There’s something I’ve been wondering for a long while, and it is to do with the way we talk about caesareans.
I know I’m not the only person who wonders it, because I’ve heard other people say similar things, but it needs discussing, and getting out into the open.
What I’m wondering is this:
In what state does a baby need to be born by caesarean in order for people to say, “Oh, maybe we shouldn’t have done that caesarean. Perhaps that baby should have been born physiologically?”
Because when a baby is born in less-than-optimal condition by caesarean, people say, “Wow, it was a good job we did a caesarean … that baby really needed us to get it out”.
And when a baby is born looking really healthy, happy and alert by caesarean, people say, “Wow, it was a good job we did a caesarean … we managed to get that baby out while it was still in good condition.”
But, in both cases, the response justifies the decision to do a caesarean, rather than acknowledging the very real (and evidence-based) fact that many of the caesareans done these days are unnecessary and likely do more harm than good.
The problem with our culture
Sentiments justifying caesarean (and some other interventions) after the fact are commonly heard in maternity care settings.
No matter what the outcome, or condition of the baby and/or mother.
But the lack of a comparable comment about physiological birth raises an important point about the bumpiness of the playing field.
About our culture’s attitude to the different approaches to birth.
And perhaps about our dislike of accepting that some decisions might not, in retrospect, have been the only or best options.
You’ll find more on this, and many other topics, in my upcoming book on midwifery knowledge.
I’ll be sharing more details in September, and my email subscribers always get the earliest, juiciest, and most extensive details!
If you’re not on my email list and would like to be, sign up here, and then check for the confirmation email.
Deeper thinking required
Although caesareans can be lifesaving, we know a couple of things.
One, that they are overused.
And two, they carry greater risks and side effects and far fewer advantages than physiological birth.
It is for these reasons that so many countries, agencies and organisations are looking for ways to reduce the caesarean section rate.
I’d like to humbly suggest that deeper thinking about the way we think and speak about birth might help us take a step towards this goal.
You’ll find more on this, and many other topics, in my upcoming book on midwifery knowledge.
I’ll be sharing more details in September, and my email subscribers always get the earliest, juiciest, and most extensive details!
If you’re not on my email list and would like to be, sign up here, and then check for the confirmation email.
About the Author: Dr Sara Wickham is an author, speaker, and researcher specialising in pregnancy, birth and maternity care. Her work focuses on evidence-based, woman-centred information and informed decision-making, drawing on more than 30 years of midwifery knowledge and experience.
Want to stay up to date and get regular updates on birth-related research and thinking sent free to your inbox?
Plus news of Sara’s books, projects, events, and courses?
Sign up to our email newsletter list here
We’ll send you regular, friendly updates to help you keep up-to-date and stay informed.
Books to help you become informed and make the decisions that are right for you…
If this blog post or any of Sara’s work has helped you or those you care for, please buy her a coffee and help us continue to provide independent birth information online as well as in her books.
Thank you.
2 comments for “The bumpiness of the playing field…”