chances of m/c

On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:40:38 -0500, Donna Metler wrote:

I believe it's between 10-15%, with most M/Cs occuring very early, so early
that many are missed entirely.

You're right, but not quite. Early m/c (like in the first 1 or 2 weeks
after conception) happens very frequently, but once a pregnancy is
confirmed, the m/c occurence seems to peak between 8-10 weeks.

I think one reason why there are quite a few women on here who have
experienced a loss is that once you have, pregnancy becomes a much more
scary experience, and there aren't many people in your real life who are
willing to do the handholding it takes.

I think much more women here dare to express the fact that they had a m/c,
where in real life they never would. I for one would not tell that easily.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to three tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04 & 20 May'04)
guardian of DH (33)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:27:45 +0000, Jamie Clark wrote:

Hopefully my high number of losses means that someone out there won't have
to experience any....I only wish it worked that way.

(((Jamie))) Most of the time I feel the same, but on other days I just get
so ****ed and wonder why I have to go through this... Guess we'll never
know.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to three tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04 & 20 May'04)
guardian of DH (33)

"Ilse Witch" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:34:00 +0000, Hillary Israeli wrote:

In 33Jtc.5144$4A6.2869@attbi_s52,
Crystal Dreamer wrote:

*Oh, the statistics for stillbirth and infant deaths are overwhelming.
*Roughly 1 in 100 pregnancies end in stillbirth (miscarriage after 20
weeks.)

And absolutely that is horrible for those involved, and for society, and
I
wouldn't wish it on an enemy. But that means that 99% do not end in
stillbirth. 99 chances out of 100 are good odds. I'd buy that lottery
ticket.

I would too, but too many women are under the impression that once they
are through their "perilous" first trimester, it is smooth sailing.
Nature gives no guarantees. Seeing a heartbeat is no guarantee for a
healthy baby. I was shocked when I read those numbers during my first
pregnancy, but I was also glad to know where I stood.

And, as my husband says, it's a binary distribution-either it's a one or a
zero-either the baby lives, or it doesn't. I've been given all sorts of
probabilities of getting through this pregnancy with a reasonably healthy,
living baby-but they all come down to either it works, or it doesn't.
--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to three tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04 & 20 May'04)
guardian of DH (33)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 19:14:06 +0000, Crystal Dreamer wrote:

Welches wrote:
Just wondering if there is anthing genetic there?

I wish I knew! At a glance, our family looks genetically fine.

I've heard this idea before, as sometimes m/c and stillbirths do seem to
run in the family. However, AFAIK, no study has been able to find a clue
on why this is, whether is just "dumb luck" or something genetic.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to three tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04 & 20 May'04)
guardian of DH (33)

"Shannon" wrote in message
news:2004052715385316807%shannonNOSPAM@sdf1net...
I was just curious...I noticed that unfortunately there are a several
people on this newsgroup who have gone through the experience of a m/c.
I was curious if anyone knows what the chance of this occuring are. I
don't know anyone personally who experienced this so I always thought
the chances were really really low. I'm thinking that there are a
higher number on mkp because of the type of place this is and because
it is so supportive. I thought I read that the rate was actually around
10%. Just wondering....


As everyone else has already said - the odds are roughly 1 in 5 to 1 in 4
pregnancies ending in miscarriage.
You probably do know a few people who have had one but its not something we
often bring up in conversation.
When I lost my baby to m/c, I discovered so many of my friends and rellies
had had at least 1 m/c.

Amanda

--
DD 15th August 2002
1 tiny angel Nov 2003
EDD 19th August 2004

OTOH, I've met only a handful women, outside of pregnancy loss support
groups, and only one other under the age of 40 who have had late-term
pregnancy losses-and this was with everyone and their sister trying to
comfort me and be supportive.

My mom's losses were both second trimester, after the point everyone assumes
everything will be "fine". One thing I've alwasy been brutally aware of is
that I'm more at risk, with FVL, for a later loss, and it was a perverse
sort of relief that the m/c was early and had nothing to do with clotting.

"Ilse Witch" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 28 May 2004 19:14:06 +0000, Crystal Dreamer wrote:

Welches wrote:
Just wondering if there is anthing genetic there?

I wish I knew! At a glance, our family looks genetically fine.

I've heard this idea before, as sometimes m/c and stillbirths do seem to
run in the family. However, AFAIK, no study has been able to find a clue
on why this is, whether is just "dumb luck" or something genetic.


Not true. Factor V Leiden and other clotting disorders ARE genetic and DO
cause increased rates of miscarriage, stillbirth and other pregnancy
problems. The "second" clue, beyond a string of pg losses in the family, is
a high rate of early heart attack, stroke, or other clot-related problems.
Usually, it's, "Oh, Uncle Dwight died of a heart attack at age 25...so
tragic. And Aunt Joanie had a stroke when she was 40. And Grandma lost 4
babies between her three living children."

In my family, my mother, her brother, me, my daughter, all have FVL. Others
in the family refuse to get tested. My sister does not have it. We think her
father was the "carrier" as he died of a heart attack.

The good news is that if you *know* you have FVL, there are things you can
do that mean you may never have a symptom in your life. My mom and I have
been clot-free for years, and when I miscarried, there was just *no*
abnormal clotting involved.

Jenrose

"Ilse Witch" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:34:00 +0000, Hillary Israeli wrote:

In 33Jtc.5144$4A6.2869@attbi_s52,
Crystal Dreamer wrote:

*Oh, the statistics for stillbirth and infant deaths are overwhelming.
*Roughly 1 in 100 pregnancies end in stillbirth (miscarriage after 20
weeks.)

And absolutely that is horrible for those involved, and for society, and
I
wouldn't wish it on an enemy. But that means that 99% do not end in
stillbirth. 99 chances out of 100 are good odds. I'd buy that lottery
ticket.

I would too, but too many women are under the impression that once they
are through their "perilous" first trimester, it is smooth sailing.
Nature gives no guarantees. Seeing a heartbeat is no guarantee for a
healthy baby. I was shocked when I read those numbers during my first
pregnancy, but I was also glad to know where I stood.

Oh, that ****ed me off so much... I had a doctor tell me that I shouldn't
have a homebirth because a "90% guarantee wasn't enough."

I wrote back and said, "You can't give me even a 90% assurance that I will
have no complications. But you can give me a 100% assurance that I will be
more likely to bleed if there are any problems at all. There are no
guarantees in pregnancy and it's misleading if you try to say that you can
guarantee anything!"

Doctors can't guarantee a perfect outcome, not for anyone, and the reason
they get sued as much as they do is that they make people think they can.

I'll take my chances with a homebirth--at least there I don't have a 1 in 3
chance of getting cut open.

Jenrose

I would too, but too many women are under the impression that once they
are through their "perilous" first trimester, it is smooth sailing.
Nature gives no guarantees. Seeing a heartbeat is no guarantee for a
healthy baby. I was shocked when I read those numbers during my first
pregnancy, but I was also glad to know where I stood.

And, as my husband says, it's a binary distribution-either it's a one or a
zero-either the baby lives, or it doesn't. I've been given all sorts of
probabilities of getting through this pregnancy with a reasonably healthy,
living baby-but they all come down to either it works, or it doesn't.
--

When I was lying there, bleeding, not knowing if my baby was alive or dead,
it felt like I was carrying "Schroedinger's Baby". Because bleeding in
pregnancy means a 50/50 chance of the pregnancy ending, and we knew there
was still a baby there, but until the box was opened, so to speak, it was an
uncollapsed wave form of possibility.

"Jenrose" wrote in message
s.com...

OTOH, I've met only a handful women, outside of pregnancy loss support
groups, and only one other under the age of 40 who have had late-term
pregnancy losses-and this was with everyone and their sister trying to
comfort me and be supportive.

My mom's losses were both second trimester, after the point everyone
assumes
everything will be "fine". One thing I've alwasy been brutally aware of is
that I'm more at risk, with FVL, for a later loss, and it was a perverse
sort of relief that the m/c was early and had nothing to do with clotting.



I know that clotting disorders put you at higher risk for pre-eclampsia. I
was tested for every single one under the sun, along with every autoimmune
disease out there (there were times when I thought that I wasn't going to
have any blood left). Unfortunately (?)-all came out negative. There are
several women on the PE support group who only managed to have a successful
pregnancy after treating the clotting disorder.

I can see why there's some relief involved-it means that what you're doing
is working, in some way.