| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Joybelle wrote:
Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that. Well, the next three or [sic] physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously, I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind! I was glad to see that Joybelle's "next three or [sic] physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a vaginal birth." Any research that supports vaginal birthing of babies with spina bifida is only going to be buttressed by the fact that most statistics about injuries to babies from vaginal births (like the recent fraudulent Hannah et al. c-section-in-all-breeches promotion) are derived from vaginal births where the birth canal was senselessly closed the "extra" up to 30%. CHIROPRACTORS... Joybelle also wrote: My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of people!). Chiropractors offering advice regarding birthing babies - birthing babies with or without spina bifida - should be pointing out that obstetricians are senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% and senselessly KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck. NOTE: Talk to a licensed chiro about this... I am unlicensed - voluntarily... See Chiro x-ray fraud (also: Why Dr. Gastaldo is unlicensed - voluntarily...) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3899 For some reason, the just cited "Chiro x-ray fraud" post lost some letters in transmission, but it is still legible. Thanks for reading. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon USA |
Joy,
Disclaimers: I don't know anything about your diagnosis of spina bifida, and I don't know anything about birthing spina bifida babies. But... How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly recommend a second opinion. Next, I know little about the dangers about birthing a spina bifida baby. I would suspect, however that there must be degrees of the condition, and that is what your caregivers are talking about when they talk about the safety of vaginal birth versus c-section. It would help to know just to what degree they have diagnosed the seriousness of the condition. Yet another reason for a second opinion. Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section, what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida babies. Wishing you the best, Larry Joybelle writes: : I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here, : but this has been going on in my head the last week. : Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a : c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance : of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that. : Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a : vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid : any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This : week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a : vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously, : I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind! : We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go into : labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea of an : induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction, end up with : a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for a c-section in the : first place. We still haven't been scheduled for an induction, so I might : still have a chance to go into labor on my own. That is what I want the : most, but I've all of a sudden got a ton of worries heaping up on me! I'm : sure it's a bit normal, but I figured I'd post here. If I talk about it, I : just end up crying and getting the other people in my life anxious. They : are probably the ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are : questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal : birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think : a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and : chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of : people!). : I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening. : :) : -- : Joy : Rose 1-99 : Iris 2-01 : Spencer 3-03 : # 4 Sept 2005 |
wrote in message ...
How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly recommend a second opinion. Larry, you haven't been following Joy's pregnancy very closely, but her baby clearly HAS spina bifida, along with hydrocephalus. Multiple ultrasounds have confirmed it (I think it was initially diagnosed around mid-pregnancy), and Joy has seen many specialists throughout her pregnancy. I think it's pretty safe to say that the degree of spina bifida is well known at this point. The last thing she needs is to see any more! Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section, what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida babies. Yes, this is where I'm confused, too. Given that induction tends to produce more likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and thereby produces greater risk of fetal distress, you'd think inducing would be a bad idea. I'm suspecting that it has something to do with the hydrocephalus (the longer the baby stay in, the greater the likelihood of true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus), but that's only a guess. -- Be well, Barbara |
wrote in message ... Joy, Disclaimers: I don't know anything about your diagnosis of spina bifida, and I don't know anything about birthing spina bifida babies. But... How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly recommend a second opinion. I think if you go into the previous posts here, you'll see that she has had it thoroughly checked. Not meaning to be rude, but, having had a problem picked up at the scan, it is very irritating the number of people who keep telling you that it's probably not right, and all is actually fine, as if they know better than the 101 consultants that have scanned etc. It also keeps up a false hope that "maybe" all will be well, which isn't really helpful, although I'm sure most of them think it is. Debbie Next, I know little about the dangers about birthing a spina bifida baby. I would suspect, however that there must be degrees of the condition, and that is what your caregivers are talking about when they talk about the safety of vaginal birth versus c-section. It would help to know just to what degree they have diagnosed the seriousness of the condition. Yet another reason for a second opinion. Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section, what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida babies. Wishing you the best, Larry Joybelle writes: : I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here, : but this has been going on in my head the last week. : Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a : c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance : of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that. : Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a : vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid : any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This : week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a : vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously, : I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind! : We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go into : labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea of an : induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction, end up with : a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for a c-section in the : first place. We still haven't been scheduled for an induction, so I might : still have a chance to go into labor on my own. That is what I want the : most, but I've all of a sudden got a ton of worries heaping up on me! I'm : sure it's a bit normal, but I figured I'd post here. If I talk about it, I : just end up crying and getting the other people in my life anxious. They : are probably the ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are : questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal : birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think : a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and : chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of : people!). : I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening. : :) : -- : Joy : Rose 1-99 : Iris 2-01 : Spencer 3-03 : # 4 Sept 2005 |
"Joybelle" wrote in message ... I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here, but this has been going on in my head the last week. Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that. = questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of people!). I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening. :) Really I think it's okay. A friend's child was born by normal delivery who had spina bifida. They did know before hand, but couldn't tell how bad she was. I think she's just got leg problems now, but they had no idea how bad it was going to be-they were talking about what stage the ventilator would be turned off before the birth. She was a big baby too-nearly 10lb, I think. She's a gorgeous child too. Smiley and so happy. The family say she's such a gift to them. Debbie |
Circe wrote:
Yes, this is where I'm confused, too. Given that induction tends to produce more likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and thereby produces greater risk of fetal distress, you'd think inducing would be a bad idea. I'm suspecting that it has something to do with the hydrocephalus (the longer the baby stay in, the greater the likelihood of true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus), but that's only a guess. That's what I'd be wondering. If it's safe to have a vaginal birth and the issue is possible CPD, then you are not likely to end up with a crash c-section because of it. That's likely to be a situation where you have plenty of time to realize things aren't progressing well and moving to a c-section if that seems warranted. And really, you don't have to go to the mat to avoid the c-section if you don't want to. You can have pretty liberal criteria for throwing in the towel with the vaginal birth, if that seems to make sense to you and you want to avoid going into an emergent c-section already wiped out. If the decision is elective c-section vs. trying for a vaginal birth, then you're certainly no worse off if you try for a vaginal birth and decide that you'll opt for the c-section if things aren't going swimmingly. As far as the safety of vaginal birth with spina bifida, it really seems to get down to precisely where the lesion is, and how exposed it is, and such. When I looked at it, it seems like you just really needed to sit down the the test results and a specialist and make a decision. It certainly doesn't seem like vaginal birth is a bad idea per se, but the details really matter in this case. If I were in that situation, I'd just put my concerns in front of the specialist and say, "I want a vaginal birth, but I hear lots of conflicting things and I'm scared. Convince me that I am not unduly risking my baby by attempting a vaginal birth." A good specialist should be able to back up his or her recommendation with some solid facts that should put your mind at ease. Best wishes, Ericka |
Hugs Joybelle.
The problem here is that you'll never really know the correct answer ahead of time. You have additional risk factors that most people don't have -- risk to your baby's lesion. I think you need to factor in every possible issue -- baby's health, your recovery, etc, and then make the best decision that you can. If you feel like you will blame your delivery choice if your baby is more or less damaged than you've been told, then perhaps you chose a planned c-section. Whatever choice you make, try not to beat yourself up over it. You are in a very strange and specific situation -- this is not just a normal pregnancy and a healthy baby. Hugs my friend. -- Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world! Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password |
Joy, I feel for you, it must be a hard decision, when you first posted about
your baby's condition I did look up a little bit on line, from what I read it seemed that c-section was only recommended if things were really severe and the spinal cord was actually bulging. I recall something about infections to the lesion, but it seemed that treating the infection rather than preventing it was preferred. None of these was research results, but that was the impression I got from what I read, I hope someone comes up with something more concrete. From your posts I haven't seen anything that makes induction a good idea, other than the distance you have to travel to the hospital, in all honesty I think I'd be hanging on and waiting to go naturally, knowing your baby is going to be having surgery and needing extra care, I'd be wanting to be as well a possible myself, which would mean no c-section. Anne |
Feeling a big anxious about induction vs. c-section
I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here,
but this has been going on in my head the last week. Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that. Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously, I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind! We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go into labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea of an induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction, end up with a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for a c-section in the first place. We still haven't been scheduled for an induction, so I might still have a chance to go into labor on my own. That is what I want the most, but I've all of a sudden got a ton of worries heaping up on me! I'm sure it's a bit normal, but I figured I'd post here. If I talk about it, I just end up crying and getting the other people in my life anxious. They are probably the ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of people!). I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening. :) -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
Joybelle wrote:
I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40 weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room. With that one, you can also ask for a clear description of risks vs. benefits. On the one hand, we know that in general, the tests are less than definitive. If one doesn't look so great, try another the next day and see if you get a different reading. Two bad readings are far more indicative of problems than one bad reading. I don't think you ever need to schedule an induction in advance. Either there's evidence that it's necessary *now*, or there isn't. If there isn't, you can wait and look for more evidence tomorrow (or next week, or whenever would be appropriate). So, just take it one day, and one set of tests at a time and deal with the issue of induction when you have evidence that you need to get the baby out now. When/if that happens, *that* is the time to evaluate the likelihood of success of an induction. What is your Bishop score then? If you go step by step, it makes a lot of the "what ifs" easier to deal with. Best wishes, Ericka |
Joybelle wrote:
Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that. Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously, I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind! I don't have any advice - I don't know anything ;-). I just wanted to offer you some support. I imagine it is totally natural in your situation to be worrying about things. Everything. This is something to pin your worries on because it is something you have some power over. I think it makes perfect sense to speak with one of the doctors again about your worries to help ease your mind. In these types of situations I try to seperate the facts from my worries. In your case 3-4 specialists said a vaginal birth was safe. That seems legit to me!! We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go into labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea of an induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction, end up with a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for a c-section in the first place. I'm with you in that I'd want some concrete reasons to schedule the induction. I did finally consent to one for less then concrete reasons because they succeeded in freaking me out. The good news is that it was completely successful and I was told they mostly are for woman that have already had babies. They are probably the ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted. Ugh - I think at this point you should kindly ask everyone to just not tell you what to do anymore or question anything. At this late date they just need to be supportive. I know that is easier said then done and I need to take my own advice on that front ;-) I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening. :) Wishing you the best and post as much as you want/need! -- Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 EDD 4/06 |
Pregnant? Please show this post to your chiropractor and call his/her
attentionn to the chiro x-ray fraud mentioned at the end of this post. Chiro x-ray fraud may be perpetuating obstetric fraud. (CHIROS: Obstetricians are senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck - as they pull with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.) BABIES AND "CPD" - FOR NEW READERS... Circe wrote: Yes, this is where I'm confused, too. Given that induction tends to produce more likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and thereby produces greater risk of fetal distress, you'd think inducing would be a bad idea. I'm suspecting that it has something to do with the hydrocephalus (the longer the baby stay in, the greater the likelihood of true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus), but that's only a guess. New readers, CPD is the acronym for cephalopelvic disproportion (sometimes called "fetopelvic disproportion")... Obstetricians focus exclusively on the CEPHALO part (the baby) and pretend that they aren't grossly influencing the PELVIC part - routinely closing mothers' pelves up to 30% and routinely KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck. Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal - closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%. Ericka replied: That's what I'd be wondering. If it's safe to have a vaginal birth and the issue is possible CPD, then you are not likely to end up with a crash c-section because of it. Again, this is for new readers... If the issue is "possible CPD" - with obstetricians CAUSING CPD - the necessity of any c-section - crash or otherwise - is suspect. That's likely to be a situation where you have plenty of time to realize things aren't progressing well and moving to a c-section if that seems warranted. And really, you don't have to go to the mat to avoid the c-section if you don't want to. You can have pretty liberal criteria for throwing in the towel with the vaginal birth, if that seems to make sense to you and you want to avoid going into an emergent c-section already wiped out. If the decision is elective c-section vs. trying for a vaginal birth, then you're certainly no worse off if you try for a vaginal birth and decide that you'll opt for the c-section if things aren't going swimmingly. As far as the safety of vaginal birth with spina bifida, it really seems to get down to precisely where the lesion is, and how exposed it is, and such. When I looked at it, it seems like you just really needed to sit down the the test results and a specialist and make a decision. It certainly doesn't seem like vaginal birth is a bad idea per se, but the details really matter in this case. If I were in that situation, I'd just put my concerns in front of the specialist and say, "I want a vaginal birth, but I hear lots of conflicting things and I'm scared. Convince me that I am not unduly risking my baby by attempting a vaginal birth." A good specialist should be able to back up his or her recommendation with some solid facts that should put your mind at ease. .. Good specialists (and good childbirth educators) would work to stop obstetricians from closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% - esp. when they are worried about CPD - even and especially when they are worried about "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus." Compelling obstetricians to open birth canals the "extra" up to 30% is not going to prevent all c-sections - but obstetricians have no business closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30%. NEW READERS: Please note that obstetricians are LYING to cover-up the obvious birth crime. For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)... See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3897 Please note also... Unnecessary c-sections were alluded to above but I must mention them again - along with unnecessary episiotomies... UNNECESSARY C-SECTIONS/UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMIES Obstetricians are slicing vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) - surgically fraudulently inferring they are doing/have done everything possible to open birth canals - even as they close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%. ANOTHER OBVIOUS OBSTETRIC CRIME - American medicine's most frequent surgery - obviously criminal the way MDs do it... IMMEDIATE cord clamping... The obstetric professionn routinely asphyxiates babies and causes them to breathe with their lungs before they are ready - as it robs babies of up to 50% of their blood volume... Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG says this is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY (it also happens with most "cord blood banking")... See Cord clamping baby asphyxiation: Pediatrician not cheering so loud now... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3896 Dr. Morley recommends an obviously illegal TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation experiment to help obstetricians demonstrate to themselves that they shouldn't permanently asphyxiate/deny babies umbilical cord oxygen and rob them of massive amounts of blood: "[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds.* Common sense will soon release the finger and thumb." http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm Again, CPD means cephaloPELVIC disproportion and obstetricians are closing pelves up to 30% and keeping them closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck... Be careful out there. Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon USA PS I think the whole chiropractic profession would be supporting me this work - but the chiro associations and boards are mostly silent - likely because I am also pointing out CHIRO fraud. For details regarding the ongoing chiro x-ray fraud/crime - MOST (all?) boards of chiropractic examiners are silently perpetuating it... See Chiro x-ray fraud (also: Why Dr. Gastaldo is unlicensed - voluntarily...) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3899 For some reason, the just cited "Chiro x-ray fraud" post lost some letters in transmission, but it is still legible. |
"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
... Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal - closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%. Todd, I beg to differ. Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head circumference that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position during pushing. Since Joy has had all of her babies unmedicated and has had three home births, I know she knows that she can push in any position she likes. That does not eliminate the possibility that her baby's hydrocephalus could progress to a point where the head would be too large to deliver vaginally. Fortunately, it sounds like that is not the case! -- Be well, Barbara |
Joybelle wrote: I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here, but this has been going on in my head the last week. Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that. Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously, I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind! Hi Joy, I just wanted to say that I had alot of the same thoughts with my last birth, because it was a VBAC. I was even weighing some induction talk too. Most people thought I should just have a scheduled section, etc. VBAC is dangerous, etc. Thankfully my husband, doula and midwives were very supportive so when those doubts started creeping in I was able to remind myself of why I wanted a VBAC (which I got). So, although our situations are very different, I had some very similar worries and doubts - I think its really normal. I hope you find a peaceful place and concentrate on good labor thoughts. And I hope you go into labor on your own :) I agree with Ericka that its kind of silly to schedule an induction. You either need one now, or you can wait. Good luck! Mary W. |
Thanks, Anne, for your reassurance! I'm glad I posted about the induction
because so far what's been said has validated how I've felt about an induction. I want to have a vag birth, but without the induction. I'll have to make that clearer to the doctors this next visit. My hubby has been very supportive, but it's just other people like my mother and sister who are giving me doubts. remember that they never have the full information only you and probably your husband has it straight from the doctors mouths, however well you try and explain it to other people, they get your interpretation and then make their own interpretation of that, which means they can miss some of the risks, or blow them up. I think what Ericka says about taking things one day at a time is really excellent advice, an induction would be for the sake of the baby's health, so wait til the baby's condition warrents it. I think there are very few conditions where scheduling a date well in advance is the best course of treatment, cholestasis would be the only one I can think of right now. Anne |
Joybelle writes:
: I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it : isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is : measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic : fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40 : weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go : into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but : I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last : time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room. First, sorry for not paying attention earlier on. Second, given this respone from you, IMHO you have this one well understood and you don't need any help from us! Still, best wishes and we'll keep thinking about you, Larry |
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
... Joybelle wrote: I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40 weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room. With that one, you can also ask for a clear description of risks vs. benefits. On the one hand, we know that in general, the tests are less than definitive. If one doesn't look so great, try another the next day and see if you get a different reading. Two bad readings are far more indicative of problems than one bad reading. I don't think you ever need to schedule an induction in advance. Either there's evidence that it's necessary *now*, or there isn't. If there isn't, you can wait and look for more evidence tomorrow (or next week, or whenever would be appropriate). So, just take it one day, and one set of tests at a time and deal with the issue of induction when you have evidence that you need to get the baby out now. When/if that happens, *that* is the time to evaluate the likelihood of success of an induction. What is your Bishop score then? If you go step by step, it makes a lot of the "what ifs" easier to deal with. Best wishes, Ericka I think Ericka may have hit the nail on the head. My guess is that part of the reason why Joybelle would be not okay with the idea of induction is that they are usually so random -- throw a dart at the calendar and pick a date, any date. Why Tuesday instead of Thursday? Why 39w3d instead of 39w6d? I like the idea of taking it one day, and one test at a time, at least in regards to induction verses letting your body go into labor on it's own. If there are persistent and compelling reasons to induce, I don't think the idea will both you any more, as the reasons will be compelling and persistent. If there are no compelling reasons, then there really isn't a reason to start labor artificially, now is there? Of course that doesn't deal with the whole "should you have a c-section" or not issue. But again, I agree with Ericka -- talk to your specialists and keep gathering information. Eventually the decision should become clear. You should be able to be convinced of the safety of a vaginal birth, or convinced of the need for a c-section. -- Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world! Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password |
"Joybelle" wrote in message
... "Jamie Clark" wrote in message ... Hugs Joybelle. The problem here is that you'll never really know the correct answer ahead of time. You have additional risk factors that most people don't have -- risk to your baby's lesion. I think you need to factor in every possible issue -- baby's health, your recovery, etc, and then make the best decision that you can. If you feel like you will blame your delivery choice if your baby is more or less damaged than you've been told, then perhaps you chose a planned c-section. Whatever choice you make, try not to beat yourself up over it. You are in a very strange and specific situation -- this is not just a normal pregnancy and a healthy baby. Hugs my friend. Thank you very much, Jamie. It is such a weird place to be in. I think it's really hitting me that I'm not going to have a "normal" baby or a "normal" delivery, and I really am having to work out the kinks before we get there. I'm sure there'll be plenty to work out afterward, also! :) I think a lot of this stuff is re-surfacing due to my sister's birth and my healthy little nephew. I'm so thrilled and ecstatic for her, but I'm sad it's not going to be that way for us. Thanks for the hugs. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, the fact that your nephews birth would be bringing stuff up. Although we didn't take Nathan to term, there was also a large denial factor -- I could sort of pretend that I was just normal and pregnant for a little bit, since I had no direct evidence in front of me that my baby was not healthy and okay. So, maybe there is a little bit of that going on -- you found out midway through your pregnancy, but there wasn't much you could do about it, and your pregnancy sort of continued on, much like your other 3, except the GD diagnoses (and tons more doctors appointments). But now that delivery is immenent, all of a sudden, you really have to deal with it. Or maybe not. I could be off base...it's been known to happen! ; ) -- Jamie Earth Angels: Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it! Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to go explore the world! Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and Password |
wrote in message ... Joy, Disclaimers: I don't know anything about your diagnosis of spina bifida, and I don't know anything about birthing spina bifida babies. But... How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly recommend a second opinion. Hi, Larry, I think you might have been on vacation when I was posting about this. Baby was diagnosed at 25 weeks to have sb by u/s. Amniocentisis and subsequent u/s (I've had a total of three level 2 u/s) have confirmed it. I haven't gone to a different hospital to get a second opinion, but I've seen a different doctor each visit. It is a group of about 20 perinatologists and they love to have you see each and every one. :) Next, I know little about the dangers about birthing a spina bifida baby. I would suspect, however that there must be degrees of the condition, and that is what your caregivers are talking about when they talk about the safety of vaginal birth versus c-section. It would help to know just to what degree they have diagnosed the seriousness of the condition. Yet another reason for a second opinion. It is considered L-4, which is relatively a medium severity of the defect. The baby also has been diagnosed as to have hydrocephalus. It has been only one doctor so far who has recommended a c-section. The other doctors (about 4-5 of them) have told me a vaginal delivery is a very viable option. Their reasons have been this is my third baby, I've delivered a 10-pounder, and the hydrocephalus hasn't gotten severe. I think I just need my fears set to rest! Birthing horror stories have never bothered me, but this is unknown territory for me, and they are definitely affecting me more than I thought they would. Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section, what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida babies. Well, I did have some issues with my amniotic fluid lowering for a couple of weeks, and that is when the induction talk began. Otherwise, they seemed to be fine with just having me go into labor on my own despite the distance (about 2 hours). The last visit, though, the amniotic fluid had improved from 6.24 to 8.37, so that really doesn't seem to be an issue anymore. I see a doctor again on Friday, and I think I'm working myself up into battle mode. :) I want to be fully armed if there is no definite reason for induction. I just wish I could see the one perinatologist again who explained things so well in the first place. I feel I need a bit of reassurance on all fronts. Probably typical at this stage in the pregnancy, right? Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, Larry. -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
"Joybelle" wrote in message
... It is excellent advice, and I feel "armed" now, so to speak. :) And there's nothing more dangerous than an armed woman in the third trimester of pregnancy g... -- Be well, Barbara (just lightening the mood a litt!e) |
"Circe" wrote in message news:gyXXe.24204$sx2.1882@fed1read02... Larry, you haven't been following Joy's pregnancy very closely, but her baby clearly HAS spina bifida, along with hydrocephalus. Multiple ultrasounds have confirmed it (I think it was initially diagnosed around mid-pregnancy), and Joy has seen many specialists throughout her pregnancy. I think it's pretty safe to say that the degree of spina bifida is well known at this point. The last thing she needs is to see any more! Gotta agree. :) Finally, I am *really* suspicious about the induction talk. If they think that it is safe to birth vaginally rather than by c-section, what possible advantage could there be to induction? I would ask for study results that show that induction provides better outcomes. I would doubt that they can produce them. I might even ask Ericka to see if she could find any information on vaginally birthing spina bifida babies. Yes, this is where I'm confused, too. Given that induction tends to produce more likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and thereby produces greater risk of fetal distress, you'd think inducing would be a bad idea. I'm suspecting that it has something to do with the hydrocephalus (the longer the baby stay in, the greater the likelihood of true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus), but that's only a guess. I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40 weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room. -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
"Welches" wrote in message ... Really I think it's okay. A friend's child was born by normal delivery who had spina bifida. They did know before hand, but couldn't tell how bad she was. I think she's just got leg problems now, but they had no idea how bad it was going to be-they were talking about what stage the ventilator would be turned off before the birth. She was a big baby too-nearly 10lb, I think. She's a gorgeous child too. Smiley and so happy. The family say she's such a gift to them. Thank you, Debbie! That is a very good success story! I've been hanging out on a support board for sb, and it seems some have vag births and some have c-sections. It's just the whole, "what is right for my baby!!" thing going on, and I think I'm panicking a little. :) -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
"Jamie Clark" wrote in message ... Hugs Joybelle. The problem here is that you'll never really know the correct answer ahead of time. You have additional risk factors that most people don't have -- risk to your baby's lesion. I think you need to factor in every possible issue -- baby's health, your recovery, etc, and then make the best decision that you can. If you feel like you will blame your delivery choice if your baby is more or less damaged than you've been told, then perhaps you chose a planned c-section. Whatever choice you make, try not to beat yourself up over it. You are in a very strange and specific situation -- this is not just a normal pregnancy and a healthy baby. Hugs my friend. Thank you very much, Jamie. It is such a weird place to be in. I think it's really hitting me that I'm not going to have a "normal" baby or a "normal" delivery, and I really am having to work out the kinks before we get there. I'm sure there'll be plenty to work out afterward, also! :) I think a lot of this stuff is re-surfacing due to my sister's birth and my healthy little nephew. I'm so thrilled and ecstatic for her, but I'm sad it's not going to be that way for us. Thanks for the hugs. -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
JOYBELLE SQUATTED! COOL!
See the very end of this post. "Circe" wrote in message news:nxZXe.24213$sx2.19533@fed1read02... "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message ... Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal - closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%. Todd, I beg to differ. Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head circumference that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position during pushing. Joybelle quoted Barbara (Circe) back without correcting Barbara's inference... ....so I repeat what I wrote in my reply to Barbara (Circe)... I did not say hydrocephalus could NOT result in a head circumference that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position during pushing. I said: "Barbara's (Circe's) phrase 'true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus' is meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal - closing the birth canal the 'extra' up 30%." I stand by that statement in the context of the discussion - three physicians saying a vaginal birth would be OK in Joybelle's case. [I thank Barbara] though for making the point that if the hydrocephalus is even too big for a birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30% - then true cephalopelvic disproportion has occurred. Unfortunately, obstetricians still close birth canals the "extra" up to 30% even as they warn women about cephalopelvic disproportion - even when babies are suspected of hydrocephalus and a vaginal birth is to be attempted. See Is this child abuse? - was Babies and 'CPD' - for new readers (and chiros) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3906 Since Joy has had all of her babies unmedicated and has had three home births, I know she knows that she can push in any position she likes. New readers: There are no guarantees just because one births at home with a homebirth midwife that one is going to be allowed and encouraged to open one's birth canal the "extra" up to 30%. Again see: Is this child abuse? - was Babies and 'CPD' - for new readers (and chiros) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3906 That does not eliminate the possibility that her baby's hydrocephalus could progress to a point where the head would be too large to deliver vaginally. Fortunately, it sounds like that is not the case! Again I thank Barbara (Circe) for making the point that if the hydrocephalus is even too big for a birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30% - then true cephalopelvic disproportion has occurred. Joybelle replied: Barbara, I agree with you. The did say if the hydrocephalus was severe enough, they'd definitely recommend a c-section due to CPD. It certainly makes sense to me. I also think one of the doctors said something about if the hydro was severe enough, and I tried a vaginal birth, I could be risking brain damage to the baby. Wouldn't want to do that. Sounds like that isn't a risk with this baby, though. Yep. That's why I stand by my statement in response to Barbara. See above. Joybelle, it is good that you are posting all of this to usenet. Assuming the Google usenet archive stays up and running, years from now women you don't even know will benefit from your having dealt with this. Also, I wanted to clarify I've had only two homebirths. My first was in the hospital and was medicated. And, yes, Todd, I am aware of pushing in the optimal positions! My pelvis had plenty of room to birth my last two as I was squatting in my living room. :) COOL! I think this coming birth will go just fine. As always, my public service announcement: New readers: Joybelle squatted - many women squat - but you do NOT have to squat to allow your birth canal to open the "extra" up to 30% at delivery. Kneeling, hands-and-knees, knee-chest (lowering your chest to the bed from hands-and-knees), crouching on one knee, standing, side-lying - there are LOTS of birth positions that allow the birth canal to open the "extra" up to 30%. Todd |
"Anne Rogers" wrote in message ... Joy, I feel for you, it must be a hard decision, when you first posted about your baby's condition I did look up a little bit on line, from what I read it seemed that c-section was only recommended if things were really severe and the spinal cord was actually bulging. I recall something about infections to the lesion, but it seemed that treating the infection rather than preventing it was preferred. None of these was research results, but that was the impression I got from what I read, I hope someone comes up with something more concrete. From your posts I haven't seen anything that makes induction a good idea, other than the distance you have to travel to the hospital, in all honesty I think I'd be hanging on and waiting to go naturally, knowing your baby is going to be having surgery and needing extra care, I'd be wanting to be as well a possible myself, which would mean no c-section. Thanks, Anne, for your reassurance! I'm glad I posted about the induction because so far what's been said has validated how I've felt about an induction. I want to have a vag birth, but without the induction. I'll have to make that clearer to the doctors this next visit. My hubby has been very supportive, but it's just other people like my mother and sister who are giving me doubts. -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
In misc.kids.pregnancy Todd Gastaldo wrote:
: My post was for "new readers and chiros" - not Joybelle necessarily. That's the problem. Responses in a thread started by a regular poster should remain directed to that poster, and remain OT and limited to mostly to that poster's needs. posts for "new readers and" any others should start a new thread. You may post as you wish, just start a new thread when your post is OT to or not directed to the OP. Thanks, Larry |
|
LARRY - IS THIS CHILD ABUSE?
I mentioned Larry McMahan when I asked Barbara (Circe) is she thinks temporary baby asphyxiation is child abuse... I wrote to Barbara: No need to "beg" to differ with me - people differ with me all the time - like for example the time that Ericka Kammerer pretended publicly - ERRONEOUSLY - that childbirth educator Henci Goer warns that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck. I welcome ALL differing; though obviously, I still think Ericka's (and Henci's!) behavior bizarre - like Larry McMahan's notion that the massive obstetric crimes are just standard "substandard" care and not crimes. Speaking of obstetric crime... Barbara, you snipped Dr. Morley's temporary baby asphyxiation experiment. Here it is again: "[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds.* Common sense will soon release the finger and thumb." http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm Barbara, do you think it is a crime for obstetricians to temporarily asphyxiate babies to demonstrate to themselves that they should not PERMANENTLY asphyxiate umbilical cord oxygen and rob babies of up to 50% of their blood volume? Or do we differ on that point too? Larry McMahan replied: In misc.kids.pregnancy wrote: : In misc.kids.pregnancy Todd Gastaldo wrote: : : My post was for "new readers and chiros" - not Joybelle necessarily. : That's the problem. Responses in a thread started by a regular poster : should remain directed to that poster, and remain OT and limited to : mostly to that poster's needs. Larry, There is no problem except your attempted use of "netiquette" concerns to cover-up your embarrassment at euphemizing mass child abuse by MDs as standard "substandard" care. Law enforcement is looking the other way - babies be damned - and you are pretending that means that no crime is occurring. When mass child abuse is suspected - EVERYONE hears about it - everyone has a chance to PREVENT it - that's what I would want if I was a child being abused. By creating a new subject line, everyone reading the thread instantly knew there was a change. Larry, you are publicly pretending otherwise - just like you are publicly pretending that obstetricians are only practicing standard "substandard" care and not committing obvious crimes. : posts for "new readers and" any others should start a new thread. : You may post as you wish, just start a new thread when your post is : OT to or not directed to the OP. : Thanks, : Larry Oooh, and finally (didn't see this one until I hit send and saw the list of ng's I was posting to. Grrrr) Last piece of netiquitte is don't add newsgroups when when responding to a post. Leave it in the orignal poster's newsgroup(s) only. You can add the other newsgroups when you start your own thread. TIA for being courteous. Larry Babies are being abused en masse - sometimes killed. You are preaching "netiquette" as MDs perform mass child abuse. It's about as useful to babies as you claiming that the mass child abuse is standard "substandard" care. I will add back the newsgroups you deleted. Todd |
"Circe" wrote in message news:nxZXe.24213$sx2.19533@fed1read02... "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message ... Barbara's (Circe's) phrase "true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus" is meaningless when the obstetrician has the mother semisitting or dorsal - closing the birth canal the "extra" up 30%. Todd, I beg to differ. Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head circumference that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the mother's position during pushing. Since Joy has had all of her babies unmedicated and has had three home births, I know she knows that she can push in any position she likes. That does not eliminate the possibility that her baby's hydrocephalus could progress to a point where the head would be too large to deliver vaginally. Fortunately, it sounds like that is not the case! Barbara, I agree with you. The did say if the hydrocephalus was severe enough, they'd definitely recommend a c-section due to CPD. It certainly makes sense to me. I also think one of the doctors said something about if the hydro was severe enough, and I tried a vaginal birth, I could be risking brain damage to the baby. Wouldn't want to do that. Sounds like that isn't a risk with this baby, though. Also, I wanted to clarify I've had only two homebirths. My first was in the hospital and was medicated. And, yes, Todd, I am aware of pushing in the optimal positions! My pelvis had plenty of room to birth my last two as I was squatting in my living room. :) -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
Joybelle wrote:
Thanks for that piece of advice! I think I need to give it to the people around me, also. :) There's been a bit of pressure to get things set up because of accomodations and what to do with the kids. It WOULD be easier to know the date, but still I don't want to do something just for the sake of convenience (though, it is a little more involved than that, obviously!). I'm sure that the scheduling issues are enough to drive anyone nuts. And, if when you take it all together, you decide an elective c-section is what you need to do in order to make everything work out okay for you, then there's no shame in doing that. But if what makes you feel better is to give it the best possible shot at avoiding the c-section, then everyone else can just learn to cope ;-) You're the pregnant woman. There aren't many times in your life when you get to be selfish, but this is one of them! Best wishes, Ericka |
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message ... Joybelle wrote: I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40 weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room. With that one, you can also ask for a clear description of risks vs. benefits. On the one hand, we know that in general, the tests are less than definitive. If one doesn't look so great, try another the next day and see if you get a different reading. Two bad readings are far more indicative of problems than one bad reading. Absolutely, and they've even said the measuring isn't all that accurate. The risks we've been given are cord compression and difficulty delivering. That is with an AFI of 4 or under. We have been above that, thankfully. I don't think you ever need to schedule an induction in advance. Either there's evidence that it's necessary *now*, or there isn't. If there isn't, you can wait and look for more evidence tomorrow (or next week, or whenever would be appropriate). So, just take it one day, and one set of tests at a time and deal with the issue of induction when you have evidence that you need to get the baby out now. When/if that happens, *that* is the time to evaluate the likelihood of success of an induction. What is your Bishop score then? Yep, that sounds really good. Thanks, Ericka. If you go step by step, it makes a lot of the "what ifs" easier to deal with. Thanks for that piece of advice! I think I need to give it to the people around me, also. :) There's been a bit of pressure to get things set up because of accomodations and what to do with the kids. It WOULD be easier to know the date, but still I don't want to do something just for the sake of convenience (though, it is a little more involved than that, obviously!). -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
"Nikki" wrote in message ... I don't have any advice - I don't know anything ;-). I just wanted to offer you some support. I imagine it is totally natural in your situation to be worrying about things. Everything. This is something to pin your worries on because it is something you have some power over. I think it makes perfect sense to speak with one of the doctors again about your worries to help ease your mind. In these types of situations I try to seperate the facts from my worries. In your case 3-4 specialists said a vaginal birth was safe. That seems legit to me!! Thanks for the support, Nikki! I think I just need to hear it one more time. :) We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go into labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea of an induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction, end up with a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for a c-section in the first place. I'm with you in that I'd want some concrete reasons to schedule the induction. I did finally consent to one for less then concrete reasons because they succeeded in freaking me out. The good news is that it was completely successful and I was told they mostly are for woman that have already had babies. My other sister who had her first baby in May had an induction for no reason at 39 weeks. She had a very positive and successful experience. I think I'm just going to do what Ericka said and only have an induction if it is needed Now. They are probably the ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted. Ugh - I think at this point you should kindly ask everyone to just not tell you what to do anymore or question anything. At this late date they just need to be supportive. I know that is easier said then done and I need to take my own advice on that front ;-) I think you are right. I feel like just avoiding everybody. :) I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening. :) Wishing you the best and post as much as you want/need! Thanks, Nikki!! It's been very helpful posting about it! I'm feeling better about facing the doctor on Friday. -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
"Mary W." wrote in message nk.net... I just wanted to say that I had alot of the same thoughts with my last birth, because it was a VBAC. I was even weighing some induction talk too. Most people thought I should just have a scheduled section, etc. VBAC is dangerous, etc. Thankfully my husband, doula and midwives were very supportive so when those doubts started creeping in I was able to remind myself of why I wanted a VBAC (which I got). Thanks, Mary. I'm glad you got your VBAC!! So, although our situations are very different, I had some very similar worries and doubts - I think its really normal. It definitely helps to hear it's normal. I hope you find a peaceful place and concentrate on good labor thoughts. And I hope you go into labor on your own :) I hope I do, too! I'm what I call a 41-weeker, and I'm just hoping this little one decides it would like to be earlier than that. :) I agree with Ericka that its kind of silly to schedule an induction. You either need one now, or you can wait. Good luck! Thank you! I agree with Ericka and you, and I'm going to do my best to stand up for that. -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
"Anne Rogers" wrote in message ... remember that they never have the full information only you and probably your husband has it straight from the doctors mouths, however well you try and explain it to other people, they get your interpretation and then make their own interpretation of that, which means they can miss some of the risks, or blow them up. So true. I think what Ericka says about taking things one day at a time is really excellent advice, an induction would be for the sake of the baby's health, so wait til the baby's condition warrents it. I think there are very few conditions where scheduling a date well in advance is the best course of treatment, cholestasis would be the only one I can think of right now. It is excellent advice, and I feel "armed" now, so to speak. :) Thanks, Anne! -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
wrote in message ... Joybelle writes: : I do think the hydrocephalus may be a bit of a factor (but at this point it : isn't-baby is measuring up consistently 7days behind and the head is : measuring up along with that), but I did have some lowering of my amniotic : fluid index. That's when I was told I wouldn't be allowed to go to 40 : weeks. I'm finding that I'm fine with the idea of a vaginal birth if I go : into labor, and I'm fine with a c-section if it's indicated I need one, but : I'm not very fine with the idea of an induction. The AFI did go up last : time, so I have to think that gives me some bargaining room. First, sorry for not paying attention earlier on. Second, given this respone from you, IMHO you have this one well understood and you don't need any help from us! Thanks, Larry. The support helps Tremendously. :) Still, best wishes and we'll keep thinking about you, Thank you! -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
Joybelle wrote:
They are probably the ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a vaginal birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted. A couple of these are nurses and chiropracters or people who've had kids with sb (she knows a lot of people!). I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for listening. :) I will add an anecdote from the other side to counteract the ones your mom has been sharing -- my cousin has a little boy with spina bifida and he was born vaginally. He was her first birth too, she didn't even have a "proven pelvis" like you do. It didn't make the SB any worse. I don't really know too much about SB but I do know that his is not a mild case and the recommendation was still to have him vaginally. Good luck with all your decisions Joy. Elle |
IMO, you're overstepping the boundaries here Todd. If you have anything to
offer that's relevant to Joy, by all means, include it in the thread. Considering what Joy has been through already in her pregnancy, I don't think she needs it to be the subject of debate on misc.health.alternative and sci.med. I don't think anyone likes to see the personal lives of MKPers become pawns in a cause in such a blatantly obvious manner, no matter how important the cause is. Until recently you responded on a more human levels to individual posters and showed more respect for that thin line in the sand that is netiquette, and I appreciated that. I also don't understand your constant attacks on Ericka and Larry (and Barbara too?). Perhaps their methods are different from yours, but I think they want the same things for MKPers and labouring women that you do. Larry is crunchier than the balls on a brass monkey! After a point - and anyone who knows me will know how alien it is to me to say this - it all becomes semantics. Can't people agree to disagree on some points, and admit they have a common goal or two? Who is the enemy? -- Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/ "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message ... LARRY - IS THIS CHILD ABUSE? I mentioned Larry McMahan when I asked Barbara (Circe) is she thinks temporary baby asphyxiation is child abuse... I wrote to Barbara: No need to "beg" to differ with me - people differ with me all the time - like for example the time that Ericka Kammerer pretended publicly - ERRONEOUSLY - that childbirth educator Henci Goer warns that obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck. I welcome ALL differing; though obviously, I still think Ericka's (and Henci's!) behavior bizarre - like Larry McMahan's notion that the massive obstetric crimes are just standard "substandard" care and not crimes. Speaking of obstetric crime... Barbara, you snipped Dr. Morley's temporary baby asphyxiation experiment. Here it is again: "[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon release the finger and thumb." http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm Barbara, do you think it is a crime for obstetricians to temporarily asphyxiate babies to demonstrate to themselves that they should not PERMANENTLY asphyxiate umbilical cord oxygen and rob babies of up to 50% of their blood volume? Or do we differ on that point too? Larry McMahan replied: In misc.kids.pregnancy wrote: : In misc.kids.pregnancy Todd Gastaldo wrote: : : My post was for "new readers and chiros" - not Joybelle necessarily. : That's the problem. Responses in a thread started by a regular poster : should remain directed to that poster, and remain OT and limited to : mostly to that poster's needs. Larry, There is no problem except your attempted use of "netiquette" concerns to cover-up your embarrassment at euphemizing mass child abuse by MDs as standard "substandard" care. Law enforcement is looking the other way - babies be damned - and you are pretending that means that no crime is occurring. When mass child abuse is suspected - EVERYONE hears about it - everyone has a chance to PREVENT it - that's what I would want if I was a child being abused. By creating a new subject line, everyone reading the thread instantly knew there was a change. Larry, you are publicly pretending otherwise - just like you are publicly pretending that obstetricians are only practicing standard "substandard" care and not committing obvious crimes. : posts for "new readers and" any others should start a new thread. : You may post as you wish, just start a new thread when your post is : OT to or not directed to the OP. : Thanks, : Larry Oooh, and finally (didn't see this one until I hit send and saw the list of ng's I was posting to. Grrrr) Last piece of netiquitte is don't add newsgroups when when responding to a post. Leave it in the orignal poster's newsgroup(s) only. You can add the other newsgroups when you start your own thread. TIA for being courteous. Larry Babies are being abused en masse - sometimes killed. You are preaching "netiquette" as MDs perform mass child abuse. It's about as useful to babies as you claiming that the mass child abuse is standard "substandard" care. I will add back the newsgroups you deleted. Todd |
No experience here and nothing to add, but I hope you get the birth you
want, whatever that ends up being! Does that make sense? -- Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/ My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/ "Joybelle" wrote in message ... I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here, but this has been going on in my head the last week. |
"Jamie Clark" wrote in message ... I think Ericka may have hit the nail on the head. My guess is that part of the reason why Joybelle would be not okay with the idea of induction is that they are usually so random -- throw a dart at the calendar and pick a date, any date. Why Tuesday instead of Thursday? Why 39w3d instead of 39w6d? Exactly. Part of the reason we were given for a Monday or Tuesday is it's easier for them because the neurosurgeons and staff would all be there rather than being on call. Honestly, I'd be more willing to schedule an induction AFTER 40 weeks. I think I'd be much more likely to have a successful induction if they were to wait. The doctor we saw, though, was quite adament about how this baby had to come out by 40 weeks. I guess we'll just wait and see what this doctor has to say on Friday! I like the idea of taking it one day, and one test at a time, at least in regards to induction verses letting your body go into labor on it's own. If there are persistent and compelling reasons to induce, I don't think the idea will both you any more, as the reasons will be compelling and persistent. If there are no compelling reasons, then there really isn't a reason to start labor artificially, now is there? Absolutely. Of course that doesn't deal with the whole "should you have a c-section" or not issue. But again, I agree with Ericka -- talk to your specialists and keep gathering information. Eventually the decision should become clear. You should be able to be convinced of the safety of a vaginal birth, or convinced of the need for a c-section. Thanks, Jamie. Compiling my notes for Friday. :) -- Joy Rose 1-99 Iris 2-01 Spencer 3-03 # 4 Sept 2005 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com