If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
Ok, I would do this in mkp, but I don't know too many of the people over
there now, and I know more of you would understand my need to vent over this. I vented about something at the navy wive's website I'm a member of a while ago, and since then, they've created a "Child and Mother" forum. So far they've discussed family beds, milk drying up, starting solids at 2 weeks. Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice. So today, someone asked about giving birth at a particular Navy hospital with a not so nice track record and here's one of the posts have heard that the midwives at the hospital are not too keen on inducing labor. Is this true? I am preggo and am worried to death that they won't agree with me to have me induced. I keep having these horrific thoughts that I will be two weeks over due and huge and mean and with sausage toes. Let me explain my situation a bit, I have had three kids, have been late with the first two and have been induced with all three of them. I just DO NOT go into labor, in fact, I hardly even dilate! So, I think I know how my body responds to pregnancy and I am going to talk to the midwife about the possibility of inducing me and I'm hoping that they will say okay. Has anyone been in a similar situation??? I am just terrified that this will happen! I know all about those home remedies to start labor, walking, salad dressing, blah, blah, nothing has ever worked and I doubt nothing will ever work... Here's what I posted in response, now I'm bracing for the nasty responses about how I'm so unsympathetic... well if your body needs more time to cook the babies, it needs more time. Midwives aren't keen to induce, because as a whole, midwives are commited to labors without interventions and inductions open up a whole world of interventions that might not have otherwise been needed. The average gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
Denise wrote:
(someone else said) I just DO NOT go into labor, in fact, I hardly even dilate! You know, right before Caterpillar was born, someone was telling me that she had to have c-sections with both her kids, because she "just didn't dilate." It took me 9 hours of active labor to go from 1cm and 100% dilated to 2cm. And 12 more hours to get to 3. I suspect if I'd been planning a hospital birth, I'd have had a c-section for failure to progress, and wound up as another one who "just didn't dilate." Some babies just take more time to come out. Phoebe |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
badgirl wrote in message ...
That SO aggravates me when people don't get that! It's YOUR body, it's YOUR responsibility to take care of it and make decisions for it. The doctor you HIRE still has to consult you before he can do anything. One of my peeves is the "the doctor won't let me eat" or "they wouldn't let me move" deal during labour. So what's going to happen if you do eat/move around, be grounded for a week? My best friend said she had back labour, but "they" wouldn't let her move around because of the monitors. She was made to lay on her back. Well when she sat up to get her epidural the pain went away...by the time she realized it the anesthesiologist(sp.) had already started and she didn't want to say anything. She said she feels if she'd been allowed to move around and not lay there she might have been able to make it through naturally. Marie |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
Denise wrote:
Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice. I hate to open this can of worms...but what do they say about bf? I'd think, being military families and on a pretty tight income, that they would all be for it, at least from a financial point of view... E |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
"Denise" wrote in message ... Ok, I would do this in mkp, but I don't know too many of the people over there now, and I know more of you would understand my need to vent over this. I vented about something at the navy wive's website I'm a member of a while ago, and since then, they've created a "Child and Mother" forum. So far they've discussed family beds, milk drying up, starting solids at 2 weeks. Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice. So today, someone asked about giving birth at a particular Navy hospital with a not so nice track record and here's one of the posts have heard that the midwives at the hospital are not too keen on inducing labor. Is this true? I am preggo and am worried to death that they won't agree with me to have me induced. I keep having these horrific thoughts that I will be two weeks over due and huge and mean and with sausage toes. Let me explain my situation a bit, I have had three kids, have been late with the first two and have been induced with all three of them. I just DO NOT go into labor, in fact, I hardly even dilate! So, I think I know how my body responds to pregnancy and I am going to talk to the midwife about the possibility of inducing me and I'm hoping that they will say okay. Has anyone been in a similar situation??? I am just terrified that this will happen! I know all about those home remedies to start labor, walking, salad dressing, blah, blah, nothing has ever worked and I doubt nothing will ever work... Here's what I posted in response, now I'm bracing for the nasty responses about how I'm so unsympathetic... well if your body needs more time to cook the babies, it needs more time. Midwives aren't keen to induce, because as a whole, midwives are commited to labors without interventions and inductions open up a whole world of interventions that might not have otherwise been needed. The average gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise Why nasty? This post sounds more informative than unsympathetic to me. S |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
"Marie" wrote in message ... badgirl wrote in message ... That SO aggravates me when people don't get that! It's YOUR body, it's YOUR responsibility to take care of it and make decisions for it. The doctor you HIRE still has to consult you before he can do anything. One of my peeves is the "the doctor won't let me eat" or "they wouldn't let me move" deal during labour. So what's going to happen if you do eat/move around, be grounded for a week? My best friend said she had back labour, but "they" wouldn't let her move around because of the monitors. She was made to lay on her back. Well when she sat up to get her epidural the pain went away...by the time she realized it the anesthesiologist(sp.) had already started and she didn't want to say anything. She said she feels if she'd been allowed to move around and not lay there she might have been able to make it through naturally. Marie I agree with you 100% ... but I know for myself I was completely unable to formulate a thought, let alone stand up for myself. I sat there thinking how miserable it was being hooked to the machine for this long, but there was no way I could get that thought to travel from my brain to my mouth. I mean, hell I was having contractions. They were killing me for peats sake. It's not like I could miss them. S |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
"Denise" wrote in message ... Ok, I would do this in mkp, but I don't know too many of the people over there now, and I know more of you would understand my need to vent over this. I vented about something at the navy wive's website I'm a member of a while ago, and since then, they've created a "Child and Mother" forum. So far they've discussed family beds, milk drying up, starting solids at 2 weeks. Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice. So today, someone asked about giving birth at a particular Navy hospital with a not so nice track record and here's one of the posts have heard that the midwives at the hospital are not too keen on inducing labor. Is this true? I am preggo and am worried to death that they won't agree with me to have me induced. I keep having these horrific thoughts that I will be two weeks over due and huge and mean and with sausage toes. Let me explain my situation a bit, I have had three kids, have been late with the first two and have been induced with all three of them. I just DO NOT go into labor, in fact, I hardly even dilate! So, I think I know how my body responds to pregnancy and I am going to talk to the midwife about the possibility of inducing me and I'm hoping that they will say okay. Has anyone been in a similar situation??? I am just terrified that this will happen! I know all about those home remedies to start labor, walking, salad dressing, blah, blah, nothing has ever worked and I doubt nothing will ever work... Here's what I posted in response, now I'm bracing for the nasty responses about how I'm so unsympathetic... well if your body needs more time to cook the babies, it needs more time. Midwives aren't keen to induce, because as a whole, midwives are commited to labors without interventions and inductions open up a whole world of interventions that might not have otherwise been needed. The average gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise The truth is always the soundest advice. Any "nasty responses" should be meaningless to you, since none of the people who write them will have anything to do with how *your* babies get here. She wants the bad advice. She wants validation for the bad decision she wants to make. And, she'll take the bad advice she gets because it will be in line with what she wants to do. Just be thankful that she won't be making any decisions that impact on *your* life. It's scary how in this day and age, people still think that they can make Mother Nature fall in line with their Palm Pilots. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
Denise wrote:
Here's what I posted in response, now I'm bracing for the nasty responses about how I'm so unsympathetic... well if your body needs more time to cook the babies, it needs more time. Midwives aren't keen to induce, because as a whole, midwives are commited to labors without interventions and inductions open up a whole world of interventions that might not have otherwise been needed. The average gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise First off, I don't find your response unsympathetic at all, merely informative. You are right that some women have longer gestation than others, and it often runs in families. However, I was under the impression that average gestation for a first baby is about 41 weeks, and it is shorter for next babies. The 'safe labour' window is from 37 to 42 weeks since LMP and longer pregnancies are under very strict supervision of a caregiver. After 42 weeks the placenta deteriorates rapidly, and if the woman does not go into labour, induction can be necessary. These numbers are used globally, with some midwives allowing pregnancies up to 43 weeks, as long as the baby is fine. It does happen that women do not go into labour. My cousin had two emergency c/s because labour came to a full stop after dilating a few cm. My biggest nightmare was that this would happen to me, but thank goodness my body knew what it had to do. So if this woman has had this before, chances are it will happen again and her fears are justified. So I guess my advice to you would be: keep spouting your information if you want, but perhaps try to see things from the poster's point of view before you do. I know, I've BTDT too ... -- -- Ilse mom to Olaf (07/15/2002) TTC #2 "What's the use of brains if you are a girl?" Aletta Jacobs, first Dutch woman to receive a PhD |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
"Marvin L. Zinn" wrote in message ... Jan, It's Jen I do appreciate and respect doctors, but I do not expect them to be always right, and I am certainly not going to let any other person take responsibility for my health. Exactly. There are too many reports of malpractice, too many doctors that are interested in their wallets and expencive cars and too many patients who simply don't get it for me to not do my own research about my health issues and figure out what's best for my treatment. Just because something works for 1000 other people may not work for me and I'm not gonna trust some guy who only wants to spend 15 minutes a year (regular checkup time alotment) to know my history just from reading a couple of notes on a chart. I may not have gone to school for years to learn how to cae for a large number of illnesses but that's not my job. I have specific issues going on with me and it IS my job to learn as much as I can about them (and those of my children while they are minors and still my responsibility) so that I can best avocate for myself while I have those 15 minutes in the doctors office. Anyway, you get the point and I'm probably preaching to the choir anyway lol ;P) -- Jen, http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/chgo_badgirl Proud SAHM to Steven 7/24/89, Stephanie 6/5/91 and happily BF'ing Nicolas 5/21/02 Mother is the word for God on the lips and in the hearts of all children Your turn on the soap box again. Marvin L. Zinn Reply to: Using Virtual Access Windows 2000 build 2600 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I have to vent
Denise wrote:
The average gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise For the record, average gestation for human infants is 40w3d. A normal full-term pregnancy ends somewhere between 37 and 42 weeks. So I think you may catch some flack for inaccuracy in this statement, because 42 weeks truly *isn't* average gestation--it's the longest that is considered safe and normal (although there is not much evidence, really, that a 43 or 44 week pregnancy cannot be safe and normal for a particular woman). FWIW, I think if the poster you responded to wants to be induced, she should be. It's her body. As long as she understands the risks of induction and can weigh those risks against the benefits (for her), she ought to be able to choose induction so long as it poses no significant risk to the baby (i.e., she's at full-term). Personally, I'd rather have sharp sticks shoved under my fingernails than undergo another pitocin induction, but I appreciate the fact that many women don't feel that way. What *I* find objectionable and pernicious is the fact that many OBs actively encourage elective induction without adequately explaining to the patient that a) it's elective/optional and b) there are risks. I was induced with my first with very little explanation from my OB as to why it was necessary (it wasn't) and why I might choose *not* to be induced (none). Too many doctors consider induction to be a completely benign intervention that carries no risks over spontaneous labor and believe that induced labor is "no harder" than spontaneous labor. Both of those are a load of crap, but unfortunately, they are widely believed in the medical community. -- Be well, Barbara (Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom) See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "How a seller can improve their home's value" -- newspaper headline What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VENT: crappy lunchtime | toypup | General | 5 | April 28th 04 05:53 AM |
Feeling sorry - need to vent | Sunshine | Pregnancy | 6 | April 19th 04 04:16 PM |
vent (a little long) (Poster is AKA Kat) | Maggie'sMom | Pregnancy | 91 | March 31st 04 01:43 PM |
Week Two of the Pox (vent) | Elle | Pregnancy | 3 | August 22nd 03 03:31 AM |
Vent about Dr. (loss and other stuff mentioned) | Henrietta Louise | Pregnancy | 3 | July 30th 03 05:58 PM |