Waiting for the day that GBS+ is a reason for a c-s.

[DoomaYula]

A woman I know, multip with several kids, is being induced 2w early for being GBS+. I cannot believe her care provider is willing to do it, but apparently she's worried about not making it to the hospital in time for her 2 allotted doses of abx before the baby is born, so she'd rather be induced. At 38w. Blows my mind. :

[AKmoose]

Ugh...nothing like informed consent and knowing your risks, huh? :

[rmzbm]

Don't say it TOO loudly, I'm sure for SOME providers it DOES call for a section. :

[roxyrox]

Uggh. I really don't get the reasoning behind testing everyone for GBS (and then treating all+ with ab's) This route has a worse outcome overall from all evidence.
Here they treat if you have "risk factors" but it is not a routine test in pregnancy. I am not sure why it it in the US. What does it achieve?

[mwherbs]

being early is a risk factor for a baby getting GBS- not a smart move on the woman's part nor the doctors because bigger chance the baby could have it- and not all babies that get antibiotics in labor are protected---

[jengacnm]

Originally Posted by roxyrox

Uggh. I really don't get the reasoning behind testing everyone for GBS (and then treating all+ with ab's) This route has a worse outcome overall from all evidence.
Here they treat if you have "risk factors" but it is not a routine test in pregnancy. I am not sure why it it in the US. What does it achieve?

According to the CDC, it reduces the number of babies dying from GBS sepsis from 1 in 200 to 1 in 4000.

I prefer treating for risk factors. In my experience, the babies that die of gbs sepsis are preemies, or had very prolonged rupture, or had something that compromised them somehow. But I know that if I practice based only on my experience, that I'd have to do a lot more births before I'd see a death from gbs.

If this current treatment continues, it's a matter of time before antibiotic resistant strains start popping up. Then home will be the ONLY safe place to have a baby.... Ahhh, silver linings.....

[chandasz]

Prolonged rupture being how long?

Hmmm... risk of problems from near-term premature baby, risk of induction drugs, risk of pain medications when they turn the pit up to 10, risk of major abdominal surgery

vs.

small chance that baby will have an infection from GBS if she doesn't get enough antibiotics.

Weird but most people forget about the other risks when trying to avoid a small one. We want to believe so much that a perfect baby is a guarantee...

[columbusmomma]

Can anyone explain how GBS takes the life of an unborn baby? My cousin's baby passed in utero(full term)with the diagnosis of GBS taking his life. Now she is pregnant again and her high rish doc plans to have her labor started around 37 weeks and lots of close monitoring(not sure what) Personally, since we aren't that close I've never asked her how the diagnosis was made and how it happens. I've always wondered about this situation b/c I know many women are + for GBS and it's no biggi

[eminencejae]

I did a search because I was curious about what GBS was and such:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pre...infection.html
This article says that untreated -the chances of the baby getting it are 1 in 200 --- Isn't that like .5%

That's less than any other statistic I've ever heard!


Can't help but wonder what the stats of infection and other complications are to c sections. I'm sure we can all guess.

Obsurd. So glad I stoped seeing anyone a while ago.

[eminencejae]

On Second thought:

Since I read that it's not even sexually transmitted, (normally meaning that transmission would have to come from body fluids mixing like blood and genital fluids) How is the baby supposed to get it from simply being born? Unless maybe the baby's skin gets punctured in some way? And that's if sexual transmission did exist, which one of the links I read said that it isn't.

Furthermore; Aside from other lesions on both mother and child during labor - The only way that a mother and baby's blood mixes is if the cord is cut before the placenta is born. I learned this when I was looking up info on the RH factor thing. Something else to think about that is even more alarming and supports the idea of non management of labor and birth.

When I was reading about the RH thing, I found out that before med pro's started cutting cords it didn't even exist as a condition.

I'm not a professional, but geez, even I am capable of reading literature and thinking critically.

[Rockies5]

GBS+ is a "reason" for section in some areas. I googled it yesterday (for fun) so it's already happening.

[ericswifey27]

Originally Posted by eminencejae

Since I read that it's not even sexually transmitted, (normally meaning that transmission would have to come from body fluids mixing like blood and genital fluids) How is the baby supposed to get it from simply being born? Unless maybe the baby's skin gets punctured in some way? And that's if sexual transmission did exist, which one of the links I read said that it isn't.

Furthermore; Aside from other lesions on both mother and child during labor - The only way that a mother and baby's blood mixes is if the cord is cut before the placenta is born. I learned this when I was looking up info on the RH factor thing. Something else to think about that is even more alarming and supports the idea of non management of labor and birth.

When I was reading about the RH thing, I found out that before med pro's started cutting cords it didn't even exist as a condition.

I'm not a professional, but geez, even I am capable of reading literature and thinking critically.

Do you have a link for that? That would be really good info to print out and have in my just in case of transfer arsenal:

[eminencejae]

I'll try to look back through my favs file and see if I can find it again tomorrow night. It was while I was searching for the RH factor info that I found this out about a membrane separating mother and baby's blood supply.

Where is that banging head smiley when I need it.

Should've saved it, Should've saved it. I just didn't think that I'd become an info giver. Oh well, maybe if I have to search again I'll learn even more about it than I had before!

[JanetF]

I suspect pregnancy is becoming a reason for caesarean. Don't you just hear doozies all the time? Last one that shocked me (I'm unshockable mostly now...) was a woman being told the cord was around the baby's neck, and it was breech so if she was ALLOWED to birth vaginally the baby would hang itself on the way out AND it would inhale mec and start fitting at the same time AND it's illegal to support vaginal breech birth in their country. So really, surgery for GBS doesn't seem so surprising then, does it?

[DoomaYula]

Originally Posted by JanetF

a woman being told the cord was around the baby's neck, and it was breech so if she was ALLOWED to birth vaginally the baby would hang itself on the way out AND it would inhale mec and start fitting at the same time AND it's illegal to support vaginal breech birth in their country.

Wow. :

[eminencejae]

Extra ? about some interesting things

Originally Posted by ericswifey27

Do you have a link for that? That would be really good info to print out and have in my just in case of transfer arsenal:

I searched for a while yesterday and although I'm not sure I was able to find the exact stuff I looked at, I didn't prove the basic existence of the membrane and the mother/baby's blood not mixing, to be wrong.

This is what I've got so far:

http://www.vegfamily.com/vegan-pregn...tal-rhogam.htm


http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/barrier

extraembryonic membranes those that protect the embryo or fetus and provide for its nutrition, respiration, and excretion; the yolk sac (umbilical vesicle), allantois, amnion, chorion, decidua, and placenta

placental membrane the membrane separating the fetal from the maternal blood in the placenta; sometimes inappropriately called the placental barrier.

placental barrier term sometimes used for the placental membrane, because it prevents the passage of some materials between the maternal and fetal blood.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/umbilical+cords

So, what do I think this possibly unrelated thing has to do with GBS? Well, I have a hard time beleiving that a mother could give her baby a desease or condition so easily by simply being pregnant. Most people beleive that the baby recieves immunities from the mother, wether in the last month of pregnancy or from breast feeding. I didn't read anything about mother's dieing from GBS. So, The opposite philosophy of 'your body is going to kill your baby' just doesn't make sense to me for a condition/infection like GBS that has such a low risk factor anyway. It seems to me that GBS has been made out to be some big bad germ that comes from no -where?-, and makes it convenient for medical inventervention to happen; just one more thing that helps that industry do what they do so powerfully.

[BeckiCNM]

Originally Posted by eminencejae

Since I read that it's not even sexually transmitted, (normally meaning that transmission would have to come from body fluids mixing like blood and genital fluids) How is the baby supposed to get it from simply being born? Unless maybe the baby's skin gets punctured in some way? And that's if sexual transmission did exist, which one of the links I read said that it isn't.

The bacteria live in the vagina. The baby breaths them in, or swallows mucus with bacteria in it during birth, or the bacteria enter through the eyes. The bacteria then go into the baby's bloodstream. Sometimes, this can make the baby sick. Not often, but it still happens - even with antibiotics during labor. It's still a possibility even after birth. Yes, the mother has antibodies and those antibodies can be passed to the baby, which probably prevents many, many cases of GBS disease.

GBS disease in babies is real, and babies do die. What people, including me, have problems with in regards to GBS is the overkill of treatment for it, and the problems that treating GBS may cause down the road.

Furthermore; Aside from other lesions on both mother and child during labor - The only way that a mother and baby's blood mixes is if the cord is cut before the placenta is born. I learned this when I was looking up info on the RH factor thing. Something else to think about that is even more alarming and supports the idea of non management of labor and birth.

Blood from the mother and baby can mix before the cord is cut. When the placenta detaches, some blood will mix. Even if the blood didn't sometimes mix, many things can cross from the mother's bloodstream into the placenta. In the case of GBS, it can travel up from the vagina, into the uterus, and infect the placenta. Rare - yes - but it does happen. Whether or not the two blood supplies mix is not really the issue with GBS. Rh is a different story. Rh problems involve the red blood cells, so it is important in Rh problems to know when the mom's blood and baby's blood can mix.

When I was reading about the RH thing, I found out that before med pro's started cutting cords it didn't even exist as a condition.

I am sure that it did. Placental abruptions still happened before cord cutting became the norm. What is more likely is that babies died from Rh incompatibility and people didn't know why the baby died.

[eminencejae]

I forgot/neglected to mention the rarity of placental abruption. I still beleive, personally, that all of these conditions are extreemly rare and don't really deserve the amount of attention and intervention that they get. The risks of the interventions still don't seem to outweigh the risks for me.

[BeckiCNM]

Originally Posted by eminencejae

I forgot/neglected to mention the rarity of placental abruption. I still beleive, personally, that all of these conditions are extreemly rare and don't really deserve the amount of attention and intervention that they get. The risks of the interventions still don't seem to outweigh the risks for me.

Abruptions happen in about 1% of pregnancies. Many are small enough to not cause problems, some are bigger, and some are really, really bad. I had one last year, which would actually make my rate much higher than 1%, but I try to keep it in perspective.

My point is that there is a difference between things that are rare and things that never happen. The risks of the interventions can outweigh the risks of the condition, absolutely, no argument from me there. But there are risks on both sides, and knowing them helps you make a more informed choice. Just like everything else in life.

[DoomaYula]

This is totally off-topic, but I used to be REALLY anti-intervention -- ANY intervention. I just assumed everything was evil and unnecessary. Then I attended an absolutely horrific birth that could have been not so horrific -- or not horrific at all, maybe even lovely -- if this mom had had some interventions. I know I'm being vague, but kwim? Abruptions, GBS+, hemorrhages -- they're rare, but they happen, and while a lot of interventions are abused at hospitals, sometimes they can save lives, or, less dramatic, be the difference between a horrific birth and a lovely birth.