Scheduled C-Section cause the baby is estimated @ 9 lbs. - *Update* - Page 6

[Emilie]

and that is sad to.

[blissful_maia]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

When babies are born at 6 pounds and need to be in the NICU for days after c-sections for "suspected macrocosmia" why don't people sue? Is it just that they're embarrassed to admit that they fell for the lies? If I was stupid enough to fall for some OB telling me "your baby'll be *huge* you need a c-section NOW!" I'd be willing to publicly admit I was stupid and gullible in order to denouce the sOB as a manipulating liar.

My MIL with her 3rd babe (my DH's much younger brother) was recommended to have a C/S because he was thought to be big ("big enough to be born" 3 weeks before EDD). Well, it turned out that he was under 6lbs and needed to stay in the NICU for 3 weeks, she never got to bf (she bf'ed the others), and found out later that he was born prematurely because her sOB was going on vacation around her due date (only OB in very small town). She sued. And won.

[boscopup]

Originally Posted by snowbird25ca

While I agree with this for the most part, the only thing I really wonder about is how accurate the dates were. OB's are very well known for basing a due date strictly off of lmp & some women don't ovulate until cd 28 or later. So if this woman's due date was off, her baby may not have actually had IUGR.

2 lbs 11 oz would be small even for 32 weeks, let alone 36 weeks. I highly doubt dates would be off THAT badly, even if you went by LMP! We're talking a 2 month difference in size here, not just a couple weeks. If the woman had no clue (within MONTHS) of when the baby was conceived then yes, the dates could be way off (that's where dating u/s can be very useful). But if there IS an LMP, I honestly can't see a dates problem in that scenario. Dates problems end up with being a couple weeks off usually, not 2 months. And I'm one who ovulates later in the cycle, and thus LMP is totally wrong for me. But even if they went by LMP, they would not be finding a 2 lb 11 oz baby anywhere NEAR 36 weeks LMP. My baby probably weighs more than that already, and I'm only 27 weeks! (basing this on the fact that my DS #1 was born 29w4d at 3 lb 13 oz, and DS #2 was measuring ahead already at 20 weeks, probably going to be bigger than DS #1)

[wifeandmom]

Originally Posted by Emilie

wifeandmom- do you believe a woman can birth vaginally without drugs? my mil had a 11'6 oz baby. A 10'2 baby and a 9'8 baby. She was fine.

Oh absolutely!

However, I also believe the OP made reference to this woman 'having trouble' or something along those lines being mentioned regarding the woman-in-question's first delivery with a 9-ish pound baby.

We really don't know what the exact details are surrounding that particular birth, but it's certainly possible that there was concern over baby getting stuck during that delivery, which would of course cause concern if future babies were much larger.

And let's face it, a 10lb 6oz baby at *less than* 38 weeks is NOT normal by any stretch of the imagination.

I was really just kind of confused over the 'sadness' and all that jazz considering there was no mention of exactly what happened prior to the section. After reading the OP again, however, it seems like perhaps size alone WAS the determining factor, but again, depending on the cirucumstances of her first birth (which we have no clue about, and would do well to keep that in mind before passing judgment IMO), maybe not attempting vaginal birth with a baby that large was a good idea *for this particular mother*. It's really hard to know for sure without a whole lot more details.

[ericswifey27]

Originally Posted by blissful_maia

My MIL with her 3rd babe (my DH's much younger brother) was recommended to have a C/S because he was thought to be big ("big enough to be born" 3 weeks before EDD). Well, it turned out that he was under 6lbs and needed to stay in the NICU for 3 weeks, she never got to bf (she bf'ed the others), and found out later that he was born prematurely because her sOB was going on vacation around her due date (only OB in very small town). She sued. And won.

Good for your MIL for taking a stand! That's disgusting her doctor did that to her and her baby :

[nznats]

Originally Posted by wifeandmom

And let's face it, a 10lb 6oz baby at *less than* 38 weeks is NOT normal by any stretch of the imagination.

I find this kind of offensive! My daughter would have been 10lbs or very very close to it at 38 weeks considering she was born 10lbs7oz
We wouldnt know what 'normal' was considering many woman arent 'allowed' to get this far and babies are being forced out earlier and earlier... Check out the UC board, there are many mamas there who have had babies that size or larger earlier than the expiry date!

[blissful_maia]

Originally Posted by nznats

I find this kind of offensive! My daughter would have been 10lbs or very very close to it at 38 weeks considering she was born 10lbs7oz
We wouldnt know what 'normal' was considering many woman arent 'allowed' to get this far and babies are being forced out earlier and earlier... Check out the UC board, there are many mamas there who have had babies that size or larger earlier than the expiry date!

Don't be offended, mama! However big your babe grows is normal for you and your babe. Of course there are outside factors that can affect the weight of a baby, but having a 10-12 lb baby is not all that rare! In fact, many, many women don't go to their due date these days, so American birth weights are sort of skewed. People think an 8lb baby is HUGE. The nurses at my dd's birth were in shock that I delivered her naturally at 8lb13oz! If we look at less industrialized countries, we can see that, and I don't think it's up to someone to decide what is "normal" based only on what they have seen.