View Full Version : Alone & Pregnant Update
Hello Everyone !
Just wanted to give u all a quick update on my progress. The last u/s I had not only showed me I am having a boy but also that I have a low-lying placenta :confused: my GP advises me that I may have to have a C-section if it stays that way. I have to have another u/s at 32 weeks & that is when the decision will be made. I am currently 20 weeks & am very proud of my growing bump, I can feel him moving around & words cannot describe how happy that makes me. I am interested in hearing from anyone who has had a low-lying placenta & also a C-section, any info u could offer would be great ! :) I also wanted to make mention of a kinda embarrassing problem I am having when I do a wee, I am finding that I have to wipe myself several times & when I stand up a little bit drips out. I am aware of the incontinence problem after giving birth but what is happening now? Thanks again for all your helpful advice, I hope everyone is enjoying their pregnancy as much as I am. Continually grateful Kristy 25 first time single mum to be :rolleyes:
I am not able to talk from experience re the low placenta issue, however I can tell you that my best friend and a colleague at works wife both were told the same thing as you...which can be a little daunting I feel...
Both had natural births as the placenta moved toward the end of their pregnancies.....
Either way, you will be sure to know closer to term what has happened with your placenta...hopefully it will have moved for you and all will be as normal as can be.....
I join you in your excitement of your pregnancy, we are 26 weeks and loving watching our little son move and grow day by day.....
Glad to hear you are feeling great too...Have a good weekend
Bec and Peanut
I know I now have to make sure I clench my pelvic floor muscles if I'm sneezing or coughing now, otherwise I'll sometimes have an accident. And I haven't had a baby yet either.
So time to start those pelvic floor exercises! :) :)
I had exactly the same scenario. My ob said not to do anything too strenuous, no heavy lifting etc. And not to travel further than half an hour from the hospital because haemhorraging is relatively rare but can get serious very quickly. Some bleeding is quite common (h :) e said up to 80% will have a bleed - luckily I didn't).
The csection is no different to a normal csection but they like to know where the placenta is in case they have to cut thru it to get the baby out.
I had my little one 3 months ago - no problems at all. You'll be fine.
No personal experience either on the low lying placenta but I have a friend who is 1 week further into her pregnancy than me (35weeks) and she also had a low placenta which has moved itself out the way.
On the toilet issue. I had it with my first and am experiencing it again now. With #1 it wasn't until late in the pregnancy - about 35 weeks that i started to get little dribbles (that sounds nice :o ) throughout the day and thought maybe something was leaking! I even went to the hospital at one point as i thought maybe i had a little hole in the bag or something! they checked to see if it was amneotic (sp?) fluid but determined it was just a natural discharge of some sort and said not to worry.
I'm not 35 weeks pregnant and have been experiencing the wet feeling for almost a month so I don't know why me! Not pleasent but i'm not worried.
Glad to hear everything is going weel, Congratulations on your little Boy! We still don't know yet with this one and I can't wait!!
Not had the low lying plecenter But had the pee brobs before an after bub , Was alot worse after.
It was so shame full an i had to ware liners all the time as i had frequient accidents.. Someone mentioned pelvic exercises an right away it helped an improved. With lots of work It took me somewhat of 2 yrs to feel some what better done there.
Just hold your pee then go then stop , thats a basic one, Hope helps
If i knew about pelvic exercises before im pretty sure if would helped out more.
Peace take care ;)
as gross as it sounds, the pee thing is completely normal! :eek: There is ALOT of pressure on your bladder and pelvic muscles even now...without having gone through labour. Start your pelvic floor exercises now, before birth...I've had a few probs (re the sneezing thing..my bub is 6 mths) :o but I must confess I was not very good at remembering to do the exercises!! :p
Just a bit of info that you might find reassuring.
Often placentas that seem to be low early on "move" upwards as your uterus grows more at the bottom than at the top, so it is way too early to be concerned about that.
And the pee problem. I didn't notice it with number 1 but I did with number 2. I used to do a bit of a jiggle before getting up, which seemed to shake loose the drips. A midwife explained it to me as because your uterus is taking up a lot of real estate in there, it can prevent the last little bit of pee from getting out, hence the dribbles. Try jiggling (at least the mental picutre should make you smile)! :p
I too had a low lying placenta but went on to have a natural birth, it had moved at my 35week scan. i had my hopes up that I was having a natural birth and only a natural birth and when they told me the concequences of trying this with a low lying placenta, well it put it all in perspective that i had to do what was best for my baby. i hope that all goes well and it moves for you.
I think you will find that a low lying placenta is not an issue, and I think it is very wrong that your Dr is putting such fear into you already. I hate the way they seem to schedule everything about your birth, even this early :mad:
If your placenta was attached right over your cervix now then there would be a little cause for concern. The scenario is called placenta praevia and it is graded accorinding to how serious it is; how covered the cervix is. You've not even got that info because it's not an issue for you - ignore him!
Those who have a placenta trying to attach over the cervix usually experience some third trimester bleeding, often around 28 weeks. At this point the upper part of your uterus starts to grow rapidly and it USUALLY takes the placenta with it. The MAJORITY of low placentas move away completely. The bleeding isn't necessarily a dramatic haemorrhage but it is caused by the placenta being stretched away from where it was attached.
But the most significant thing I can tell you is that one c/s really increases your chances of getting placenta praevia in the future. Full-on placenta praevia does mean a C/S as it is dangerous for the cervix to dilate in those circumstances.
Mothers who've had a C/S have a variety or risks in future pg including:
"¨ Risk of placental problems (placenta praevia: placental abruption (premature placental separation,): placenta accreta (placenta won’t separate) all increased by 2-4 times. (Hemminki 1996). All are potentially life-threatening and increase the risk of the baby dying as well " Caesarean Fact Sheet, Dr S J Buckley
So even if you did have placenta praevia now, complete with a grading of 'seriousness' you could rest assured that your placenta would more than likely move out of the way at the beginning of the third trimester.
Don't worry, but do question why your Dr felt the need to give you such information (well, half of it) NOW.
In my opinion, I would rather know everything that is happening to me, and what the possible implications are for me and my baby. While you are right that most cases of placenta praevia do right themselves before birth, knowing everything about what is happening to your body and what all the possible courses of action are lets you become more prepared if the worst situation does occur. A doctor who doesn't present all the facts and options to their patients is negligent.
And on a side note, LUSCS are not the most evil things in the world, in some cases it is the best course of action for both mother and child, and that decision should be made in consultation with the mother and the doctor. The outcome is the focus, not the method of acheiving it. I feel that there is enough pressure placed on expectant mothers without the added stress of people telling them that they should not have a caesarean if that is what they and their doctor feel is best in their circumstances.
Also, if you are going to put a reference in for something, put the full reference in so people are able to check your 'facts' for themselves. One person's published opinion does not make it fact. I feel that you are trying to unecessarily scare expectant mothers about caesarians. I don't think anyone believes that major abdominal sugery is without risks, and people today are very good at finding both sides of the story out for themselves, and making an informed decision.
Bubbalove I couldn't agree more with your post. There is definitely an anti doctor sentiment coming through. We can't all have wonderful karmic water tank birth experiences. I have had three c-sections all for legitimate medical reasons and if I did not have these, me and my babies would be dead. I found them all good experiences and nothing to be afraid of. I recovered very fast with no lingering effects. I certainly don't feel I have missed out on anything birthwise either. Ihink if you can have a natural birth great, if not then a c/s is not the end of the universe.
I do not think we should be putting fear into first time mothers about c/s or to be advising them to ignore medical advice. If you aren't happy then always get a second opinion.
I could not agree more. Bubbalove you said exactly what I was thinking. Angel I think you need to be more aware of how expectant mothers, especially first-timers feel and how frightening it can be when receiving news from your Dr, especially news that is not so rosy. They came to this forum to gain support and reassurance not to be frightened all over again. I find some of your posts scary and I'm not even pregnant. I also resent the way you keep putting c/s down. Some mothers have to have them for medical and personal reasons and it is not up to one person to make them feel bad about their decisions. We are all not able to birth the most natural way but for some women (including myself) having a c/s is our way of birthing. The choice is sometimes clear cut, either you have a natural birth and have a dead child or you are thankful for modern medicine and have a c/s and a health live child. Which decision would you make Angel??????
Please stop making us women who have had c/s (for whatever reason) feel guilty for our decision or making us too scared to have anymore children.
For all the expectent mummies enjoy the rest of your pregnancies and hope they are positive and healthy experiences for all involved. Belly rubs to everyone.
I have nothing against Caesareans and believe, of course, that they have their place. But I have a lot *against* Qld's 31% CS rate when the World Health Organisation has deemed 10-15% to be medically necessary. The little bit of info that we have available in Qld indicates that just 1% of women choose CS without medical grounds so there is a huge discrepency in the figures that has to be explained somehow.
The last thing that I want to see is a first time Mum scared into a(nother) unnecessary CS having only been given half of the facts. Anybody with a low lying placenta also deserves to be told that it is *most* likely that it will move away, along with exactly how many primigravida women DO have a CS because of full-on Placenta Praevia. No lady should be left fearing a CS outcome because she hasn't been told how many women actually end up that way out of necessity.
Just for you Bubbalove "Hemminki E. Impact of Caesarean section on future pregnancy- a review of cohort studies. Paed Perinat Epid 1996;10:366-79" :D The Caesarean Fact Sheet has been put together by Brisbane Dr Sarah J Buckley and is a file on my PC that I'm happy to e-mail if interested. It is of course fully referenced to alarming detail actually. It details overall stats, risks to mothers, risks to a non-emergency baby, reasons for unnecessary CS and psychological outcomes, along with the medical journals etc from which the data is quoted.
To the OP, there is absolutely nothing to be afraid of which is why I think it's crazy that you have been made unnerved by a half-story which was very unfair on you.
Well Angel, as long as we agree on the fact that expectant mums need to be told all the available information on their condition, and that such information should never be withheld from a patient 'in case it doesn't happen'. Whether the risks for any sort of outcome are high or low, a patient needs to be fully informed. I do agree that some doctors do not give out the full available information, but people are capable of asking questions.
I am also interested as to what you condsider an 'unecessary c-section'? People have caesarians for all different reasons, and I believe that as long as that decision has been made with the baby and mother's best interestes in mind, in consultation with their doctor, then that is a caesarean that should happen.
Thank you Angel for your full reference, as a University trained Early Childhood teacher I like to make sure that I have the full context in which the reference is made that way I can determine for myself where it is applies to me or not. Bubbalove has made a good point at what point does a c/s become unnecessary? If a women has a low pain threshold then shouldn't she be given the option of delivering her baby that is best suited to her circumstances. I totally agree that all pregnant women should be given all the fact to her condition so she is aware of any procedures or precautions that she may need to take in the future. Isn't it better for a women to prepare herself before time, if anything may happen, rather than having it sprung on her and she needs to make quick decisions at a time that she may not be mental prepared or all together there mental enough to make those decisions?
Women have c/s to suit their own needs and wants. Just because WHO says the average should be....doesn't always apply to women who are going through pregnancy or labour. I know that when my DH and I were making our decision about Harry we certainly didn't talk about WHO stats and what they recommend. We made our decision based on the facts our Dr's were giving us at the time and what their recommendation were not WHO's.
I was told at 36 weeks that I may need to have a c/s and although I was still hoping for a natural birth I was also mental prepared to have Harry the safest and medical required way. I was very glad that I knew this fact beforehand than have it spung on me when I went up to the hospital, we were prepared with questions and information that we needed to make our decision.
All women have a right to know what is happening with their bodies and their babies. I think Kristy's Dr did excately the right thing letting her know about her placenta and what might or might not happene in the future. At least she is aware of it.
My second pregnancy was a low lying placenta (graded serious) due to a prior c-section - the placenta attached to the scar tissue. (for the record the first c-section was due to a transverse lie - my baby had the flat of his back pressed against my cervix.)
The placenta praevia was picked up at my 20 week scan and I was told not to go further than half an hour from the nearest major hospital for the rest of my prgnancy because of the risk of haemhorraghing. Scary, yes, but very necessary info. In my case the placenta did not move at all by my 32 week scan. Luckily I did not have a bleed at all, and the delivery was fine. So back off a bit Angel. Low lying placenta is a worry, but not usually a major one, but I for one was very glad that I had been given all the info well in advance. And people who have to have csections don't generally have them on a whim I would imagine. I certainly had no choice about thematter either time.
Bubbalove and Harry'smum, they're not my words. Unnecessary Caesarean are words from the Caesarean Fact Sheet that I quoted - it's a catagory. I'm sure we could go on all day about what makes it necessary or necessary but I'm sure in this case 'medically necessary' was the criteria. Likewise, the WHO's *guidlines* aren't guildlines, it is simply a % or births that NEED to result in Caesarean because of medical grounds. If the rate in Qld is triple that then it's fair to assume that MANY of those ops are not on medical grounds. Here's the data, without full references (at this stage ;))
REASONS FOR UNNECESSARY CAESAREANS
¨ Over-use of obstetricians. “Having a highly trained obstetrician surgeon attend a normal birth is analagous to having a paediatric surgeon babysit a healthy 2 year old” (Marsden Wagner, ex-WHO perinatologist, 2000)
¨ Countries with high numbers of obstetricians caring for healthy women have high caesarean rates, but no better outcomes.(Australia, Canada, US, Greece- Wagner 1993)
¨ Low technology models of care (midwifery, birth centre, home birth) are at least as safe and with less interventions and caesarean rates typically below 10% (eg Rooks 1989, Parratt 1999)
¨ Brisbane RWH birth centre 5.6% cf other low-risk hospital population 19% (Wall 1996)
¨ Maternal request is a very uncommon reason for caesareans. Brisbane survey found 93.5% of women preferred a vaginal birth, and only 1 woman out of 310 requested caesarean without a medical reason. (Gamble 2001)
¨ Women preferring caesarean typically had a caesarean or an ‘awful’ or ‘unpleasant’ prior birth, and nominated ‘safety for the baby’ as a major reason. (Gamble 2001)
On the pain-threshold thing... I think we need huge reform in ante-natal education to be honest. Hospital classes are one thing, but it's only through independent classes that i have learned about pain management techniques that go way beyond rhythms and rituals, I mean hypnobirthing-type techniques and ways of alterning your perception of pain. I'm sure that if all women had the chance to go to the wonderful classes that I've attended in the last few months then they'd feel equally as empowered and focussed as I do right now. At nine weeks pg I was excited about going into labour as I felt I had learned so much more this time!
Maternal request is a very uncommon reason for caesareans. Brisbane survey found 93.5% of women preferred a vaginal birth, and only 1 woman out of 310 requested caesarean without a medical reason.
Sorry Angel - I guess I'm one of these women. I had no medical reason, just didn't want a so called "normal" birth. And I don't think it's that uncommon. About 3 of my girlfriends have requested a caesar in the past for no particular reason.
Women preferring caesarean typically had a caesarean or an ‘awful’ or ‘unpleasant’ prior birth, and nominated ‘safety for the baby’ as a major reason.
Nope - not me. No prior "awful" or unpleasant" experience other than people like you scaring the **** out of people like me with statistics.
I'm sure that if all women had the chance to go to the wonderful classes that I've attended in the last few months then they'd feel equally as empowered and focussed as I do right now. At nine weeks pg I was excited about going into labour as I felt I had learned so much more this time!
How can you be so sure - do you have a statistic on that? I for one and quite glad we have all the technology today that allows pain-free and hassle-free births - if you want one. Yes, it's loads of fun to make your own bread - mix up the ingredients, wait for the dough to rise, bake it for the specified time, pull it out of the oven cooked perfectly..., but by jingo, it's a hell of a lot easier (and relatively risk free) to pop off to Bakers Delight and buy it already done isn't it? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/cool_shades.gif
I have been reading this thread for the last couple of weeks and felt I should write my experience. This is purely personal and does not include any facts, studies etc....
I had a completely natural birth, no gas or drugs or epidural. This is not because I am completely crazy or wanted to be a mad hippy but because I could. Like all expectant mothers I was scared beyond belief about going into labour until about 7 months in when I was so huge and uncomfortable I wanted my baby in my arms instead of my belly! I was lucky that my labour was relatively straight forward (by second stage my contractions disappeared and I had to be induced) but otherwise ok. I am truely the BIGGEST wimp so my opinion is that pain threshold has little to do with what happens in labour, it is more to do with how the labour goes.
I had a wonderful midwife teaching our antenatal class and the best piece of adivce she gave was this: go in with an open mind. People who have rigid 'birth plans' are the ones who usually have an awful time because birth rarely goes as planned! The single most important thing with labour is that the mother and baby are safe. Second to this, the mother must be comfortable. If this means taking elective or an emergency CS, then that's what should happen.
Pregancy and labour is something that everyone seems to have strong opinions about and I don't know about other mums but all I seemed to hear was the horror stories which in actual fact are quite rare! It is such a personal experience that the final decision about your labour should be made by YOU (with advice from the docs or midwives of course!). I think it is terrible that mums are made to feel bad, guilty or as though they have missed out on something when they make decisions about their children.
So that is my two cents worth......On a lighter note, Boomtish....love the bread analogy!! It has given me a different persepective on birth!!!
Angel you sure do love your statistics. But be aware statistics are very easily manipulated to suit certain agendas. I don't understand why you seem so angry about the 31% CS rate in Queensland, is this a Queensland Health statistic or from the birthingalternatives website??? Why does it bother you so much? I don't think 31% means much anyway. For what year is that figure for? What are the annual trends, how does it compare to other states, country, city comparison??? We could argue all day about this and go around in many circles, what is the point.
I agree with Boomtish that if a woman wants to have a C/s for a non medical then it is her choice (provided she has all the information). If you want to do homebirth, waterbirth etc again this should be a legitimate choice especially if you have a low risk pregnancy. Also if women want to be birthed by obstetricians and feel safer that way, then it is personal choice and should be respected.
I am also glad that we have access to great doctors and medical technology in this country. It wasn't so long ago that many babies and mothers died during the 'natural' birthing process (my own grandmother did during a homebirth). Unfortunately many women and babies still die around the world. The focus should be on the best outcome for the mother and baby not the method.
I have access to a lot of current stats that all, through my work in birth reform. You certainly can't manipulate the % of hospital births that resulted in CS unless you don't report currectly, I mean, you can't read that stat any other way. I'm angry about that when it's well documented that only 10-15% of births NEED to end in CS. We know that very few women are actually asking for CS without grounds so there's a big grey area. We also know that CS is nearly always more risky to mother and baby. There's a lot more that we know which I can't go into here without writing an article! But essentially the medical profession can't be putting the whole truth out there and it's not fair on mothers or babies because of the risks it poses to them at the time, the risks to future pg, the increased risk of PND, the increased likelyhood that they'll *fail* to b/f etc etc. We know that women don't want these things yet they're exposed to that risk for some reason. That's why I'm angry!
That's a Qld Health stat for last year, I don't know anything about a Birthing Alternatives website, infact I've never heard of it.
The annual trend not surprisingly is an increase (29% the year before). There is evidence too that increased technology does NOT bring better outcomes, on the contrary infact. Countries with high use of obstetrics have no better outcomes that those with little use of it. The Netherlands is a fine example with a huge homebirth stat, very low C/S rate and one of the lowest mortality rates in the world. There is lots of info about all of this in medical journals etc. It's a complete myth that having a Dr present means the safest possible birth for a normal low risk lady/pg so singing the praises of technology isn't necessarily appropriate. Something as 'basic' as ultrasound has neither been proven safe nor proven to improve outcomes.
Yes I'd love to have a waterbirth, and I was prepared to have a homebirth in a bid to avoid a local hospital with typically bad stats but it's not an option because I'm no longer low risk. We all have a right to the kind of birth that we want but we all have a right to the facts too and it's clear that plenty of people aren't getting them as reflected in details of birth outcomes. And that's just part of what the fight for birth reform in Qld is all about (it's certainly happening in other states too).
Hi there all, Just for my two cents worth, if it means anything at all, I had two natural births with no complications or drugs, except a little gas with my first child... I was petrified of birth and labour with my first child like most women are as its a huge thing. But my first child was born healthy and normally without any complications, as well as my self, So I put myself through all this stress for no real reason at all... Leading up to the birth I was told of peoples horror stories and watched labouring videos that were forceps delivery and episiotomys gone wrong etc etc... And when my baby was 6 months old I found out I had a fast and irregular heartbeat, that was previously put down to "Anxiety Attacks", This is called Wolf parkinson white syndrome, where your heart palpitates fast and erratic, mine would do up to 300 beats per minute, quite scary really... I was furious, as my heart specialist told me, "I am amazed you lived through giving birth", yet, now I look back and think I wouldn't have done it any other way, Why? Because it all worked out just fine, and the thing is I had the operation to correct and fix this abnormal heartbeat and went on to have another baby, healthy and no complications also, but due to previously being told of the "I am amazed you gave birth without dying" scenario, I was still really scared of the "What ifs"... The moral of the story is that we are all scared of birth and labour, and no matter how many horror stories we are told or Statistics that there are, we still want that baby, and many of us go back for seconds and thirds and so on... So the reality is, Why worry about the What ifs and just enjoy our pregnancies, because the likelihood of dying or major complications during childbirth is just as much as if we walked down the road and had an anurism(spelling), crashed our car, or got hit by a bus, I think Worry about it when you get there, It may never happen at all, and besides, Stressing is no good for the bub nor yourself, And I wouldn't read the Stats unless you can deal with the reality of them... Haana, Mother to Raoni and Lily :)
Ultrasounds found not to harm babies
Having several ultrasounds during pregnancy does not harm the unborn baby or restrict the child's growth or development early in life, according to Australian scientists.
An ultrasound scan is a non-invasive procedure done routinely during pregnancy to assess the size, growth, health and gestational age of the foetus.
Earlier research had suggested that having several ultrasounds could increase right-handedness and affect the growth of the foetus, but Professor John Newnham from Perth's King Edward Memorial Hospital said the children grow and develop normally.
"Exposure to multiple prenatal ultrasound examinations from 18 weeks' gestation onwards might be associated with a small effect on foetal growth but is followed in childhood by growth and measures of developmental outcome similar to children who had received a single prenatal scan," he said in a report in The Lancet medical journal.
Professor Newnham and his team studied the progress of about 2,700 children.
Half had been exposed to repeated ultrasounds before birth.
None had any congenital abnormalities.
The researchers assessed the growth and development of the children up to eight-years-old.
At one year, both groups of children were similar in size.
By the end of the study, there was no difference between the two groups in their results of standard speech, language, behaviour or neurological tests.
"Our results also provide reassurance that multiple prenatal ultrasound scans are not followed by smaller body size in infancy or childhood," Professor Newnham said.
Despite their reassuring results, Professor Newnham and his colleagues said more research is needed.
"In view of the widespread and liberal use of this technology, we are responsible for ensuring the safety of its use," he said.
Wow Angel you really love your stats. (Correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think I have read one of your posts here that doesn't include a stat. As we all know you can find a stat or research to support any agrument you want, that's why academics have jobs.
But I'm interested in trying to understand why all the stats make you so angry and you take them so personally? I want to understand where you are coming from. I don't want to hear about your stats I want to here your opinion and why you feel that us women who had c/s had no right to? If a women has a reason to ask for or been told they have to have a c/s why does that make you so angry? Why do you feel that you have the right to put us down for making that decision?Whatever the reason may be that woman has a right to her decision and to own that decision for herself. All women have the right, and thankfully the technology, to give birth the most positive and safest way they can.
I understand that some women are not given all the facts when they are deciding whether to have a c/s or not. When Harry made the decision for us that he was going to be deliveried by c/s the Drs, my DH and I were not interested in what might happen in my next pregnancy, we were only interested in having a positive outcome for this pregnancy. I was explained all the risks involved before signing the consent form. But as far as we were concerned these risks far out wayed the need to have my baby safely, healthy and alive. They were my concerns at the time.
Plllleeeeeaaaassssseeeee Angel, we beg you stop with the stats. I'm sure Rebecca, Kristy, Kerri-Ann (Bubbalove) and the other pregnant women are sick of hearing them and want to enjoy the rest of their pregnancies without your stats rattling around in their heads. If anyone wants to find them out, they have the internet, wonderful Drs who will inform them or they can pm you and you can email them.
I believe that when Harry goes to school he will not be asked "how were you born?" The fact that he is alive, happy, healthy and thriving in every possible way shows me that my decision was the RIGHT one and it doesn't matter, really, in the long run how your beautiful baby joined you but the fact that he/she did is the most important thing in the world.
I like Cait have also been reading this tread and applaud the mum's with all the POSITIVE remarks...
I also had a natural birth as was my preference for my first time. It lasted about four hours and I had gas and a little pethadine.
BUT - My doctor informed me at about 37 weeks that the baby was a good size citizen and that he was hoping for about 9 pounds but if it got up around the 10 or 11 pounds then we would have to look at a c/s. I went home talked with hubbie and discussed what the dr has said andbasically as there was no other sensible choice decided that we would do what was necessary. If I needed a c/s then that was it - health of the baby and myself being paramount.
I get a little sick of people going on about women who choose a c/s over a natural birth because of personal reasons. LAST TIME I LOOKED IT WAS A FREE COUNTRY and women luckily can vote, drink in public bars and choose how to have their OWN children.
All I can say is good luck to everyone out there whose expecting or like me raising a beautiful little person...
I was not going to participate in this thread...but have decided that it is now time to speak up..add my two cents worth.
I have recently bought a new book over the weekend New Active Birth..which illustrates and educates new mothers like myself on ways to listen to my body and try to have a natural birth by using different positions, methods, waterbirth and breathing exercises instead of medical intervention.
This is MY wish and hope for the birth of my son..that he is born naturally without medical intervention or the use of drugs etc....(a personal choice that I should not be judged on, nor should any other woman who chooses what is best for her and her baby during her own labour!) (whether this be naturally or by C/S)
if at any stage of my labour my son's heartrate increases, my heartrate increases to an abnormal rate...I or the baby are at any risk of not making it through or the baby having birth defects then by all means I will be transferring to the delivery ward to have my son whatever way is best seen fit by my midwives...if this means that I have a C/S then so be it...if it means that I have to have pain relief...so be it.
(A mother should not be condemned/judged for the way in which she gives birth)
WE live in a country whereby we have the freedom and right to decide what we think best for ourselves and our children...we are very lucky to have so many options available to us...and there are so many women (mothers,grandmothers, geat grandmothers etc,etc) that have fought for us to have these rights and options, why should we, a new generation of mothers sit here arguing about statistics of C/s Labour and Natural Labour when at the end of the day it is purely our Own personal Choice! WE should not condemn one another, but unite as women and Mothers of the world who are able to have their babies in a free country.
I hope that in our heart of hearts that we can move on from this thread...accept each individual birthing option/delivery as our own individual right and stop being/feeling attacked and let down by comments that are hurtful and unneccessary.
To all the mums out there, I am positive and confident that you are great mums, wives, partners, and most of all individuals who are doing the best that you can for yourself and your families and always have their best interests at heart.
IF it wasn't for all the mum's (and dad's) out there who are raising beautiful, confident,independant, loved children, people like me would not be falling pregnant and have the confidence that I have in bringing my son into this world. SO thank you for showing me that we can do it...and do it well!
Bec & Peanut
Rach there is plenty around that contradicts that article too. And there are several other issues with u/s such as that there is no evidence that it improves outcomes anyway and there is a rollercoaster of anxiety that it can cause too. At this stage all it really does is increase our expenses.
LeFevre, M., Bain, R., Ewigman, B., et al. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasound screening: Impact on maternal management and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993 Sept 15;169:483-9.
Basically, the study, the largest of its kind to date, states that routine ultrasound does not benefit mothers or babies in terms of pregnancy outcome. It did not reduce the number of infant or maternal deaths, and it did not lead to better care for the newborn. The only thing it did was expose the families to increased cost and risk.
The WHO also recognises that u/s does not currently improve these outcomes.
Newnham, J.P., Evans, S.F., Michael, C.A., Stanley, F.J., & Landau, L. I. (1993). Effects of Frequent Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Lancet, 342(Oct.9), 887-891.
A study of over 1400 women in Perth, Western Australia compared pregnant mothers who had ultrasound only once during gestation with mothers who had five monthly ultrasounds from 18 weeks to 38 weeks. They found significantly higher intrauterine growth restriction in the intensive ultrasound group. These mothers gave birth to lower weight babies.
The researchers concluded that prenatal ultrasound imaging and Doppler flow exams should be restricted to clinically necessary situations. This recommendation comes at a time when ultrasound during prenatal visits has become increasingly popular and serves as a kind of entertainment feature of office check-up visits.
Campbell, J.D., Elford, R.W. & Brant, R.F. (1993). Case-Controlled Study of Prenatal Ultrasound Exposure in Children with Delayed Speech. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 149(10), 1435-1440.
Delayed speech is not a pathological or organic syndrome but developmentally defined symptom complex. Clinicians have noted an increased incidence of delayed speech in pediatric patients.
This is a matched-case control study of 72 children 2 to 8 years old presenting with delayed speech of unknown cause. The children were measured for articulation, language comprehension, language production, meta-linguisticskills, and verbal memory. When checked for ultrasound exposure, the speech-delayed children were about twice as likely to have been exposed to ultrasound than the matched controls.
The authors believe that delayed speech is a sensitive measure reflecting sub-optimal conditions for development. If ultrasound can cause developmental delays, the authors are concerned about the routine use of ultrasound and they warn against it.
Devi, P.U., Suresh, R., & Hande, M.P. (1995). Effect of fetal exposure to ultrasound on the behavior of the adult mouse. Radiat Res (QMP), 141(3), 314-7.
Pregnant Swiss albino mice were exposed to diagnostic ultrasound. There were significant alterations in behavior in all three exposed groups as revealed by the decreased locomotor and exploratory activity and the increase in the number of trials needed for learning. These results indicate that ultrasound exposure during the early fetal period can impair brain function in the adult mouse.
Hande, M.P., & Devi, P.U. (1995). Teratogenic effects of repeated exposures to X-rays and/or ultrasound in mice. Neurotoxicol Teratol (NAT), 17(2), 179-88.
Pregnant Swiss mice were exposed to ultrasound, x-rays, and combinations of the two. Effects on prenatal development, postnatal growth and adult behavior were studied. U + U group showed an increase in percent growth retarded fetuses. The postnatal mortality was significantly higher only in the U + U group. In the X + U group, the exploratory activity was affected at 6 months of age. There was a significant change in the locomotor activity with a reduction in the total activity as 3 and 6 months of age in the U + U group. Latency in learning capacity was also noticed in this group. The results indicate that repeated exposures to ultrasound or its combination with X-rays could be detrimental to the embryonic development and can impair adult brain function when administered at certain stages of organogenesis.
Karena I don't think here (literally) is an appropriate place for me to elaborate on why I have passion for women's rights! I am sorry that there seems to be more than one lady alluding to me making judgement on mothers, which couldn't be further from the truth. I've perhaps been typically inarticulate in explanation but I have also remarked that every woman does indeed have the right to choose. There can be a big difference in the interpretation of Informed Consent and Informed Decision however, and the medical profession unfortunately only refers to the former. I have no issue with how any lady chooses to birth her baby, but I'll continue to harp on at politicians and doctors if there isn't enough informed decision making going on and all evidence available suggests that is very much the case! The tears that I witnessed in recent weeks in significant consumer meetings are testiment to the rubbish that women are told. It's very sad, because I've birthed in a much better system in a different country. It's a system that Australia is fighting for and we are finally getting somewhere which is a huge relief as the WHO amongst others recognise it as the best care model for 80% of women! Anyhow, if you do really care then PM me! But it goes beyond 'appropriate' in this thread, I believe.
Angel, if I had not had ultrasounds I would have tried to give birth with my placenta 100% over my cervix. Hardly a good outcome and one that was prevented ENTIRELY because of ultrasound. No ultrasound = potential rupture of placenta, haemorraghing and goodness only knows what other complications. We live in the 21st century, not the middle ages. And I for one had a perfectly lovely csection delivery with no complications thanks to the use of modern technology.
I'm sure there are opinions around contradicting that article Angel! That's the whole point! Your statistics are JUST opinions - and everyone has one, and everyone is entitled to one. And I'd be interested to know - I am assuming you're pregnant - given that you read all these statistics all day every day, what is YOUR opinion on having a CS? Not Dr So-and-so's opinion or the outcome of whatever study - but YOUR opinion. If your OB said there was a chance you may need a CS, would you? Or would you blunder on quoting statistics to your OB?
...states that routine ultrasound does not benefit mothers or babies in terms of pregnancy outcome. It did not reduce the number of infant or maternal deaths, and it did not lead to better care for the newborn.
And which brainiac realised this? Ultrasounds are not a treatment for anything! I would suggest that the only time an ultrasound would lead to death was if someone actually picked up the machine and smashed it into someone's head (but I'm sure you have a statistic for this ;) ). Oh and last I heard, there weren't too many mums leaving their babies with the "ultrasound machine" to give them better care.
The ultrasounds that I had were for clinical reasons as well as my own peace of mind (I had 4). If I was going to have a deformed baby (for example), not having an ultrasound wasn't going to change the outcome any more than having one was, but I'd really like to know about it before giving birth. And quite frankly - the cost associated with the ultrasounds didn't bother me in the slightest. In my opinion if I couldn't have afforded the $50 (give or take) for my ultrasound then how on earth am I going to support a baby in the first place. And well... stuff costs money - welcome to reality :rolleyes: .
I myself have currently only had 1 ultrasound at 20 weeks to ensure that all was ok with the bub and placenta etc....
However my understanding of an ultrasound is so that problems and birth defects can be detected and researched prior to the birth of the baby. As well as the enjoyment of seeing your little one move and grow in your womb.
If any problems had of arisen for me in my 20 week ultrasound, I would have been asked to come back for a welfare check at 32 weeks (eg low lying placenta etc...) Are we supposed to ignore our doctors/midwives advice if told these things?
Rach, I agree with you...I wanted to know if there were any problems with our little one so that I could educate myself and facilitate myself to ensure that I could provide the best care and support if necessary. Yes there are definetly instances whereby Ultrasounds can not pick things up....however I have faciliated myself and done all that I can to check these things out prior to our sons birth..I know within myself that all avenues have been taken to ensure the best health and arrival of our first born, if this changes apon him being born then we will adapt to the situation...but knowledge is power and I believe as mothers we instinctively want to ensure that all is in place as best as it can be for the growth and well being of our children.
Bec & Peanut
Of course I'd consider a CS if it was advised! I have said more than once that I have nothing against them, but I'd be darn annoyed if I wasn't given the full picture at the time! For example... the debate over Frank breech vaginal deliveries vs. CS. I don't have an answer to this, but I'd guess that delivering a Frank breech SUBSEQUENT baby (not first) vaginally is safer than having a CS. I've no doubt at all that my local public hospital would advise a CS, though primarily because there are few practitioners in this city who call themselves competent in breech vaginal deliveries but that doesn't mean it would be safest way for the majority of ladies, especially if they could find themselves a competent practitioner.
After trauma first time around (in a good maternity service) I started looking into local services before conceiving and decided there was no way I wanted to give birth in either of these hospitals. As it happens that choice has been taken away from me as sustained bleeding into the second trimester has moved me up a risk category. That wasn't enough of a problem itself but the fact that the bleed is still present (yes, u/s detected it when we went to go and see if our baby was still alive after two big haemorrhages) really increases my risk of all sorts of nasties. But I've gone out and found out for myself. My chosen homebirth m/w said she couldn't deliver at home because of the risks of maternal haemorrhage (part of my placenta, in the middle, isn't attached at all because this bleed is there. But in this age of no PI insurance for m/w I didn't know if she was being over-cautious and if I should just find another h/b m/w. Well I did that anyway, but also had a long chat with a m/w friend who is a senior lecturer in midwifery, and she searched their database for relevent info on birth outcomes following second trimester bleeding. Meanwhile I searched the British Medical Journal online for relevent studies.
The voice of a practitioner is only ever an *opinion*. What's wrong with facts, on BOTH sides? They're hard to get, that's what. In something as dramatic as childbirth, a journey which I'm sure stays with us for the rest of our lives, I wouldn't want to take any more risk than is necessary, and frankly I don't trust any practitioner to tell me the whole trust. They all have motives and agendas to some extent. I guess there's no way we'll ever all be able to access all of the data but while I can I'll make it my mission to be informed on the matters that affect me.
I don't care how anybody births their child, but I do hope that it was an informed decision regardless. I'm sure nobody wishes for a pg mother to take a riskier route because of poor information.
I have no idea what 'Frank' breech delivery is, but I'm sure that if the local hospital would advise a c/s it would be for a good reason - as you say, no good/competent practitioners. But then, aren't you saying then that the c/s (ie the local hospital's advice) is the safest way to go? Because having a vaginal birth would be detrimental to either the mother or the baby? Because there is not a competent doctor on board?
I dread to think of what your blood pressure must be like Angel with all these horror stories rolling around in your head. I really can't believe that you started looking into hospital services before considering conceiving! So if SE Qld had not had what you were looking for then you would have NOT conceived? Or moved perhaps to a bigger city where they DID have what you were looking for in care?
And tell me - what sort of motive does a doctor have in NOT telling you the whole truth? Perhaps you're suggesting that they all get kickbacks on caesarians? Or there's a prize for the largest number done by the Christmas party? Tell me - what possible other motive would a doctor have other than for the good of the mother and child?
Quite frankly - I was informed of all the things I wanted to know, as I'm sure most other mothers-to-be are. In my opinion, most of your scary statistics are definitely WAY too much information. And too much information is a dangerous thing Angel.
This is getting rediculous... We are grown adults here, of which we are in a forum for expecting Mums and Mums with children already... Women check these forums for advice and valuable information, I for one like to ask questions and get an honest and mature response... I don't want to be judged or made to feel any less for my decisions I have made... This thread started out innocently from alone and scared don't remember? She simply told everyone about her problem she has with the placenta covering the cervix, and how she might have to have a c/s... All she wanted was some advice, now she is probably wishing she never asked... This isn't debates, nor are we still at high school... Think of this: Say for instance we had a close friend who needed help with making a decision, a huge decision... Would we turn around and dig up as much information as we could to make her feel uncomfortable about the decisions she is trying to make or would we offer advise, and if she needed the information such as statistics or articles etc etc... We would help her find it if need be or give her web sites that she could look up herself or a phone number if we had it... There is no need for our opinions to upset others even if we disagree, It isn't up to us to assume what is best for someone else, Each person has to live with his/her decisions in life, we should just be there for one another and except each other (flaws and all) the way we are... Isn't there enough fighting in this world??? :confused: I hope we can all move on and try just that little bit harder to just be an ear for one another, without the criticism... :) Haana Raoni and Lilys Mum
I'm new to this site and after reading all the postings in this thread I feel compelled to respond.
Firstly I am a midwife . so by nature I believe in women's bodies and the process of birth. Secondly I am a woman and I believe in choice.....Informed choice! Thirdly I am a first time mum-to-be (after 6 miscarriages I can't tell you how exciting it is to be 9weeks pregnant).........and I have a few things I'd like to say...
Firstly I think its really important to clarify the difference between low lying placenta's and placenta previa. Low lying placentas are just that; a placenta that has implanted on the lower uterine segment near but not covering the "Os" (medical term for the internal opening of the cervix). As mentioned in other posts as your pregnancy progresses your uterus grows to accomodate your gorgeous growing babe. As this happens your placenta "Migrates" upwards. The term migration doesnt mean that your placenta slides up the uterine wall, on the contrary it stays firmly implanted on the uterine wall, but as the uterus grows the placenta migrates up with it (An analogy I often use is if you had a deflated balloon, representing the uterus, and you drew a dot with a pen on the neck of the deflated baloon, as you blow the baloon up the dot, representing the placenta ,would move (migrate) upwards.....in cases of LLP women are routinely offered a 2nd scan arround 32 weeks to confirm migration.
Placenta previa is a different story. When the placenta is totally covering the Os like a saucer, be it smack bang in the middle or a bit to either side (which determines the grading Angel made reference to) a woman has no choice but to have a c-section.
Unfortunatly it's not always that black & white (like lots of things in pregnancy)Some women may have a placenta thats edge is just touching the edge of the Os. In this case it will most likely migrate...depends how much of the edge is covering the Os.
The other thing I wanted to say is that it concerns me when women are negative towards other women....Im talking about the negativity towards Angel in particular. I love your stats Angel. & I hate the whole natural Vs C section rivalry stuff.
Personally I'm going for a homebirth but if others arn't into that thats cool, I just don't want to be victimised and treated as negligent by other women because of my informed choice to birth at home (I'm already disadvantaged by the system-lack of choice of IPMs in Qld & not being able to claim a rebate for the $3g I am choosing to pay for the birth).....and I would expect the same respect if I made an informed choice to have an elective C-section.......One thing I have to make mention to, that I thought was misleading however, was the talk about sections being pain free. It is major abdominal surgery and that is not pain free (one of the major reasons I'm hoping to avoid one).
Love and respect for all valid choices and opinions,
Kerrie & Buba Xx :p
I hope that anything I have posted in this thread or others have not been seen as treating anyone as negligent or victimising anyone. I was simply exercising my right to my opinion. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, and I just like those opinions to bebased on the full facts. Just a side note, I'm an RN too. Good luck to everyone with their pregnancies and babies.
I believe it is a wonderful thing that we can have this debate and feel that we can express our opinions and have both sides represented.
This debate has certainly brought up lots of opinions and feelings in people. The major one I feel is that women who choose or have c/s choosen for them, no matter why, or how, can feel degraded for the way we birthed our babies. I can't speak for everyone, nor would I try, but for me I felt like women who had birthed naturally reacted in the negative when told I had had Harry via c/s. I even had a new dad tell me that I "had cheated birth because I had Harry via c/s" I felt that I had missed out on something very special. Yet I now feel that I haven't, I birthed Harry the safest way possible and everytime I look at him I thank God that in fact we do live in the 21st C and I was able to survive his birth to be his mother. I do feel very special that I birthed Harry using modern medical technology and that he has a very special birth story.
Because Harry was in a breech position we were able to find out, via u/s, exactely what position he was in, where the cord was and if it was possible to turn him or to have him vaginally in the breech position. In the end, he had one foot on my cervic, one foot tucked under him and the cord around his neck. If it wasn't for the u/s my Dr would have tried to turn Harry and I would have tried to have him naturally. I thank God that we found out where the cord was and decided that having a c/s was our only option.
This debate has allowed a lot of us to express our opinions and allowed those opinions to be discussed, responded to and debated. I think this has shown that women who have babies via c/s have every right to be proud of that and we shouldn't be degraded or put down for our decisions.
I hope all the pregnant women who have been reading this thread and/or participating have wonderful Dr's who inform them of everything that is happening to their bodies and babies and if not then this thread has shown you that you can ask questions. Belly rubs to all of you.
I would just like to add that I had said that I wouldnt have a 'c/s done no matter what, I was terrified of having a spinal, but after 8 hours of labour the m/w hooked me up to a moniter to check the babies heart rate and each time I had a contraction my babies heart beat was slowing and so my doctor said that something was wrong, tried to break my waters, couldnt do that so they rushed me in to theatre to have an emergency c/s. As it turned out my baby had the cord around her neck twice and if I had tried a natural birth she may have chocked and died so I am so pleased that I went with what the doctors advised. I trust the doctors and m/w, it is there job, they deliver babies everyday!
I dont feel cheated, maybe next time I will get to have a natural birth if not, I dont care as long as my baby is healthy and alive!
Good luck to anyone who is due to have a baby. Whatever happens be it V or C, devour the experience, it is the birth of your child
I agree as well that it is wonderful that we can have this debate and I hope that you don't mind too much Kristy as this is your thread.
I don't think anyone has been rude or insulting to anyone else but I do think that some comments have been made and it is appropriate that others have the opportunity to respond. That is what a forum is all about.
I think I kind of finally understand where Angel is coming from. Your problem is not with c/s or women who choose a c/s as a birthing option but with Doctors that push c/s without good medical grounds or for their convenience. However, I do think that you would have a lot more support for birth reform with a less heavy handed and condemning approach (even though I don't think you intended this Angel). Rather than quoting scary statistics and studies that are probably pretty meaningless to the masses, why not give us a checklist of questions we can ask our doctor if a c/s is suggested. Better still why don't you start a new thread on birth reform so you can tell us exactly what it means and explore it in more detail. I would have thought that there would be significant support by Governments to reduce the number of c/s especially in public hospitals even if it was solely on a cost basis.
With respect to ultrasounds I totally agree with you Rach but I can also understand where Angel is coming from. With baby 2, a soft marker for downs syndrome was found which increased my odds for downs. I opted not to have an amnio as the odds for miscarriage were greater than Downs. So I stressed greatly about the possibility of Downs, fortunately my baby was fine. So while the ultrasound finding caused great uneccesary anxiety it allowed me to be mentally prepared and well versed on downs and this particular marker. I would rather know about something like this before giving birth otherwise the shock would be too great. But I did discover through this that the technology is outpacing the science and they are seeing things they don't really understand as there hasn't been a great deal of research undertaken on these markers.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.