Jump to content
IGNORED

C Jane 43 weeks preggo?


NothingLeftToLose

Recommended Posts

Of course there is more than one "right" way to give birth, many people can't/don't breastfeed and not everyone gets to /wants to be a sahm.

I get concerned that these topics aren't discussed and people drink the kool-aid regarding some really dangerous childbirth practices/ parenting choices without even finding out the downsides. It isn't all about preferences with equal outcomes.

The United States ranks near the bottom of any 'developed' nation in every measure of maternal/ child health - despite spending vast sums of money on care. I think that is a feminist issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Of course there is more than one "right" way to give birth, many people can't/don't breastfeed and not everyone gets to /wants to be a sahm.

I get concerned that these topics aren't discussed and people drink the kool-aid regarding some really dangerous childbirth practices/ parenting choices without even finding out the downsides. It isn't all about preferences with equal outcomes.

The United States ranks near the bottom of any 'developed' nation in every measure of maternal/ child health - despite spending vast sums of money on care. I think that is a feminist issue.

I live in a place with neonatal and perinatal death rates that are the lowest in the country and as low as many developing nations. It isn't interventions causing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to consider about maternal health and interventions is that there is already an issue before the intervention is taken. That is, you are comparing a group of healthy, uncomplicated births with a group that is by nature complicated and not as healthy. It is not a good comparison, so the statistics are meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/changing-life-preventing-maternal-mortality/story?id=9914009

Regarding the rising rates of maternal mortality in California ( you can also find the reference sources ). Primary factors include obesity, advanced maternal age and increased c-section rates, in particular scheduled c-sections, and following a birth pattern of interventions that tend to result in c-sections.

http://www.survivormoms.com/articles/timely.asp

Regarding the issue of post-maturity and induction

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44333054/ns ... ied-qatar/

Regarding the death rate of newborns in the United States. It is not accurate to completely separate stillbirth and newborn death rates. Many newborns who die do so due to issues caused at birth.

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/induction ... uction.htm

Regarding the risks of induction.. most info taken from the March of Dimes

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/41247.php

Regarding some of the risks of c-sections.

-The Midwifery Today article was written by a certified professional midwife which is not the same as a certified nurse midwife. CPMs are much less educated and there is no standardization of their education and training. They are mostly limited to homebirths and can't perform any interventions anyway. Some states don't even recognize the "degree." Remember what I said about pro-natural childbirth propaganda? This kind of article is what I was talking about...

-The about.com article is written by a lactation consultant. She should probably stick to advising about breastfeeding and leave childbirth to the experts. There may be a wikipedia link

-US newborn death rate tied w/ Qatar? Not quite. The link below explains further regarding the whole study but lets just say MSNBC didn't get it right. It's a good headline though...Also, perinatal mortality = stillbirths + neonatal mortality.

http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2011/09 ... qatar.html

-Placenta previa and placenta abruption are well-known risks of c-sections but it applies to the NEXT pregnancy. Would you turn down a c-section that would possibly save you or your baby's life so the next pregnancy has a lower chance of previa or abruption? I wouldn't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mags.. If you read the source articles, put out by the World Health Organization , the CDC, Save the Children etc.. you will find the studies.

I am not talking about needed interventions.. I am talking about interventions that are purely elective. Such as induction for ease of scheduling. Which is what the medical organizations argue against in the source material.

Of course I would not deny a c-section if it is medically needed - I HAD three c-sections and 1 vbac. I am arguing that choosing a birth pattern (i.e. induction without a reason ) that leads to a preventable c-section is dangerous for both mother and child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mags.. If you read the source articles, put out by the World Health Organization , the CDC, Save the Children etc.. you will find the studies.

I am not talking about needed interventions.. I am talking about interventions that are purely elective. Such as induction for ease of scheduling. Which is what the medical organizations argue against in the source material.

Of course I would not deny a c-section if it is medically needed - I HAD three c-sections and 1 vbac. I am arguing that choosing a birth pattern (i.e. induction without a reason ) that leads to a preventable c-section is dangerous for both mother and child.

Who was talking about inducing for no reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inductions for no reason?

Okay, I have probably had more inductions than anyone here--four. The first was because I was almost 3 weeks overdue; the baby required three days of induction and I almost died from blood loss when he literally tore me inside and out. The second was because that first baby ripped me a new one and the baby was already looking very big; it was at two weeks overdue, and the baby was so big that he almost died ( look up the stats on shoulder dystocia, it a very dangerous situation). Because of those, the third induction was scheduled at one week overdue precisely. She was large and I had more tearing, but no emergencies. The fourth induction was done at 39 weeks because I had a history of huge babies AND I had gestational diabetes this time, which meant that this baby would probably be larger. That one was dicey because I was not firm on my dates at all and it had been a god-awful pregnancy. We did a lot of ultrasounds and stress tests and things were not looking stellar, so we opted to get him out ASAP.

I have a friend who is an unassisted homebirther and she thinks these were all unnecessary interventions, and that I would have been just fine with a home birth. YIKES is all I can say. How do you personally define unneeded when it comes to labor and delivery, Mrs.S2004?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first delivery was induced by medically necessity, ended up with severe dystocia and 9 lb baby boy at 37.5 wks (he had preterm issues too, jaundice/breathing/colic/reflux), 2nd baby water was broken at 38 wks on the dot and another 9 lb boy literally flew out, 4th was a "petite" 8 lb 7 oz girl who the nurse caught after less than an hour of labor. Her cord was wrapped not only around her neck, but also around her chest/arm/back, they had to literally hold her in and cut it bc it was so tight she was either going to strangle or it was going to rip. NOT fun for either of us. And then my 4th pregnancy, 3rd boy... Drs refused to talk about inducing or csection, even though he felt bigger and we lived in Alaska, almost an hour from the hospital. Every day past 38 wks was mentally terrifying, as I knew he was getting bigger and bigger. Finally at 40 wks 5 days I went in to L&D with a severe tummy bug, not sure if I was just sick or in labor. Long story short, he was 10 lbs with a tiny head and massive shoulders, which got stuck and they broke his clavicle in 2 places. Broken bones before he was even fully delivered, and yes it was painful to him (and poor daddy who had to watch it all helplessly). Yes, I had successfully delivered 9 lb babies, but I was well aware of all the risks. Now, what would have happened if #4's cord had been like dd's, where it was so tight there wasn't enough blood flow? She had a scalp monitor, we know how low her heart rate went.

Pregnancy and childbirth is dangerous business, no matter that it is a "natural" process. There are infinite things that can go wrong, that no one can predict. I was pissed that no one cared that it was MY body, MY baby and I just wanted us both to be alive at the end of it. I don't care if someone else went 6 weeks overdue and was fine, in many cases it is still not healthy and it's wrong to make the mothers feel guilty when there might be other things at play. It's one thing when dates are iffy, but I've always been SURE of mine and I got sooo tired of everyone telling me that my 9 lb babies must have been on time or late, when I know for a fact they were NOT. Or that I was wrong to induce at 38 wks (to avoid 10 lb babies and dystocias) because my dates are probably off/they'll come when they're ready/I've already delivered a 9 lber and it's just more "squishy fat". Yeah, 15 inch shoulders don't really squish too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mags.. If you read the source articles, put out by the World Health Organization , the CDC, Save the Children etc.. you will find the studies.

I am not talking about needed interventions.. I am talking about interventions that are purely elective. Such as induction for ease of scheduling. Which is what the medical organizations argue against in the source material.

Of course I would not deny a c-section if it is medically needed - I HAD three c-sections and 1 vbac. I am arguing that choosing a birth pattern (i.e. induction without a reason ) that leads to a preventable c-section is dangerous for both mother and child.

I'll admit that I didn't read the source articles but I did glance over the list of references. Some looked legit, some didn't. One article was from 1963. Did you read the original sources? Because (as shown w/ the Qatar example) studies can be misinterpreted easily.

Look, my point is that you (and a lot of other people) fall into the trap of reading some childbirth propaganda that sounds good in theory but is based on half-truths and misinformation and you spread it around without actually checking the facts. The infant mortality statistics being misused and misrepresented to "prove" that maternity care in the US is subpar is just one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define a purely elective induction as one where the mother ( for example, mags ) decides to schedule the birth purely for convenience without any medical history of needing induction due to the many issues that have been presented here. All of the reasons emmiedahl gave for the inductions certainly would fall into the medically indicated category. Jane, I think this is part of the problem that I am stressing ... no one was listening to you about what you knew about your body-but were only going along with what that particular dr. wanted ( also, I had a similar experience with having them hold the baby back because the cord was compressed OMFG that hurt !!)

There really are a number of women and doctors who will induce just because they are over being pregnant - without any complicating factors. There are many doctors who will suggest it because it fits their schedule. That is what I think should be avoided because of the risks.

As far as the dating ... I will give the example of my relative -- who was absolutely unsure of her dates ( to say it was an unplanned pregnancy is an understatement ), did not have an ultrasound until the mid-point of her pregnancy and still the Dr. insisted on scheduling an induction when she hit her vaguely estimated 1 week past due mark.

And yeah, I actually HAVE read a great deal of the source material, because this is a topic I care a great deal about. I don't think every birth should/can be natural but I do think that medical interventions can be used inappropriately. It isn't one study or one statistic that shows that U.S. medical care is sub-par compared to other developed nations -- it is virtually all of them, across every measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a ton of people both online and in real life who have given birth and I can't think of a single one who just pranced in and said she was tired of being pregnant so the dr scheduled an induction or c-section. Do you have any actual facts to back up your claim that a lot of doctors do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never known anyone who induced or had a c-section out of convenience. Most doctors would not take that risk.

US medical care is subpar, I agree, but that is not because of birth interventions. Half of Chinese women have C-sections. Italy and Australia both have higher c-section rates than the US, but better healthcare and statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no dog in the fight, but I did want to say I have known someone who was done with being pregnant and requested a scheduled induction and c-section. Two, actually. I'm an interpreter and I had two clients in two years wear down their OBs enough to get the induction they wanted. It was ridiculous but it happened. However, they were both 38 or 39 weeks pregnant, so it's not like their babies were premature or in any kind of danger for being delivered early. And one of the women, who was having her sixth child, delivered an 8lb+ baby and had murky dates, so she could have been right on time for all we knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is correct, ohmeohmy, we can hardly call that the doctors pushing interventions on people, which is the assumption of most homebirthers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no dog in the fight, but I did want to say I have known someone who was done with being pregnant and requested a scheduled induction and c-section. Two, actually. I'm an interpreter and I had two clients in two years wear down their OBs enough to get the induction they wanted. It was ridiculous but it happened. However, they were both 38 or 39 weeks pregnant, so it's not like their babies were premature or in any kind of danger for being delivered early. And one of the women, who was having her sixth child, delivered an 8lb+ baby and had murky dates, so she could have been right on time for all we knew.

I asked for an induction ASAP. Why? Well I had just survived a late term termination and a still birth.

I ended up having my son the day before he was due. But honestly, I feel like my request for an early induction if the babe looked good was reasonable...and given mental health is physical health medically indicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is correct, ohmeohmy, we can hardly call that the doctors pushing interventions on people, which is the assumption of most homebirthers.

Oh, not at all! The OBs were really reluctant, but one kept insisting she had all these problems (she told the L&D nurse that 115/something bp was really high for her so she must have pre-ecclampsia and needs to be induced asap!!) and I think the dr. was feeling like it's close enough and she was dilated a cm or two so it's not like she was completely unready. Every two days she was in the ER insisting she was in labor with some sort of complication and telling everyone she was tired of being pregnant because her boyfriend said she wasn't hot anymore. :roll: And the other one I already explained.

Like I said, I have nothing to add to the homebirth vs. hospital birth/natural vs. induced/c-section birth, but I did want to say there are women who will request an induction for convenience and some OBs will comply. I doubt it's as common as the pro-natural birthers want you to believe, but it isn't like it never happens, either. My personal opinion is whatever gets you a health, happy mama with a healthy, happy baby is the best solution. However that happens isn't important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a homebirther here, so I'm not posting to defend that. However, I can see the induction pushing. First kid I didn't even hit 40 weeks before the doc was talking induction *on my due date* based on "huuuuuuge baby" (u/s guess at 8 lb) and "it's your parents anniversary that day? Great! That's a great day to have a baby!" I didn't know enough to say no or even question that, but he came on his own a few days before the scheduled induction, under 7 lb. Sooo, the next time around I wasn't quite so willing to accept just any reason to induce. I went with a midwife practice (birth center/hospital), and they were great about that. So when I went past 40 weeks everybody and their mother was asking me why the heck I was still pregnant and what on earth would be my reason for deliberately "suffering" like that, when induction and epidurals are all available. For me, induction for dates and size would absolutely have been medically unnecessary, and it's highly unlikely that inductions a week or two prior to when I actually did give birth would have been healthier and less traumatic (for both of us) than the actual births--because a week or two prior my body and the baby had not decided they were ready. It's really hard to beat a 4 hr labor with only skidmarks even with a big baby. Had there been an actual medical issue I would have taken my lumps and induced for the sake of the baby or had a c-section, but there wasn't, so I didn't.

I think there is a mix of medical, cultural, and personal pressures that goes into this. And it's harder to sort out because they sometimes get mushed together, and it's very difficult to disagree with someone who has an MD and experience, when you're "just the mom". That's very hard to do, even when you have authoritative information (second opinion, ACOG statments, studies from non-homebirth sources) that calls their opinion into question. And it's very hard to sort out "what might have been" from what might be iatrogenic problems from interventions, as well, since you only experience birth the one way each time, and you can't go back and do the exact same birth over with different levels of intervention to see which actually would have been better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I am not saying inductions should not be done if they are not medically indicated.

I am really surprised that people who think women should have choices in their lives and be educated are so against people doing some research into the impacts and risks of various birth practices. I don't understand this unwavering "the doctor knows best - don't worry your pretty little head about it" attitude.

Sure the Doctor will generally be correct..but if I'm prescribed a medication I would kind of like to know the side effects so I can weigh the risks and benefits.

I'm at work, so I'm not going to spend all day looking up statistics regarding elective induction rates ( which is a hard topic to define..as seen in peoples varying opinions regarding what is elective and what is medically indicated ).

A recent , real life, example is my co-worker who recently had her fourth baby. She had no complications and excellent birth experiences with the first three who were all normal size. For her fourth child she asked her dr. to induce at 38 weeks because she wanted to have the baby before she had to deal with back to school stuff for her other kids. The Dr. obliged no questions asked. I don't think that is uncommon.

The information in this article is hardly from some hard core hippie unassisted home birth group

( last time I checked the March of Dimes wasn't exactly super crunchy )

http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file ... veries.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I am not saying inductions should not be done if they are not medically indicated.

I am really surprised that people who think women should have choices in their lives and be educated are so against people doing some research into the impacts and risks of various birth practices. I don't understand this unwavering "the doctor knows best - don't worry your pretty little head about it" attitude.

Sure the Doctor will generally be correct..but if I'm prescribed a medication I would kind of like to know the side effects so I can weigh the risks and benefits.

I'm at work, so I'm not going to spend all day looking up statistics regarding elective induction rates ( which is a hard topic to define..as seen in peoples varying opinions regarding what is elective and what is medically indicated ).

A recent , real life, example is my co-worker who recently had her fourth baby. She had no complications and excellent birth experiences with the first three who were all normal size. For her fourth child she asked her dr. to induce at 38 weeks because she wanted to have the baby before she had to deal with back to school stuff for her other kids. The Dr. obliged no questions asked. I don't think that is uncommon.

The information in this article is hardly from some hard core hippie unassisted home birth group

( last time I checked the March of Dimes wasn't exactly super crunchy )

http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file ... veries.pdf

No I am against your asshole attitude that you think what you think matters when it is between a woman and her doctor. I think women should have choices....which means not inducing at day 41 if there is no need and all parties are good with it but I also think it is ok to have your super evil elective induction or prefer a c-section.

Medical choices are between a patient and the dr, not a patient, the dr and the internet.

(edited to add, I meant human beings offering their unsolicited opinion on the internet)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right, god forbid a patient tries to get some knowledge independently of their dr. that would be crazy

You continue to miss what I say.

YOU are the one telling us what is right and wrong. I am saying it is none of YOUR business. If people ask you for information, then by all means offer what you know. But stop moralizing what is ultimately a woman's personal decision. If someone wants to induce to avoid a new baby and a a school starting situation, why do you think it is any of your business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic of the thread was someone going past what people thought is a normal due date. People gave differing views on this. I am giving my view. mags came on here and said I was merely spouting propaganda, so I looked up some statistics regarding the real-life risks of some interventions.

And how is it "moralizing" to say it is a good idea for people to be aware of the risks of certain procedures ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to sign a form that listed the risks of induction, and also one that listed the risks of circumcision. Informed consent is the law in the US.

I think you SHOULD do research and you SHOULD present your opinions to your doctor. And if s/he does not listen to you, then find a new fucking doctor because most of them are not assholes. No one here said that women should not worry their pretty heads about their bodies and their babies. I am just tired of home-birthers telling people that the doctors want to control you with their treatments. It's a lot easier and lower risk for a doctor to catch a live baby than to cut a woman open and wrangle it from her body. Every doctor I have seen in a pregnancy had the same damn goal that I did: to send me home happy and healthy with a newborn. Yes, I take their medical opinion into heavy consideration because they know a lot more about how to achieve that common goal than I do.

Stop telling me about how I was victimized by interventions that saved my life and the lives of my children. Lay off the advocacy that pressures doctors to wait too long before intervening or makes them look like control freaks when they are saving lives based on the best knowledge they have. Let women and doctors make their decisions without judgment or interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.