or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Parenting Multiples › Twin A breech, Twin B vertex--undeliverable?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Twin A breech, Twin B vertex--undeliverable? - Page 2

post #21 of 40
Ok so all this unnecessary csection talk got me thinking. Twin A for me was footling breech and my OB told me that if I tried a vaginal birth that the cord could possibly wrap around the neck of twin a and cause a problem. I opted for the c/s out of safety for my daughter. I didnt want anything bad to happen just because I really wanted a vaginal birth..I wouldnt have been able to live with the guilt. I was upset that I had to have a csection, especially after delivering my son vaginally with no drugs, however, my OB was adamant that delivering a footling breech baby was dangerous. She is also one of the best OB's in the area.
post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliviabolivia View Post
Regarding studies and the like - you will be hard-pressed to find much research on the subject. Most OBs do not support vaginal birth for breech first twins, and it would be almost impossible to find a doctor to support a footling breech first twin birth.
This is, IMO, the crux of the matter. There are a lot of doctors walking around saying, "Can't do. . ." simply because they have no knowledge of it. Sometimes, answers do just leap up in your face, but other times you have to ask the question first. Unfortunately, there isn't enough "asking" going on about multiple births b/c there are strong social and financial incentives for doctors to stick within their comfort zones and do c-sections.

This doesn't make your decision any easier. Whatever the reason for it, that's the climate we are in and it will be hard/impossible to find a birth attendent to agree to work with you for a vaginal delivery.

Early on in my twin pregnancy, I did a lot of reading about presentations, simply on a "what if" basis. This idea of breech-vertex twins interlocking chins was a top fear mentioned everywhere - and almost nowhere was it quantified. I looked FOREVER for a number. Finally found one - sorry don't have the online reference. It had been from that famous Obstetric's text (you know, sounds like the surname of a british guy). Anyway the number was so low, that in my personal opinion it was a risk well-worth undertaking to avoid the known complications of c-section for both mom and babe(s).

My twins ended up presenting vertex-footling breech. I got all the same stories about "can't". This included arguing with the doctor at delivery who was saying I was, "making bad choices for my baby" and telling me we had to do a breech delivery a certain way because that was the only way she knew how to do it. I said, "Oh, how many have you done?" Answer: Zero. So much for what she was claiming to know (with such airs of authority)! (As an aside: If anyone is reading between the lines and wondering why I was finding out at delivery that the attending doc had no breech experience, it's b/c it went so quick that I didn't make it to the intended hospital).

The pre-natal and delivery fighting with docs for a vaginal birth was absolutely agonizing. Nice to deal with accusations of being a nihilist and wishing death upon your baby and all that!

If I had been in your shoes, I would have done as I did with my vertex-breech:
1. Planned to birth in a hospital (couldn't get a midwife).
2. Hunted and changed providers to find one with breech experience.
3. Decline her recommendations for epidural, IV, constant monitoring, immediate total breech extraction of Twin B, etc.
4. Bring along 2 support people: to help me emotionally & physically, while still having help to observe what the medical staff are doing and object/draw my attention to it if necessary.

What I would have changed if mine were breech-vertex (and some of this comes from hindsight):
5: make sure your support person is very familiar with the common interventions in breech delivery and what you do or don't agree with. I would think that if Twin A is breech, they would get that much more jumpy to "get in there" and "facilitate the delivery" in such a way that leads to the common breech birth injuries, even more swiftly than if Twin B is breech (since they are worried about second baby).
6. Relocate closer to the planned hospital so I would be certain to get to the breech-experienced doc even if labour was fast. (but I would NOT go in early in labour unless I thought something was wrong).

Someone said something in one of the early replies in the common sentiment, "doesn't matter how they are delivered, as long as you have healthy mom/babies at the end". I vehemently disagree: in these sentiments, "healthy" usually means, "Mom will recover physically - eventually. Spiritual health, huh?" and "Babies are out, breathing, possibly recovering from drugs, possibly with injuries from a traumatic birth. Spiritual health? C'mon, it's just a young baby". I think we should be setting our standards of "health" a lot higher.

Good luck with your decision/search etc.
post #23 of 40
Well, since her first twin is not just breech, but complete breech, 1: it will probably be impossible to find a hospital in which to attempt her vaginal birth, and 2: She's 37 weeks with twins, so it's unlikely she will be able to find a doc who is knowledgeable or experienced with breech and who will take her on this late in the game. My doc was experienced and supportive, but still would not assist with a footling breech twin A.

Absolutely there are too many C-sections for twin births. Half of all twin births should not be surgical. Nobody is arguing that point. However, there are times when a C-section is safer for the mother and babies - and footling/complete breech twin A is one of those times. Yes, there are risks with C-sections, but the risks associated with vaginal birth in those situations are higher.
post #24 of 40
My twin A was a complete breech, and twin B was breech/transverse. I couldn't find anyone who would even come close to considering assisting me with a vaginal delivery. The c-section was very traumatic for me. I just KNEW that I could have delivered them vaginally. Of course, I was also scared (and that's probably what kept me from driving to the farm or something like that), and didn't want to do anything "unsafe." But the c-section definitely still haunts me because I feel like it was unnecessary. I ended up with a second c-section for my singleton (totally unrelated), and I believe that that one WAS necessary. The emotional healing has been so much easier since I truly believe that the c-section saved my baby's life. With my twins, I felt like they were ripped out of me when they would have otherwise come out fine all on their own.

Anyway, I would not say that your babies are necessarily "undeliverable" at all, but I'm not at all surprised that you can't find anyone willing to assist you with a vaginal birth. I'm sorry. I hope your twin A makes way for twin B soon!

Lex
post #25 of 40
Thread Starter 
Well, here's what I've found out so far talking to some of the top midwives/experts around the country with extensive vaginal twin birth experience.

If I could travel (or afford to fly in and pay for a midwife from out of state) there are a number of people out there who have experience with breech/vertex twin deliveries, including the very rare complication of locked twins. A Utah midwife has a technique that has worked to separate them during labor.

The midwives I've talked with agree that if Twin A is a footling breech (our boy is complete breech right now) that's a big risk for cord prolapse. However, complete or frank breech presentation wouldn't be a problem as the bottom can plug the cervix. Obviously this requires that the attending midwife has experience with these presentations. My current midwife has dealt with breech/breech, various twins and even face presentations, but never the possibility of the chins locking. So we have to deal with what she knows. (And the fact that very few HCPs here in Florida will even consider vaginal births for twins or breeches. We'll only have an OB/hospital birth if a c/section is necessary.)

Interestingly they've all encouraged me to wait for labor to begin (which is my inclination as well), but also advised me to have an experienced person near to monitor labor as twins can sometimes come more quickly. They're not suggesting checking into the hospital in early labor, but rather, having my midwife(s) accessible.

Right now there's a question as to whether it would be more efficient to:

A) try to move Twin B (our vertex girl on my left) back up a little so that Twin A (our complete breech boy) can settle more solidly into my pelvis.

or

B) try to move Twin A (our complete breech boy) back up a little, so that Twin B (our vertex girl on my left) can settle head down into my pelvis in which case she would become the presenting twin A.

We haven't been trying to get Twin A to flip entirely because we'd been told that is much more difficult that simply shifting the two twins' positions slightly.

We've been working at option B since having the presenting twin vertex will make both our midwife and the back up OB happier. However, our midwife has said she doesn't have a problem with Twin A being breech as long as he's frank or complete (no footling) and Twin B isn't vertex with her chin down her his.

Many thanks to everyone who has shared her experience, links to resources and moral support. It means a lot to me.

Manitoba Mom, You described my feelings very clearly--while we obviously all want healthy babies, it DOES matter how they get here, not just to us but to the babies too. Thank you for saying that because sometimes it gets difficult to hold my ground when I'm being accused of selfishly wanting a natural, vaginal birth.

MamaRabbit, I've tried pulsatilla (two days @ 30C) though I've been told that 200X is more effective but impossible to get w/o a prescription so we're looking into whether that's possible.

Also going for acupuncture, chiro and swimming in the ocean on saturday...

A tangent, but maybe relevant...

There's no question that few OBs have the training and experience to handle vaginal births of breeches or twins in almost any position(s). The OB we were going to work with (and who referred us and got the birth center to accept us) has experience with twins. She very honestly told me that as a doctor she doesn't have the power to override certain hospital policies and there was no way I would have even a chance at the kind of birth I want in the hospital. She lost her privileges at one hospital for delivering 7 sets of twins vaginally in one year. The hospital claimed it was too risky (in spite of healthy babies in every case!) and that the higher c/section revenue should be a guarantee with twins.:

When I first envisioned this birth (back when we thought we were having one baby) it was to be a very private, spiritual experience (DH and me with our midwife at home). The journey this pregnancy has initiated, however, has made me feel much more open to who might be present for the experience. I'm troubled that, at least in my area, it's only the older, retired OBs who have any respect for and experience with vaginal deliveries other than the simplest and most straightforward. It's such a loss for all of us that so few are learning to carry that wisdom forward. If I'm able to manage a vaginal birth for my babies I want to share it with people who will use the experience to help other women bring their babies into the world without the threat of unnecessary surgery.
post #26 of 40
Thread Starter 
Birthjunkie & OliviaBolivia,
Thanks SO much for posting those links!
xo T
post #27 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by torio View Post
I'm troubled that, at least in my area, it's only the older, retired OBs who have any respect for and experience with vaginal deliveries other than the simplest and most straightforward. It's such a loss for all of us that so few are learning to carry that wisdom forward. If I'm able to manage a vaginal birth for my babies I want to share it with people who will use the experience to help other women bring their babies into the world without the threat of unnecessary surgery.
My OB and I were just talking about how sad it is that the legal profession has ruined obstetrics. It's very sad that a medical professional who is capable facilitating the kind of birth you want isn't allowed to because of fear of lawsuits and money.

Anyway, I hope your little one turns or makes way! You're in my thoughts.
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliviabolivia View Post
. . .there are times when a C-section is safer for the mother and babies - and footling/complete breech twin A is one of those times. Yes, there are risks with C-sections, but the risks associated with vaginal birth in those situations are higher.
How do you/we know this?

I could find no relevent studies about outcomes of Breech Twin A (Doctors have to allow the event to take place to be able to study the outcome!).

Even in my own situation (Twin A vertex, Twin B double-footling breech) I couldn't find relevent studies. We were open to our doctor's recommendation of immediate total breech extraction of Twin B if objective evidence supported it, but not simply on the basis of "just because that's how we do it". Our OB was pretty desperate to convince us: and the best she could come up with were the studies that compare vaginal vs c-section for vertex-vertex twins, and a study of outcomes of singleton breech babies in developing countries in Africa.

I'm not picking on you Oliviabolivia. I just think we need to be very careful when we are claiming it's superior to interrupt nature's processes - unless we have carefully-conducted, scientific evidence to support.

Just think back to so many birth interventions that have come and gone: I'm pretty sure that when moms were getting knocked out in "twilight sleep" and having drug-dazed babies dragged out with forceps that doctors were telling women it was because it was better/safer.
post #29 of 40
I was actually surfing the net on this the other day (my twin A has thus far wanted to stay breech, but I'm only 30 weeks so I suppose he could turn, and I hope he does), and I found this article, FWIW: http://www.atypon-link.com/WDG/doi/a...urnalCode=jpme

I do acknowledge that it is not a randomized controlled study, but rather an after the fact review of what happened in several instances of breech twin As who were delivered vaginally. And out of thirty-five vaginal deliveries, there was one death. And you can't prove that the traumatic delivery that caused the death of that one baby would not have occured if he/she had been vertex intially. But I share the study just to show there is something out there, however sketchy.

I'm not advocating either view, just pointing to one item I found out there. It would be interesting to pull this afticle up in pubmed and then see if any "related articles" show up. I haven't actually done a pubmed search on this topic, just google.

But my Peri and my health plan won't allow a vaginal delivery if my twin A remains breech.
post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by lexbeach View Post
My twin A was a complete breech, and twin B was breech/transverse. I couldn't find anyone who would even come close to considering assisting me with a vaginal delivery. The c-section was very traumatic for me. I just KNEW that I could have delivered them vaginally. Of course, I was also scared (and that's probably what kept me from driving to the farm or something like that), and didn't want to do anything "unsafe." But the c-section definitely still haunts me because I feel like it was unnecessary. I ended up with a second c-section for my singleton (totally unrelated), and I believe that that one WAS necessary. The emotional healing has been so much easier since I truly believe that the c-section saved my baby's life. With my twins, I felt like they were ripped out of me when they would have otherwise come out fine all on their own.

Anyway, I would not say that your babies are necessarily "undeliverable" at all, but I'm not at all surprised that you can't find anyone willing to assist you with a vaginal birth. I'm sorry. I hope your twin A makes way for twin B soon!

Lex

my twins were the same- breech and breech/transverse and NO ONE would let me vbac twins in this position. I tried to find someone and it didnt happen. Twin A ended up in the nicu w/ collapsed lung for 5 days b/c of fluids, but twin B was happy and healthy and fine. The c/sec went very smoothly though and I have no regrets, because I couldnt change it anyway. now we are DONE having babies!

Danielle
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by torio View Post
Hi, another twin positioning question. We've made small (but inadequate) progress moving our son's feet off my cervix so our daughter, who's vertex can get into position. Our midwife has said that if they don't move substantially within the next 1.5 to 2 weeks (I'm at 37 wks now) we'll have to accept an c/section.

Does anyone have experience with this? Is the combined position of Twin A breech and Twin B vertex always undeliverable? The midwife has mentioned that their chins can lock.

Our twins are fraternal and placentas have not fused. Both are facing in toward the center with their backs at the sides of my uterus. The boy (thus far called Twin A) is a complete breech with his feet dangling over my cervix. The girl is vertex, but a bit off to my left side with her head toward my cervix (boy's feet are in her way).

We've been doing the head below knees exercise as seen on spinningbabies.com for 5-10 min. a day, also a supported bridge pose with DH massaging babes toward the positions they need to be in for delivery.

Any advice or shared experience would be welcome.

Thanks.
Tori
I wouldn't attempt it. And if Twin B is a boy I would definitely not attempt it.
post #32 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManitobaMom View Post
How do you/we know this?

I could find no relevent studies about outcomes of Breech Twin A (Doctors have to allow the event to take place to be able to study the outcome!).

Even in my own situation (Twin A vertex, Twin B double-footling breech) I couldn't find relevent studies. We were open to our doctor's recommendation of immediate total breech extraction of Twin B if objective evidence supported it, but not simply on the basis of "just because that's how we do it". Our OB was pretty desperate to convince us: and the best she could come up with were the studies that compare vaginal vs c-section for vertex-vertex twins, and a study of outcomes of singleton breech babies in developing countries in Africa.

I'm not picking on you Oliviabolivia. I just think we need to be very careful when we are claiming it's superior to interrupt nature's processes - unless we have carefully-conducted, scientific evidence to support.

Just think back to so many birth interventions that have come and gone: I'm pretty sure that when moms were getting knocked out in "twilight sleep" and having drug-dazed babies dragged out with forceps that doctors were telling women it was because it was better/safer.
Notice my language. I never said a C-section was safer for breech/vertex presentation. The type of breech makes a huge difference in safety. That's what I've been saying over and over in this thread. You are correct. The studies don't exist because doctors don't allow these types (i.e. footling/complete breech first twin) of births to happen - because the risks are too great.

There was a time not too long ago - even before 'moms were having drug-dazed babies' - when mothers and babies died during childbirth. And presentations like first twin footling/complete breech carry that risk to a significant degree.

As dangerous as it is for mothers to sit idly by while the medical establishment 'claims its superiority over nature's processes' it's equally as dangerous to not recognize that in some cases, we're better off with medical advancements available to us.

And while I can't present studies on the above scenario because studies don't exist, I can tell you that in singletons, cord prolapse occurs in 10-25% of footling breech presentations, and in 5-10% of complete breech presentations, and since the risks of cp can be reduced oxygen supply, resulting in neurological damage and/or death, the risk of attempting a vaginal birth with those presentations outweighs the risk of C-sections. And this doesn't even take into account the risks of head entrapment and interlocking twins.

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3272.htm

And in your situation, vertex/breech, I would have attempted a vaginal birth, with full support of my doctor, in a heartbeat. And I would have attempted a breech/vertex birth with his support also, had my dd not been footling.

Oh, and I don't feel like you're picking on me.
post #33 of 40
Thank you, Oliviabolivia: This link you've posted is interesting on several points:
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3272.htm

"Cord prolapse occurs in 7.5% of all breeches. This incidence varies with the type of breech: 0-2% with frank breech, 5-10% with complete breech, and 10-25% with footling breech. Cord prolapse occurs twice as often in multiparas (6%) than in primigravidas (3%). Cord prolapse may not always result in severe fetal heart rate decelerations because of the lack of presenting parts to compress the umbilical cord (ie, that which predisposes also protects)."

Bold emphasis is mine - I'm glad to see this was acknowledged in a study. "Cord prolapse" always seems to be a dread phrase in North American obstetrics. But from the reading I've done, there is more tolerance for it in Britian. Midwife Mary Cronk has some good pieces online about breech, especially commenting on the situation that while some breech presentations carry higher risk of prolapse (complete and footling) these same presentations have increase protection over the prolapse actually causing a serious problem.

"A frank breech presentation is preferred when vaginal delivery is attempted. Complete breeches and footling breeches are still candidates, as long as the presenting part is well applied to the cervix and both obstetrical and anesthesia services are readily available in the event of a cord prolapse."

This seems to contradict the suggestion that Oliviabolivia and some others have made: that first twin in a non-frank-breech presentation is a situation where a c-section is definitely called for.

"In 1983, Gimovsky et al randomized 105 women in labor with term nonfrank breech presentations to a trial of labor versus elective cesarean delivery. In this group of women, 47 had complete breech presentations, 16 had incomplete breech presentations (hips flexed, 1 knee extended/1 knee flexed), 32 had double-footling presentations, and 10 had single-footling presentations. Oxytocin was allowed for dysfunctional labor. Of the labor group, 44% had successful vaginal delivery. Most cesarean deliveries were performed for inadequate pelvic dimensions on radiographic pelvimetry. The rate of neonatal morbidity did not differ between neonates delivered vaginally and those delivered by cesarean delivery, although a higher maternal morbidity rate was noted in the cesarean delivery group."
(bold emphasis mine)

A fourth comment that interested me in the study summary was:
"Green et al compared perinatal outcome for term breeches prior to 1975 (595 infants, 22% cesarean delivery rate for breeches) with those from 1978-1979 (164 infants, 94% cesarean delivery rate for breeches). Despite the increase in rates of cesarean delivery, the differences in rates of asphyxia, birth injury, and perinatal deaths were not significant."

On the historical note. . .

It is certainly true that back in "the good old days" more women and infants died relating to complications in childbirth than is the case today. However, from what I've read on the matter, the vast majority of this improvement seems to have come from better hygiene, better management of post-partum hemmorhage, and better nutrition (eg. problems were sometimes caused by rickets, which is diet-related).
post #34 of 40
Whoa, wait a minute. You missed my point entirely. I specifically said that in the case of undesirable breech presentations, i.e. complete/footling, a C-section has less risks. That is undeniable fact. Regardless of the findings of a study of 105 women (24 years ago), the risk of harm to the mother or baby(ies) during a C-section is statistically less than the risk of a mother attempting a vaginal delivery with an aforementioned presentation. Besides, the findings of the study did not refer to how many of the successful breech births were frank or otherwise. They could have all been frank with as much information as that study provided. A position we are not debating here.

That being said . . . of course, many women have successfully delivered breeches in those dangerous positions. I never said it couldn't be done. And I linked the article knowing full well that you would bring up the fact that not all cases of cp result in brain damage or death. This does not deny the presence of a significant risk. The issue is whether it is safe to take the risk when the risks involved with a surgical birth are so much less.

I'm not compelled to comment on the study you cited that is almost 30 years old. It's outdated and not relevant, imo. Can we please stay on the topic of comparing risks of surgical v. vaginal birth for nonfrank breech presentations, please?
post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliviabolivia View Post
I specifically said that in the case of undesirable breech presentations, i.e. complete/footling, a C-section has less risks. That is undeniable fact.
When you say, "less risks" do you mean that a c-section for this type of delivery will result in fewer possible problems and those problems will be less severe/dire in nature? Or do you mean that while there are a greater variety of possible complications with a c-section, those complications are generally not as severe/dire as the complications that can arise with a complete/footling vaginal Twin A?

I guess I'm just having a hard time with the 'undeniable fact' that a c-section has 'less risk'. When discussing medical procedures, efficacy is the chance that a given measure will make things better, risk is the chance that a given measure will make things worse. The risk of having anesthetic drugs in your body, and having your abdomen cut open and temporarily rearranged is 100% with a c-section. The risk of adhesions following a c-section is up to 70%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oliviabolivia View Post
I'm not compelled to comment on the study you cited that is almost 30 years old. It's outdated and not relevant, imo.
Information doesn't become irrelevant just because it's 30-years-old (or older). I was interested to see how many people responded to this thread with information of their own (or their twin's) safe arrival as a breech Twin A. Their safe arrivals don't become insignificant just because they are now adults. Practices go in and out of obstetric vogue. By the time these changes cycle through the medical community, one may very well have to consider older information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oliviabolivia View Post
The issue is whether it is safe to take the risk when the risks involved with a surgical birth are so much less.
Yes, I agree that the question is whether a vaginal delivery or a c-section is safer - but in the sense that 'safety' is a value judgement that can be made only by that individual who is going to undergo the procedure. (a la Marsden Wagner). It's a scenario of evaluating a) how many (variety of) complications are possible in either method of delivery, b) the likelihood (rate) of said complications, and c) the severity of them.

For one person, the 'safe' choice would be to accept the guaranteed downsides of a c-section (eg. post-operative pain/recovery) in hopes of avoiding more serious problems (eg. baby with compromised neurological function due to prolapsed cord w/ compression).

For another person, the 'safe' choice may be to pursue a vaginal delivery which may be prone to greater extremes (ie. things go really great, or really terribly).

This isn't an example of one of these people being right and one being wrong. It's two different approaches. There are many situations in life where we see individuals choosing between "hedging bets" or not.
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManitobaMom View Post
For one person, the 'safe' choice would be to accept the guaranteed downsides of a c-section (eg. post-operative pain/recovery) in hopes of avoiding more serious problems (eg. baby with compromised neurological function due to prolapsed cord w/ compression).

For another person, the 'safe' choice may be to pursue a vaginal delivery which may be prone to greater extremes (ie. things go really great, or really terribly).
Once again I am putting myself out here stating an unpopular opinion...In my first post I stated I did not have a C-section but wished I had. (and yes, I heard immediately from ManitobaMom ) From my reading it sounds like many mothers on this site have had successful complicated twin vaginal deliveries. I'd like to mention the other side:

I felt the 'safe' choice was having more pain/recovery for myself and avoid injury to my children. My doctor disagreed and felt a vaginal birth was fine; she delivered similar situations all of the time. (32 week twins, my son was transverse) I was at a respected hospital with a doctor who was considered one of the best in Chicago.

I suggest you go with your gut. I will never forgive myself for not standing up to my doctor. She, and everyone else who argued with me about wanting a c-section, was not around when I was dealing with my son's brain damage, seeing physical, occupational, developmental, and speech therapists weekly. They do not understand the lifetime of worry; never knowing how his traumatic birth and brain injury will affect him throughout the years.

It sounds as though you are informed and have researched your situation. Problems can arise in any delivery. IMO you need to make the decision you feel in your gut and you will be able to live with - no matter the outcome.
post #37 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbsam View Post
Once again I am putting myself out here stating an unpopular opinion...In my first post I stated I did not have a C-section but wished I had. (and yes, I heard immediately from ManitobaMom )
I hope I'm not being overly-sensitive but this is sounding like a bit of a shot of some sort. My apologies if I've misconstrued.

I had to look up your first post to see what you were referring to. Respectfully, I must say that you didn't "hear from me". I was the following poster, replying back to the originating question of the thread.

What I thought was very interesting was that you ended up in exactly the sort of dangerous situation that my husband and I were very keen on avoiding: the agressive interventions of the doctor very likely caused long-term health problems for your child. You and I had the same goal: happy, healthy baby. You felt that your best way to reach that goal was through have a c-section. I felt that my best way to reach that goal was through having a vaginal delivery without any "facilitating" by the attending physician unless it became obvious that a bonafide problem had already developed.

I certainly agree with your sentiment that it is a question of deciding what you can live with.

Given that this seems to have taken a personal turn, I will be leaving this thread now.
post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManitobaMom View Post
I hope I'm not being overly-sensitive but this is sounding like a bit of a shot of some sort. My apologies if I've misconstrued.

I had to look up your first post to see what you were referring to. Respectfully, I must say that you didn't "hear from me". I was the following poster, replying back to the originating question of the thread.

What I thought was very interesting was that you ended up in exactly the sort of dangerous situation that my husband and I were very keen on avoiding: the agressive interventions of the doctor very likely caused long-term health problems for your child. You and I had the same goal: happy, healthy baby. You felt that your best way to reach that goal was through have a c-section. I felt that my best way to reach that goal was through having a vaginal delivery without any "facilitating" by the attending physician unless it became obvious that a bonafide problem had already developed.

I certainly agree with your sentiment that it is a question of deciding what you can live with.

Given that this seems to have taken a personal turn, I will be leaving this thread now.
I am so sorry...
After re-reading my post it does sound harsh. It wasn't an attack. I was just making the point that you and I had already both posted about a similar topic - with different ideas.

Please accept my apology. I will be more careful about my typing w/o thinking or re-reading.
post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManitobaMom View Post
What I thought was very interesting was that you ended up in exactly the sort of dangerous situation that my husband and I were very keen on avoiding: the agressive interventions of the doctor very likely caused long-term health problems for your child. You and I had the same goal: happy, healthy baby. You felt that your best way to reach that goal was through have a c-section. I felt that my best way to reach that goal was through having a vaginal delivery without any "facilitating" by the attending physician unless it became obvious that a bonafide problem had already developed.

I certainly agree with your sentiment that it is a question of deciding what you can live with.

Given that this seems to have taken a personal turn, I will be leaving this thread now.
I share your sentiment, ManitobaMom. The very reason *I* chose an out-of-hospital birth with my twins was to avoid (potentially harmful) over-management of their birth--of which the whole breech factor was one small piece.

Each mom has to do that evaluation for herself and follow her heart.
post #40 of 40
What an interesting discussion.
I have a total phobia of locked twins, so if this was me, I would be all over the hospital birth, and wouldn't hesitate to have a section if the babes didn't shuffle a bit during labour or if it wasn't very, very clear that their chins were nowhere near each other. As a midwifery student, I am still missing a lot of training and experience, but, at this point, I would say that I think I would be comfortable with home, vaginal births of twins in many combinations, breech or not. Just not when twin A is a footling breech and twin B is vertex. But, again, this is a personal phobia.
There's still time, Mama, and one of the pps had a good point about allowing labour to work a bit. Your body knows what it is doing, and may very well be able to shuffle those babes into a slightly better position. Locked twins are very rare, so the odds are in your favour, really. Do you trust your midwife, and feel a connection and lots of respect in the relationship? I think that's the most important part here.

Many, many good wishes for an awesome vaginal birth.
Katia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting Multiples
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Parenting Multiples › Twin A breech, Twin B vertex--undeliverable?