ACOG on C-section and big babies (11 lbs is 'extreme macrosomia')

PREGNANT WOMEN: Obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30%.

It's easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%.

See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606

(ALSO: Obstetricians are routinely robbing babies of up to 50% of their
blood volume - it's happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according to retired
obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG. See the just-cited URL.)


ACOG is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

ACOG ON C-SECTION AND BIG BABIES

Sahar Alsunnari, MD et al. write:

"Implementing the 2002 guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (that is, recommending Caesarean delivery of fetuses with
[extreme macrosomia] an estimated weight of at least 5000 g) would have a
negligible effect on the CS rate while eliminating 10 cases of shoulder
dystocia in 49 births."
--Alsunnari et al.^^^ J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005 Apr;27(4):323-8. PubMed
abstract

^^^ Alsunnari S, Berger H, Sermer M, Seaward G, Kelly E, Farine D

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access at http://groups.google.com)

Sahar Alsunnari, MD
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Mt. Sinai Hospital
University of Toronto
Ontario, CANADA
Via

Sahar,

It's bad enough that American and Canadian obstetricians are routinely
closing birth canals up to 30%.

Incredibly, both the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists/ACOG and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of
Canada/SOGC in Canada recommend KEEPING the birth canal closed the "extra"
up to 30% when babies get stuck.

Obstetricians are blaming BABIES for being big - and remaining silent about
how they are closing the pelvis up to 30%.

Please help stop this grisly obstetric tomfoolery.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


PS THE FOUR OB LIES

The most egregious lie: The authors of Williams Obstetrics were saying the
pelvic diameters DON'T CHANGE - after the original author of Wiliams
Obstetrics clinically demonstrated MASSIVE change.

The lies kept coming...

See again: ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606

Of course Sahar, it's obvious criminal negligence for obstetricians to close
birth canals and lie to cover-up so I am trying to get law enforcement to
prosecute.

See Birth (and pool cue) sexual assault (also: Stroock attorneys to help
babies?)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3629

In spite of the obvious criminal negligence, I am still in favor of pardons
in advance for MBs and MDs. As medical students, MBs and MDs are TRAINED to
commit obvious felonies.


Copied to Sahar Alsunnari, MD et al. via Dr. Alan Bocking, Chairman, Univ.
of Toronto Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
), Vivienne Hinds, Department
) and Dr. Heather Shapiro, Obstetric
Residency Program Director )

This Open Letter to Sahar Alsunnari, MD will be archived in the Google
usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "ACOG on C-section and big babies (11lbs
is 'extreme macrosomia')"

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
...


ACOG ON C-SECTION AND BIG BABIES

Sahar Alsunnari, MD et al. write:

"Implementing the 2002 guidelines from the American College of
Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (that is, recommending Caesarean delivery of fetuses
with
[extreme macrosomia] an estimated weight of at least 5000 g) would have a
negligible effect on the CS rate while eliminating 10 cases of shoulder
dystocia in 49 births."
--Alsunnari et al.^^^ J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005 Apr;27(4):323-8.
PubMed
abstract

I'm glad that me having unnecessary major abdominal surgery would be such a
minor thing ...

-- Dagny
Mom to Meg, 10/03 (birthed vaginally even though I was put semisitting and
she was 9#3)
Mom to RD, 1/05 (birthed UC, easily and damageless to both of us despite
"extreme macrosomia")

Me too, Dagny.

I was a VBAC with a 9 lb 8 ouncer and a 10 lb 4 ouncer....plus I went
two weeks past dates with all three of my pregnancies and was a
"geriatric mom" 9 37 and 41 when I had the above two.

No problems at all - I would only have said yes to a section or
induction with very specific indicators of a concrete problem that
justified those interventions. Automatic section is way over the top
one size fits all. Hitting a spider mite with an atomic bomb.

Mary G.

11lbs
is 'extreme macrosomia')"

Give me a break.

Leslie
VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.
Another VBAC, 11 lbs., the second-smallest of five

LOL!


in article , Leslie at
wrote on 6/8/05 1:02 PM:

11lbs
is 'extreme macrosomia')"

Give me a break.

Leslie
VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.
Another VBAC, 11 lbs., the second-smallest of five

Todd Gastaldo wrote:

"Implementing the 2002 guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (that is, recommending Caesarean delivery of fetuses with
[extreme macrosomia] an estimated weight of at least 5000 g) would have a
negligible effect on the CS rate while eliminating 10 cases of shoulder
dystocia in 49 births."
--Alsunnari et al.^^^ J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005 Apr;27(4):323-8. PubMed
abstract


The shoulders weren't the biggest part of my 11+ pounder it was his
arse. The effort to push that bum out was about the same as getting his
head out I swear.

--
Andrea
Mum to 12
Rhys (17), Jayden (15), Tessa (13),
Tyler (12), Paige (11) Grace (9)
Zachary (7), Rose (5), Amelia (5)
Seth (3) Lydia (22mths)
and Oscar Henry 11-04-05

In misc.kids.pregnancy PF Riley wrote:
: On 8 Jun 2005 13:02:36 -0700, "Leslie" wrote:

:11lbs
:is 'extreme macrosomia')"
:
:Give me a break.
:
:Leslie
:VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.
:Another VBAC, 11 lbs., the second-smallest of five

: Just because you have gigantic babies doesn't mean it's normal.

And 11 lbs is not gigantic.

Larrt

On 8 Jun 2005 13:02:36 -0700, "Leslie" wrote:

11lbs
is 'extreme macrosomia')"

Give me a break.

Leslie
VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.
Another VBAC, 11 lbs., the second-smallest of five

Just because you have gigantic babies doesn't mean it's normal.

WHY MDs ARE ALWAYS CORRECT

See below.


Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD wrote:

On 8 Jun 2005 13:02:36 -0700, "Leslie" wrote:

11lbs
is 'extreme macrosomia')"

Give me a break.

Leslie
VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.
Another VBAC, 11 lbs., the second-smallest of five

Just because you have gigantic babies doesn't mean it's normal.

PF,

I fully realize that being an MD, whatever you decide is by definition
correct, as in,

"[T]he intellectual foundation of medical care...is...whatever a
physician decides is by definition correct."
--David M. Eddy, MD, PhD. in JAMA, (Jan12)1990

But just because a woman who has birthed large babies (one 13lb 5 oz) says
"Give me break" in response to hearing that 11 lbs is considered "extreme
macrosomia" doesn't mean she thinks birthing large babies is normal for
everyone.

Birthing large babies is certainly normal for Leslie.

I think this is what she was saying with a bit of humor intended.

I could be wrong though.

Todd

*"...[T]he determination of the mechanism by which a phenomenon
acts is not primary to documenting whether a phenomenon exists...[H]umility
dictates that we appreciate that there are more things in heaven and earth
than are dreamt of in our philosophy..."
--Thiruchandurai V. Rajan, MD, PhD in The Scientist, 2001

"PF Riley" wrote in message
...
On 8 Jun 2005 13:02:36 -0700, "Leslie" wrote:

11lbs
is 'extreme macrosomia')"

Give me a break.

Leslie
VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.
Another VBAC, 11 lbs., the second-smallest of five

Just because you have gigantic babies doesn't mean it's normal.

But it tends to mean that it is normal for Leslie. Were you trying to be
helpful to the conversation? I missed your point.

-- Dagny