or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › Homebirth and Triplets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Homebirth and Triplets - Page 4

post #61 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lucky One
(bolding mine)

Ah, really. Hmm, I've never seen support at MDC for those who choose elective c-sections. Double standard, I guess.
THen you've never seen me talk very much. I support all women in their choices. It's not just my role as a doula but who I am. If a woman has done her research, knows what she's doing, and still feels better having an elective c/s,then more power to her. Birthshould be a positive experience. I may well be one of the few natural/homebirthers you will meet that you will hear say that too. I will say all that and add that I am not a fan of elective c/s because of the risks involved and the recovery alone doesn't sound too pleasing, but, if that is what a woman wants, then so be it. It's not mybirth, it's hers,and it is my responsibility, I feel, as a woman, to support other women in their birth desires.

Namaste, Tara
post #62 of 115
Actually what you'll see a lack of support for is elective c-sections when the woman doesn't research her choice-- schedules for 38 weeks for no reason but impatience, or claims that it won't be painful, or that it'll be easier, or it'll let her have sex sooner, or it doesn't really make any difference at all to the baby, or...
post #63 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna
Exactly the reason that some moms may choose not to request services of such health care workers at such a time....

-Angela
Still don't get why the health care worker and not the idiot creating the crappy laws would be the enemy.
post #64 of 115
I don't think they're the enemy, but they are what they are, it's futile to pretend otherwise

-Angela
post #65 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmama
Sadly, certain people currently occupying a certain large white house don't agree, and have passed a law requiring health care workers who receive federal funds (i.e., anyone who accepts medicaid or is covered under EMTALA) to attempt resuscitation of any infant 20 weeks gestation or greater born with any vital signs, including only a heart rate. Parents' wishes don't enter into the equation and the penalty can be removal of all federal funding.
You've got to be kidding me. I'm pretty sure a 20 weeker is not going to survive no matter how advanced medically we are. 24-26 I can see, but not 20.
post #66 of 115
Quote:
Quote:
Women should bvirth where they feel comfortable be it at home alone or on an operating table.
(bolding mine)

Ah, really. Hmm, I've never seen support at MDC for those who choose elective c-sections. Double standard, I guess.
I don't see how what she said was unsupportive of a mother's choice. She said mothers should be supported if they choose elective c/s.
post #67 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna
As to 26 weekers, some moms may choose to not go to extraordinary means to keep a super preemie alive and I believe that is their ethical choice to make.
Unless the baby has congenital problems that caused it to be born at 26 weeks, I think that's a mighty hasty decision to make, when a 26 weeker can survive and be a normal child in every way... maybe need glasses. I can see if the child has a fatal problem - letting it pass in peace would be a good thing. But a 26 weeker is not destined to die just for being born that early.

I had a 29 weeker, and you can't tell he was ever a preemie. He was developmentally caught up with his actual age at 6 months, and got onto the weight charts by one year (now he's 50% weight and 80-90% height - actual age!). He has absolutely NO long term problems. Yes, he needed special care to make sure he kept breathing, and he needed special monitoring until he outgrew some sleep apnea (common in preemies), but I couldn't have lived with myself if I had let him die when he had a 95% chance of living a normal life. For 26 weekers, the chance is less, but not hugely less. 24 weekers have a 50% survival rate, and 26 weekers are much higher than that. Every week increases the chances.

And I think if someone purposely stays at home with a <35 week baby, they are purposely putting their child at risk. That's scary to me. I mean, if a baby is born at say 32 weeks - pretty much, the child will be ok with NICU care. And having that baby at home is dangerous, IMO. Homebirth is meant for "low risk". Delivering a baby prior to 35 weeks is not low risk.
post #68 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by boscopup
Unless the baby has congenital problems that caused it to be born at 26 weeks, I think that's a mighty hasty decision to make, when a 26 weeker can survive and be a normal child in every way... maybe need glasses. I can see if the child has a fatal problem - letting it pass in peace would be a good thing. But a 26 weeker is not destined to die just for being born that early.
I'm just saying that it's the parent's choice to make.

-Angela
post #69 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna
As to 26 weekers, some moms may choose to not go to extraordinary means to keep a super preemie alive and I believe that is their ethical choice to make.

-Angela
:
Some women may take the view that if a babe is born too early to survive on it's own, it may be god/nature's will that the baby not live. I know this seems like a radical view, and many of us would go to drastic measures to ensure that the babe live, but that doesn't mean that all women would do this. Maybe a mother would rather her babe die in loving arms at home than spend weeks or months in an incubator in the NICU, I can't fault any mother for making that choice.
post #70 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmama
Sadly, certain people currently occupying a certain large white house don't agree, and have passed a law requiring health care workers who receive federal funds (i.e., anyone who accepts medicaid or is covered under EMTALA) to attempt resuscitation of any infant 20 weeks gestation or greater born with any vital signs, including only a heart rate. Parents' wishes don't enter into the equation and the penalty can be removal of all federal funding.
:Puke

Gods I just LOVE IT when people impose their morals and religious views on others.
<dripping with sarcasm here>
post #71 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by CryPixie83
Some women may take the view that if a babe is born too early to survive on it's own, it may be god/nature's will that the baby not live. I know this seems like a radical view, and many of us would go to drastic measures to ensure that the babe live, but that doesn't mean that all women would do this. Maybe a mother would rather her babe die in loving arms at home than spend weeks or months in an incubator in the NICU, I can't fault any mother for making that choice.
While I have never been faced with the situation, I can say with certainty that this is me, my family. I, we, beleive that if a baby comes so early, it did so for a reason. If it came too early to survive, then it is my place to let it go in peace. I would not want my tiny preemie's first life experiences to be those of poking, prodding, blood draws, antisepctic smells, unfamiliar hands touching, procedures, surgeries, and anything else a NICU can provide. I am not against NICUs, inf act, I think they are a necessary advancement. It'sjust not where I would want my children.
When I was a baby, I was a sick baby. From about 7 weeks to 6 months I spent the majority oft the time in the hospital. I've heard about it all in detail and I know I would not want to subject my newborn to it. Am I mad that my parents did? Not at all. I have a friend who had a 28-weeker 2.5 years ao, 7 weeks after I had my 2nd son. He was in the hospital for 13 weeks. The first thins he saw were bili lights. The first things he felt were oxetngen prongs, IV sticks,blood draws, gloved hands. Within a few weeks, he was afraid to be touched. His mother had to do physical therapy with him so thathe would learn that not everyone who touched him meant to hurt him when they did. I literally cried when I came to hold him because I had to partake in a special ritual so that he would know I was not there to stick him. This broke myheart. It also showed me what I knew in my heart, and that is that I could not do that to my own baby.
Idon't believe my view to be too radical, thoughI guess some might say it is. I'm entitled to it though and I pray I'm never faced with seeing just how firmly I stand by it.

Namaste, Tara
post #72 of 115
Thread Starter 
Wow!! I am impressed!

I asked because I have been measuring large and we suspected twins. Ofcourse my over active brain was worrying about triplets! I was curious if it had been done, that's it!

Well, turns out we are only having one (funky uterus, what can I say!) but we (my dh, midwife, and myself) had all agreed to do twins at home. There are several local midwifes who have done twins (last one VBA2C, twins at 40 wks 1 day, all measuring 8+ lbs) (monitered by midwife and and AWESOME local OB). If it turned out to be triplets, I SERIOUSLY would have considered a homebirth, hands down. It would have depended on finding a capable midwife and an Ob willing to consult. I figured if I made it to 36+ wks I deserved to be at home, as my babies did too.

I can see that some would have issues with this, but I would say that most moms who would choose to homebirth a "higher risk" baby, would take more precautions to protect that baby. Because of health issues of my own, I agree to see my specialist thru my pregnancy and monitor my bloodwork. If things change and I become higher risk, I opt out of a homebirth and head off to the OB. But again, my choice!!

Thanks ladies, for all your thoughts!
post #73 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by singleton+twins
If at home I would have had NO idea that baby B's heart tones had dropped drastically or that the cord was wrapped around her body so tightly that she had a indentation on her shoulder. IF I would have let nature take it's course baby B could have had serious injury or died.
Just so you don't go back to Babycenter and think that homebirth means not monitoring labor... During a homebirth, as discussed here, a midwife or doctor is attending. The baby/babies are monitored via doppler or fetoscope. If the heartones on your baby were dropping during a homebirth, action would be taken. They would not let "nature take it's course" because homebirth is about being proactive not reactive. Who knows, at home that might have not been an issue for your baby anyway. Sometimes problems occur because of the hospital environment and because of interventions. Were you laying on your back? Were you induced? Was your bag or bags of water artificially ruptured? Were you encouraged to move during labor? Did you have pitocin? Etc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by singleton+twins
I have seen ppl homebirth 8lb twins born at 40w2d. I have also seen twins lost at 26wks gestation because the mother didn't trust the "establishment" and refused medical monitoring.
Again, since when did choosing a homebirth mean choosing a practitioner who would do nothing at a time like that? I think most UC'rs would receive care to stop labor then, too.

I think singleton+twins is going a lot on what she *thinks* homebirth is, not necessarily what it actually is.
post #74 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belle
I'm sure she was prepared to accept responsibility. It's unfortunate that in this day and age if something goes wrong the doctor is chosen as the fall guy (lawsuits) and people can't just understand that bad things happen.
So true IMO. But, also I think people forget that they are ultimately responsible for their own care. They can choose to have something done or not. It's their job to be up on the facts.
post #75 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by boscopup
Having had PPROM with a singleton and giving birth to a 29 weeker,
That must have been so challenging for both of you! PM me if you want to, I had PPROM at 31/32 weeks but chose MW care. We were able to reseal the bags of water & refill. I then delivered at 41 weeks. I'm so sorry that your baby was born so early. Clearly i don't know if the same care would have worked for you. Wishing you strong bags and a healthy happy full 9 months!
post #76 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanisB
To me, that's one of the wonderful things about being a woman, being able to choose how and where to give birth.
Ooh, so true! I really think it comes down to taking responsibility for your own care.
post #77 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spark
So true IMO. But, also I think people forget that they are ultimately responsible for their own care. They can choose to have something done or not. It's their job to be up on the facts.
: In this day and age, we like to depend on everybody for everything and blame everybody for everything. We're a sue-happy lot. People seem to forget that they have choices in healthcare and that they are ultimately responsible for the choices they make. This includes chosing your provider and knowing all you can abou tthem in advance and realizing the care providers are also humans.
: Claire, I love the pics in your siggy, and I have to tell you that your recent birth story always pops into my head when I think of my birth (which wasj ust a few weeks later) It was like a prophecy

Namaste, Tara
post #78 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spark
That must have been so challenging for both of you! PM me if you want to, I had PPROM at 31/32 weeks but chose MW care. We were able to reseal the bags of water & refill. I then delivered at 41 weeks.
That's wonderful! I'd heard stories about that too, but my labor decided to go on once they took me off drugs (why they took me off drugs, I don't know!). I had a gushing break though, and I've heard that those don't typically reseal (I could be wrong though!).

Anyway, I'm VERY GLAD I delivered DS in a hospital with a NICU. Yes, it was 4 weeks of stress for me, and yes he got poked and prodded more than a normal newborn, but he doesn't remember a thing, he never had problems with being held, etc. (and alot of preemies don't have that problem, especially if the parents do kangaroo care in the NICU - something I wasn't allowed to do). In fact, he LOVES to be held, he's the sweetest boy on earth (giving me kisses and hugs ALL the time), and I just couldn't live with myself if I'd let him die when he had every chance in the world to survive and live a normal, happy life as he's doing now. I definitely made the right choice! Really, from the day he came home at 4 weeks old, the only way you could tell he was a preemie was the fact that he was small (4 lbs 12 oz at discharge) and he slept more than a typical newborn (he "woke up" around his due date 6.5 weeks later). That's it. And for me, the 4 weeks of stress I went through and the 5 day hospital stay prior to that was definitely worth it - such a short sacrifice in order to give this child what will hopefully be a long, healthy life!
post #79 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmama
Sadly, certain people currently occupying a certain large white house don't agree, and have passed a law requiring health care workers who receive federal funds (i.e., anyone who accepts medicaid or is covered under EMTALA) to attempt resuscitation of any infant 20 weeks gestation or greater born with any vital signs, including only a heart rate. Parents' wishes don't enter into the equation and the penalty can be removal of all federal funding.
That is like saying that if your child (not a neonate) got hit by a car, or contracted AIDS, or something else that put him in critical condition, that no medical intervention was necessary because he was just going to die anyway. There have been plenty of preemies that go on to live long, healthy lives.
post #80 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeanusMomma
There have been plenty of preemies that go on to live long, healthy lives.
When I was in the hospital shortly before DS was born, everyone came out of the woodwork with their preemie stories. I didn't realize how many preemies were around me!!!! Many of them were 28 weekers, and I knew them as high school or college students. I had no clue they'd been preemies so long ago! They were all perfectly healthy people - no issues of prematurity whatsoever. It's more common than most people realize, I think. I know I had no clue that babies born so early could do so well and be perfectly normal in every way... not until I had a preemie situation and started reading and learning and talking to people who had experienced it.

Btw, to get back to the triplets topic... ... I have a friend in DS's due date list that was having triplets (result of IVF), and she was very highly medically managed - right down to having contraction monitoring at home, and results sent over the phone line to the doctor's office while she was on bedrest. Due to preterm labor, she ended up having her C-section (she chose that but was given the option of attempting vaginal birth) at 35 weeks. Her babies were all right around 6 lbs!!! One had to stay in the NICU overnight for breathing difficulties, but then he got to go in the room with her and her other two babies. All 3 babies went home with mom after her C-section recovery. I'm still amazed that her babies were so big at 35 weeks, and I'm also amazed that she went longer than me. I think she chose the C-section route because she knew that there was a chance of getting one or two out vaginally and then needing a C-section for the remaining baby(ies) due to weird positioning, etc. So she decided she'd rather just do the C-section and not have vaginal delivery *and* C-section. But vaginal birth WAS given to her as an option and she made an educated choice. So there, the "medical establishment" heeded her wishes, but also didn't say she had to automatically have a C-section.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Homebirth
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › Homebirth and Triplets