NHS C-section plans.

Sarah - posted on 10/31/2011 ( 33 moms have responded )

5,465

31

344

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...

The NHS plans to make the operation available to healthy women capable of giving birth naturally for the first time in its history.

The new guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), to be published next month, will say that Caesareans have become so safe that every woman should be given the choice to give birth surgically, according to the Sunday Times (£).

Thoughts?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Ez - posted on 11/01/2011

6,569

25

237

Sherri, this proposal is happening in the UK's NHS. They have universal healthcare.

Wendy - posted on 10/31/2011

285

29

59

why in the hell would a woman choose to have major abdominal surgery (thats what it is) over a natural birth??? thats just excuse my french fu#$$^ng nuts...in my opinion you cant give me a good enough reason.....medicaly recomended only again in my opinion i have had 2 c sections...would have loved to do it naturaly

Sherri - posted on 10/31/2011

9,593

15

391

I do not agree with C-Sections as a choice. I think the only reason they should be allowed is if their is an actual medical reason.

33 Comments

View replies by

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

2,216

33

37

Amanda that makes sense really, honestly I can't see how a major surgery cost less, it seems impossible and that is not even the hidden cost like you state. But facts like longer hospital stay, risk of infection and complications from anaesthesia. I am not sure however Cathy said it was stated it cost the same but I just don't see it adding up that way or did I get that wrong Cathy?

Amanda - posted on 11/02/2011

2,559

3

366

Some research has linked C-section delivery with higher rates of postpartum depression, and this may be due to the discrepancies in oxytocin release. Which in turn cost NHS even more money.

[deleted account]

Im not sure how much money it costs for ivf where your from but in the UK its about the £3000 mark hardly 20 years of saving. Thats less than a new car or a deposit in a house and married couples find money for those easily enough. The reason we never adopted was because my husband was considered too old by our local authority.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

2,216

33

37

I am suprised you can get elective cosmetic surgery for boobs and have it paid for. Why do so many women go to a plastic surgeon than? Would you not need a medical reason? I am only asking for info. It shocks me really about breast enhancement.
I really don't get what you mean by IVF cost, so a person should wait 20 years save upu for IVF and then maybe have a baby? Is that what you mean?
Also about adoption, Why did you not adopt if you feel so strongly of the matter?
The fact is adoption is a different choice all together not just for infertile people.
Sorry we should take this to another debate ...in fact I am going to post on it now. Hope you join in on it. I wonder how many others feel as you do. It should be a good debate and will keep this one on topic for C-sections.

[deleted account]

Ivf is not that expensive, it costs less than 18 years worth of birthday and christmas gifts, clothes, shoes, school trips, etc. Yes I am fertile and have 4 kids but I also spent a few years before having them coming to terms with the fact that I might not be able to have kids. We spent years trying before it finally happened and i never considered ivf. BY the way yes you can have boob jobs on the nhs in certain parts of the country but its getting rarer now as we are in the middle of a recession.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

2,216

33

37

I want to add saying "If you are too poor to pay for it then you are too poor to have children" is to me like saying if your too poor to get a breast reduction that is your problem, deal with the pain it is not life or death !
Elective C sections are not anything like IVF.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

2,216

33

37

Well I am shocked by your response really. In fact having IVF is expensive and more expensive than giving birth and prenatal care. So it is not that people are too poor. Also adoption is costly and not easy. Also not all people want to adopt or should have to adopt that is a choice completely separate than having your own baby.
I can only assume you are fertile and never had trouble conceiving and yes infertility is a medical problem, it is painful and life altering. I am happy it is paid for to treat. btw IVF is just one way to help treat infertility.
I do not want to take away from the subject of c sections which is an ELECTIVE SURGERY,but IVF is not a choice but a treatment for infertility! Also do they really pay for boob jobs in the NHS??? or are you talking about breast reductions, or reconstruction breast surgery for cancer patients?

[deleted account]

What I am saying is that tax payers should not be paying for ivf. If you are too poor to pay for it then you are too poor to have children. My father was adopted but n this day and age he would have been left to languish in a childrens home because his parents would have had ivf and that isnt fair.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

2,216

33

37

Susanne so you are saying that the NHS should only fund life threatening, painful situations. I did not include life altering because I think not being able to have children is very life altering for many families.

[deleted account]

Yes infertility is a medical problem but it is not life threatening, painful or life altering. To me if someone wants a child that much they should be able to afford to pay for it themselves not expect taxpayers to fund it. Or they could always adopt one of the many children we have in care.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

2,216

33

37

Susanne I agree elective surgeries like boob jobs and elective c sections are a bit much to ask from the tax payers in a system like the NHS that is already having money problems but why do you put IVF in the loop?

Infertility is a medical problem.

[deleted account]

I think this is ridiculous and shouldnt be allowed we already have the nhs funding boob jobs and ivf then we have people being refused life saving cancer drugs because the nhs cant afford it. Bloody stupid.

Angela - posted on 11/02/2011

2,216

33

37

Cathy In the USA and in Canada you can request an elective C-section. In Canada if you get an OBGYN to agree it will be covered, in the USA if you get an OBGYN to agree it most likely will be covered via insurance, but not all OBGYN''s will do it. Many Moms shop for one who will if they are very persistent they can get it. The only thing in the USA is it depends on your insurance coverage as to if it is covered. In fact some policies do not even cover pregnancy and delivery.
Sherry not all insurance in the USA is private, don't forget about Medicaid. That is supported via tax payers.

Some interesting stats

The number of American first-time moms who have chosen to deliver by cesarean — with no medical need to do so — rose by 67 percent between 1991 and 2001, according to a 2005 study in the British Medical Journal.

and....

2003 when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a statement essentially approving elective c-sections. In a bow to patient autonomy, the ACOG took the position that doctors may ethically perform an elective cesarean that's medically unnecessary as long as they feel it's "in the best interest of the patient."

That position sparked heated opposition from a number of women's healthcare organizations, including Lamaze International, the American College of Nurse-Midwives, and the International Cesarean Network. Those groups argue that birth is a natural physiological process that should be allowed to unfold naturally unless there's a strong medical reason for surgical intervention.

Sherri - posted on 11/01/2011

9,593

15

391

Why would this come at the expense of any taxpayer Ali?? Since this would be paid by insurance at least in the US and in the US the taxpayer doesn't pay your insurance.

Merry - posted on 11/01/2011

9,274

169

263

Eh idk I think that's it's nuts to imagine a dr saying, now do you want a c section or vaginal birth? But hey it's really not something I'd get all riled up over.
Honestly after feeling labor naturally I'm curious how a c section would differ. I've heard horror stories from both vaginal and c section births.
But in the end my preference will always be in the normal way of things but since I can't force others to do things my way I won't even try,
There's risks both ways, and statistically it's safer to birth vaginally, if women want to take that risk and choose sections that's their choice I guess.
I wouldn't vote for this to pass but I'm not 'against' it per say. I think it's dumb but it's not something to change legally, it has to be changed by teaching women about how birth can be and is supposed to be and empowering them to at least try to do it the way their baby and body are designed to do it.

Angela - posted on 11/01/2011

2,216

33

37

I agree with Cathy on all she stated so I won't repeat her words.

I want to add over here in The Netherlands it would fill up hospital beds that are needed and at times in shortage...so if they go private fine but I feel it would take from resources that are needed.

Unless it could be shown to me it cost not any more money and would not take needed resources from woman and babies who need them, I am only for it private.

Lady Heather - posted on 10/31/2011

2,448

17

91

If women want to choose that I suppose they can go ahead, but I don't want my tax dollars paying for it.

My c-section was awesome though. If I could have this exact scenario, I would probably choose it. I feel bad saying that, but my natural recovery sucked balls.

User - posted on 10/31/2011

629

0

83

There are already too many sections being carried out. I don't think it should be an option because you're 'too posh to push' or don't fancy going through childbirth.

Ez - posted on 10/31/2011

6,569

25

237

Totally agree with Cathy.

It's a matter of resources in a public health system. I have no issue with an informed woman electing to have a non-medically indicated c/s. But she should be going private (I assume you have the option to go private in the UK?).

Amanda - posted on 10/31/2011

1,677

13

310

I don't agree that c sections should be made avaliable as an option to natural childbirth. If there is a medical reason or risk to mum or baby then obviously get the baby out as quick as possible.
I have had normal deliveries. With my daughter they wanted to take me in and delivery her by c section because her heart rate had dropped dangerously low and they were having trouble stabilising it. Lucky for me I labour quickly and it was quicker for me to push her out then to prep me for surgery.

I do think that some women will opt for a c section to avoid all the pain of childbirth.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/31/2011

21,273

9

3058

Cathy, in both the states that I have delivered in (USA) there was no difference in cost from delivering via c section or natural.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/31/2011

21,273

9

3058

Lovely. As much as I am for womens rights, I don't think this should be an option made so readily available. Why should it? I have had both c section and natural birth. The c section was so difficult to heal from, and I had my issues with natural also....but 5 years later I STILL have sensitivity at the incision site.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms