What to do if meconium is present... - Page 2

[physmom]

We had planned a natural hospital with DD  so it's not a UC but we did have meconium present.  We really, really wanted a natural birth with her but shortly before I had birth with DD I had one friend whose baby died of meconium aspiration at birth and another who died right before her giving birth for unknown reasons so that weighed heavily in my mind. 

I went into labor and had light meconium that got heavier as the day progressed and my body was not kicking into labor naturally.  DD's heartbeat was not always stable either during some of the contractions so we ended up getting pitocin that eventually ended up in an epidural that didn't work .  Even then it took a long time to get labor really going and way too much pitocin.  In the end DD came out completely healthy after 1.5-2 hours of pushing and 24 hours of labor.  She was slightly jaundice but she was better quickly after lots of nursing and we both had high temperatures (I think mine was 104F). 

I don't regret the pitocin (although the epidural I do for obvious reasons).  We're hoping for a homebirth for #2 but in the same situation (no progression and meconium present with a dropping heartbeat) I'd return to the hospital.  For me it was about the peace of mind that there would be qualified care givers there in the worse case scenario. 

[ElizabethE]

I think what's more insulting than me instilling confidence in the moms here that they will more than likely recognize signs of distress in their baby is the constant pushing of the belief here that our ignorance in birth is providing us with false confidence and superiority (per your wikipedia link).

We have some major philosophical differences here, and yet you continue to try to boil it down to UCers being largely ignorant. It's more like a difference in where we put our faith. You choose doctors. We choose ourselves. All have facts to back it up. I'll dispute your "facts", you'll dispute mine. This is a losing battle. In fact, it shouldn't even be a battle; this is a community to discuss UC, not to debate the core beliefs it stands upon.

To get more or less back to the subject of meconium, I am not and no one else here is pretending that any reasonably attentive mother will notice the signs. I am simply stating that as a fact. Meconium is not "the silent killer". Look at your baby. Does something seem not right? Listen to your intuition. Is it nagging you to get this checked out? Congratulations, you're a mom. You want to make women here fear that they'll miss something, and that's extremely alarmist and I think that notion is highly questionable at best.

If you find it insulting that it appears to you I am suggesting that missing these signs is somehow negligent or ignorant of a mother, that can't be helped. My comments were positive affirmations and not judgments upon those who could or would not make the appropriate calls. Hey, maybe you do belong in the hospital. Maybe you know your limits and feel you personally are not capable of trusting birth or knowing when to throw in the towel and go to the hospital. Don't project your insecurities onto others. I do have faith that most of us can, and will, recognize if a baby is in trouble due to meconium. Are there people who are too nervous or too unaware? Yes, but they are the minority and God willing will continue to be, and to dwindle, as more of us out there are informing and empowering women and pointing them the way back to their intuitive knowledge. And I will not resort to scare tactics to discourage women that they are ignorant and incapable of spotting a problem with their newborn. I believe in women. I also believe in common sense and most of this scaring people is total foolishness.

You said our intuition is not a panacea. Believe it or not, neither is seeing a doctor.

Our fundamental difference is that you think doctors are better at birth than we are. End of story. We've established that. Let's move on.

[sunshinemoma]

Originally Posted by ElizabethE 

You said our intuition is not a panacea. Believe it or not, neither is seeing a doctor.

amen.  

[savithny]

Originally Posted by ElizabethE 

I think what's more insulting than me instilling confidence in the moms here that they will more than likely recognize signs of distress in their baby is the constant pushing of the belief here that our ignorance in birth is providing us with false confidence and superiority (per your wikipedia link).

We have some major philosophical differences here, and yet you continue to try to boil it down to UCers being largely ignorant. It's more like a difference in where we put our faith. You choose doctors. We choose ourselves. All have facts to back it up. I'll dispute your "facts", you'll dispute mine. This is a losing battle. In fact, it shouldn't even be a battle; this is a community to discuss UC, not to debate the core beliefs it stands upon.

To get more or less back to the subject of meconium, I am not and no one else here is pretending that any reasonably attentive mother will notice the signs. I am simply stating that as a fact. Meconium is not "the silent killer". Look at your baby. Does something seem not right? Listen to your intuition. Is it nagging you to get this checked out? Congratulations, you're a mom. You want to make women here fear that they'll miss something, and that's extremely alarmist and I think that notion is highly questionable at best.

If you find it insulting that it appears to you I am suggesting that missing these signs is somehow negligent or ignorant of a mother, that can't be helped. My comments were positive affirmations and not judgments upon those who could or would not make the appropriate calls. Hey, maybe you do belong in the hospital. Maybe you know your limits and feel you personally are not capable of trusting birth or knowing when to throw in the towel and go to the hospital. Don't project your insecurities onto others. I do have faith that most of us can, and will, recognize if a baby is in trouble due to meconium. Are there people who are too nervous or too unaware? Yes, but they are the minority and God willing will continue to be, and to dwindle, as more of us out there are informing and empowering women and pointing them the way back to their intuitive knowledge. And I will not resort to scare tactics to discourage women that they are ignorant and incapable of spotting a problem with their newborn. I believe in women. I also believe in common sense and most of this scaring people is total foolishness.

You said our intuition is not a panacea. Believe it or not, neither is seeing a doctor.

Our fundamental difference is that you think doctors are better at birth than we are. End of story. We've established that. Let's move on.

Actually, no.  I said I think that people with experience with multiple newborns are better at recognizing the signs of respiratory distress in a newborn.   That's different from "Doctors are better at birth."

You can wishfully say that intuition is a substitute for experience all you want, but it's not true.  I'm not arguing that no one should homebirth, or even that no one should UC.  I'm saying that your confident assertion of the "signs" of respiratory distress that a UCer should look for was inaccurate and misleading.   The signs you listed are late-stage signs of a baby that is already in serious distress.  

I believe in common sense too.  I believe it is common sense that when I was holding my first baby in my arms, I probably did not know the early signs of newborn respiratory distress, and wouldn't have recognized them if they hit me in the face.   This was after a rapid, unmedicated, un-interfered with birth (with a CNM) in which I experienced an immediate, overwhelming rush of bonding hormones.  I was exhilarated.  I spent the next DAY just staring at my newborn, watching him twitch, watching him breathe.   And I know that I would not have recognized grunting or retraction as signs of respiratory distress.  Really.

Deliver where and when and with whom you please -- but don't go into it with inflated ideas of what your personal experiences and knowledge bring to the process.   Your advice, taken seriously by a novice, could get a baby killed.   I"m not telling that same novice "You must go to the doctor."  I'm telling that same novice "The signs are MUCH harder to read than Elizabeth would have you believe."

[turnquia]

Originally Posted by savithny 

Actually, no.  I said I think that people with experience with multiple newborns are better at recognizing the signs of respiratory distress in a newborn.   That's different from "Doctors are better at birth."

You can wishfully say that intuition is a substitute for experience all you want, but it's not true.  I'm not arguing that no one should homebirth, or even that no one should UC.  I'm saying that your confident assertion of the "signs" of respiratory distress that a UCer should look for was inaccurate and misleading.   The signs you listed are late-stage signs of a baby that is already in serious distress.  

I believe in common sense too.  I believe it is common sense that when I was holding my first baby in my arms, I probably did not know the early signs of newborn respiratory distress, and wouldn't have recognized them if they hit me in the face.   This was after a rapid, unmedicated, un-interfered with birth (with a CNM) in which I experienced an immediate, overwhelming rush of bonding hormones.  I was exhilarated.  I spent the next DAY just staring at my newborn, watching him twitch, watching him breathe.   And I know that I would not have recognized grunting or retraction as signs of respiratory distress.  Really.

Deliver where and when and with whom you please -- but don't go into it with inflated ideas of what your personal experiences and knowledge bring to the process.   Your advice, taken seriously by a novice, could get a baby killed.   I"m not telling that same novice "You must go to the doctor."  I'm telling that same novice "The signs are MUCH harder to read than Elizabeth would have you believe."

Very well said Savinthy. 

[leahsmama]

Originally Posted by ElizabethE 

To get more or less back to the subject of meconium, I am not and no one else here is pretending that any reasonably attentive mother will notice the signs. I am simply stating that as a fact. Meconium is not "the silent killer". Look at your baby. Does something seem not right? Listen to your intuition. Is it nagging you to get this checked out? Congratulations, you're a mom.

Elizabeth, I think by saying:
 

MAS can be dangerous but any attentive mother will see the signs of a problem in her baby.

you are saying that any mother who missing the signs of respiratory distress is inattentive. Whether this was your intention or not, that is how it comes off. All my self and savithny are saying is that not everyone will spot a problem with their new baby and it does not mean they an inattentive mother, just that they do not have the experience necessary to spot all the potential problems a newborn could be experiencing. The purpose of having a skilled attendant, be that in a hospital or at home, is that they have seen many, many babies to compare your baby to.

Originally Posted by savithny 

Actually, no.  I said I think that people with experience with multiple newborns are better at recognizing the signs of respiratory distress in a newborn.   That's different from "Doctors are better at birth."

You can wishfully say that intuition is a substitute for experience all you want, but it's not true.  I'm not arguing that no one should homebirth, or even that no one should UC.  I'm saying that your confident assertion of the "signs" of respiratory distress that a UCer should look for was inaccurate and misleading.   The signs you listed are late-stage signs of a baby that is already in serious distress.  

I believe in common sense too.  I believe it is common sense that when I was holding my first baby in my arms, I probably did not know the early signs of newborn respiratory distress, and wouldn't have recognized them if they hit me in the face.   This was after a rapid, unmedicated, un-interfered with birth (with a CNM) in which I experienced an immediate, overwhelming rush of bonding hormones.  I was exhilarated.  I spent the next DAY just staring at my newborn, watching him twitch, watching him breathe.   And I know that I would not have recognized grunting or retraction as signs of respiratory distress.  Really.

Deliver where and when and with whom you please -- but don't go into it with inflated ideas of what your personal experiences and knowledge bring to the process.   Your advice, taken seriously by a novice, could get a baby killed.   I"m not telling that same novice "You must go to the doctor."  I'm telling that same novice "The signs are MUCH harder to read than Elizabeth would have you believe."

Again, I totally agree with you savithny. I also had an uncomplicated, unmedicated birth and felt wonderful physically. Add to that my experience as an NICU nurse and I STILL wanted an unbiased eye to assess my baby. 

[sunshinemoma]

Mariamamaof5- I'm sorry I don't have personal experience specific to meconium.  But I was wondering if you have come up with a game plan in regards to it?  

[ElizabethE]

Originally Posted by savithny 

Actually, no.  I said I think that people with experience with multiple newborns are better at recognizing the signs of respiratory distress in a newborn.   That's different from "Doctors are better at birth." That alone is perhaps true. And there are women here who have experience with multiple newborns. I don't think it should be a prerequisite to UC, though.

You can wishfully say that intuition is a substitute for experience all you want, but it's not true. That's not quite what I'm saying, either. In fact, I think experience and intuition can walk hand in hand. What I am saying is that intuition deserves a lot more credit than it receives in today's age. What I am also saying is that "intuition" is sometimes just another name for "common sense", and I encourage strongly for women to trust and listen to theirs.  I'm not arguing that no one should homebirth, or even that no one should UC. I am arguing that if everybody took the approach to birth with the fear that you and several people who happen to support your view are, that UC would and should be completely off the table. Yes, if all of this was something to get panicked about, it should most certainly be in the hospital! However... I recognize that that's not the honest-to-god nature of birth, and luckily the other UCing women here recognize that, as well.  I'm saying that your confident assertion of the "signs" of respiratory distress that a UCer should look for was inaccurate and misleading.  Inaccurate? I don't recall saying anything untrue. Misleading? In the sense that you feel I am assigning false hope to the task of birthing a baby and assessing its risks yourself? I don't want women to worry. I want them to be prepared and feel prepared, because panic in birth-- be it in a hospital OR at home-- solves nothing and only causes distress. A calm woman in a home birth is more likely to understand what is happening to herself and her baby and approach the situation accordingly.  The signs you listed are late-stage signs of a baby that is already in serious distress.  I listed a few signs. I didn't write a dissertation on the stages and many symptoms of MAS. If someone wants a detailed report, I highly encourage them to do further research for themselves.

I believe in common sense too.  I believe it is common sense that when I was holding my first baby in my arms, I probably did not know the early signs of newborn respiratory distress, and wouldn't have recognized them if they hit me in the face.  I think it's sad if you honestly believe that.  This was after a rapid, unmedicated, un-interfered with birth (with a CNM paradox-- sorry. :) ) in which I experienced an immediate, overwhelming rush of bonding hormones.  I was exhilarated.  I spent the next DAY just staring at my newborn, watching him twitch, watching him breathe.   And I know that I would not have recognized grunting or retraction as signs of respiratory distress.  Really.  Either you are selling yourself short or you are calling yourself dumb.

Deliver where and when and with whom you please -- but don't go into it with inflated ideas of what your personal experiences and knowledge bring to the process. Without the necessary confidence to UC, UCing would not be safe.   Your advice, taken seriously by a novice, could get a baby killed. My opinions, if listened to and understood, could save babies and mothers.  I"m not telling that same novice "You must go to the doctor." In essence you are, though. Because you are telling them they don't know jack compared to a doctor, and to be very afraid that MAS could creep in and suddenly take their baby away and they'd be none the wiser. If they actually believe you, where do you think these novices will end up? I'm telling that same novice "The signs are MUCH harder to read than Elizabeth would have you believe."

Well, I disagree, but again this is a good point in the convo to encourage women to please do their own research on the warning signs of distress. If nothing else, do it to be informed and ease your minds about this.

[Katie8681]

Hi, I wanted to offer this site as a resource of a large sampling of healthy and unhealthy newborns: http://newborns.stanford.edu/PhotoGallery/ .  It shows just how subtle the difference can be, and how huge the "normal" spectrum really is.  When I look at it, I see just how difficult it can be sometimes to make an error on either side of the problem/no problem decision.  

[ElizabethE]

Thanks for your addition, Katie. I didn't find anything to indicate what you are saying, but I did find the site to be generally helpful and informative in some regards. Interestingly enough, I found it slightly supportive of some of my own beliefs about how medicine views newborns. Some of their generalizations were alarmist. But again, consider the source. Hey, they are running a business, after all. And they don't get paid if we don't trust them over us, so...

I would also like to add that numerous afflictions may ail babies of any age. Don't think after those usual few days in-hospital and you've signed those release forms that you're home free. Your baby could be six months old and come down with something suddenly, yet the signs could be too subtle for you to notice and you *may* not make it to the doctor in time. Just saying.

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by Katie8681 

Hi, I wanted to offer this site as a resource of a large sampling of healthy and unhealthy newborns: http://newborns.stanford.edu/PhotoGallery/ .  It shows just how subtle the difference can be, and how huge the "normal" spectrum really is.  When I look at it, I see just how difficult it can be sometimes to make an error on either side of the problem/no problem decision. 

Very interesting website thank you! I'm not even planning on having another LO anytime soon but it was still interesting to see the huge variation of what normal can be and the also the huge and subtle variations of what NOT normal is can be like.

Originally Posted by ElizabethE 

Thanks for your addition, Katie. I didn't find anything to indicate what you are saying, but I did find the site to be generally helpful and informative in some regards. Interestingly enough, I found it slightly supportive of some of my own beliefs about how medicine views newborns. Some of their generalizations were alarmist. But again, consider the source. Hey, they are running a business, after all. And they don't get paid if we don't trust them over us, so...

I would also like to add that numerous afflictions may ail babies of any age. Don't think after those usual few days in-hospital and you've signed those release forms that you're home free. Your baby could be six months old and come down with something suddenly, yet the signs could be too subtle for you to notice and you *may* not make it to the doctor in time. Just saying.

I found the website she linked to be pretty much what she described it as. Actually very interesting and informative.

Being contrary just because you think that birth is so sacred intuition trumps everything, including the reality that noticing signs of trouble in a newborn can be incredibly challenging even for professionals, doesn't make you right it just makes you look like you aren't open to reason...dogmatic as well.
 

[ElizabethE]

Originally Posted by Ldavis24 

Very interesting website thank you! I'm not even planning on having another LO anytime soon but it was still interesting to see the huge variation of what normal can be and the also the huge and subtle variations of what NOT normal is can be like.

I found the website she linked to be pretty much what she described it as. Actually very interesting and informative.

Being contrary just because you think that birth is so sacred intuition trumps everything, including the reality that noticing signs of trouble in a newborn can be incredibly challenging even for professionals, doesn't make you right it just makes you look like you aren't open to reason...dogmatic as well.
 

I don't recall saying anything at all that would indicate such things of me. Why are you jumping to such conclusions?

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by ElizabethE 

Thanks for your addition, Katie. I didn't find anything to indicate what you are saying, but I did find the site to be generally helpful and informative in some regards. Interestingly enough, I found it slightly supportive of some of my own beliefs about how medicine views newborns. Some of their generalizations were alarmist. But again, consider the source. Hey, they are running a business, after all. And they don't get paid if we don't trust them over us, so...Jumping to conclusions is for people who have no basis for what they are saying, but you provided the basis for my comment by the bolded...You found the link she provided to NOT be a helpful tool to recognize that the variation of normal is VAST and the variation of not normal is VAST and BOTH are subtle much of the time... You also dismiss any medical information as people running a business when what Katie linked to were simply EXAMPLES of actual medical conditions and variations of normal in a newborn...Truly out for the money they are with that, providing it freely so that educated mamas can educate themselves further

I would also like to add that numerous afflictions may ail babies of any age. Don't think after those usual few days in-hospital and you've signed those release forms that you're home free. Your baby could be six months old and come down with something suddenly, yet the signs could be too subtle for you to notice and you *may* not make it to the doctor in time. Just saying. You are right about this but it doesn't prove any point other than babies get sick at any age, it has nothing to do at all with being able to recognize subtle symptoms that are a precursor to some kind of distress or condition. "Just saying" is generally a phrase used by those who don't want to acknowledge that the point they are trying to make is actually pointless in relation to the topic at hand...For example, "I would also like to add the not only do babies of all age get sick but so do adults of all age!...Just saying"...

See what I mean?

I find it amusing you are so befuddled by the conclusions I've "jumped" too. Dogmatic....yes. You are of course, welcome to disagree as much as you like...

[ElizabethE]

You've pointed out where I've disagreed with the effectiveness of her link, but that doesn't support what you said about me.

Naturally I am skeptical of the medical importance behind birth, or I wouldn't be an advocate of UC... that's to be expected, isn't it?

In terms of being skeptical based on "the business of being born", I just think that people will do what is most profitable more often than not, and since birth is the number one reason to be in the hospital in this country, doesn't it only make sense that women are discouraged by that establishment from home birthing? I'm just saying. They aren't in the business of making women feel particularly competent. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, and I think even hospital birthers could agree with this basic principle. It's a business. They don't stay in business when we all know when they are not needed. They profit better if we stay fearful and doubtful of ourselves as birthing women and as new mothers of newborns.

My point about babies of all ages getting sick illustrates how we could all be panicked all our lives. In fact, why don't we live in hospitals? We should. That way the docs would always be right there just in case anything happened. <-- Because that is the logic that people use for favoring hospitals over "dangerous" and "selfish" choices such as homebirth or UC. It is the same logic we are attempting and heading to on this subtopic, meconium (hey look, I tied in the original subject again!). I'm showing you how that logic is faulty. And here I am spelling it out for you. And this is a smiley face --> Oh look, a bird! Sorry, they don't have an emoticon for that.

Trying to correct me on "just saying" is a total red herring. Just sayin...

Thanks mum! Got any mo'?

[Ldavis24]

You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, like I said I still think you're opinion on this particular topic is dogmatic.

[ElizabethE]

While I am very opinionated and outspoken, I don't state things as facts unless they actually are. I never claim things are just because of some zany belief of have. Everything I say if founded on things worthy of consideration.

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by ElizabethE 

While I am very opinionated and outspoken, I don't state things as facts unless they actually are. I never claim things are just because of some zany belief of have. Everything I say if founded on things worthy of consideration.

You are of course entitled to your opinion that your posts come across that way, and that you believe you are stating facts. 

Opinionated and outspoken are one thing, like I said my opinion stands that your posts are dogmatic without regard for the merit of other posts because it would threaten your beliefs...That is of course just my opinion and you are free to disagree. 

[Devaskyla]

edited

Edited by Devaskyla - 7/6/11 at 5:07pm

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by Devaskyla 

I notice that despite bolding it, savithny clearly didn't actually read what Elizabeth posted. If she had, she would have noticed that the part she bolded explicitly states "An infant who has an advanced degree of respiratory distress may exhibit additional signs, such 
as cyanosis, gasping, choking, apnea, and stridor."

Notice the word ADVANCED in there? That she then berated Elizabeth for not mentioning? And everyone is praising her for pointing out how dumb UC'ers are because supposedly Elizabeth didn't realize those are advanced signs despite the fact she put it in her post and sayithny then bolded it?

Sure seems to me like the anti-UC'ers are just grasping at things to make UC'ers look like they're idiots and in the process are ignoring basic reading comprehension skills.

You might want to go back and reread, because the quotation including the word "advanced" is not from Elizabeth's post.  It's from another source, and it's not something that Elizabeth included in her post.  Or at least that's how I read it...but I will freely acknowledge that my reading comprehension skills are far from perfect.  :)

[Rejoicing]

Just wanted to remind, meconium is not always a sign something is wrong.  It is "normal" in a breech positioning.