Things for prospective mothers to think about(Contains scientific info on stillbirth)

Ayla

(1): Completely unfair to quote another thread...I'm not sure but could be a breech of regs. Anyway, now that it's done:

(2) You've completely proven Squiggler's point. Based on one calculation (made by the hospital - who was not normally attending her - and made on "average" terms) she was over 42 weeks. However, based on her personalized calculation determined by her actual cycle she was not over term. Even the hospital (who was looking at all the physical evidence of her fetus & condition) determined that all was well, or they would not have "allowed" her to remain in the care of her regular midwife.

Squiggler, my apologies for speaking on your behalf & please let me know if I've overstepped here, but I can understand where you're coming from.

Squiggler

Thanks Ayla

They gave me 4 extra days, not the 14-15 extra that it would have required to actually bring me to 42 weeks - I just had to take what I could. But as I was experiencing contractions that should (and probably would) have been enough... if they had left me alone to get on with it instead of trying to go back on what they had agreed, completely stressing me out and stopping my contractions.

Grindlewald, you and I are not going to agree on this. You seem willing to place your life and the life of your children completely in the hands of the medical profession, some of which are extremely competent, but many of whom are fallible and overworked. I am not, and my recent experiences have only served to strengthen my resolve to always ask questions, ensure that I am fully informed and to ensure that they justify the need for any invasive or agressive treatment they propose.

cynder

Squiggler wrote: »

Thanks Ayla

They gave me 4 extra days, not the 14-15 extra that it would have required to actually bring me to 42 weeks - I just had to take what I could. But as I was experiencing contractions that should (and probably would) have been enough... if they had left me alone to get on with it instead of trying to go back on what they had agreed, completely stressing me out and stopping my contractions.

Grindlewald, you and I are not going to agree on this. You seem willing to place your life and the life of your children completely in the hands of the medical profession, some of which are extremely competent, but many of whom are fallible and overworked. I am not, and my recent experiences have only served to strengthen my resolve to always ask questions, ensure that I am fully informed and to ensure that they justify the need for any invasive or agressive treatment they propose.

I just been onto a number of pregnancy calendars and entered periods of 28 days and 34 days they come up the a 5 - 6 day difference not 14-15 days.

Yes the drs and nurses make mistakes, all of us do. yes always ask questions and be fully informed. I read all the books i could to get as much info as possible (wasnt much Internet around when i had my first) i believe it worked in my favour, i took the good with the bad.

If you had agreed to have an induction who knows what would have happened that day. When you go again, what care will you be seeking out as you dont seem to trust hospitals?

cynder

Ayla wrote: »

(1): Completely unfair to quote another thread...I'm not sure but could be a breech of regs. Anyway, now that it's done:

(2) You've completely proven Squiggler's point. Based on one calculation (made by the hospital - who was not normally attending her - and made on "average" terms) she was over 42 weeks. However, based on her personalized calculation determined by her actual cycle she was not over term. Even the hospital (who was looking at all the physical evidence of her fetus & condition) determined that all was well, or they would not have "allowed" her to remain in the care of her regular midwife.

Squiggler, my apologies for speaking on your behalf & please let me know if I've overstepped here, but I can understand where you're coming from.

that says it all!

Seems squigglier is a very determined lady, i cant fault her on wanting to stick to her guns, it is after all her prerogative, she based everything on her own calculations, the hospital gave her an extra 4 days which by (Internet calculations 34 day period )would have brought her up to 41+6 and were so concerned that they phoned her every day. They would not afford her the extra 10 days she says she had left.

How many hospitals phone someone everyday checking up on them?

Squiggler

grindelwald wrote: »

the hospital gave her an extra 4 days which by (Internet calculations 34 day period )would have brought her up to 41+6 and were so concerned that they phoned her every day. They would not afford her the extra 10 days she says she had left.

How many hospitals phone someone everyday checking up on them?

I don't want to make this thread about me, but if my experience can help others then good.

4 days is not the 5-6 your online calculators said it should have been. And I know when I ovulate in my cycle, it's late in the cycle. But it wasn't just based on my calculations that I wanted to hold off on induction.

Three sonographers and one consultant agreed that it was clear that the baby wasn't overdue. The baby was moving around, very responsive and showing no signs of distress until I was half starved and subjected to a nearly two hour interrogation. The man who was making the decisions had made up his mind before he even met me, and was ignoring anything that undermined his decision (including all test results).

The hospital was not phoning everyday (it was far more frequent than that even though I had informed them that I would be availing of maternity care at another hospital) and was not phoning to see how I was. My contact at the HSE described what they were doing as harassment, and that was certainly what it felt like. They were aware of the physical and emotional state that they had put me in on that Tuesday and were in a blind panic.

cbyrd

When i conceived ben i knew the night it happened. I told this to my GP and she gave me a date of Dec 21, the hospital changed it to Dec 24th. i went overdue and they decided to leave me til 42 weeks to induce. By my dates i would have been 17 days over :eek: but they took me in at 41+6 to induce me the next morning but i knew i was already starting labor.
I was getting my scan done a few weeks ago with my latest surprise and i was told they don't change the dates now unless there is a difference of 10 or more days. Again i told them the night this one happened as i was unsure of my period dates (all over the place in nov and dec due to stress and illness) and i was spot on.

I've been putting my faith in the knowledge of doctors and midwives for the last 13 years and it's amazing how much has changed over this time.
On my first i was allowed to take nurofen, as i'm allergic to paracetamol, on my 2nd 3 years later i was only allowed take it in the 2nd trimester and not at all with my 3rd.
On my first i was told the odd alcoholic drink was ok same with the 2nd and not at all with the 3rd..
On my first and 2nd it was the done thing to use the alcohol pads to clean the bellybutton of the newborn and on the 3rd but in the 7 years in between it was recommended to just use water, infections in belly buttons went up so they went back to the alcohol pads:rolleyes:

So much is learned and discarded and a lot of the time a good birth experience can be down to who's in the room with you. I was lucky to have good midwives with me on my 2nd and 3rd.
When i was in labour with my last one, i knew how my previous births went, they were quick when i got to a certain point.

It was 6 in the evening my husband had been sent home at 5 it was snowing and icy and it would take him 2 hours to get back. I knew i was in labour but it was coming up to shift change and it was like they didn't want to check until the night shift came on at 8pm. I asked 3 times to be checked over an hour and a half period and 3 times i was told just a minute and i'll be back to u.. eventually the night shift came on at 8pm and took me seriously.
I'd already called my husband at this stage to give him the heads up, they stuck a monitor on me and left me for 40 mins to get a read out.. only the paper jammed and they had to start again. Eventually an older midwife came in and i said 'this is my 3rd baby, i go fast i don't mind having it here but i'd prefer a delivery room, can you check me. I was 6 cms dilated and contracting every 2 -3 mins so she said to the delivery room with you. :rolleyes: this is when my husband walked in When i got to the delivery room i was 7 cms. . . Ben was born an hour and a 40 mins later after i requested my waters broken. the midwife with me was so patient and good that i didn't require any stitches afterwards. I'm good with pain and i think because i was walking around with no change of expression when i got a pain didn't help me . . :rolleyes:
There was a lot of women giving birth that evening that's why i wasn't priority, i was there to be started the next day i wasn't in the labour ward. But it still left me feeling like i had to shout to be heard. I discount this part of my experience as over worked midwives in the middle of a baby boom.

If the baby is healthy and safe should i care that the birth experience wasn't what i expected?? That's a tough question to answer.

Squiggler, what you went through was unimaginable and i'm sorry for your loss.:(

Hannibal Smith

SanFran07 wrote: »

Hi Hannibal, as I said my post was not directed at you. Your post just got me thinking about this double standard there is around having a particular birth experience. As someone else pointed out 'damned if we do and damned if we don't (whether its an elective caesarean, homebirth or induction with all the bells and whistles - someone will have an opinion based on their own experiences and feelings around birth. Wasn't trying to start an argument - honestly.

Hi SanFran, it was just that you quoted my post and it was two lines that made it look like I was passing judgment on mothers for chosing a different birthing experience to me, which I wasn't.

Hannibal Smith

grindelwald wrote: »

I just been onto a number of pregnancy calendars and entered periods of 28 days and 34 days they come up the a 5 - 6 day difference not 14-15 days.

Yes the drs and nurses make mistakes, all of us do. yes always ask questions and be fully informed. I read all the books i could to get as much info as possible (wasnt much Internet around when i had my first) i believe it worked in my favour, i took the good with the bad.

If you had agreed to have an induction who knows what would have happened that day. When you go again, what care will you be seeking out as you dont seem to trust hospitals?

I think if I was Squiggler I wouldn't have much faith in hospitals either. From reading her posts she seems to have had an enormous understanding of what was best for her. She should have felt calm and as relaxed as possible, not under pressure and stressed by the medical team.

January

Ayla wrote: »

(1): Completely unfair to quote another thread...I'm not sure but could be a breech of regs. Anyway, now that it's done:

(2) You've completely proven Squiggler's point. Based on one calculation (made by the hospital - who was not normally attending her - and made on "average" terms) she was over 42 weeks. However, based on her personalized calculation determined by her actual cycle she was not over term. Even the hospital (who was looking at all the physical evidence of her fetus & condition) determined that all was well, or they would not have "allowed" her to remain in the care of her regular midwife.

Squiggler, my apologies for speaking on your behalf & please let me know if I've overstepped here, but I can understand where you're coming from.

If you have a problem with a post, please report it.

angelfire9

cbyrd wrote: »

When i conceived ben i knew the night it happened. I told this to my GP and she gave me a date of Dec 21, the hospital changed it to Dec 24th. i went overdue and they decided to leave me til 42 weeks to induce. By my dates i would have been 17 days over :eek: but they took me in at 41+6 to induce me the next morning but i knew i was already starting labor.

Like you I knew the date that my eldest was conceived as it had been the only weekend in about 3 months that I was off work & hubby was home from training in Templemore
Do you think the doctors listened? Nope!
Might as well have been talking to the moon!
She was either conceived on October 29th or the wee hours of the 30th
Which would have given me a due date of July 27th

They put my due date as August 14th initially but I kicked off and EVENTUALLY persuaded them via my husband's insistence that we knew the date and it was brought back to July 27th

I was induced on August 3rd @ 41weeks and she was born that evening (7lbs 11oz) but I dread to think what might have happened if they had left it drag on and on if they had kept their due date of August 14th and left me go over 10 days then I would have in reality been 42+4

Squiggler

That's the other side of the issue of reliance on dates rather than scan, CTG and other case specific test results.

NamelessPhil

Squiggler, I am so sorry for your loss, I can't imagine what you are going through and I hope you and your family have plenty of support at this time.


Ok, I'm going to weigh in with another anecdotal pregnancy.

My daughter was conceived through IVF. You probably can't be any more accurate than that as regards dates and cycle length. We knew exactly when egg collection and fertilisation took place and she was transferred on day three post fertilisation with another embryo that didn't implant. We had a dating scan at 7 weeks and 2 days and were given an EDD of 4th May, which would have been in accordance with both cycle length and date of conception. Another scan for possible abnormalities at 12 weeks also confirmed the 4th May date.

However, she wasn't born until 3:00am on 17th May by emergency section, following a failed induction. As it was she was never going to be a vaginal birth because she was in the OP position and when she was taken out the cord was wrapped four times around her neck. The placenta was in perfect condition and she was always a very active baby.

It is possible to be perfectly sure of your dates, especially as a result of IVF and still go over by 13 days!

Squiggler

Normal pregnancy duration is anything from 40 - 42 weeks. Less that 5% of babies are born on their estimated due date and over 50% are born in weeks 41 or 42.

A baby should only be termed post-dates or overdue after 42 weeks have been completed, or 40 + 14 (assuming that dates were correct in the first place).

cynder

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Squiggler, I am so sorry for your loss, I can't imagine what you are going through and I hope you and your family have plenty of support at this time.


Ok, I'm going to weigh in with another anecdotal pregnancy.

My daughter was conceived through IVF. You probably can't be any more accurate than that as regards dates and cycle length. We knew exactly when egg collection and fertilisation took place and she was transferred on day three post fertilisation with another embryo that didn't implant. We had a dating scan at 7 weeks and 2 days and were given an EDD of 4th May, which would have been in accordance with both cycle length and date of conception. Another scan for possible abnormalities at 12 weeks also confirmed the 4th May date.

However, she wasn't born until 3:00am on 17th May by emergency section, following a failed induction. As it was she was never going to be a vaginal birth because she was in the OP position and when she was taken out the cord was wrapped four times around her neck. The placenta was in perfect condition and she was always a very active baby.

It is possible to be perfectly sure of your dates, especially as a result of IVF and still go over by 13 days!

It great that that it worked out for you, doesn't change the fact that there is an increased risk of still birth. * which is why i presume you went along with induction and did not wait for spontaneous labour.

cynder

Squiggler wrote: »

A baby should only be termed post-dates or overdue after 42 weeks have been completed, or 40 + 14 (assuming that dates were correct in the first place).

SAYS WHO?

cynder

This thread got me wondering, if someone is so opposed to intervention, are they will to get baby vaccinated or let nature take its course? the take up on the mmr is low and wonder if there is a link between.


If they get their baby vaccinated seems a bit of a double standard, after all not many vaccinations are medically necessary (medically necessary meaning child is in contact with said disease) , they are an after all options and precautions.

Squiggler

grindelwald wrote: »

SAYS WHO?

EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT!

From Wikipedia "In humans, birth normally occurs at a gestational age of about 40 weeks, though a normal range is from 37 to 42 weeks which is 9 months and 1 week."

The stats I quoted above (50% being later than EDD i.e. 40 weeks) were from "What to Expect When You're Expecting"

The World Health Organization defines normal term for delivery as between 37 weeks and 42 weeks.

lolli

This really is a tough topic. Every pregnancy is so completely different its hard to compare one to the other. I had a difficult high risk pregnancy. I had scans every month. I was being monitored by two different hospitals every month. One by my home county and one in Dublin.

I was told to expect that my baby would arrive early and that they would do their best to keep her healthy and safe. I had high blood pressure all throughout my pregnancy. Towards the end I swelled up completely and I couldn’t even dress myself properly. I could drive but I could only walk a few steps towards the end. I had an appointment the day before my 38th week and I had a sweep done. I was told that they wanted this baby out of me before I hit 40 weeks. I had a sweep done at 37 + 6, it didn’t work.

A week later at 39 weeks my consultant rang me and requested that I come in for an induction. It had snowed at the time and I couldn’t get in so I told her that I would organise to get someone with a jeep to bring me there. They said they really wanted me there as soon as possible. The next day at 39+1 my waters broke. Two different ambulances came because the snow was so bad.
My daughter was born 18 hours after my waters broke. I had booked an epidural but I was not allowed it. They kept telling me someone was coming to give it to me but when I got so far they said I wasn’t getting it now. I had a 3rd degree tear and loads of stitches.

The labour wasn’t the way I wanted it. I was in so much pain it was unreal. My daughter arrived into this world safely that was my ultimate goal. The hospitals took such good care of us, they really monitored me so well. I followed all their advice.

However, all the medical access and monitoring in the world can’t always protect you. My daughter became really ill at 3 weeks old and she had Strep B meningitis. She was really ill, someone of you probably remember it. I was looked after so well by the hospitals and the one thing they didn’t do was offer me a swab for strep B. That one little thing led to my daughter almost dying.
A few months later my daughter was diagnosed with a dislocated hip and has spent the past 9 months in casts, braces, she had a little operation and was in traction for 10 days. Her hip still isn’t right.

The point I’m trying to make is that you can take all the medical advice and intervention in the world and things might not turn out the way you expect it. I was looked after so well but still things didn’t turn out the way they were expected to. Sometimes things just happen that are beyond our control.

cynder

Squiggler wrote: »

EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT!

From Wikipedia "In humans, birth normally occurs at a gestational age of about 40 weeks, though a normal range is from 37 to 42 weeks which is 9 months and 1 week."

The stats I quoted above (50% being later than EDD i.e. 40 weeks) were from "What to Expect When You're Expecting"

The World Health Organization defines normal term for delivery as between 37 weeks and 42 weeks.

Have you seen an Irish babys growth or weight chart ?

It doesnt go from birth, it goes on gestational period , meaning a baby at 37 weeks TERM will have a differnt path from a baby born at 41 weeks also TERM and reffered to by many mothers and health care profesionals here in ireland as overdue.


many use overdue to refer on to be past due date, where as postterm 42 weeks+.
Given that some sites do say overdue is past 42 weeks.

cynder

lolli wrote: »

This really is a tough topic. Every pregnancy is so completely different its hard to compare one to the other. I had a difficult high risk pregnancy. I had scans every month. I was being monitored by two different hospitals every month. One by my home county and one in Dublin.

I was told to expect that my baby would arrive early and that they would do their best to keep her healthy and safe. I had high blood pressure all throughout my pregnancy. Towards the end I swelled up completely and I couldn’t even dress myself properly. I could drive but I could only walk a few steps towards the end. I had an appointment the day before my 38th week and I had a sweep done. I was told that they wanted this baby out of me before I hit 40 weeks. I had a sweep done at 37 + 6, it didn’t work.

A week later at 39 weeks my consultant rang me and requested that I come in for an induction. It had snowed at the time and I couldn’t get in so I told her that I would organise to get someone with a jeep to bring me there. They said they really wanted me there as soon as possible. The next day at 39+1 my waters broke. Two different ambulances came because the snow was so bad.
My daughter was born 18 hours after my waters broke. I had booked an epidural but I was not allowed it. They kept telling me someone was coming to give it to me but when I got so far they said I wasn’t getting it now. I had a 3rd degree tear and loads of stitches.

The labour wasn’t the way I wanted it. I was in so much pain it was unreal. My daughter arrived into this world safely that was my ultimate goal. The hospitals took such good care of us, they really monitored me so well. I followed all their advice.

However, all the medical access and monitoring in the world can’t always protect you. My daughter became really ill at 3 weeks old and she had Strep B meningitis. She was really ill, someone of you probably remember it. I was looked after so well by the hospitals and the one thing they didn’t do was offer me a swab for strep B. That one little thing led to my daughter almost dying.
A few months later my daughter was diagnosed with a dislocated hip and has spent the past 9 months in casts, braces, she had a little operation and was in traction for 10 days. Her hip still isn’t right.

The point I’m trying to make is that you can take all the medical advice and intervention in the world and things might not turn out the way you expect it. I was looked after so well but still things didn’t turn out the way they were expected to. Sometimes things just happen that are beyond our control.

They really only test for step B if the labour is premature, awful that your little one got it.

Given that things dont always turn out ok even with intervention, my cousin had to have her womb manually massaged to make it contract, however if she was at home with no help her son would have died as so would have she, he was to big to come out and stuck in her pelvis.

If your daughter was born at home would they have tested for strep b? not a hope, would she still have a bad hip? most probaly she would, would you have still torn, hell yeah, Would you have got pain relief? Not a hope in hell.

Hope your young ladys hip heals. some things are beyond our control, we do however have a choice.

Squiggler

Lolli, I hope your little one is doing well and that she is receiving good and appropriate medical care. Hope she makes a full recovery.

As far as I can see that is the one thing that most of us do agree on, that medical care should be appropriate and, well, caring :rolleyes:

CK2010

yep, the one thing im noticing here is that parents should be treated as that- parents. not a number, not an inconvenience to be moved from one bed to another, not a case to be treated by the book, but the parent of the new child.

they should be listened to because they know their baby and their body/partners body the best. each case she should be judged on a personal basis, with of course medical knowledge, but not purely on what the book says. there is too much 'the book says this so that means we have to do this'. and i think that is seen alot in medicine.

i know that as a mother of a sick child that i was never listened to even though im the person who knew my child best. it led to alot of timewasting which saw my daughter in alot of pain for months which could have been avoided had they just listened to what they were being told instead of referring to books.

every mother and child is different and so that is the way they should be treated.

oh and Squiggler, i meant to say before now, im so sorry for your loss of little Bun.

NamelessPhil

grindelwald wrote: »

It great that that it worked out for you, doesn't change the fact that there is an increased risk of still birth. * which is why i presume you went along with induction and did not wait for spontaneous labour.

I didn't mean to sound smug in my post or to belittle anyone's experience.

The point I was making was other posters on this thread have stated that early dating scans are not offered to pregnant women.See post 18 on this thread.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I will be very doubtful of all this theory until they devise a way of being more precise about due dates and gestation periods.

I had possibly one of the most monitored types of pregnancy available and I was still well over any due date but just within the 42 weeks by one day. I did not have any contractions prior to the induction and they had to break my waters as part of the induction.

I read up on every type of birth possible and I was glad to have the information, it meant that I knew what the possible outcomes were when I went in for the induction.

It took medical intervention to get her in there in the first place and I needed medical intervention to get her out afterwards.

The fact that I had healthy baby after three years of trying and a diagnosis of infertility is something that I am very happy about but that does take away from the fact that it could have all gone wrong.

GoerGirl

grindelwald wrote: »

14 April 2011 - Some 2.6 million stillbirths occurred worldwide in 2009, according to the first comprehensive set of estimates published in a special series of The Lancet. Every day more than 7200 babies are stillborn — a death just when parents expect to welcome a new life — and 98% of them occur in low- and middle-income countries. Well-known interventions for improving maternal and newborn health would reduce the number of stillbirths too.

• News release
• Lancet Series on Stillbirth

Well-known interventions for women and babies would save stillbirths too

The Series shows that the way to address the problem of stillbirth is to strengthen existing maternal, newborn, and child health programmes by focusing on key interventions, which also have benefits for mothers and newborns.
According to an analysis to which WHO contributed in The Lancet Stillbirth Series, as many as 1.1 million stillbirths could be averted with universal coverage of the following interventions:




Intervention Stillbirths averted


Identification and induction for mothers with >41 weeks gestation 52000



http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/maternal_perinatal/stillbirth/Press_release_stillbirths_2011/en/index.html

I am aware of the lancet report and WHO press release. We must consider the following

1. risks must be analysed comparatively (ie. risk of induction vs risk of non-induction)

2. WHO focusses primarly on developing nations (3rd world) - which Ireland is not therefore the context of the evidence may not be relevant

3. Cotzia research showed to save 1 stillbirth you must induce 500 women

4. stillbirth is too broad a definition to be useful in understanding what is happening and whether interventions are actually making a difference

Induction is being proposed as a way of avoiding only one of catagory of stillbirth, Intrauterine deaths with unknown causes. It seems reasonable that induction would reduce this number, however it may increase intrapartum deaths and babies who do not breath at birth, it may also increase perinatal deaths and cot deaths. We also need to know whether it increases or reduce morbidity for babies. We already know that it increases morbidity and mortality for women.

Induction poses its own risks - mainly other interventions such as assisted delivery and caesarean section.

We know that forceps, vacuum delivery and caesarean all have recorded risks to babies; mainly spinal and brain injury. One study I've seen referenced recorded 1 in 664 forceps, 1 in 860 vacuum and 1 in 907 caesarens babies with these types of injury.

cynder

GoerGirl wrote: »

I am aware of the lancet report and WHO press release. We must consider the following

1. risks must be analysed comparatively (ie. risk of induction vs risk of non-induction)

2. WHO focusses primarly on developing nations (3rd world) - which Ireland is not therefore the context of the evidence may not be relevant

3. Cotzia research showed to save 1 stillbirth you must induce 500 women

4. stillbirth is too broad a definition to be useful in understanding what is happening and whether interventions are actually making a difference

Induction is being proposed as a way of avoiding only one of catagory of stillbirth, Intrauterine deaths with unknown causes. It seems reasonable that induction would reduce this number, however it may increase intrapartum deaths and babies who do not breath at birth, it may also increase perinatal deaths and cot deaths. We also need to know whether it increases or reduce morbidity for babies. We already know that it increases morbidity and mortality for women.

Induction poses its own risks - mainly other interventions such as assisted delivery and caesarean section.

We know that forceps, vacuum delivery and caesarean all have recorded risks to babies; mainly spinal and brain injury. One study I've seen referenced recorded 1 in 664 forceps, 1 in 860 vacuum and 1 in 907 caesarens babies with these types of injury.

I didn't say it was perfect!

If baby gets stuck in the pelvis and is too far down to be pulled out via c-section the only open is to use forceps or vacuum, if you leave it there both mother and baby are at risk, ask a farmer how many cows he has to help, if the calf is half in half out and stays that way both cow and calf will die. it is better to let nature take its course and have both dead? its a choice the mom has to make. Look back along the centuries, women back then would love to have what we have now, Ireland was once 3rd world and look where we are now, due to new medical practices (admission to hospital and interventions) less mothers and babies die during childbirth, it still can happen but a lot less than it used too, should we be more like africa and have lives put at risk due to lack of intervention?

Or should we all go natural and take a step back and go back into the dark ages? If that were the case i would possible be dead, my daughter definitely, my brother, my nephew, my sister in law and very possible some on this thread or their kids, interventions saves more lives'. At the end of the day its the mothers choice.

As far as I'm aware there is no link between cot death and induction/forceps/vacuum or c-section. There are also many variables, smoking, drinking, drug taking, breast feeding, genetics, sheer bad luck and pure ignorance.

cynder

NamelessPhil wrote: »

The point I was making was other posters on this thread have stated that early dating scans are not offered to pregnant women. .

Most scans are done after 12 weeks. it would be better if they were before 12 weeks. Even when i had an 8 week scan done there was a give n take of 5 days either way. (still went hand in hand with my dates) I was very sick in hospital (x6 days) with morning sickness and that's why i had an early scan.

Scans done after 12 weeks have a give n take difference of a great period, cant remember what it is think its 6-7 days either side, but im open to be corrected.

Ayla

grindelwald wrote: »

Ireland was once 3rd world and look where we are now, due to new medical practices (admission to hospital and interventions) less mothers and babies die during childbirth, it still can happen but a lot less than it used too, should we be more like africa and have lives put at risk due to lack of intervention?

Or should we all go natural and take a step back and go back into the dark ages?

I think what gets me here is the blatant disregard for the fact that no one's advocating complete elimination of intervention. Instead, all anyone's suggesting is that intervention be the exception and not the rule.

Yes, of course intervention can save the lives of the mother and baby, and when it's necessary it is a god-send that we have access to it. But that does not mean that routine intervention, or intervention when there is no justifiable cause, should be utilized.

It's been said time & time again on this thread - personalized, compassionate and individual care needs to be given to each & every mother to ensure that her care - and that of her child - is guaranteed as much as humanly possible. Sometimes (more often than not), all that's required is a guiding hand & to allow Nature to "do her thing." Sometimes more active management/interventions are required, and we are the lucky ones to have it there when it's necessary.

metrovelvet

grindelwald wrote: »

Most scans are done after 12 weeks. it would be better if they were before 12 weeks. Even when i had an 8 week scan done there was a give n take of 5 days either way. (still went hand in hand with my dates) I was very sick in hospital (x6 days) with morning sickness and that's why i had an early scan.

Scans done after 12 weeks have a give n take difference of a great period, cant remember what it is think its 6-7 days either side, but im open to be corrected.

The early dating scans are not as accurate as the 12 week dating scan. I was in the US when I had my viability scan, and due back in Ireland. The OB in the US was emphatic that I MUST GET A DATING SCAN and it has to be done around 12 weeks.

There was no chance in hell I was going to get one at the Rotunda. I got an abnormality scan but those are not accurate, neither is the viability scan. But the dating scan is not prioritised in the Rotunda. I also did not know the difference between public and private over here and they told me that even with private they were so backed up that I wouldnt be able to get a dating scan.

My intervention was a nightmare. It was a total cascade effect, starting with a nurses initial misreading of a dilated cervix. She saw it dilated at 1cm so they thought I could go in, when I got to the hospital I wasnt dilated in the slightest.

The med establishement's bottom line is women are not to be trusted, not even with their own bodies.

Squiggler

grindelwald wrote: »

Most scans are done after 12 weeks. it would be better if they were before 12 weeks. Even when i had an 8 week scan done there was a give n take of 5 days either way. (still went hand in hand with my dates) I was very sick in hospital (x6 days) with morning sickness and that's why i had an early scan.

Lucky you, when I called (at estimated 6 weeks pregnant, by the aforementioned inaccurate estimation method) to book my dating scan I was offered one at week 27. How useful that would have been!! :rolleyes:

I don't know where you think that most scans are done after 12 weeks. When was the last time you had a baby? The maternity hospitals are jammed to the gills for the last few years, if you're not considered high risk you're lucky if you get a scan (assuming that you want one) unless you pay for one yourself.

angelfire9

Squiggler wrote: »

Lucky you, when I called (at estimated 6 weeks pregnant, by the aforementioned inaccurate estimation method) to book my dating scan I was offered one at week 27. How useful that would have been!! :rolleyes:

I don't know where you think that most scans are done after 12 weeks. When was the last time you had a baby? The maternity hospitals are jammed to the gills for the last few years, if you're not considered high risk you're lucky if you get a scan (assuming that you want one) unless you pay for one yourself.

In St. Munchins in Limerick you get a minimum of 2 scans regardless of risk (i had 4 but the last two were at week 38 & 39 as they were concerned about Aisling's size
They do a dating scan at 11/12 weeks (you are very unlucky to go without a scan before 12 weeks) and a check up around 28 weeks if memory serves me right
This is SOP for Limerick it was the same for me with my eldest who is now 9 and my Sister In Law who's children are 7,5,4 and 2

I have to say I cannot fault the midwives or medical staff in Limerick they were superb on both occasions despite the fact that I had horrible labour experiences on both that was just the way things worked out and not in anyway related to the level of care received

Maybe Dublin hospitals are too busy?