an interesting read -csec rates in aust

An article in this months practical parenting magazine has me interested.

Its about the "sky rocketing" rate of c sections in australia in the last decade. It focuses mostly on nsw studies and figures but claims one in three women in australia has a chance of giving birth by csec. And it can be higher if shes using a private hospital and 80% if shes had a previous csec.
Thats huge to me, honestly didn't think we had that many csections happening.

According to the article in 1998 there was only a 20% chance of csection and WHO put the global average at aprox 14%. So really we are quite high!

Heres the really scary stats
- risk of mum dying after ELECTIVE (not emergency) csec is four times higher than a "normal vaginal birth"
- 20-40% have post-cesarean complications of which infections of the uterus, wound or urinary tract are most common.
- csection mothers are twice as likely to have severe complications
- five tines more likely to need antibiotics after birth than vaginal birthing women
-csec newborns are 2-5 times more likely to need intensive care compared to low risk vaginally born babies.
:0

This is all stuff I didn't know. Honestly though csections were safer and less occurring.

In NSW the dept of health is launching a initiative called maternity: towards normal birth. The aim is to increase "normal births" to 80% by 2015. Sounds like it should be australia wide after reading all those facts!
Apparently part of the strategies is to get women out of using private obstetricians and more into using midwives. Not too sure on that, I loved my ob he made me feel safe and happy. The midwives at my hospital were stretched thin enough as it was and there are no private midwives. In fact there is no option fir midwife lead care here.

Other parts of it are
-more access to water based pain relief
- lower rate of epidural
-allow more mobility in labour

What do you guys make of all this??
Im pretty blown away. Sorta makes me wish id known it before both my births even though I didn't want csections to start with or have one. It still would have made me more adamantly against one.

Hmm..maybe it's a good thing you didn't see it before hand. What if you were so against it, but circumstances meant you medically needed one for the safety of you & the baby? Make sense?

Fair enough, spread the word-less intervention=better outcomes, but i don't think women should be put off of the idea of a c-sec just in case they do really need one. Guaranteed if i needed to have one i personally would feel like a failure to nature and dealing with those feelings on top of a stigma & pressure from society would be too much.

I agree the rates are too high though. I think there is still too much emphasis on 'speeding things up' and not enough education for women on what an empowering experience birth can and should be.

I don't understand why someone would choose to have a csection. I understand that there are emergency situations and things like placenta praevia (sp?), but I really don't know why someone would choose to have a csection. Not being judgey judgey. I just can't think of any reasons.
Can anyone enlighten me?

Noddy, I think those statistics are awful and I think very accurate.
I think that there needs to be a change in the maternal system.
I think that a midwife lead maternal system is far better than one in which women use obs. Obs should be used for high risk pregnancies only so I think that the proposal is great!
The fact is that one in three women do not need a c-section to birth a baby. I think that there is far more intervention than is nessecary during births. Nature does not need an ob breathing down her back telling her that she is not going fast enough.

Zinkles wrote:
I don't understand why someone would choose to have a csection. I understand that there are emergency situations and things like placenta praevia (sp?), but I really don't know why someone would choose to have a csection. Not being judgey judgey. I just can't think of any reasons.
Can anyone enlighten me?

I know someone who elected to have a c section because she suffered severe anxiety and depression that was well controlled with counselling and medication however she did not feel she would cope with the labour and that's why she chose a c section. If my next baby is estimated to be much larger than DD then I will elect a c section because I think the recovery would be easier given all the complications last time

The article was saying that experts believe that too many women are having csections when they dont really need them. Ie that one in three is too high and unnecessary.

When comparing the stats they mostly refer to non emergency elective csections or low risk csections in comparison to low risk vaginal births.

I think a large part of the rate being high is the "rule" that you have to have another csection after your first if less than two years apart. And probably not many women considering or having vbacs. In my own experience WA has too many hospitals that cannot support a vbac so mothers must go to perth which is a huge expense and journey for most. One of my friends had her heart set on a vbac and was really let down when at her first perth appointment she was told if she didn't progress to their liking she'd be automatically csectioned and that she would have to be induced and mostly confined to a bed. All of this put her off majorly as she was csectioned the first time due to failure to progress after induction.

So I think the system is floored.

I also think (this rolled around in my head all last night) that its not a widely accepted attitude that birth is natural and womens bodies are designed to handle it.

I allways thought I would have a natural birth,up until it happened and had to have a emergency c.

I had no option after hours and hours of being fully dialated and pushing a surgeon just came in and said they had to take me to theatre and there was to much pressure on bubs head.

I'm grateful he came out in the end for a long time I was wondering if he would lol.

I was in labour for a very long time (over 24 hours) with the most dreadful pain I have ever been through in my life with no pain relif.

I do think there seems to be a trend with some others who for know reason want a caesarian allthough I don't understand why.

Mum to one bub

I dont get what you mean by your last sentence?

~NoDdY~ wrote:
Mum to one bub

I dont get what you mean by your last sentence?

Sorry lol not the best at saying what I'm thinking.

I mean I have noticed there seems to be a trend now of woman opting for caesarians when they have a healthy pregnancy,were they choose thats how they want to have there baby from the go.

it's not a easy option and long recovery time I don't understand why someone would opt for a caesarian if there otherwise healthy hope that make sense smile.

Oh ok. I get it now. smile

DD1 was a vaginal birth but a traumatic one. Because of that I got a prolapse. During my pregnancy with dd2 both my ob and I decided (I wasn't pressured) into having an elective c-section. Not only was I in agony because of my prolapse I also had pelvic instability. I was worried about giving birth naturally as I didn't think I would be able to push her out and make my prolapse even worse. I didn't think it was the easy way out but overall I found my birth experience with dd2 more relaxing than dd1. I've decided not to have any more children but if I did I would have a c-section again.
I think if you have a c-section because you're too posh to push then it's wrong. But if it's for medical reasons like mine that it's fine. smile

its quite complicated really. c/s rates are too high, but the policies created to manage birth increase the risk of c/s. If they want to lower the c/s rate, they will have to change their management of birth. I can't see that happening soon.... both from the medical side and the demands of women.