Re: The Sunday Times/Mail Article

[Lynne Staff]

HEAR HEAR DEBBY!!! I hope they publish THIS one..... ----- Original Message ----- From: Debby M To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:27 AM Subject: The Sunday Times/Mail Article Ok I got riled when I read that article from the Sunday Mail and wrote a response to the editor.  With any luck they may take some notice and publish an article that shows the opposite side of the argument.   Ref: Too Posh to Push   What a crying shame so many women have been mislead in thinking a caesarean birth is safer than a vaginal delivery.    A woman is between two and five times (depending on which research paper you read) more likely to die during a caesarean than she is during a vaginal delivery.  She will also have a longer recovery time, is likely to have more problems breastfeeding if she wants to, is more likely to suffer from infertility in subsequent attempts at pregnancy, she is more likely to suffer endrometriosis and she is more likely to suffer from painful internal adhesions.   In the meantime her baby is more likely to be born premature and is more likely to suffer from the potentially fatal fetal respiratory syndrome.   No I am not a doctor or a midwife.  My first child was born by emergency csec and I was very keen to ensure that my second would be born as safely as possible - so I read the medical research for myself.  Despite my obstetrician saying a caesarean was safer and more convenient I was horrified to find that his information was not supported by the research. An ascertion that was confirmed when I visited another obstetrician who agreed that the research did indeed show vaginal delivery is safer.   Having had both a caesarean and a 27 hour labour to birth my second child vaginally I would say that the few hours of pain in childbirth and a second degree tear were significantly easier to recover from than the months of pain I suffered after my caesarean (and I had a good recovery according to most my caesarean commrades).    The other big arguement many women use is for a caesarean over a vaginal delivery is that they wish to remain "intact".  This too is dissillusionment a caesarean does not reduce your risk of uterine prolaspse or urinary incontinence.  The damage that increases the risk of these conditions occurs during pregnancy not birth.    The third factor commonly cited is the problem with the pain.  When it comes to pain I am the worlds biggest wimp.  However pain can be dealt with, there are a number of medical and non medical ways that can make birth significantly more comfortable - there is of course some risk in pain relief too depending on the choice taken.  Medicated pain reliefs can go through the placenta to the baby (pethadine) or slow the labour down (epidural).  Non medicated pain reliefs are not as effective - massage, warm baths etc - although I personally found a warm bath more effective than pethadine.   With regards to convenience, there is always the option of induction (although this is also not without its risks), however I personally would prefer a healthy baby than one born by my diary - and yes I work full time in a professional position.    Our children too precious to take unnecessary risks with.  There are most certainly instances when a caesarean delivery is safer than a vaginal delivery but not at the 25% rate Australia currently has - according to WHO the safe caesarean rate is around 10%.   I am now looking forward to the birth of my next child and unless there is a medical reason either before or during my labour she will be born the way Mother Nature designed me to have her. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.