Feeling a big anxious about induction vs. c-section

Joybelle wrote:


Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were
told a c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said
(less chance of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing
that.

Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I
couldn't do a vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and
they pretty much laid any anxieties about injury to the site to rest.
Or so I thought. This week, I keep thinking about this. What if I
damage my baby more by having a vaginal birth? Are these other
doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously, I'm worrying. Didn't
think I'd do that after I made up my mind!

I don't have any advice - I don't know anything ;-). I just wanted to offer
you some support. I imagine it is totally natural in your situation to be
worrying about things. Everything. This is something to pin your worries
on because it is something you have some power over. I think it makes
perfect sense to speak with one of the doctors again about your worries to
help ease your mind. In these types of situations I try to seperate the
facts from my worries. In your case 3-4 specialists said a vaginal birth
was safe. That seems legit to me!!

We are also facing an induction now rather than being "allowed" to go
into labor on my own. I really, really dread, fear, despise the idea
of an induction. I'm just afraid that I'll go through the induction,
end up with a c-section, and have a harder recovery than if I go for
a c-section in the first place.

I'm with you in that I'd want some concrete reasons to schedule the
induction. I did finally consent to one for less then concrete reasons
because they succeeded in freaking me out. The good news is that it was
completely successful and I was told they mostly are for woman that have
already had babies.

They are probably the
ones causing that anxiety in a way because some people are
questioning the wisdom of the doctors for allowing me to have a
vaginal birth. My mother keeps sharing stories of people she's
talked to who think a c-section is absolutely warranted.

Ugh - I think at this point you should kindly ask everyone to just not tell
you what to do anymore or question anything. At this late date they just
need to be supportive. I know that is easier said then done and I need to
take my own advice on that front ;-)

I'm really just trying to work this out in my head. Thanks for
listening.

Wishing you the best and post as much as you want/need!


--
Nikki
Hunter 4/99
Luke 4/01
EDD 4/06

Pregnant? Please show this post to your chiropractor and call his/her
attentionn to the chiro x-ray fraud mentioned at the end of this post.

Chiro x-ray fraud may be perpetuating obstetric fraud.

(CHIROS: Obstetricians are senselessly closing birth canals up to 30% and
keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck - as
they pull with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so hard they
rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.)




BABIES AND "CPD" - FOR NEW READERS...

Circe wrote:

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.

New readers,

CPD is the acronym for cephalopelvic disproportion (sometimes called
"fetopelvic disproportion")...

Obstetricians focus exclusively on the CEPHALO part (the baby) and pretend
that they aren't grossly influencing the PELVIC part - routinely closing
mothers' pelves up to 30% and routinely KEEPING birth canals closed the
"extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.

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%.

Ericka replied:


That's what I'd be wondering. If it's safe to have a
vaginal birth and the issue is possible CPD, then you are
not likely to end up with a crash c-section because of it.

Again, this is for new readers...

If the issue is "possible CPD" - with obstetricians CAUSING CPD - the
necessity of any c-section - crash or otherwise - is suspect.

That's likely to be a situation where you have plenty of
time to realize things aren't progressing well and
moving to a c-section if that seems warranted. And really,
you don't have to go to the mat to avoid the c-section if
you don't want to. You can have pretty liberal criteria
for throwing in the towel with the vaginal birth, if that
seems to make sense to you and you want to avoid going into
an emergent c-section already wiped out. If the decision
is elective c-section vs. trying for a vaginal birth, then
you're certainly no worse off if you try for a vaginal birth
and decide that you'll opt for the c-section if things aren't
going swimmingly.
As far as the safety of vaginal birth with spina
bifida, it really seems to get down to precisely where the
lesion is, and how exposed it is, and such. When I looked
at it, it seems like you just really needed to sit down
the the test results and a specialist and make a decision.
It certainly doesn't seem like vaginal birth is a bad
idea per se, but the details really matter in this case.
If I were in that situation, I'd just put my concerns in
front of the specialist and say, "I want a vaginal birth,
but I hear lots of conflicting things and I'm scared.
Convince me that I am not unduly risking my baby by attempting
a vaginal birth." A good specialist should be able to
back up his or her recommendation with some solid facts
that should put your mind at ease.

..
Good specialists (and good childbirth educators) would work to stop
obstetricians from closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% - esp. when
they are worried about CPD - even and especially when they are worried about
"true CPD caused by the hydrocephalus."

Compelling obstetricians to open birth canals the "extra" up to 30% is not
going to prevent all c-sections - but obstetricians have no business closing
birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.




NEW READERS: Please note that obstetricians are LYING to cover-up the
obvious birth crime.

For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)...

See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3897



Please note also...

Unnecessary c-sections were alluded to above but I must mention them again -
along with unnecessary episiotomies...

UNNECESSARY C-SECTIONS/UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMIES

Obstetricians are slicing vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) -
surgically fraudulently inferring they are doing/have done everything
possible to open birth canals - even as they close birth canals the "extra"
up to 30%.

ANOTHER OBVIOUS OBSTETRIC CRIME - American medicine's most frequent surgery
- obviously criminal the way MDs do it...

IMMEDIATE cord clamping...

The obstetric professionn routinely asphyxiates babies and causes them to
breathe with their lungs before they are ready - as it robs babies of up to
50% of their blood volume...

Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG says this is
happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY (it also happens with most "cord blood
banking")...

See Cord clamping baby asphyxiation: Pediatrician not cheering so loud
now...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3896

Dr. Morley recommends an obviously illegal TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation
experiment to help obstetricians demonstrate to themselves that they
shouldn't permanently asphyxiate/deny babies umbilical cord oxygen and rob
them of massive amounts of blood:

"[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

Again, CPD means cephaloPELVIC disproportion and obstetricians are closing
pelves up to 30% and keeping them closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies
get stuck...

Be careful out there.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA


PS I think the whole chiropractic profession would be supporting me this
work - but the chiro associations and boards are mostly silent - likely
because I am also pointing out CHIRO fraud.

For details regarding the ongoing chiro x-ray fraud/crime - MOST (all?)
boards of chiropractic examiners are silently perpetuating it...

See Chiro x-ray fraud (also: Why Dr. Gastaldo is unlicensed -
voluntarily...)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3899

For some reason, the just cited "Chiro x-ray fraud" post lost some letters
in transmission, but it is still legible.

"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!
--
Be well, Barbara

Joybelle wrote:
I shouldn't be posting, I should really be getting things DONE around here,
but this has been going on in my head the last week.

Initially, when we were given the diagnosis of spina bifida, we were told a
c-section was recommended. It made sense what the doctor said (less chance
of injury to the lesion), and we were planning on doing that.

Well, the next three or physicians said there was no reason I couldn't do a
vaginal birth. I was really ecstatic about that, and they pretty much laid
any anxieties about injury to the site to rest. Or so I thought. This
week, I keep thinking about this. What if I damage my baby more by having a
vaginal birth? Are these other doctors right? How do I KNOW? Obviously,
I'm worrying. Didn't think I'd do that after I made up my mind!


Hi Joy,

I just wanted to say that I had alot of the same thoughts with my
last birth, because it was a VBAC. I was even weighing some induction
talk too. Most people thought I should just have a scheduled section,
etc. VBAC is dangerous, etc. Thankfully my husband, doula and midwives
were very supportive so when those doubts started creeping in I was
able to remind myself of why I wanted a VBAC (which I got).

So, although our situations are very different, I had some very
similar worries and doubts - I think its really normal.

I hope you find a peaceful place and concentrate on good labor
thoughts. And I hope you go into labor on your own

I agree with Ericka that its kind of silly to schedule an induction.
You either need one now, or you can wait.

Good luck!

Mary W.

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.

remember that they never have the full information only you and probably
your husband has it straight from the doctors mouths, however well you try
and explain it to other people, they get your interpretation and then make
their own interpretation of that, which means they can miss some of the
risks, or blow them up.

I think what Ericka says about taking things one day at a time is really
excellent advice, an induction would be for the sake of the baby's health,
so wait til the baby's condition warrents it. I think there are very few
conditions where scheduling a date well in advance is the best course of
treatment, cholestasis would be the only one I can think of right now.

Anne

Joybelle writes:

: 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.

First, sorry for not paying attention earlier on. Second, given this
respone from you, IMHO you have this one well understood and you don't
need any help from us!

Still, best wishes and we'll keep thinking about you,
Larry

IS THIS CHILD ABUSE?

See the very end of this post...


in article nxZXe.24213$sx2.19533@fed1read02, Circe at
wrote on 9/20/05 12:35 PM:

"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!
--
Be well, Barbara



Barbara

I am well, thank you.

My post was for "new readers and chiros" - not Joybelle necessarily.

But since you mentioned Joybelle's homebirth - and inferred a guarantee - I
should mention (for the benefit of new readers) that having a homebirth is
NOT a guarantee that one will be allowed and encouraged to push with the
birth canal opened the "extra" up to 30%.

Some homebirth midwives ape MDs in closing birth canal the "extra" up to 30%
- Dagny reported that she ran into one - and homebirth midwife Jan Tritten,
editor of Midwifery Today, actually PROMOTED closing the birth canal the
"extra' up to 30% as a "midwifery trick of the trade" (!) (after cancelling
my full length article on the subject!).

CNMwives also ape MDs - with Yale CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney promoting
semisitting/birth-canal-closing after I asked her not to...

Regarding your statement, "Hydrocephalus *can* result in a head
circumference that will not fit through any pelvis regardless of the
mother's position during pushing."

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.

Thank you 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.

One last note...

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?

Just curious.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Joybelle wrote:

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.

With that one, you can also ask for a clear description
of risks vs. benefits. On the one hand, we know that in general,
the tests are less than definitive. If one doesn't look so great,
try another the next day and see if you get a different reading.
Two bad readings are far more indicative of problems than one
bad reading.
I don't think you ever need to schedule an induction
in advance. Either there's evidence that it's necessary *now*,
or there isn't. If there isn't, you can wait and look for
more evidence tomorrow (or next week, or whenever would be
appropriate). So, just take it one day, and one set of
tests at a time and deal with the issue of induction when
you have evidence that you need to get the baby out now.
When/if that happens, *that* is the time to evaluate
the likelihood of success of an induction. What is your
Bishop score then?
If you go step by step, it makes a lot of the
"what ifs" easier to deal with.

Best wishes,
Ericka

I think Ericka may have hit the nail on the head. My guess is that part of
the reason why Joybelle would be not okay with the idea of induction is that
they are usually so random -- throw a dart at the calendar and pick a date,
any date. Why Tuesday instead of Thursday? Why 39w3d instead of 39w6d?

I like the idea of taking it one day, and one test at a time, at least in
regards to induction verses letting your body go into labor on it's own. If
there are persistent and compelling reasons to induce, I don't think the
idea will both you any more, as the reasons will be compelling and
persistent. If there are no compelling reasons, then there really isn't a
reason to start labor artificially, now is there?

Of course that doesn't deal with the whole "should you have a c-section" or
not issue. But again, I agree with Ericka -- talk to your specialists and
keep gathering information. Eventually the decision should become clear.
You should be able to be convinced of the safety of a vaginal birth, or
convinced of the need for a c-section.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it!
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to
go explore the world!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

"Joybelle" wrote in message
...

"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.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense, the fact that your nephews birth would be
bringing stuff up.

Although we didn't take Nathan to term, there was also a large denial
factor -- I could sort of pretend that I was just normal and pregnant for a
little bit, since I had no direct evidence in front of me that my baby was
not healthy and okay. So, maybe there is a little bit of that going on --
you found out midway through your pregnancy, but there wasn't much you could
do about it, and your pregnancy sort of continued on, much like your other
3, except the GD diagnoses (and tons more doctors appointments). But now
that delivery is immenent, all of a sudden, you really have to deal with it.

Or maybe not. I could be off base...it's been known to happen! ; )
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03 -- My Big Girl, who started preschool, and loved it!
Addison Grace, 9/30/04 -- My Little Walker, who wants nothing more than to
go explore the world!

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

wrote in message ...
Joy,

Disclaimers: I don't know anything about your diagnosis of spina
bifida, and I don't know anything about birthing spina bifida babies.

But...

How and when was the spina bifida diagnosed? Ultrasound? when? Has
the diagnosis been confirmed? Another ultrasound? When? Have you
gotten a second opinion? I think this is too serious a question to
leave up to the judgement of a single care provider. I strongly
recommend a second opinion.

Hi, Larry,
I think you might have been on vacation when I was posting about this. Baby
was diagnosed at 25 weeks to have sb by u/s. Amniocentisis and subsequent
u/s (I've had a total of three level 2 u/s) have confirmed it. I haven't
gone to a different hospital to get a second opinion, but I've seen a
different doctor each visit. It is a group of about 20 perinatologists and
they love to have you see each and every one.

Next, I know little about the dangers about birthing a spina bifida
baby. I would suspect, however that there must be degrees of the
condition, and that is what your caregivers are talking about when
they talk about the safety of vaginal birth versus c-section. It
would help to know just to what degree they have diagnosed the seriousness
of the condition. Yet another reason for a second opinion.

It is considered L-4, which is relatively a medium severity of the defect.
The baby also has been diagnosed as to have hydrocephalus. It has been only
one doctor so far who has recommended a c-section. The other doctors (about
4-5 of them) have told me a vaginal delivery is a very viable option. Their
reasons have been this is my third baby, I've delivered a 10-pounder, and
the hydrocephalus hasn't gotten severe. I think I just need my fears set to
rest! Birthing horror stories have never bothered me, but this is unknown
territory for me, and they are definitely affecting me more than I thought
they would.

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.

Well, I did have some issues with my amniotic fluid lowering for a couple of
weeks, and that is when the induction talk began. Otherwise, they seemed to
be fine with just having me go into labor on my own despite the distance
(about 2 hours). The last visit, though, the amniotic fluid had improved
from 6.24 to 8.37, so that really doesn't seem to be an issue anymore. I
see a doctor again on Friday, and I think I'm working myself up into battle
mode. I want to be fully armed if there is no definite reason for
induction. I just wish I could see the one perinatologist again who
explained things so well in the first place. I feel I need a bit of
reassurance on all fronts. Probably typical at this stage in the pregnancy,
right? Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, Larry.


--
Joy

Rose 1-99
Iris 2-01
Spencer 3-03
# 4 Sept 2005