Scheduled C-Section cause the baby is estimated @ 9 lbs. - *Update* - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 12:41 PM - Thread Starter
 
kymholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: tippin' back a vv cosmo.... yummy!!
Posts: 1,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Added update info to original post for all who, like me, were curious about how accurate the birth weight estimate was.
kymholly is offline  
#92 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 02:14 PM
 
snowbird25ca's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB Canada
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom
Are you serious?

A baby estimated at under 3 pounds at 36 weeks is NOT thriving in the womb. Period. For whatever reason, something is not going as it should for a baby to be THAT small at 36 weeks.

IUGR is a very serious, potentially life threatening complication of pregnancy that simply cannot be ignored just so mom can have her magical birth experience...unless a live baby is secondary to her birth plan.

So, my answer to you is YES, a baby that tiny at 36 weeks most assuredly is safer OUTSIDE the womb vs. inside, even if it means sectioning mom to get baby out. No doctor in their right mind would allow a pg to continue under those conditions unless he or she was just itching to have a dead/damaged baby and a lawsuit on their hands.

Perhaps before *assuming* that everyone who is ever induced or has a section must either be an idiot or have been under the care of an idiot, it would serve you well to actually do some research on what might very well be a valid medical reason for serious intervention.
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. Hard to say without knowing the circumstances, but unless serial u/s were done & her fundal height wasn't increasing, basing the diagnosis off of an estimate of the baby's weight along with a "36 weeks" gestation which may not have been accurate... it's possible the baby wasn't IUGR.. but like I said, impossible to know without knowing the whole circumstance.

My 1st was 8lbs and my 2nd was 8lbs 9ozs. 2nd dd delivered in one contraction and no tears. I'm expecting this guy to be over 9lbs and I'm not the least bit concerned about it.

I have a friend who delivered a 10lbs 7oz baby with no difficulty - and she was told afterwards if they'd known how big her baby was, they wouldn't have even let her try to deliver him vaginally.
snowbird25ca is offline  
#93 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 02:26 PM
 
Emilie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: going thru divorce land
Posts: 7,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
waaa.... shucks. why did the c/s?
Emilie is offline  
#94 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 03:49 PM
 
MamaTaraX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 9,152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well that's about depressing! Hmph!

Namaste, Tara
MamaTaraX is offline  
#95 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 05:02 PM
 
wonderwahine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: wi fi didnt do it!
Posts: 17,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
its a bitter sweet ending I guess.......at least her body was ready for the birth and the baby was a good size.
wonderwahine is offline  
#96 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 05:18 PM
 
USAmma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 18,763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow. At least as you said, the baby came when it was ready.

I have a friend who had a csection for breech. Then with second baby (not breech) she went into labor naturally, rushed to the hospital, and had a section as planned.

7yo: "Mom,I know which man is on a quarter and which on is on a nickel. They both have ponytails, but one man has a collar and the other man is naked. The naked man was our first president."
 
USAmma is offline  
#97 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 05:20 PM
 
Emilie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: going thru divorce land
Posts: 7,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Breech babies are born vaginally all the time. So sad.
Emilie is offline  
#98 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 06:08 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not getting why it's 'so sad' that this baby was born by section considering there is absolutely ZERO indication as to WHY the section was done.

Is it being *assumed* that they immediately sectioned her upon arrival when her water broke? That certainly would be an option to present to mom with a baby that large, however women often *can* deliver 10+ pound babies vaginally...and well, you don't know til you try.

However, since there was no indication that this was actually the case, I'm left wondering if maybe the section was due to some sort of emergency that presented itself once she was in labor. It *is* possible for that to be the case.

Either way, that is one HUGE baby. Not even 38 weeks and well over 10 pounds! Yikes. I shudder to think what the baby would have weighed at 42 weeks.
wifeandmom is offline  
#99 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 06:14 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilie
Breech babies are born vaginally all the time. So sad.
And when breech babies are born vaginally under the care of a provider that is *experienced* at vaginal breech delivery, it can be as safe, or even safer, as doing an elective section (assuming we're excluding certain breech presentations like footling where vaginal birth is not supported statistically no matter what the provider's experience level happens to be).

Unfortunately, it's very difficult, sometimes impossible, to find a provider with ANY experience delivering vaginal breech babies. At that point, the safety of attempting vaginal birth without an experienced provider goes way down according to research.

We couldn't find a homebirth midwife willing to deliver a second born twin who happened to be breech 5 years ago, and we lived in a fairly large city at the time. Nobody we talked to had enough experience to feel confident in taking on not only a twin homebirth, but the distinct possibility of needing to deliver the second baby breech.
wifeandmom is offline  
#100 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 06:15 PM
 
Emilie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: going thru divorce land
Posts: 7,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Emilie is offline  
#101 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 06:16 PM
 
Emilie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: going thru divorce land
Posts: 7,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
and that is sad to.
Emilie is offline  
#102 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 07:36 PM
 
blissful_maia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,573
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

Peaceful mama to three blissfully-birthed and incredible small people: dd10, dd7 and ds5. Always awed and so thankful to be a midwife.
blissful_maia is offline  
#103 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 09:48 PM
 
boscopup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,010
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
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)

Mama to Tornado Boy (6/04), The Brute (11/06), and Mischief (05/09)... expecting in February '15
boscopup is offline  
#104 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 09:50 PM
 
wifeandmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
wifeandmom is offline  
#105 of 107 Old 08-21-2006, 10:16 PM
 
ericswifey27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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 :

Mama to my spirited J, and L, my homebirth: baby especially DTaP, MMR (family vax injuries)
ericswifey27 is offline  
#106 of 107 Old 08-22-2006, 03:29 AM
 
nznats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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!
nznats is offline  
#107 of 107 Old 08-22-2006, 08:08 AM
 
blissful_maia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,573
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

Peaceful mama to three blissfully-birthed and incredible small people: dd10, dd7 and ds5. Always awed and so thankful to be a midwife.
blissful_maia is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off