Women can choose Caesarean section

41 to 60 of 95 messages
23/11/2011 at 13:09
Does the figure of an extra £1000 include things like increased length of stay etc?  It seems rather low to me.
Nam
23/11/2011 at 13:16

Posh popped out her first at the Portland...  Consultant led price list for a elective c-section is just over 8k and you'll be shunted out after 24 hours (or pay an extra grand and a half for each extra day, subject to quality of accommodation...)

But you get 10% off with their loyalty card when you pop out your subsequent sprogs there...

Bargain...

23/11/2011 at 13:17
SP - I can see that point, which is a different angle to 'too posh too push', it's more like the US approach to labour. Planned C-sections are more convenient for certain hospital staff.

Nam
23/11/2011 at 13:18
XFR Bear wrote (see)
Does the figure of an extra £1000 include things like increased length of stay etc?  It seems rather low to me.

No that's just the price difference in the birth itself... quite rightly extra days stay will cost on top of that.
seren nos    pirate
23/11/2011 at 13:23
but for a young mother..........we all hear stories of 24 hours and more in labour in agony.......and stories of having our lady bits cut open with a knife or ripped open by a babies head.......of pooing ourselves when we were pushing........
but you rarely hear stories of bad c sections.......just heard one above ......but you rarely hear the horror stories............
so for a pregnant woman .which sounds better...........even though its not the best thing medically........
23/11/2011 at 14:37

I've had two emergency C sections which luckily gave me two healthy boys. 

After the first I was devastated not to have managed a 'natural' birth.  but of course the version of the natural birth I had been envisaging was a nice safe mother earth sort of thing where I popped out the baby without much difficulty sort of way.   Daft mare that I was.

The six weeks driving thing is a bit of a grey area,  A quick google shows women checking with their insurance companies and being told it wasn't an issue, others saying they needed a gp cert before they could drive again.  I know I was driving long before the six weeks, probably three weeks post op I reckon, and lugging the pram in and out of the car boot. 

I was puzzled about the comment about deafness in c section babies.  I take it the comment meant deaf at the time of delivery due to blocked ears then, surely not ongoing?  never heard that before.

23/11/2011 at 14:43
AllNew wrote (see)
I can't see many women opting for a caesar once they know they won't be able to drive for 6 weeks, or laugh.

There has to be a sexist joke in that comment.

23/11/2011 at 14:44
skotty wrote (see


no. i am saying that in general more intelligent women have fewer children than less intelligent women.

so when it comes to the number of births involved the balance is tilted towards the lower end of the spectrum.


Think you are mixing up intelligence with socio-economic status.  
23/11/2011 at 14:44
Miffi - yes, deaf at delivery and for a few days afterwards. Based on the amount of noise and chatter generated by the twins now, they're most definitely not deaf.
seren nos    pirate
23/11/2011 at 14:56
.animals have to be stimulated to breathe if they are delivered by c -section....as the natural cue isn't there for them......i would think thats the same for humans
23/11/2011 at 16:39

AllNew - interesting, glad your twins are fine.  No hearing probs with my two, other than when I tell them its bed time of course.

Seren nos - I think I knew that... but glad not to have had to stimulate other bodily functions that the mother animal does for her new born youngsters.

23/11/2011 at 16:50

this increase in c-sections, in which age group do these women fall in to?

It will be interesting to know if the older woman say above 35 are having more difficulty in pushing and having to go with the c-section or it is the teenage mothers under 21 that are opting for c-sections thinking that natural will destroy their lady bits?

 i was in my 20's when i gave birth to my two, both natural both very quick labours, while my sister had her first after her 33rd birthday and she had to have emergency c-section as she struggles with the pushing and not enough energy to last 24 hour labour.

I'm not being ageist but it would be good to know if there is a pattern.

Cheerful Dave    pirate
23/11/2011 at 23:10
Nam wrote (see)

I just can't see why, when cash in the NHS is tighter than ever, we're prioritising £5,000,000 of funding towards something deemed not to reflect clinical need?


Sums it up for me I think.  NICE block using cancer drugs on cost grounds, yet C-sections can be done with no clinical need?  Not right at all.

My wife had to have two unplanned ones and if she'd known that she'd have to have the second we'd probably be a single child family.  It wasn't the first op, it was the recovery that was awful.  2nd time, she was basically bullied into it by the midwives in Epsom hospital as soon as it looked as though it might take a while.  Tell them that's not what you want and they trot out the 'it's best for the baby' line and there's no arguing with that in the middle of a maternity ward.  In hindsight and having heard other tales I'm convinced it was for the convenience of the hospital as much as anything else.

Oh yes, and the need to stimulate breathing after birth caused us a few heart-stopping moments the first time round.

Nam
24/11/2011 at 09:18
Andreia wrote (see)

this increase in c-sections, in which age group do these women fall in to?

It will be interesting to know if the older woman say above 35 are having more difficulty in pushing and having to go with the c-section or it is the teenage mothers under 21 that are opting for c-sections thinking that natural will destroy their lady bits?

 i was in my 20's when i gave birth to my two, both natural both very quick labours, while my sister had her first after her 33rd birthday and she had to have emergency c-section as she struggles with the pushing and not enough energy to last 24 hour labour.

I'm not being ageist but it would be good to know if there is a pattern.


Age isn't as much of a problem as maternal obesity.

24/11/2011 at 10:49
Nam wrote (see)
Andreia wrote (see)

this increase in c-sections, in which age group do these women fall in to?

I'm not being ageist but it would be good to know if there is a pattern.


Age isn't as much of a problem as maternal obesity.


Ah, that would have been Mrs Beckhams problem then.
Nam
24/11/2011 at 10:59
Miffi wrote (see)
Nam wrote (see)
Andreia wrote (see)

this increase in c-sections, in which age group do these women fall in to?

I'm not being ageist but it would be good to know if there is a pattern.


Age isn't as much of a problem as maternal obesity.


Ah, that would have been Mrs Beckhams problem then.

Well there is an exception to each rule.  The stats speak for themselves.

if you're really bored... http://www.hqip.org.uk/assets/NCAPOP-Library/CMACE-Reports/9.-December-2010-Maternal-Obesity-in-the-UK-Findings-from-a-national-project-2008-2010-Executive-Summary.pdf
Edited: 24/11/2011 at 11:05
24/11/2011 at 12:17

well we all gain weight while pregnant, don't we? we are all carrying a baby (some even more) plus water, placenta as well as gaining a little weight to be able to carry the baby. so all our BMI goes well high!

Nam
24/11/2011 at 12:19
Andreia did you actually read any of that?  We're not talking about "an extra couple of pounds", we're talking about NHS trusts having to invest in heavy duty equipment to be able to work with people!
24/11/2011 at 12:24

the NHS are having to do that anyway the way some people are eating, not just pregnant women.

we are in a society at the moment where "super size me" seems to be normal, and in glossy mags where these people are actually eating more calories than burning to be celebs as the biggest person in the UK and not caring about their health. But that is another subject all together. the obese society as a whole (women, men, young or old) are another burden on the NHS and on the tax payers.

Nam
24/11/2011 at 12:31

I don't understand your line of argument and continue to have to assume you've not bothered to read any of the stuff to inform your discussion?

So are you saying because it's 'normal' to be obese it's just a case of 'tough shit' to health care providers never mind the health of the unborn child???

Higher rates of pregnancy-induced hypertension and gestational diabetes, higher rates of type 2 diabetes, pre-eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia.....  Caesarean section was more common in each increasing BMI category, with 46% of women with a BMI ≥50 delivering this way.  The incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage was 38% for women with a BMI ≥35, at least four times higher than the rate in the general obstetric population.

That's all ok is it?

41 to 60 of 95 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums