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
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
Wifes now 36 weeks but baby is measuring up to 40 weeks already so it
looks very large. Consultant has given us the choice :- 1. Elective C-section at 39 weeks. 2. Induce at 40 weeks. Option 1 seems OK but consultant highlighted the risks involved with any C-section. Option 2 seems better if natural birth is possible. However, theres a higher risk of emergency C-section which is obviously worse. Are there any stats on how many Elective C-sections have problems ? What about stats on how many large babies get forced down the emergency C anyway? What about the extra risks of an emergency C compared to an elective? Also, my wifes decided on an epidural anyway in the event of normal birth. Does'nt this provide problems with larger babies anyway? I'e' forceps or ventouse delivery? Not what we want either.... Confused Father.... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
paul williams wrote: Wifes now 36 weeks but baby is measuring up to 40 weeks already so it looks very large. Consultant has given us the choice :- 1. Elective C-section at 39 weeks. 2. Induce at 40 weeks. What exactly is the problem with the baby being large...I mean is there some medical risk to Mum or baby? Is the baby actually really large, or the bump (fluid etc). Option 1 seems OK but consultant highlighted the risks involved with any C-section. Option 2 seems better if natural birth is possible. However, theres a higher risk of emergency C-section which is obviously worse. I really have not looked into either of these myself, but my personal feeling if it were me would be to aim for the most natural birth. With an induction you will still probably have a natural birth. Are there any stats on how many Elective C-sections have problems ? I don't know those. You should be able to get stats. for your hospital from the Web (I can't remember the site I'm afraid) which will be much more relevant to you. Or you can ask the hosptial directly. What about stats on how many large babies get forced down the emergency C anyway? What about the extra risks of an emergency C compared to an elective? Again, I am not sure about this. Also, my wifes decided on an epidural anyway in the event of normal birth. Does'nt this provide problems with larger babies anyway? I'e' forceps or ventouse delivery? Not what we want either.... An epidural does increase the risk of other interventions. The size of the baby does not indicate how painful labour will be. Just because she might be having a big baby does not mean that her body will be unable to cope. In only rare cases does a woman carry a baby she is unable to birth. I would advise going into labour with a more open mind. I've known people who vowed to take every drug they could and were terrified beforehand, only to have a totally drug free birth and other who vowed NOT to take a thing, but ended up with everything. Mary Ann |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
"paul williams" wrote in message om... Wifes now 36 weeks but baby is measuring up to 40 weeks already so it looks very large. I measured 4-5 weeks bigger through the last trimester and was also predicted a large baby especially as my second baby had been 8lbs 11 oz ....Thomas was 7lbs 11oz !! Perfectly average weight. I hope the hospital aren't basing their judgement on this being a big baby solely on the fundal measurement. In any case unless the baby is an absolute whopper is there any reason to think hat your wife wouldn't be able to deliver vaginally, ie does she have a very narrow pelvis? Nicky |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
"paul williams" wrote in message om... Wifes now 36 weeks but baby is measuring up to 40 weeks already so it looks very large. What do they mean by "measuring up to 40 weeks"? Some 40 week babies are 7lbs, others are 10lbs! Consultant has given us the choice :- 1. Elective C-section at 39 weeks. 2. Induce at 40 weeks. Option 1 seems OK but consultant highlighted the risks involved with any C-section. And runs the risk that baby isn't actually 'cooked' at that stage. Option 2 seems better if natural birth is possible. However, theres a higher risk of emergency C-section which is obviously worse. Are there any stats on how many Elective C-sections have problems ? What about stats on how many large babies get forced down the emergency C anyway? What about the extra risks of an emergency C compared to an elective? Are they actually saying baby is big? How big are they thinking? How have they been measuring? Are they sure it's not that there's a lot of fluid? Also, my wifes decided on an epidural anyway in the event of normal birth. Does'nt this provide problems with larger babies anyway? I'e' forceps or ventouse delivery? Not what we want either.... I think that one of the important things to look at isn't necessarily size of the baby, but size of the head. A big baby is going to have lots of squishy fat which shouldn't cause too many problems. A big head, on the other hand, my be harder to birth. Your consultant has obviously been willing so far to discuss pros and cons, ask for more information if you can, in order to make your decision an informed one. And good luck with the birth, whatever your wife and you choose! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
As someone who's had a section and two VBACs and three quite large
babies (9lb 11.5 ounces, 9 lb 8 ounces and 10 lb 4 ounces), I'm a bit perplexed. For starters, it is very hard to accurately estimate the size of a baby at term - they can be off as much as 20%. Unless your wife has had babies before and thus has a history of large babies and big problems with delivery, or a known pelvic or uterine deformity, you can't know how big this baby might be or how big a baby she is capable of birthing. I'm not a big woman, and I pushed out a 10 lber no problem. I think its NUTS to schedule a section at 39 weeks because she MIGHT have a problem. It seems a very extreme solution to something that is only a potential issue - to leap to surgery with all that entails (including increased risks and problems for future pregnancies and births). I can't see any advantage to this at all. Nor can I see any advantage to induction at 40 weeks. In the last weeks, babies tend to put on body fat, not head and shoulder size, so a few extra days, even into the overtime innings is not going to make much difference in the scheme of things. Fat squishes. So, even if she goes to 41 or 42 weeks, as long as she is healthy and baby is doing well, you would not be losing anything at all to wait for spontaneous labour. If she has any difficulty, she may end up with a section, but at least then you've given a vaginal the best possible shot (inductions often fail - a full 30% of first time moms who agree to induction end up in the OR, even with smaller babies). I'd be saying no to either option and letting labour kick in and see what happens. Mary G. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
As someone who's had a section and two VBACs and three quite large
babies (9lb 11.5 ounces, 9 lb 8 ounces and 10 lb 4 ounces), I'm a bit perplexed. For starters, it is very hard to accurately estimate the size of a baby at term - they can be off as much as 20%. Unless your wife has had babies before and thus has a history of large babies and big problems with delivery, or a known pelvic or uterine deformity, you can't know how big this baby might be or how big a baby she is capable of birthing. I'm not a big woman, and I pushed out a 10 lber no problem. I think its NUTS to schedule a section at 39 weeks because she MIGHT have a problem. It seems a very extreme solution to something that is only a potential issue - to leap to surgery with all that entails (including increased risks and problems for future pregnancies and births). I can't see any advantage to this at all. Nor can I see any advantage to induction at 40 weeks. In the last weeks, babies tend to put on body fat, not head and shoulder size, so a few extra days, even into the overtime innings is not going to make much difference in the scheme of things. Fat squishes. So, even if she goes to 41 or 42 weeks, as long as she is healthy and baby is doing well, you would not be losing anything at all to wait for spontaneous labour. If she has any difficulty, she may end up with a section, but at least then you've given a vaginal the best possible shot (inductions often fail - a full 30% of first time moms who agree to induction end up in the OR, even with smaller babies). I'd be saying no to either option and letting labour kick in and see what happens. Mary G. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
Mary Ann Tuli wrote in message ...
paul williams wrote: Wifes now 36 weeks but baby is measuring up to 40 weeks already so it looks very large. snip How do they know for sure that the baby is dagerously large? Numerous women in this group have been told to induce b/c of a 10-11lb baby that turned out to be 8-9lbs. That said, it is possible to give birth to an 11lb baby naturally, so I'm still not seeing a clear reason to induce or schedule a c-section. -V. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Tough decision - Elective C or not ?
"paul williams" wrote in message om... Wifes now 36 weeks but baby is measuring up to 40 weeks already so it looks very large. What's "very large"? Consultant has given us the choice :- 1. Elective C-section at 39 weeks. 2. Induce at 40 weeks. What about letting things happen on their own? Option 1 seems OK but consultant highlighted the risks involved with any C-section. As someone who has had 3 c-sections (2 elective) do not, not, not, not, not have a c-section unless it's medically necessary. Option 2 seems better if natural birth is possible. However, theres a higher risk of emergency C-section which is obviously worse. Not necessarily - depending on the reason for it to be an emregency. A big baby is hardly an emergency. My first c-section was not planned and went perfectly fine. Are there any stats on how many Elective C-sections have problems ? I've had 3 c-sections - one not planned, 2 planned. With the 3rd one (planned before I was even pregnant!) was the worst - no anesthetic. Just cos it's planned doesn't mean it'll go smoothly. What about stats on how many large babies get forced down the emergency C anyway? What about the extra risks of an emergency C compared to an elective? Problems can occur whether it's planned or not. Also, my wifes decided on an epidural anyway in the event of normal birth. Does'nt this provide problems with larger babies anyway? I'e' forceps or ventouse delivery? Not what we want either.... Confused Father.... Pretty late in the game to still be confused IMO but anyway, I say let things go and see what happens. -- Sophie- TTC #4 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(IL.) Classroom misbehavior faces tough consequences | [email protected] | General | 0 | August 28th 03 05:35 PM |