or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Unassisted Childbirth › Wondering About Multiples
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wondering About Multiples - Page 3  

Poll Results: After reading my post, do you think I could be pregnant with multiples?

 
  • 66% (12)
    No, unless you prove it with an ultrasound
  • 16% (3)
    Possibly Twins
  • 11% (2)
    Possibly Triplets
  • 5% (1)
    Possibly Quads (just to set the husbands mind at ease - I'm not expecting you to vote in this column, but just so you coud give your honest opinion its's here!)
18 Total Votes  
post #41 of 103
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

TTTS  is serious. Have multiples of any order is not a low risk. Eating healthy and having good thoughts will not compensate for complications of this sort..

 

Yes, one should weigh risks and benefits but US is very low risk procedure compared to others. US does not increase risk of cancer like CT>

 

You are getting advice from books and lay people on the Internet.  May be they are right , maybe not. Why not go and see an expert?

 

No one will force you to do any procedures. Have a consult. Discuss risks and options. Get a second opinion if you wish. Then see what you want to do. If you decide to do nothings, at least you will ready emotionally for what may come.

 

Intuition is wonder full thing but ti is often wrong. I bought many lottery tickets on that "feeling". Hmm. I am still working 9-5.

 

 

TTTS would be rare in my case. Imagine the chances of triplets, then imagine the chances of TTTS in a triplet pregnancy on top of that. Those are two extra layers of statistics I would have to cross. That's a risk of like 0.0005% or something silly like that. Compared to the stress and the bullshit and the truly unknown risks. I don't need to go to a medical person to sell me fear on such slim chances. And U/S is not only unproven, but has been caught on many occasions falsely diagnosing things like club foot, miscarriage, missing a triplet or other high order multiple, even a twin... being wrong about baby weight by up to 2 pounds of variation... etc.

post #42 of 103
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnra View Post

Why wouldn't TTTS occur in healthy mothers and babies?  I fail to see why TTTS would be so exclusive as to not affect a mother or babies who live healthy lifestyles.  


Well, I see it like this, "the curse causeless shall not come." In other words, for every event there is a cause. That cause may be out of the mother's control but there is still a cause. What but a biological/nutritional malfunction, (sometimes related to environmental toxins) could cause biogenisis to break down? Tons of abnormalities have already been linked to dietary or nutritional imbalances.  Miscarriage, for example is increased in women with low CQ10 levels, which is often brought about as they age (people say because they age, I don't buy that, and there are certainly dietary remedies at hand.)

 

The mainstream explanation of preterm birth includes the theory of a distended uterus (the silly "fishbowl effect" theory) from the number of babies. It's a great example of just one more unproven medical theory they expect us to buy, rather than the theory that maternal nutrition failed to be sufficient to build an adequate blood supply during the early critical weeks. Deficiencies in vitamin A, for another example, have been found in pregnant women taking the recommended daily allowance at an extremely high rate - I read a study where it was 70 or 80% were showing deficiencies at that level of consumption, going from memory. You need the vitamin A to build your blood, along with other things. And pregnant multiple moms aren't told this, despite their much higher needs. It's a matter of connecting the dots for a lot of this stuff. I'm sure if I took the time I could explain myself better but I'm kinda rushing this post.

 

Please also understand that I never implied that chronic TTTS  was anything but risky. But it is also very rare. Rare enough to warrant a debate about the risk vs benefit concerning diagnosis. We also need to discuss the risk vs benefit of treating TTTS when it comes to high order multiples where other babies could be lost who are not at risk from the syndrome. Doctors reduce, but fight nature's method for reduction. Something seems wrong to me about that. Especially when the treatments are so risky as to cause harm or premature birth to unaffected surviving babies who would otherwise gestate safely and peacefully if left alone.

post #43 of 103

I don't usually post here, but I couldn't help reply after reading your post and all of your concerns. 

 

You mentioned that God provides for and protects you and your family, but perhaps God may also stretch the limits of your humility by placing you in a situation in which you need to get outside help.  Get the information you need about your marvelous babies - What type of multiples are they?  How is their health?  How is your body dealing with the extra baby(s)?  Then make an informed decision about the best way to birth your babies.

 

That's what I think, anyway.  You are in my thoughts. 

post #44 of 103
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovey View Post

I don't usually post here, but I couldn't help reply after reading your post and all of your concerns. 

 

You mentioned that God provides for and protects you and your family, but perhaps God may also stretch the limits of your humility by placing you in a situation in which you need to get outside help.  Get the information you need about your marvelous babies - What type of multiples are they?  How is their health?  How is your body dealing with the extra baby(s)?  Then make an informed decision about the best way to birth your babies.

 

That's what I think, anyway.  You are in my thoughts. 


Thank you. I am doing everything I can consider reasonable compromise within my particular risk profile, including using a doppler, something I balked at for the past 5 pregnancies. But I've got to draw the line somewhere I and I'll do it at the little extra technology and midwifery textbooks, which can certainly run a pretty penny but are very informative and reassuring. I can tell things at this point like where the babies are, can ballot heads of a certain gestational size, locate other parts, etc. My midwife was a good woman who personally taught me MUCH and basically lent me her entire library at one point or another over 3 pregnancies, including lots of mothering magazines. ;-) And I've built my own library, too. I've spent countless hours talking to other moms and midwives, and scouring the internet as well, including the scholar section a lot. I have a medical vocabulary to fit my pursuit.

 

One could arguably say this is an extreme sport or something. It is a big commitment on my part to know what I'm about. I only want the best for my family.

post #45 of 103
Thread Starter 

Dovey,  I think it's a bit outside the forum boundaries to promote stepping away from UP/UC choices. It's also outside the scope of the thread topic, which was more about whether or not you think there could be multiples, not whether or not I should start mixing in medical care. 

 

The whole point of UP/UC is to choose to go outside that path and take charge of your own care to the extent you feel safe doing so. It's not wrong to have assisted pregnancies and births, it's just not the UP/UC pathway, which is not under scrutiny here. 

 

And I do believe a woman should be able to UC the same as a mother of multiples without being discriminated as too risky automatically to go with the more natural intuition oriented angle. I don't think it's wrong for a UC mom to say she wouldn't do it under those circumstances, but I don't think it's correct form for UC/UP moms to discourage it, either, not on this forum, anyway.

 

Statistically speaking the odds are heavily in my favor anyway VS detriment to the whole family starting from the moment of medical involvement.

post #46 of 103

What odds are in your favor? The odds of UCing and getting three healthy triplets? Because that has happened before ... never? Once ever? You said so yourself upthread.

 

This thread is the most horrifying thing I've read on MDC in a long time. I am so worried about your babies. Triplets are HIGH RISK. God may have granted you a triplet pregnancy. He also invented OB/GYNs, MFM specialists, and ultrasounds. To me these babies would deserve the best chance at life that they can get, and that's not going to be accomplished without medical care.

post #47 of 103

To the original poster - I am not sure what midwifery journals you are reading, but I can imagine any that would discuss TTTS treatment to any great detail.  It is not even something that is treated by general obstetricians.  In fact, in Canada, there are less than a handful of physicians who can treat the condition.

 

I don't really care what you do, because ultimately this is your choice.  However, if you are in fact carrying twins or triplets, I pray that they will not suffer for your decisions.  I understand that this is a UC/UP board, but in all fairness you have brought up the topic of TTTS, not with the most clear or accurate information.

 

However, for anyone else who comes across this board, I think some information should be clarified.

 

TTTS - Twin to Twin transfusion syndrome.  It is an abnormality of the placenta in twins who are monochorionic/diamniotic.  The placenta is made up of many small functional segments called cotelydons.  Each is supplied by one artery and one vein.  The artery takes blood pumped from the heart to the placenta to be oxygenated and to receive nutrients and the vein returns to to the baby.  In Mono/di twin pregnancies, the cotelydons are not always shared equally.  The placenta develops its structure first, then connects the blood vessels.  As a result, one baby may have more than its fair share of cotelydons.  This risk is greater when one cord attaches to the middle of the placenta and one attaches to the edge.  This can result in differences in growth related to the proportion of placenta supplying each baby.

 

The blood vessel may develop connections between the babies, almost invariably with mono/di twins.  There are three types of connections.  Artery-artery which are the less common and may affect ultrasound assessments of the umbilical cord.  They do not seem to be protective or harmful.  Vein-vein connections are low pressure connections that allow blood flow in either direction.  They can be like a release valve if one baby gets too much fluid.  However, they can be collapsed with excessive fluid (polyhydramnios), thereby worsening the condition once it starts to develop.  The final connections are the artery-vein connections.  It is not a direction connection persay, but rather one baby pumps blood to a particular cotelydon, the blood enters the microscopic vessels there to drain into the vein, but that vein drains to the other baby.  This is a one way system - blood only flows one direction.  If these A-V connections are minimal or balanced, or there are enough V-V connections to allow the return of blood, TTTS will not occur.  However, in 15% of mono/di twins, these blood vessels cause an imbalance and there is a donor twin that is constantly sending more blood to the recipient twins.  This is TTTS.

 

The blood vessels are abnormal from the very beginning, and if it is going to occur, its from early on the problem has existed.  We watch all mono/di twins closely, because without intervention, it is often lethal.  For triplets with a mono/di twin set, the same is true, because the recipient twin will develop polyhydramnios and likely cause preterm labour and without treatment, all will likely be lost, whereas with treatment there is still a risk, but not nearly as great.  We look for fluid difference between the babies, and this can be present as early at 10 weeks.  In the first trimester, the babies don't enough to actually make of the fluid, but sometimes they have more fluid in their bodies, so the nuchal translucency measurement can be very different between the two.  Starting at 16 weeks, ultrasound are done every two weeks, and more often if there is a difference in the fluid.  Once TTTS is diagnosed, the highly speciallized MFMs are involved in determining the optimal time for laser surgery.  Yes, this carries a risk, but less than that of not treating the condition.  In cases of triplets, they do wait until the TTTS is more severe to be sure that the treatment is the last option, but it is still done.  The surgery is safest under 24-26 weeks.

 

We can all argue why these vessel form connections like this, or whether there are maternal factors, but the fact is that this is a placental condition.  Therefore, the treatment is to destroy the harmful A-V connections without otherwise hurting the placenta.  This is done with a laser inserted into the uterus, and only a select few MFM's are qualified to do this (it actually requires extra training beyond fellowship).  After 24-26 weeks, surgery is often not done because of safety.   If the condition is worsen quickly, one can try to improve things by removing the extra fluid to re-open the V-V connections.  Later, delivery may be the best treatment.
 

However, this is all very specialized, and I seriously doubt it is included in midwifery text.  Furthermore, I respect your decision to care for you pregnancy however you wish, but I think it is not appropriate to suggest to others that you are making well informed choices.  You do not have enough accurate information to be doing that, so you are making you choices on faith, not fact.  (Again, your choice).

post #48 of 103
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

What odds are in your favor? The odds of UCing and getting three healthy triplets? Because that has happened before ... never? Once ever? You said so yourself upthread.

 

This thread is the most horrifying thing I've read on MDC in a long time. I am so worried about your babies. Triplets are HIGH RISK. God may have granted you a triplet pregnancy. He also invented OB/GYNs, MFM specialists, and ultrasounds. To me these babies would deserve the best chance at life that they can get, and that's not going to be accomplished without medical care.

 

Now you are actively breaking the UC forum rules, advocating intervention in the face of my "horrifying" choice. And I told you the reason I don't do U/S was to avoid stress! Like, this isn't potentially stressful to hear you talk like this?

 

But let's break it down again for you.

 

I'm spontaneously pregnant.

 

Off ALL such women in the USA only 234 of those will even have triplets, whether they wonder if they do (like me) or not! I'm practically asking if it's possible I won 5 million dollars this weekend with my ticket.

 

On top of winning that unlikely lottery, assuming I even do, we have a theoretical possibility that a dozen of those women this year will have TTTS in one pair of babies, leaving the other child unaffected, unless you start monkeying with the babies' home and possibly killing a healthy unaffected survivor or leaving it disabled for life in the attempt!

 

Now, sharing a blood vessel or two across placentas is not assurance of TTTS. Not at all. And there are two types, acute, which is not a big deal if you clamp the cords of the babies at birth who never had a problem just in case, and chronic, which doctors cannot explain the mechanism by which babies fail this way when others in the same position DON'T. Just like they can't explain their uterine "fishbowl" theory. They cannot explain why two healthy babies can share a placenta in one case, and in another the babies will die. So they want me to buy a mechanical failure theory, just TRUST them. Because obviously they can cure everything (not!)

 

In fact, some posters here would argue that I have not even been convincing that I even carry multiples. I could have been fooled and not even be bearing twins! If so, how much more unlikely that my U/S will do anything but frustrate and worry me that I risked my 1 baby's health over nothing!

 

And I never said I would refuse all treatments under all circumstances, but a debate about the potential pros and cons, in a safe nonjudgemental environment would be smart.

post #49 of 103
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz View Post

"Doctors reduce, but fight nature's method for reduction. Something seems wrong to me about that"

 

Okay -- everyone that has had any form of lifesaving medical intervention -- the OP thinks you should be dead.  Only the physically perfect deserve to live.

 

OP - I just hope this isn't a philosophy for everyone else and that you will abide by it for yourself when your time comes. 


Reduction is done to save the mother's life. Are you saying doctors are smarter than God, or that we should risk the life of a healthy unaffected baby to treat sick babies that doctors would have talked a person into reducing anyway if they could?'

 

Ever heard the saying "throw, row, but never go" ...?

 

If you don't have to endanger another life to treat someone within reason, that's different. We are talking about early treatments that can cast out other healthy high order multiples into a world where they can be brain damaged killed or otherwise harmed for life! It's not a joke to do that to tiny fetuses. And for all the "I beat the odds" through medical intervention stories, there will be the ones who lost it ALL in the same attempt.

 

Are you in the habit of promoting risking the health and safety of nonconsenting little people for the sake of other people? (like sending pregnant women and babies through backscatter radiation at the airports, maybe?)

post #50 of 103
Thread Starter 

 

 

 

The blood vessel may develop connections between the babies, almost invariably with mono/di twins.  There are three types of connections.  Artery-artery which are the less common and may affect ultrasound assessments of the umbilical cord.  They do not seem to be protective or harmful.  Vein-vein connections are low pressure connections that allow blood flow in either direction.  They can be like a release valve if one baby gets too much fluid.  However, they can be collapsed with excessive fluid (polyhydramnios), thereby worsening the condition once it starts to develop.  The final connections are the artery-vein connections.  It is not a direction connection persay, but rather one baby pumps blood to a particular cotelydon, the blood enters the microscopic vessels there to drain into the vein, but that vein drains to the other baby.  This is a one way system - blood only flows one direction.  If these A-V connections are minimal or balanced, or there are enough V-V connections to allow the return of blood, TTTS will not occur.  However, in 15% of mono/di twins, these blood vessels cause an imbalance and there is a donor twin that is constantly sending more blood to the recipient twins.  This is TTTS.

 

The blood vessels are abnormal from the very beginning, and if it is going to occur, its from early on the problem has existed.  We watch all mono/di twins closely, because without intervention, it is often lethal.  For triplets with a mono/di twin set, the same is true, because the recipient twin will develop polyhydramnios and likely cause preterm labour and without treatment, all will likely be lost, whereas with treatment there is still a risk, but not nearly as great.  We look for fluid difference between the babies, and this can be present as early at 10 weeks.  In the first trimester, the babies don't enough to actually make of the fluid, but sometimes they have more fluid in their bodies, so the nuchal translucency measurement can be very different between the two.  Starting at 16 weeks, ultrasound are done every two weeks, and more often if there is a difference in the fluid.  Once TTTS is diagnosed, the highly speciallized MFMs are involved in determining the optimal time for laser surgery.  Yes, this carries a risk, but less than that of not treating the condition.  In cases of triplets, they do wait until the TTTS is more severe to be sure that the treatment is the last option, but it is still done.  The surgery is safest under 24-26 weeks.

 

We can all argue why these vessel form connections like this, or whether there are maternal factors, but the fact is that this is a placental condition.  Therefore, the treatment is to destroy the harmful A-V connections without otherwise hurting the placenta.  This is done with a laser inserted into the uterus, and only a select few MFM's are qualified to do this (it actually requires extra training beyond fellowship).  After 24-26 weeks, surgery is often not done because of safety.   If the condition is worsen quickly, one can try to improve things by removing the extra fluid to re-open the V-V connections.  Later, delivery may be the best treatment.
 

However, this is all very specialized, and I seriously doubt it is included in midwifery text.  Furthermore, I respect your decision to care for you pregnancy however you wish, but I think it is not appropriate to suggest to others that you are making well informed choices.  You do not have enough accurate information to be doing that, so you are making you choices on faith, not fact.  (Again, your choice).

 

In the case of triplets.... that is the subject at hand.

 

You have failed to describe the mechanisms by which biogenesis failed. You can't gloss that over or the fact that I would need clear evidence of TTTS before I could even do anything, which is at least 4- 6 weeks away from now, at the least, assuming I had a problem where it was prudent to do something,

 

You also failed to explain the mechanism by which one fetus falls prey to polyhydramnios. Shouldn't efforts be spent addressing the cause before problems arise instead of just treating the symptoms? Isn't this like going for bypass surgery but not modifying the lifestyle?

 

They wait to treat TTTS because they are endangering other fetuses who are not involved, and that's a major issue for me. I don't want to do anything that would put the other baby at an increased risk.

 

And you can keep your judgments about me to yourself, but thanks for your informative post, anyway.


Edited by BlessedJess - 7/12/12 at 9:25am
post #51 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlessedJess View Post


Reduction is done to save the mother's life. Are you saying doctors are smarter than God, or that we should risk the life of a healthy unaffected baby to treat sick babies that doctors would have talked a person into reducing anyway if they could?'

Ever heard the saying "throw, row, but never go" ...?

If you don't have to endanger another life to treat someone within reason, that's different. We are talking about early treatments that can cast out other healthy high order multiples into a world where they can be brain damaged killed or otherwise harmed for life! It's not a joke to do that to tiny fetuses. And for all the "I beat the odds" through medical intervention stories, there will be the ones who lost it ALL in the same attempt.

Are you in the habit of promoting risking the health and safety of nonconsenting little people for the sake of other people? (like sending pregnant women and babies through backscatter radiation at the airports, maybe?)

I'd like to take a moment to point out that not everyone here believes that God is smarter than doctors. In fact, not everyone who advocates or participates in UC is a believer in god at all. And as far as you getting upset that people are trying to advocate you stepping away from UP/UC being against the board rules- The board protects people seeking answers/ support about unassisted childbirth. This is not a support only forum. No one here is proselytizing against UC, people are merely telling you that UPing (something that the forum guidelines do not protect) with triplets (or even twins) is a bad idea. As with any thread, if you think someone is breaking the user agreement by posting, you can report their post by clicking the little red flag at the bottom left of the post.

You asked for advice, but you have yet to take any of it seriously. It is looking more and more like you came here to argue and start a thread where you are the focus of attention and are getting a rise out of people. I suggest you start a poll to ask people what they think you what people think you should do. By far,Ill bet most people think you need to see prenatal care so that you know that it is safe for you to birth at home with no assistance. (Which, if you have no problems then I see no reason for you not to do.) You have made many obnoxious statements about how everything that goes wrong is because of a cause ( my son's death is absolute proof that not everything that happens has a cause.) , that women who are healthy have no birth problems (tell that to all the women in the PAL or TTC after loss forum. Id bet they would disagree with you.) The idea that you can rely only on intuition is just not smart. As PP said upthread, I've bought many a lottery ticket on intuition. Intuition is not always right. Its not always perfect. I have believed things and known things within my soul and been wrong about them.

I want to ask you if you are planning to change your mind, or take anyone's advice at all? If a new poll continues to say that you should only UC if you get an ultrasound, will you do that? Or are you just planning to follow your gut and not do anything that would make you feel morally obligated to change your plans? And do you believe there are triplets or twins?
post #52 of 103

I said I was going to stay out this, but you are giving false information again, so now I have to respond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlessedJess View Post

 

You also failed to explain the mechanism by which one fetus falls prey to polyhydramnios. Shouldn't efforts be spent addressing the cause before problems arise instead of just treating the symptoms? Isn't this like going for bypass surgery but not modifying the lifestyle?

 

They wait to treat TTTS because they are endangering other fetuses who are not involved, and that's a major issue for me. I don't want to do anything that would put the other baby at an increased risk.

First off, she did not fail to explain how the polyhydramnios developed.  She explained it in painstaking detail.  You simply did not understand it.  The a/v anastomoses are the mechanism by which the polyhydramnios develops.  One baby is shunting blood to the other one.  The baby that is the recipient has a higher blood pressure.   This makes their kidneys work harder.  The recipient baby pees more.  The donor baby pees less.  Eventually, the recipient baby ends up with more fluid because of this.

 

The mother having a "copious blood supply in the placenta", as you've mentioned a few times, doesn't eliminate the condition because no matter how much blood is in the placenta, one baby is sending its blood to the other.

 

Second, you have a complete misunderstanding of the treatment options for TTTS.  You've talked a few times about reduction, and implied that all of the treatment options for TTTS sacrifice one twin for the sake of the other (or in the case of triplets, involve the third baby).  That's simply not true:  there are a variety of treatment options for TTTS, and you appear to know about almost none of them.  On the one hand, that's understandable, because it's a fairly obscure condition. On the other hand, it's problematic because you keep talking about this as if you have expertise, and you don't.  So my response here isn't so much for you, as for any other mothers who might find themselves with mono-di twins who might read what you've written and thus be mislead by your incorrect statements.

 

The absolute simplest treatment for TTTS does not involve lasers, or puncturing the amniotic sac, or surgical reduction.  The simplest treatment (which is, of course, not guaranteed to work) is complete bed rest, coupled with a ludicrously high-protein diet, coupled with constant ultrasounds to measure the growth of the fetuses so that a c-section can be scheduled, if necessary to save their lives, at the point where cranial growth begins to slow down (thus indicating imminent placental failure).  What treatment regimen is appropriate for a TTTS mother is something that should be decided by that mother, in consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who can advise her as to her options.  No MFM specialist will force you to do anything against your will.  They will outline the options, and the risks, of each and every treatment option for you, and then you decide.  That's how it works.

 

One last word, which is about doctors.  A lot of people think we pay doctors because they can "fix" us.  My perspective is that what we actually pay doctors for is not so much their knowledge of medicine, but their knowledge of how to properly interpret statistics.  Statistics are hard.  Statistics are non-intuitive.  It's really easy to read a statistic and completely misinterpret it.  For example, just a few posts ago you said something like - I'm paraphrasing - "What are the chances that I have triplets and have TTTS?  Triplets are a tiny chance, and then TTTS is a tiny chance on top of that!"  That's a great example of misapplying statistics.  That logic might be appropriate for someone who just discovered their pregnancy, but you've already decided, via your intuition, that you have triplets.  So your chance of having triplets is now, if you believe your intuition, 100%.  Thinking that a past event somehow reduces the chance that your mono-di twins (if you have any) have TTTS is incorrect.

 

I have to admit that I am having a hard time taking you seriously, because the argument you're making about mothers whose placentas fail is so outrageously offensive.  It's the very definition of blaming the victim. I have to seriously wonder if you're not just looking to get a rise out of people.

post #53 of 103

Actually, OP, a double ovulation is not a guarantee that your babies (if there are more than one) are fraternal twins.  You could just as easily have ovulated twice, had one of those eggs not fertilized at all and the other egg split to form identical twins.  You don't know, and won't know, without a medical evaluation. 

post #54 of 103
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveneverfails View Post

Actually, OP, a double ovulation is not a guarantee that your babies (if there are more than one) are fraternal twins.  You could just as easily have ovulated twice, had one of those eggs not fertilized at all and the other egg split to form identical twins.  You don't know, and won't know, without a medical evaluation. 


Do we have a statistician who can calculate the odds for us, please?

 

It would have to be a very, very, very rare thing.

 

Somebody, show me the math!

 

How else can we asses risk vs benefit?

post #55 of 103
Thread Starter 

Sympathetic Dad,

 

"First off, she did not fail to explain how the polyhydramnios developed."

 

No, she explained the anatomy of it's appearance, not the cause. The cause is not random, it is the result of environmental factors influencing development, which may or may not be under the woman's control. The cause itself is debatable while the anatomy of development may not be.

 

"The a/v anastomoses are the mechanism by which the polyhydramnios develops."

 

Mechanisms are caused by something. You can have the same a/v without the imbalance developing. Let's not overlook this. She said so herself. What causes the imbalance becomes an issue of importance in this debate. (although it is off topic for the thread, since I feel like we are debating whether or not a meteor might strike my property while I'm living here)

 

"The mother having a "copious blood supply in the placenta", as you've mentioned a few times, doesn't eliminate the condition because no matter how much blood is in the placenta, one baby is sending its blood to the other."

 

What's your evidence? How do you know that one baby isn't experiencing maternal insufficiency? [this is not a blame-game on the mothers who are trying to carry babies to term the best they can!]  Are there studies out there investigating the role of maternal blood supply on the condition?

 

"One last word, which is about doctors.  A lot of people think we pay doctors because they can "fix" us.  My perspective is that what we actually pay doctors for is not so much their knowledge of medicine, but their knowledge of how to properly interpret statistics.  Statistics are hard.  Statistics are non-intuitive.  It's really easy to read a statistic and completely misinterpret it.  For example, just a few posts ago you said something like - I'm paraphrasing - "What are the chances that I have triplets and have TTTS?  Triplets are a tiny chance, and then TTTS is a tiny chance on top of that!"  That's a great example of misapplying statistics.  That logic might be appropriate for someone who just discovered their pregnancy, but you've already decided, via your intuition, that you have triplets.  So your chance of having triplets is now, if you believe your intuition, 100%.  Thinking that a past event somehow reduces the chance that your mono-di twins (if you have any) have TTTS is incorrect."

 

First of all, I am not assuming I have triplets. I am assuming I double ovulated and believe it is highly probable in my mind I have fraternal twins. I'm a small girl and it looks almost like triplets to me, I would love triplets and maybe my intuition points in that direction but the odds are far and away that I don't. AND if my intuition is correct, it is also even more probably correct that this pregnancy is normal. I would love it, but not assume it. So we still have to see me cross that barrier, statistically. Statistics are hard, but guess what? I'm up for the challenge. I've seen too many doctors abuse their use of statistics and put women at risk, women who then went on to lose their babies or their fertility during c-sections over lies or exaggerations of their true personal risks.

 

Triplets have to show severe TTTS and a later gestational age before doctors can reasonably intervene. And any intervention carries risks. I can wait for those signs.

 

"I have to admit that I am having a hard time taking you seriously, because the argument you're making about mothers whose placentas fail is so outrageously offensive.  It's the very definition of blaming the victim. I have to seriously wonder if you're not just looking to get a rise out of people."

 

This is your first real failure of discernment concerning me in this post. Before reading this paragraph I was having no problem with anything you said here, as far as your tone or intentions. I'm glad the miracle of intervention worked for you, and I'm delighted that people are investigating treatment plans. But we need to remember that all this technology is still in it's infancy. You are a pioneer in your own class.

 

My last baby was born prematurely at 37 weeks after 3 days of PROM, probably brought about by my chronic gingivitis. I do not blame myself, I blame the retarded books for pregnant moms that convinced me pink toothbrush was normal in pregnancy. Never again will I see gingivits the same! Gingivitis kills fetuses! It's a scientifically proven fact. It's not my fault I didn't know.

post #56 of 103

Closing for review due to reports received from various members. 

post #57 of 103

BuzzBuzz I have removed your post as it was highly offensive and adversarial. I am also issuing you a warning for such posting. You will receive that by PM. 

 

The rest of the discussion is viable and of value. I think most of the concern is for  the OP to have an accurate grasp of the risks for herself and her baby/babies, and expressing the value of an ultrasound in this specific situation. I am reopening the thread for continued discussion. 

post #58 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlessedJess View Post


Reduction is done to save the mother's life. Are you saying doctors are smarter than God, or that we should risk the life of a healthy unaffected baby to treat sick babies that doctors would have talked a person into reducing anyway if they could?'

 

Ever heard the saying "throw, row, but never go" ...?

 

If you don't have to endanger another life to treat someone within reason, that's different. We are talking about early treatments that can cast out other healthy high order multiples into a world where they can be brain damaged killed or otherwise harmed for life! It's not a joke to do that to tiny fetuses. And for all the "I beat the odds" through medical intervention stories, there will be the ones who lost it ALL in the same attempt.

 

Are you in the habit of promoting risking the health and safety of nonconsenting little people for the sake of other people? (like sending pregnant women and babies through backscatter radiation at the airports, maybe?)

No it's not. Reduction is done to improve the chances of a positive outcome. Regardless of my personal beliefs (I wouldn't have a termination or reduction) you can't bury your head in the sand.

 

This is a good article. Long but worth the read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501730.html

 

A triplet pregnancy carries a 15% chance of ending in complete loss either through miscarriage or stillbirth. Selective reduction from triplets to twins - even with the risk from the procedure itself - reduces the risk to 4%. So for all the reduction stories there are nearly four times as many who lost all. No matter how much you want to trust in God or how much misinformation you've read, the medical statistics can't be denied. And like I said, I wouldn't do selective reduction so I'm not coming from a pro-reduction point of view.

 

I've just watched a friend go through TTTS. One of their babies died a week after being born at 28 weeks, the other has been released from hospital now that it is 3 months old. The surviving twin has had 3 surgeries already.

 

You don't seem to understand how serious TTTS is.

post #59 of 103
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceomalley View Post

No it's not. Reduction is done to improve the chances of a positive outcome. Regardless of my personal beliefs (I wouldn't have a termination or reduction) you can't bury your head in the sand.

 

This is a good article. Long but worth the read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501730.html

 

A triplet pregnancy carries a 15% chance of ending in complete loss either through miscarriage or stillbirth. Selective reduction from triplets to twins - even with the risk from the procedure itself - reduces the risk to 4%. So for all the reduction stories there are nearly four times as many who lost all. No matter how much you want to trust in God or how much misinformation you've read, the medical statistics can't be denied. And like I said, I wouldn't do selective reduction so I'm not coming from a pro-reduction point of view.

 

I've just watched a friend go through TTTS. One of their babies died a week after being born at 28 weeks, the other has been released from hospital now that it is 3 months old. The surviving twin has had 3 surgeries already.

 

You don't seem to understand how serious TTTS is.


Forgive me, but maybe I was misinformed by the discovery channel but they present it like high order multiples (HOM) are a threat to the mother's life, as well as to the babies. Maybe they are wrong to portray it that way. What are the statistics for maternal mortality with HOM? Sure, they do it for the babies, too. But I've got some serious questions as the the point of early detection of TTTS unless we are talking about ID twins, which are much more common and studied. I do agree that it is serious.

 

However, treating it and even diagnosing it seems like a threat to the baby(s) who are not affected in HOM pregnancies. For example, in one treatment, you are doing very frequent U/S and inserting a needle into the uterus each time to extract amniotic fluid. That just smacks of risk to me... both in the long term, and the short term.

 

People keep bringing up faith. Whether you want to frame it as faith in God or the natural order, perhaps I do have faith, particularly as it pertains to natural conception. The way I see it, we've got a whole separate class of multiples with natural conception and I would rather see them studied separately, for one thing. I would also like to see an admission that we don't really know all there is to know yet. About a lot of things, but especially about HOM.

 

And again, we have the question of WHY some babies share blood supplies and don't develop symptoms that are life threatening while others fail under the same conditions. Could it be that they are only looking "skin deep" again? I don't hear talk of how the expanding maternal blood supply factors in. Or maternal weight gain (which would be a far less reliable marker but may offer more information about what is going on than if we ignored maternal health in the equation altogether.)

 

UC is all about swapping one set of risks for another. The last time I tried to rely on an OB for "expert" advice (my first AND last attempt) I was prescribed an abortificant containing tincture to treat a UTI (goldenseal) It was traumatic to lose that early pregnancy, as it was our surprise honeymoon baby, my very first pregnancy. I just had to have another baby after that, even though I hadn't been planning to start a family at 18. (we stayed on birth control but God overruled for my sake, I believe.) What really shocked me was that this doctor set me at ease with her seemingly woman-friendly ways. How she could turn around and betray my trust and then dismiss my grief with excuses, when all I needed and wanted was an apology was just adding insult to injury... I will never understand.

 

I've got to be 100% convinced that I need help to get help. You guys mean well but you haven't heard what I'm asking about. I was interested in preventing acute TTTS during birth by cord clamping and weighing the pros and cons of that.

 

I'm not prepared to think about chronic TTTS for myself until I see recognizable signs of polyhydramnios or oligohydramnios, which do present with symptoms outside of U/S. (see Ann Fry's Midwifery textbook for details, the latest edition)

post #60 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlessedJess View Post


UC is all about swapping one set of risks for another.


The last time I tried to rely on an OB for "expert" advice (my first AND last attempt) I was prescribed an abortificant containing tincture to treat a UTI (goldenseal) It was traumatic to lose that early pregnancy, as it was our surprise honeymoon baby, my very first pregnancy. I just had to have another baby after that, even though I hadn't been planning to start a family at 18. (we stayed on birth control but God overruled for my sake, I believe.) What really shocked me was that this doctor set me at ease with her seemingly woman-friendly ways. How she could turn around and betray my trust and then dismiss my grief with excuses, when all I needed and wanted was an apology was just adding insult to injury... I will never understand.

I've got to be 100% convinced that I need help to get help.

Whew, I'm glad we got those bolded things cleared up.


So, let me get this straight. You havent turned to a doctor for advice since you were 18? Probably the one time in your adult life you went to a doctor? And you had one crappy doctor, and now you are basing medical knowledge on Google and the discovery channel?
Just making sure I have all the facts right.

You still havent answered my question: do you believe that there are triplets or twins? Because when the statistics are shown to you in a way that is high risk for trips, you continue to say that its a low chance that you are even pg with twins. But when you argue, you keep saying triplets and higher order multiples like you do believe there are triplets in your body. Which is it?

PS. just want to state that there are moms who have gained 60+ lbs (eating healthy) and still have ttts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Unassisted Childbirth
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Unassisted Childbirth › Wondering About Multiples