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
|
|||
|
|||
info on inductions
Thats what I was thinking, Emily. What killed Amy's baby last time was
not an issue that surfaced in late pregnancy - if it HAD I would agree that would be a reasonable incentive to induce a few weeks before term. Being an older mom, VBACing twice, and going to 42 plus weeks all three pregnancies, I know when they want too, they can keep you on a very short leash, and there ARE things they can do to monitor the condition and functioning of the placenta with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It seems to me that inducing at 38 weeks is kind of a scatter gun approach when the previous problem came to a disasterous peak a good 2 months prior to that point in pregnancy (i.e. whats magic about 38 weeks??). A more targeted and reasoned approach would seem smarter and more to the point - to wit, starting early in the pregnancy, doing tests and close monitoring for hints of a placental problem (including ruling out genetic clotting issues). Given that induction (particularly induction on an unripe cervix) is fraught with its own set of risks for both baby and mother, you kind of wonder if they aren't aiming the gun in the wrong direction. I think it was really crummy of the doctors involved not to do some better investigation for Amy at the time, to see if a cause could be found so she'd have some idea what the problem was last time. Mary G. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
info on inductions
Mary Gordon wrote:
I think it was really crummy of the doctors involved not to do some better investigation for Amy at the time, to see if a cause could be found so she'd have some idea what the problem was last time. I agree -- especially since some of the clotting disorders appear to be treatable with blood thinners and/or vitamins, the later probably preferably starting pre-conception. -- Emily mom to Toby 5/1/02 #2 EDD 7/19/04 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
EFM/semisitting/induction insanity
Todd,
I agree with you entirely. After consideration and discussion with my midwife, I have decided at this stage to still plan towards induction at 38 weeks. She said it is usual to only be monitored for no more than the first hour after induction begins. I plan to walk around, be on all fours and deliver on my side as I did with my son, and she is most supportive of this and allowed me to deliver like this without question last time. She feels that oxytocin (rarely used here) will be unnecessary for me as I am a second timer and responded well to induction without it last time. I used to be completely anti-intervention, after my prior experiences now I believe I am pro informed choice. No-one is forcing me to have an induction (and indeed I would not permit any medical procedure to be forced on myself or my child) but at this stage, and after careful thought I've decided it would be the best decision for my mental health, and carry minimal risk to the physical health of my baby or I. It seems things are probably done a lot differently here in one of the smaller cities of New Zealand than they are in the US, or even in some of our main centres, and I've been worrying needlessly. I'm grateful, BTW that I read one of your posts before I delivered my son. To be flat on your back is an uncomfortable, vulnerable and undignified position for a woman in labour anyway IMHO, and I instinctively rebelled against it when the time came. Your posts are far too long, rambling, fanatical and repetitive for any pregnant woman to bother reading right through, but I guess upon skimming them at least some of what you have to say is subliminally absorbed, and by this if you help just one woman to deliver more comfortably it is worthwhile. regards, Amy '"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message ink.net... "Add to this the position an induced mother is in, almost always on her back in a semi-sitting position due to the continuous EFM (external fetal monitor)..." --Connie Banack http://www.mother-care.ca/induction.htm Clarification: EFM = electronic fetal-heart-rate monitoring (may be internal or external - Williams Obstetrics 2001, p. 354) Amy, I found the EFM/semisitting text you quoted - thanks for the URL for the link... Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS I suspect Chotii and Circe are right - most women are semisitting for EFM... But even if only a FEW women are placed sitting for EFM - if they are semisitting when they push their babies out - they are pushing their babies out through birth canals senselessly closed up to 30%. And semisitting BEFORE the baby reaches the pelvic outlet may neurologically inhibit labor because semisitting torques the sacrum exactly the opposite direction it is supposed to go. This no doubt noxiously irritates somatic afferent nerves in the sacroiliac joint capsule - or so I say... In any event, it makes NO sense to force the uterus to push the baby through the outlet with the outlet senselessly closed up to 30%. And chemically whipping the uterus to contract VIOLENTLY as a baby is forced through an outlet senselessly closed up to 30% - well that is insanity. FACT: By using semisitting (and dorsal) MDs are *causing* "fetopelvic disproportion" and they themselves say (again quoting the 2001 edition of Williams Obstetrics): "[u]se of oxytocin...is appropriate only after assessment to exclude fetopelvic disproportion." (p. 474) "With an inappropriate dose of oxytocin, the pregnant uterus may contract so violently as to kill the fetus, rupture itself, or both..." (p. 323) MDs say they have the doses down right now - i.e. - they say they are no longer giving inappropriate HUGE doses anymore - but it makes no sense to give ANY oxytocin when there is iatrogenic "fetopelvic disproportion" - i.e. - with the birth canal senselessly closed up to 30%! Again Amy, thanks for the URL to the EFM/semisitting link. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
info on inductions
"Emily" wrote in message news:NVJ_b.49346$Xp.238952@attbi_s54... Amy, I know you posted in your earlier message that they didn't test the placenta to see what happened last time, but perhaps there are some tests they could run now? If you read my threads on low amniotic fluid you'll see that I've been diagnonsed with an inherited disorder that can *sometimes* *apparently* cause clotting problems, leading to a poorly functioning placenta. When they suspected that the placenta wasn't functioning well (based on the quad screen and my 17 week u/s), they tested for this an a bunch of other things. You could see about being tested for such things, but even a positive result might just cause unnecessary worry: This disorder that I have is a) common and b) something that I've had my whole life, and I had absolutely no problems with my first pg. So, I guess the main thing I want to say is that having one "overbaked" placenta doesn't mean they all will be. -- Emily mom to Toby 5/1/02 #2 EDD 7/19/04 Thanks Emily :-) I have been tested for lupus & blood disorders both after my son's death and during this pg, just in case they hadn't shown up, but both came back clear. My annoyance with the screw up over the placenta is that it was clearly a placental problem (visually the placenta was abnormal) and testing might have answered some of those 'why' questions for me. My current theory is that GBS caused chorioamnitis (sp) and that the infection had disappeared in me by the time he died, causing him to test + and me -. But I've had plenty of theories over the last year :-) Realistically, I don't think there is anything more they can test me for now, so it's a bit of a 'wait and see' game. I'll have several U/S, but U/S is a limited medium esp when it comes to placentas. I'm glad they picked up your disorder so they can manage it better. All the best with #2 :-) Amy |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
info on inductions
"Mary Gordon" wrote in message om... It seems to me that inducing at 38 weeks is kind of a scatter gun approach when the previous problem came to a disasterous peak a good 2 months prior to that point in pregnancy (i.e. whats magic about 38 weeks??). A more targeted and reasoned approach would seem smarter and more to the point - to wit, starting early in the pregnancy, doing tests and close monitoring for hints of a placental problem (including ruling out genetic clotting issues). I know what you're saying. Heck, if it were safe to do so though I'd have this baby induced at 28 weeks, but it isn't. I guess what it comes down to is how long I can bear to be pg with the knowledge that my baby could stop moving and randomly die at any time like its brother, all the while knowing if it were born it would most likely be fine. That's a very hard thing to live with constantly, and if my baby were to die between 38-40 weeks I don't think I could ever forgive myself. I still do have a choice on this though, in fact I have a feeling it's been suggested more for my sanity than any concrete medical reasons - most Dr's find from experience that most mothers of stillborn babies don't want to be pregnant any longer than they absolutely have to, so I guess all that's magic about 38 weeks is that it's full term. Amy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Contact info for Bear Feet shoes? | LucyD | General (moderated) | 2 | March 22nd 04 04:53 AM |
Info Request Please: Support Hose | DeliciousTruffles | Pregnancy | 4 | November 14th 03 07:43 PM |
Wife's bump goes hard and soft? Any info!? | Paul Morris | Pregnancy | 12 | October 16th 03 08:32 PM |
miscarriage rate by week of pregnancy info needed | V | Pregnancy | 5 | July 17th 03 06:31 PM |