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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help wanted for woman facing induction | Sarah Vaughan | Pregnancy | 7 | August 23rd 05 09:49 PM |
35w/NST/birth plan apprpoved/OB brings up induction | Emily | Pregnancy | 4 | August 6th 05 05:18 AM |
Update - Induction Announcement | Robert Powell | Pregnancy | 10 | July 26th 05 01:51 AM |
VBAC rupture risk increased with induction | Ericka Kammerer | Pregnancy | 0 | July 25th 04 05:13 PM |
Failed Pitocin Induction | Leigh Menconi | Pregnancy | 5 | July 30th 03 10:34 PM |