 6 lb but because he was early his lungs was not developed properly so ended up in intensive care. if they would have left him full term he would have been a healthy bouncing baby and i could have tried a vaginal birth

[sara3]

I've had 2 "natural" births. my first arrived with the aid of forceps after 38 hours, and was huge (I'm size 8, and 5'3"). I begged for a c-sect but no one was interested. apparently a nightmare labour can lead to post-natal depression, and I would say I was well on my way.

my 2nd huge baby arrived naturally. I remember the midwife checking my stitches and saying, "we'll have that big knot out tomorrow, then you'll feel better!". OMG!

[sara3]

AND... you get sympathy for c-sect stitches. no one cares how many you're sitting on!

[MiniN]

ouch!

God help me when its my turn, it sounds horrible!!!