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

cynder

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.

Last one was 4 years and 4 months ago, however 2 of my close friends are due their babies 1st week of June and 1st week of July and they both had dating scans done at 15 weeks, i also had my last dating scan done at 15 weeks with my last 2 . All at Limerick hospital. they also had/have another sacn at 32 weeks sometimes this is done a week earlier or later. They also do portable scans at every hospital clinic (to check size and heart beat and so on) thats been done since before i was pregnant with my second thats over 6 years ago.

angelfire9

grindelwald wrote: »

Last one was 4 years and 4 months ago, however 2 of my close friends are due their babies 1st week of June and 1st week of July and they both had dating scans done at 15 weeks, i also had my last dating scan done at 15 weeks with my last 2 . All at Limerick hospital. they also had/have another sacn at 32 weeks sometimes this is done a week earlier or later. They also do portable scans at every hospital clinic (to check size and heart beat and so on) thats been done since before i was pregnant with my second thats over 6 years ago.

I'm beginning to think we are better off living in the sticks grindelwald :rolleyes:
We certainly get better maternity care then our city cousins!

GoerGirl

grindelwald wrote: »

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?

Intervention when properly medically indicated is life-saving. Intervention when used as "routine" or to manage specific hospital policy or conditions (ie over-crowding) poses risk to mothers and babies.

High rates of death in childbirth in the developing world and historically can be specifically isolated to infection, lack of birth support, lack of proper ante-natal care and screening for maternal conditions such as pre-eclampsia, diabetes, high blood pressure, poor hygiene, poor nutrition, etc.

Historically, infection rates soared in childbirth with the introduction of large maternity units; Death rates were higher when mothers starting attending hospital than staying home.

Even now, the main cause of maternal death in the developed world recently recorded by CMACE is sepsis.

http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/cmace-release-saving-mothers%E2%80%99-lives-report-%E2%80%93-reviewing-maternal-deaths-2006-2008

With regards to cot death - We know 2 known risk factors for cot death are:

1. being born prematurely (before 37 weeks)
2. being born at a low birth weight (less than 2.5kgs)

Routine induction increases the risks to babies of being born too early.

Induction also increases risk of a Caesarean Section. We know that babies breath better when they have experienced labour - the birth canal squeezes the baby stimulating their lung function. Some researchers have suggested that certain babies are at risk of cot death as they have a problem with the part of the brain that controls breathing and arousal (waking). Research is ongoing on this element but it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation.

cynder

angelfire9 wrote: »

I'm beginning to think we are better off living in the sticks grindelwald :rolleyes:
We certainly get better maternity care then our city cousins!

And you would think it would be the other way round, 27 weeks for your first scan thats pathetic.

Ayla

For what it's worth, in the real sticks where I live, the GP doesn't even want to confirm the pregnancy until week 12. After that s/he does all the regular checkups and it's only around week 20 you start attending the hospital's outreach community clinic. Only after you're there do you get the referral for your scan, and actually getting the appointment in the hospital for the scan can take another month.

On both of my pregs I didn't have a scan until around week 24. I had to specifically ask for a scan on the 2nd preg, it wasn't even offered.

CK2010

GoerGirl wrote: »

Induction also increases risk of a Caesarean Section. We know that babies breath better when they have experienced labour - the birth canal squeezes the baby stimulating their lung function. Some researchers have suggested that certain babies are at risk of cot death as they have a problem with the part of the brain that controls breathing and arousal (waking). Research is ongoing on this element but it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation.

i could be really wrong here so sorry if i am, but isn't passing meconium in the womb more likely if a baby is overdue? my daughter was 42weeks and she passed it in the womb which meant her breathing had to be monitored closely afterwards in case she had inhaled any.

angelfire9

Ayla wrote: »

For what it's worth, in the real sticks where I live, the GP doesn't even want to confirm the pregnancy until week 12. After that s/he does all the regular checkups and it's only around week 20 you start attending the hospital's outreach community clinic. Only after you're there do you get the referral for your scan, and actually getting the appointment in the hospital for the scan can take another month.

On both of my pregs I didn't have a scan until around week 24. I had to specifically ask for a scan on the 2nd preg, it wasn't even offered.

Where on earth do you live??????? :eek:

Ayla

CK2010 wrote: »

i could be really wrong here so sorry if i am, but isn't passing meconium in the womb more likely if a baby is overdue? my daughter was 40+2 and she passed it in the womb which meant her breathing had to be monitored closely afterwards in case she had inhaled any.

40+2 is not overdue! It is due. I think this may be a mental hurdle for society, but perhaps overcoming it is one step toward figuring out a better system for induction based on dating.

Meconium can be caused by a lot of different factors (being overdue is one of them). And yes, it can be serious if it's of a considerable quantity, but it isn't always.

CK2010

Ayla wrote: »

40+2 is not overdue! It is due. I think this may be a mental hurdle for society, but perhaps overcoming it is one step toward figuring out a better system for induction based on dating.

Meconium can be caused by a lot of different factors (being overdue is one of them). And yes, it can be serious if it's of a considerable quantity, but it isn't always.

no, i edited that after! i put in two thinking of weeks. it was 42 weeks.

was just pointing out that breathing issues can result from overdue complications too.

Ayla

angelfire9 wrote: »

Where on earth do you live??????? :eek:

Crazy, isn't it...Ireland's such a small country and there is an enormous difference in the care you receive based purely on where you live.

cynder

there is a risk of cot death even without a section? In years gone by how many babies were turned upside down and smacked on their rear end to get them breathing, now a days it's a good rubbing even with natural births and some are given oxegen, the risks of cot death are from slepping positions to an old matteress. In one study in 2007 they said that c- sections reduced the risk of cot death, report in the times can't give you a link as I'm on the iPod touch, also if my spellings off sorry this thing has auto correct.

GoerGirl

CK2010 wrote: »

i could be really wrong here so sorry if i am, but isn't passing meconium in the womb more likely if a baby is overdue? my daughter was 42weeks and she passed it in the womb which meant her breathing had to be monitored closely afterwards in case she had inhaled any.

From what I've read, the passage of meconium is more common in pregnancies 40+ weeks - it often indicates the maturity of the baby's bowels. The presence of meconium alone is not necessarily cause for worry.

The concern with meconium is Meconium Aspiration Syndrome - which most studies show is a prenatal event.

Passing of meconium can indicate fetal distress. There are many risk factors for fetal distress.

There are other risk factors - such as smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, poor intrauterine growth, stress to the baby in labour or birth, etc

metrovelvet

grindelwald wrote: »

there is a risk of cot death even without a section? In years gone by how many babies were turned upside down and smacked on their rear end to get them breathing, now a days it's a good rubbing even with natural births and some are given oxegen, the risks of cot death are from slepping positions to an old matteress. In one study in 2007 they said that c- sections reduced the risk of cot death, report in the times can't give you a link as I'm on the iPod touch, also if my spellings off sorry this thing has auto correct.

When a baby is born screaming and crying his/her lungs get cleared out. No such thing happens with a section. They slapped the **** out my son. If you saw you neighbor do this to a baby you'd call the police.

GoerGirl

grindelwald wrote: »

there is a risk of cot death even without a section? In years gone by how many babies were turned upside down and smacked on their rear end to get them breathing, now a days it's a good rubbing even with natural births and some are given oxegen, the risks of cot death are from slepping positions to an old matteress. In one study in 2007 they said that c- sections reduced the risk of cot death, report in the times can't give you a link as I'm on the iPod touch, also if my spellings off sorry this thing has auto correct.

Re-read the quote. I did not say Caesarean section was a risk factor. Apologies if this was not clear - I am very tired!

Goergirl said: Induction also increases risk of a Caesarean Section. We know that babies breath better when they have experienced labour - the birth canal squeezes the baby stimulating their lung function. Some researchers have suggested that certain babies are at risk of cot death as they have a problem with the part of the brain that controls breathing and arousal (waking). Research is ongoing on this element but it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation.

with regards to the lungs, as the baby passes through the birth canal excess fluid is squeezed out - babies who have not passed through the birth canal (caesarean) can have wetter lungs and this can cause respiratory distress - Caesarean is a risk factor for this.

CK2010

GoerGirl wrote: »

From what I've read, the passage of meconium is more common in pregnancies 40+ weeks - it often indicates the maturity of the baby's bowels. The presence of meconium alone is not necessarily cause for worry.

The concern with meconium is Meconium Aspiration Syndrome - which most studies show is a prenatal event.

Passing of meconium can indicate fetal distress. There are many risk factors for fetal distress.

There are other risk factors - such as smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, poor intrauterine growth, stress to the baby in labour or birth, etc

this is what i was referring to. she had to be monitored because she had passed meconium and if she had inhaled any her breathing would be affected. she was examined and deemed fine but they still said to be wary of her breathing. we werent allowed give her a soother at first in case it affected her breathing. she went into distress during labour but i dont know if it was to do with that or not.

but i was just pointing out that breathing issues (some of which may cause cot death) dont only arise from premature births.

also: just remembered, many years ago they said soothers caused cot death by choking babies and stuff, now they say they can actually regulate babys breathing and prevent it. its all ever changing

cynder

metrovelvet wrote: »

When a baby is born screaming and crying his/her lungs get cleared out. No such thing happens with a section. They slapped the **** out my son. If you saw you neighbor do this to a baby you'd call the police.

None of mine were born crying/screaming, they were rubbed vigorously (less so with first born and last child more so with premature abby) none of them cried or screamed even during/after rubbing. Little did i know they would make up for it afterwards :eek:......


your poor son! and yes if you saw anyone else do that you would call police.

metrovelvet

grindelwald wrote: »

None of mine were born crying/screaming, they were rubbed vigorously (less so with first born and last child more so with premature abby) none of them cried or screamed even during/after rubbing. Little did i know they would make up for it afterwards :eek:......


your poor son! and yes if you saw anyone else do that you would call police.

I was still unconcious so I didnt see it. But my mother did and she was horrified, she had two natural births so she never saw this done before. She tried to tell me the whole thing, but I cant even listen to it after a certain point.

cynder

metrovelvet wrote: »

I was still unconcious so I didnt see it. But my mother did and she was horrified, she had two natural births so she never saw this done before. She tried to tell me the whole thing, but I cant even listen to it after a certain point.

I think years ago it was quite a common practice, its only in the last few decades that things have changed. I dont know how anyone could turn a newborn baby upside down and slap its rear end, suppose years ago they didn't have any means of clearing the airways, it should never be done in this day and age :eek:

metrovelvet

grindelwald wrote: »

I think years ago it was quite a common practice, its only in the last few decades that things have changed. I dont know how anyone could turn a newborn baby upside down and slap its rear end, suppose years ago they didn't have any means of clearing the airways, it should never be done in this day and age :eek:

Em...my son is four... this was four years ago...me and my brother are a lot older and my son had the crap slapped out him whereas me and my brother did not. It's because he was a section baby.

He had the works, the jaundice lamp, didnt see his mother when he was born, yadda yadda...

Thats my point about intervention, once you bring in one you invite the 'cascade effect' of interventions.

In retrospect, it was all entirely uneccessary.

cynder

metrovelvet wrote: »

Em...my son is four... this was four years ago...me and my brother are a lot older and my son had the crap slapped out him whereas me and my brother did not. It's because he was a section baby.

He had the works, the jaundice lamp, didnt see his mother when he was born, yadda yadda...

Thats my point about intervention, once you bring in one you invite the 'cascade effect' of interventions.

In retrospect, it was all entirely uneccessary.

Surly they have other methods of getting the lungs started, I have heard of it being done but ive never met anyone who has had it done :eek:
i know it got him breathing, but surly there would be better method of getting him breathing? thats an open question for anyone who can offer input.

I suppose that's where the rubbing comes in, my lady was blue/purple and floppy when she was born, ( i remember they showed her to me and her head just flopped to the side (no crying or movement) she was worked on for a few mins with rubbing (never knew she was given oxygen or that the cord was around her neck until i read my notes later, I'm so nosy i read every word in my book found out they were worried about me too for the first 2 hours after giving birth as i was so pale, they kept me for 2.5 hours extra after she was born because they thought something was amiss, i just needed a rest ). T

Hannibal Smith

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.

This is so true...I'll have my first meeting with a doctor at the end of this month when I'll be 18 weeks and will presumably get a scan then. My 20 week scan will be at 28 weeks.

I did get a scan at 9 weeks however, but only because of the recent miscarriage and I got a sneaky scan at 12 weeks which was done as an emergency out of hours thing because of a bleed.

I had high bp throughout on my last pregnancy, which developed into pre-eclampsia so I would have thought they'd want to keep an eye on me, but obviously not

cynder

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

This is so true...I'll have my first meeting with a doctor at the end of this month when I'll be 18 weeks and will presumably get a scan then. My 20 week scan will be at 28 weeks.

I did get a scan at 9 weeks however, but only because of the recent miscarriage and I got a sneaky scan at 12 weeks which was done as an emergency out of hours thing because of a bleed.

I had high bp throughout on my last pregnancy, which developed into pre-eclampsia so I would have thought they'd want to keep an eye on me, but obviously not

20 week scan at 28 weeks, ffs! talk about budget cuts!

With my first i had scan at 8 weeks (in patient) and also at 19 and 21 weeks due to bleeds at the 21 week scan i found i was having a girl (was put on a sex ban for the remainder of the pregnancy), also had one at 32 weeks, i had a portable scan at every clinic appointment, i also had scans when i was an inpatient on two other occasions (24/7 sickness) but she was too big for photos so they wouldn't give me any I had another scan at i think 37 weeks because i wasn't getting 10 kicks a day, i was in there for 30 mins she was slapping my belly like a mad thing trying to get the baby to move, after around 25 mins of this the baby gave a little movement and that was it, she is still as stubborn today.....

Got a feeling budget cuts are going to play havoc with maternity care.

metrovelvet

grindelwald wrote: »

Surly they have other methods of getting the lungs started, I have heard of it being done but ive never met anyone who has had it done :eek:
i know it got him breathing, but surly there would be better method of getting him breathing? thats an open question for anyone who can offer input.

I suppose that's where the rubbing comes in, my lady was blue/purple and floppy when she was born, ( i remember they showed her to me and her head just flopped to the side (no crying or movement) she was worked on for a few mins with rubbing (never knew she was given oxygen or that the cord was around her neck until i read my notes later, I'm so nosy i read every word in my book found out they were worried about me too for the first 2 hours after giving birth as i was so pale, they kept me for 2.5 hours extra after she was born because they thought something was amiss, i just needed a rest ). T

I'm not sure how much faith I put into records. I read mine too and the seem incongruous. It says I had an elective section. Nothing elective about it. When I talk to other doctors they say it was emergency. Also says blood transfusion but I have no way of knowing. Did they fudge this to keep their emergency c section rate down? Did they put in blood transfusion to fatten up the bill? Also didnt say anything about kidney failure either, but then why else would I have been on a catheter for three days?

My son was born in the US btw, where we have the most 'advanced' medicine and facilities.

My mother eventually stepped in and got them to stop it. She said they were way OTT with it and the baby was terrified. Without getting into it too much here, it had lasting psychological effects on him during his infancy, not just all the slapping and hitting but the other stuff too. But of course, im just his mother, not a doc, so what the hell would i know about my own baby or my own body?

Now my son wants to be a doctor. How funny. He tells me 'mommy, you are the nurse because you clean up the poo."

cynder

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm not sure how much faith I put into records. I read mine too and the seem incongruous. It says I had an elective section. Nothing elective about it. When I talk to other doctors they say it was emergency. Also says blood transfusion but I have no way of knowing. Did they fudge this to keep their emergency c section rate down? Did they put in blood transfusion to fatten up the bill? Also didnt say anything about kidney failure either, but then why else would I have been on a catheter for three days?

My son was born in the US btw, where we have the most 'advanced' medicine and facilities.

My mother eventually stepped in and got them to stop it. She said they were way OTT with it and the baby was terrified. Without getting into it too much here, it had lasting psychological effects on him during his infancy, not just all the slapping and hitting but the other stuff too. But of course, im just his mother, not a doc, so what the hell would i know about my own baby or my own body?

Now my son wants to be a doctor. How funny. He tells me 'mommy, you are the nurse because you clean up the poo."

That's weird, i wouldn't be happy with that.... but what can you do? my notes were spot on, except for the last one where they failed to note my previous 3rd degree tear.

got to love your son........ nurses clean up poo...:D... remind him you do more than that, you kiss his boo boo's better, put on a plaster and give him calpol.

Orion

metrovelvet wrote: »

Also didnt say anything about kidney failure either, but then why else would I have been on a catheter for three days?

Being on a catheter does not have to mean kidney failure. There are many reasons to have one. My partner had one for two days and there was nothing wrong with her kidneys either.

cynder

Macros42 wrote: »

Being on a catheter does not have to mean kidney failure. There are many reasons to have one. My partner had one for two days and there was nothing wrong with her kidneys either.

My dad had kidney failure he got malignant hypertension (bad headaches worse than migraine with it) kidney failure makes your blood pressure go haywire his was 165/120, he died within 4 months of diagnoses (he only left the hospital for 1 week during that time and was rushed back in by ambulance), he was diagnosed in April and died in August ( 2 years ago this august age 54) he never had a catheter in and was peeing blood, his urine was red. He had to undergo dialysis 3 times a week. At diagnoses he was beyond the point of return, some people with kidney failure can come back out of it, there are 5 levels, he was first diagnosed at level 3.

metrovelvet

Macros42 wrote: »

Being on a catheter does not have to mean kidney failure. There are many reasons to have one. My partner had one for two days and there was nothing wrong with her kidneys either.

Are you sure about that?

Hannibal Smith

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

I was on a catheter after my section too, but my kidneys were fine. it was just because I couldn't get out of the bed. I think it was only for 24 hours though...will never forget the shame of the nurse taking it out so I could have my shower the next morning Maybe because of the transfusion you couldn't weren't allowed out of the bed for a longer period or something?

Hannibal Smith

grindelwald wrote: »

20 week scan at 28 weeks, ffs! talk about budget cuts!

With my first i had scan at 8 weeks (in patient) and also at 19 and 21 weeks due to bleeds at the 21 week scan i found i was having a girl (was put on a sex ban for the remainder of the pregnancy), also had one at 32 weeks, i had a portable scan at every clinic appointment, i also had scans when i was an inpatient on two other occasions (24/7 sickness) but she was too big for photos so they wouldn't give me any I had another scan at i think 37 weeks because i wasn't getting 10 kicks a day, i was in there for 30 mins she was slapping my belly like a mad thing trying to get the baby to move, after around 25 mins of this the baby gave a little movement and that was it, she is still as stubborn today.....

Got a feeling budget cuts are going to play havoc with maternity care.

If you have bleeds and stuff and require in patient care I would expect you would have a fair few scans. But for an average 'normal' pregnancy, you don't get your 12 week scan. The hospital don't want to know you before 12 weeks and even when it comes to the 12 week appointment it's only for booking your pregnancy, taking your history/bloods etc. As I say, I still haven't seen a doctor yet and i'm 14 weeks now.

January

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

I had mine in for two days after my section and kidney failure wasn't mentioned anywhere...