I have to vent

[Denise]

Ok, I would do this in mkp, but I don't know too many of the people over
there now, and I know more of you would understand my need to vent over
this. I vented about something at the navy wive's website I'm a member of a
while ago, and since then, they've created a "Child and Mother" forum. So
far they've discussed family beds, milk drying up, starting solids at 2
weeks. Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice. So
today, someone asked about giving birth at a particular Navy hospital with a
not so nice track record and here's one of the posts


have heard that the midwives at the hospital are not too keen on inducing
labor. Is this true? I am preggo and am worried to death that they won't
agree with me to have me induced. I keep having these horrific thoughts that
I will be two weeks over due and huge and mean and with sausage toes. Let me
explain my situation a bit, I have had three kids, have been late with the
first two and have been induced with all three of them. I just DO NOT go
into labor, in fact, I hardly even dilate! So, I think I know how my body
responds to pregnancy and I am going to talk to the midwife about the
possibility of inducing me and I'm hoping that they will say okay. Has
anyone been in a similar situation??? I am just terrified that this will
happen! I know all about those home remedies to start labor, walking, salad
dressing, blah, blah, nothing has ever worked and I doubt nothing will ever
work...


Here's what I posted in response, now I'm bracing for the nasty responses
about how I'm so unsympathetic...

well if your body needs more time to cook the babies, it needs more time.
Midwives aren't keen to induce, because as a whole, midwives are commited to
labors without interventions and inductions open up a whole world of
interventions that might not have otherwise been needed. The average
gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is
common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise

[Phoebe & Allyson]

Denise wrote:
(someone else said)

> I just DO NOT go
> into labor, in fact, I hardly even dilate!


You know, right before Caterpillar was born, someone was
telling me that she had to have c-sections with both her
kids, because she "just didn't dilate." It took me 9 hours
of active labor to go from 1cm and 100% dilated to 2cm. And
12 more hours to get to 3. I suspect if I'd been planning a
hospital birth, I'd have had a c-section for failure to
progress, and wound up as another one who "just didn't
dilate." Some babies just take more time to come out.

Phoebe :)

[Marie]

badgirl wrote in message ...
>That SO aggravates me when people don't get that!
>It's YOUR body, it's YOUR responsibility to take care of it and make
>decisions for it. The doctor you HIRE still has to consult you before
>he can do anything.


One of my peeves is the "the doctor won't let me eat" or "they wouldn't let
me move" deal during labour. So what's going to happen if you do eat/move
around, be grounded for a week?
My best friend said she had back labour, but "they" wouldn't let her move
around because of the monitors. She was made to lay on her back. Well when
she sat up to get her epidural the pain went away...by the time she realized
it the anesthesiologist(sp.) had already started and she didn't want to say
anything. She said she feels if she'd been allowed to move around and not
lay there she might have been able to make it through naturally.
Marie

[Elana]

Denise > wrote:

> Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice.

I hate to open this can of worms...but what do they say about bf? I'd
think, being military families and on a pretty tight income, that they
would all be for it, at least from a financial point of view...

E

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Denise" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, I would do this in mkp, but I don't know too many of the people over
> there now, and I know more of you would understand my need to vent over
> this. I vented about something at the navy wive's website I'm a member of
a
> while ago, and since then, they've created a "Child and Mother" forum. So
> far they've discussed family beds, milk drying up, starting solids at 2
> weeks. Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice. So
> today, someone asked about giving birth at a particular Navy hospital with
a
> not so nice track record and here's one of the posts
>
>
> have heard that the midwives at the hospital are not too keen on inducing
> labor. Is this true? I am preggo and am worried to death that they won't
> agree with me to have me induced. I keep having these horrific thoughts
that
> I will be two weeks over due and huge and mean and with sausage toes. Let
me
> explain my situation a bit, I have had three kids, have been late with the
> first two and have been induced with all three of them. I just DO NOT go
> into labor, in fact, I hardly even dilate! So, I think I know how my body
> responds to pregnancy and I am going to talk to the midwife about the
> possibility of inducing me and I'm hoping that they will say okay. Has
> anyone been in a similar situation??? I am just terrified that this will
> happen! I know all about those home remedies to start labor, walking,
salad
> dressing, blah, blah, nothing has ever worked and I doubt nothing will
ever
> work...
>
>
> Here's what I posted in response, now I'm bracing for the nasty responses
> about how I'm so unsympathetic...
>
> well if your body needs more time to cook the babies, it needs more time.
> Midwives aren't keen to induce, because as a whole, midwives are commited
to
> labors without interventions and inductions open up a whole world of
> interventions that might not have otherwise been needed. The average
> gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is
> common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise
>
>

Why nasty? This post sounds more informative than unsympathetic to me.

S

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Marie" > wrote in message
...
> badgirl wrote in message ...
> >That SO aggravates me when people don't get that!
> >It's YOUR body, it's YOUR responsibility to take care of it and make
> >decisions for it. The doctor you HIRE still has to consult you before
> >he can do anything.
>
>
> One of my peeves is the "the doctor won't let me eat" or "they wouldn't
let
> me move" deal during labour. So what's going to happen if you do eat/move
> around, be grounded for a week?
> My best friend said she had back labour, but "they" wouldn't let her move
> around because of the monitors. She was made to lay on her back. Well when
> she sat up to get her epidural the pain went away...by the time she
realized
> it the anesthesiologist(sp.) had already started and she didn't want to
say
> anything. She said she feels if she'd been allowed to move around and not
> lay there she might have been able to make it through naturally.
> Marie
>
>

I agree with you 100% ... but I know for myself I was completely unable to
formulate a thought, let alone stand up for myself. I sat there thinking how
miserable it was being hooked to the machine for this long, but there was no
way I could get that thought to travel from my brain to my mouth. I mean,
hell I was having contractions. They were killing me for peats sake. It's
not like I could miss them. :)

S

[Jolene]

"Denise" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, I would do this in mkp, but I don't know too many of the people over
> there now, and I know more of you would understand my need to vent over
> this. I vented about something at the navy wive's website I'm a member of
a
> while ago, and since then, they've created a "Child and Mother" forum. So
> far they've discussed family beds, milk drying up, starting solids at 2
> weeks. Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice. So
> today, someone asked about giving birth at a particular Navy hospital with
a
> not so nice track record and here's one of the posts
>
>
> have heard that the midwives at the hospital are not too keen on inducing
> labor. Is this true? I am preggo and am worried to death that they won't
> agree with me to have me induced. I keep having these horrific thoughts
that
> I will be two weeks over due and huge and mean and with sausage toes. Let
me
> explain my situation a bit, I have had three kids, have been late with the
> first two and have been induced with all three of them. I just DO NOT go
> into labor, in fact, I hardly even dilate! So, I think I know how my body
> responds to pregnancy and I am going to talk to the midwife about the
> possibility of inducing me and I'm hoping that they will say okay. Has
> anyone been in a similar situation??? I am just terrified that this will
> happen! I know all about those home remedies to start labor, walking,
salad
> dressing, blah, blah, nothing has ever worked and I doubt nothing will
ever
> work...
>
>
> Here's what I posted in response, now I'm bracing for the nasty responses
> about how I'm so unsympathetic...
>
> well if your body needs more time to cook the babies, it needs more time.
> Midwives aren't keen to induce, because as a whole, midwives are commited
to
> labors without interventions and inductions open up a whole world of
> interventions that might not have otherwise been needed. The average
> gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is
> common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise
>

The truth is always the soundest advice. Any "nasty responses" should be
meaningless to you, since none of the people who write them will have
anything to do with how *your* babies get here.

She wants the bad advice. She wants validation for the bad decision she
wants to make. And, she'll take the bad advice she gets because it will be
in line with what she wants to do. Just be thankful that she won't be
making any decisions that impact on *your* life.

It's scary how in this day and age, people still think that they can make
Mother Nature fall in line with their Palm Pilots.

[Astromum]

Denise wrote:

> Here's what I posted in response, now I'm bracing for the nasty responses
> about how I'm so unsympathetic...
>
> well if your body needs more time to cook the babies, it needs more time.
> Midwives aren't keen to induce, because as a whole, midwives are commited to
> labors without interventions and inductions open up a whole world of
> interventions that might not have otherwise been needed. The average
> gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two weeks over your due date is
> common and healthy unless a NST shows otherwise

First off, I don't find your response unsympathetic at all, merely
informative. You are right that some women have longer gestation than
others, and it often runs in families.

However, I was under the impression that average gestation for a first
baby is about 41 weeks, and it is shorter for next babies. The 'safe
labour' window is from 37 to 42 weeks since LMP and longer pregnancies
are under very strict supervision of a caregiver. After 42 weeks the
placenta deteriorates rapidly, and if the woman does not go into labour,
induction can be necessary. These numbers are used globally, with some
midwives allowing pregnancies up to 43 weeks, as long as the baby is fine.

It does happen that women do not go into labour. My cousin had two
emergency c/s because labour came to a full stop after dilating a few
cm. My biggest nightmare was that this would happen to me, but thank
goodness my body knew what it had to do. So if this woman has had this
before, chances are it will happen again and her fears are justified.

So I guess my advice to you would be: keep spouting your information if
you want, but perhaps try to see things from the poster's point of view
before you do. I know, I've BTDT too ... ;)

--
-- Ilse
mom to Olaf (07/15/2002)
TTC #2
"What's the use of brains if you are a girl?"
Aletta Jacobs, first Dutch woman to receive a PhD

[badgirl]

"Marvin L. Zinn" > wrote in message
...

> Jan,
>

It's Jen ;)

>
> I do appreciate and respect doctors, but I do not expect them to
be
> always right, and I am certainly not going to let any other person
take
> responsibility for my health.

Exactly. There are too many reports of malpractice, too many doctors
that are interested in their wallets and expencive cars and too many
patients who simply don't get it for me to not do my own research
about my health issues and figure out what's best for my treatment.
Just because something works for 1000 other people may not work for me
and I'm not gonna trust some guy who only wants to spend 15 minutes a
year (regular checkup time alotment) to know my history just from
reading a couple of notes on a chart.
I may not have gone to school for years to learn how to cae for a
large number of illnesses but that's not my job. I have specific
issues going on with me and it IS my job to learn as much as I can
about them (and those of my children while they are minors and still
my responsibility) so that I can best avocate for myself while I have
those 15 minutes in the doctors office.
Anyway, you get the point and I'm probably preaching to the choir
anyway lol ;P)

--
Jen,

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/chgo_badgirl

Proud SAHM to Steven 7/24/89, Stephanie 6/5/91 and happily BF'ing
Nicolas 5/21/02
Mother is the word for God on the lips and in the hearts of all
children

>
> Your turn on the soap box again.
>
>
> Marvin L. Zinn
> Reply to:
> Using Virtual Access
> Windows 2000 build 2600
>

[Circe]

Denise wrote:
> The average gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two
> weeks over your due date is common and healthy unless a NST shows
> otherwise

For the record, average gestation for human infants is 40w3d. A normal
full-term pregnancy ends somewhere between 37 and 42 weeks. So I think you
may catch some flack for inaccuracy in this statement, because 42 weeks
truly *isn't* average gestation--it's the longest that is considered safe
and normal (although there is not much evidence, really, that a 43 or 44
week pregnancy cannot be safe and normal for a particular woman).

FWIW, I think if the poster you responded to wants to be induced, she should
be. It's her body. As long as she understands the risks of induction and can
weigh those risks against the benefits (for her), she ought to be able to
choose induction so long as it poses no significant risk to the baby (i.e.,
she's at full-term). Personally, I'd rather have sharp sticks shoved under
my fingernails than undergo another pitocin induction, but I appreciate the
fact that many women don't feel that way.

What *I* find objectionable and pernicious is the fact that many OBs
actively encourage elective induction without adequately explaining to the
patient that a) it's elective/optional and b) there are risks. I was induced
with my first with very little explanation from my OB as to why it was
necessary (it wasn't) and why I might choose *not* to be induced (none). Too
many doctors consider induction to be a completely benign intervention that
carries no risks over spontaneous labor and believe that induced labor is
"no harder" than spontaneous labor. Both of those are a load of crap, but
unfortunately, they are widely believed in the medical community.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"How a seller can improve their home's value" -- newspaper headline

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

[Denise]

"Elana" > wrote in message
...
> Denise > wrote:
>
> > Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice.
>
> I hate to open this can of worms...but what do they say about bf? I'd
> think, being military families and on a pretty tight income, that they
> would all be for it, at least from a financial point of view...
>
> E

UGH! You pretty much automatically qualify for WIC if you're military, so
breastfeeding is really rare. On this website, there's myself, and one
other AP-type parent who are pretty outspoken about things like
breastfeeding and co-sleeping. One girl kept posting about how hungry her 3
week old was so she got all sorts of "Oh, honey, its ok if you don't have
enough milk, WIC will help you pay for formula.." The other girl and I
basically go on and on about fenugreek and oatmeal and growth spurts. That
same girl with the hungry baby now has a 4 month old who eats "peaches and
cereal and green beans and just loves peanut butter, but he's so
constipated."

[JoelnCaryn]

>> I do appreciate and respect doctors, but I do not expect them to
>be
>> always right, and I am certainly not going to let any other person
>take
>> responsibility for my health.
>
>Exactly. There are too many reports of malpractice, too many doctors
>that are interested in their wallets and expencive cars and too many
>patients who simply don't get it for me to not do my own research
>about my health issues and figure out what's best for my treatment.

Of course, that's what she thinks she's doing by demanding an induction...

--
Caryn
mama to Oscar, 10/20/02

[Denise]

"Circe" > wrote in message
news:syzRa.11140$u51.8310@fed1read05...
> Denise wrote:
> > The average gestation for a baby is 42 weeks, so going two
> > weeks over your due date is common and healthy unless a NST shows
> > otherwise
>
> For the record, average gestation for human infants is 40w3d. A normal
> full-term pregnancy ends somewhere between 37 and 42 weeks. So I think you
> may catch some flack for inaccuracy in this statement, because 42 weeks
> truly *isn't* average gestation--it's the longest that is considered safe
> and normal (although there is not much evidence, really, that a 43 or 44
> week pregnancy cannot be safe and normal for a particular woman).
>
Eh.. I was close :) I don't think anyone will call me on it, because as a
group, they don't seem to be very resourceful. My main point was just to
point out that inductions lead to other stuff and midwives try to avoid the
other stuff, kwim?

> FWIW, I think if the poster you responded to wants to be induced, she
should
> be. It's her body. As long as she understands the risks of induction and
can
> weigh those risks against the benefits (for her),

I agree. But like I said, these women don't seem to be like that. Its more
of a what's easier for me thing, rather than thinking through what an
induction could lead to. One of the members was pregnant a few months ago
and posted that she was sick of being pregnant so the advice was "Go in
there and demand an induction, they have to do it for you if you want it."
Eventually the girl did end up being induced, being in labor for over 24
hours and getting a C-section.

[Elana]

Denise > wrote:

> UGH! You pretty much automatically qualify for WIC if you're military, so
> breastfeeding is really rare. On this website, there's myself, and one
> other AP-type parent who are pretty outspoken about things like
> breastfeeding and co-sleeping. One girl kept posting about how hungry her 3
> week old was so she got all sorts of "Oh, honey, its ok if you don't have
> enough milk, WIC will help you pay for formula.." The other girl and I
> basically go on and on about fenugreek and oatmeal and growth spurts. That
> same girl with the hungry baby now has a 4 month old who eats "peaches and
> cereal and green beans and just loves peanut butter, but he's so
> constipated."

You totally have my sympathy! I'd go crazy...I'm bad enough on my
street with promoting bf :-).

LOVES peanut butter?!?! Isn't it choking hazard until age 1?!

You do what you're doing, girlfriend. It's *all* good!!

E

[Stephanie and Tim]

"Phoebe & Allyson" > wrote in message
...
> Stephanie and Tim wrote:
>
> > Why nasty? This post sounds more informative than unsympathetic to me.
>
> There are some people who see information that contradicts
> their previously-formed worldview as a personal attack.
>
> Phoebe :)
>

I do not know anyone like that.... wait, except me. ;)

S

[Laurie]

Denise wrote in message ...
>
>"Elana" > wrote in message
...
>> Denise > wrote:
>>
>> > Its aggrivating to see so many people with such bad advice.
>>
>> I hate to open this can of worms...but what do they say about bf? I'd
>> think, being military families and on a pretty tight income, that they
>> would all be for it, at least from a financial point of view...
>>
>> E
>
>UGH! You pretty much automatically qualify for WIC if you're military, so
>breastfeeding is really rare. On this website, there's myself, and one
>other AP-type parent who are pretty outspoken about things like
>breastfeeding and co-sleeping. One girl kept posting about how hungry her
3
>week old was so she got all sorts of "Oh, honey, its ok if you don't have
>enough milk, WIC will help you pay for formula.." The other girl and I
>basically go on and on about fenugreek and oatmeal and growth spurts. That
>same girl with the hungry baby now has a 4 month old who eats "peaches and
>cereal and green beans and just loves peanut butter, but he's so
>constipated."


OMG, this takes a cake. I can not even imagine giving peanut butter to a 4
month old.

laurie
mommy to Jessica, 27 months
and Christopher, 13 weeks

*This email address is now valid*
>

[Astromum]

Valerie Rake wrote:

> I'd say we're _much_ more likely to do this now that in the past......
> No Palm Pilots then! ;-)

<grin>

> Though it's true in a more serious way--since we "know" so much more
> medically about pregnancy and childbirth, I think we're much more likely
> to get hung up on the timing of things than women and caregivers
> (midwives or doctors) were able to to even think about even 50 years
> ago, to say nothing of before that. I've got no problem acknowledging
> that that extra knowledge and saved a lot of women's and children's
> lives, but its overly routine application to every pregnancy is
> annoying, to say the least.

So right: all the technology is not always a blessing...

Just look at HPT's: now you can test 4 days before your period is due.
Wow! So what use is that besides spending a whole lot of money on tests?
I read the leaflet that comes with this test, and it says that it's just
over 50% accurate at 10 DPO, and still only 86% at 13 DPO (1 day before
period is due). Imagine the profit they will make on women testing again
to rule out a false negative, and then again twice in their next cycle
since they weren't pregnant the first time...

But this is waaaaay OT here anyway...

--
-- Ilse
mom to Olaf (07/15/2002)
TTC #2
"What's the use of brains if you are a girl?"
Aletta Jacobs, first Dutch woman to receive a PhD

[JennP]

"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
> OMG, this takes a cake. I can not even imagine giving peanut butter to a 4
> month old.

As the mother of a recently diagnosed peanut allergic son, I'm pretty
horrified too!

JennP.