Calling all the Pregnant PS''ers

[ljmorgan]

So I was googling my aversion to meat

and came across a really interesting article on morning sickness and food aversions.

Two Cornell evolutionary biologists looked at thousands of pregnancies and outcomes, studying morning sickness and food aversions. Their conclusion was that morning sickness is a built in protection for both mother and baby. They found that the most common food aversions (meat, dairy, strong tasting foods) carry some of the larger risks of food poisoning. In cultures with diets of very bland, plant based foods, morning sickness among women was less prevalent (maybe they don''t need the defense?)

Anyway, just thought it was an interesting read! At least science has come a long way from "your morning sickness is in your head, it''s just you emotionally rejecting your unborn child!" http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/960321372.html

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/28/2008 5:39:18 PM
Author: *Lindsey*
neatfreak I wondered the same thing and looked into it. Basically a titer is how many parts of water or whatever they have to add to one part of your blood serum to dilute it enough to not detect antibodies.


So with a titer of 1:128, they have to add 128 parts of water or whatever to one part of my blood to dilute it enough to not detect the antibodies -- so it''s measuring concentration. So with a titer of 1:8, you only need to add 8 parts of water to one part serum to not detect antibodies. That is why the higher the second number, the ''worse'' it is. I know, seems not very intuitive. It''s also sometimes expressed as a fraction.

Ahhhhh still weird the way it''s written, but that does make sense! Thanks!

 

[mrssalvo]

Lindsey, I just want to say your post about Rh- blood was very informative. I''m Rh- and I have no idea what my hubby''s blood type is. I had rhogam with all 3 of my kids and all 3 ended up with my blood type so I didn''t need the second post birth shot. I never knew that some woman would become sensitized to the rhogam. looking back, I''m glad I didn''t know b/c I tend to freak out about little things when i''m preggo and that would have given me one more thing to worry about

. anyway, I will add you to my list of pricescopers to keep in my prayers. oh and also, I always thought that usually first babies usually did not cause the problem even if they are RH+ but the second, third etc would? Obviously, I never really researched it at all.

indy-wow woman. you are just so amazing strong. that you for updating us and please know that you and your hubby and the cubs are continually in my thoughts and prayers too. that is such great news about your mom though and your book cover.

 

[ljmorgan]

Date: 10/28/2008 8:43:53 PM
Author: mrssalvo
Lindsey, I just want to say your post about Rh- blood was very informative. I'm Rh- and I have no idea what my hubby's blood type is. I had rhogam with all 3 of my kids and all 3 ended up with my blood type so I didn't need the second post birth shot. I never knew that some woman would become sensitized to the rhogam. looking back, I'm glad I didn't know b/c I tend to freak out about little things when i'm preggo and that would have given me one more thing to worry about

. anyway, I will add you to my list of pricescopers to keep in my prayers. oh and also, I always thought that usually first babies usually did not cause the problem even if they are RH+ but the second, third etc would? Obviously, I never really researched it at all.

The first child is not a problem for Rh- women carrying an Rh+ baby, because they don't have antibodies to Rh+ blood yet. If they miscarried the child, or was exposed to the baby's blood during birth and did not receive Rhogam (which prevents you from creating antibodies if you're exposed to Rh+ blood), then you will create antibodies, which can affect the next child. After you've created antibodies (become sensitized), there's no reason to give you Rhogam in subsequent pregnancies because as I said it prevents you from creating antibodies, but you'll already have them at that point. Every time you're exposed to Rh+ blood, your antibody levels (titers) will increase, which is why the problems can intensify with each subsequent pregnancy.

The reason it affects my first pregnancy is because I already have the antibodies, because I've been exposed to Rh+ positive blood during a transfusion.

 

[Kaleigh]

Indy,
You are one strong woman. I continue to keep you, your hubby and the cubs in my prayers.

THat''s great news about your Mom!!! And so happy to hear about your book cover. I think all of us will be in line to buy it once it''s published.

 

[mrssalvo]

lindsey- okay, that makes sense to me then. I didn''t understand the correlation and you having the blood transfusion. thanks for explaining it further

 

[pavelover]

Hi Guys- just wanted to let you know I had an uneventful u/s today!!!! the baby looked great. He was moving plenty. He weighs about 3 lbs 6 oz and he was head down!!! The amniotic fluid was fine and that is about it. I think they said he was in the 51% for his weight! thats it. thanks for reading.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 10/28/2008 11:21:16 PM
Author: pavelover
Hi Guys- just wanted to let you know I had an uneventful u/s today!!!! the baby looked great. He was moving plenty. He weighs about 3 lbs 6 oz and he was head down!!! The amniotic fluid was fine and that is about it. I think they said he was in the 51% for his weight! thats it. thanks for reading.

Yay. that''s great news!!!

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/28/2008 11:21:16 PM
Author: pavelover
Hi Guys- just wanted to let you know I had an uneventful u/s today!!!! the baby looked great. He was moving plenty. He weighs about 3 lbs 6 oz and he was head down!!! The amniotic fluid was fine and that is about it. I think they said he was in the 51% for his weight! thats it. thanks for reading.

Yay Pave! I am very happy to hear that you had a great u/s! 3.6 huh? I hope my boys are that big by now...we haven''t had an u/s in the last month...it would relieve me greatly if ours our that big (considering my doctor''s worry about the potential for PTL)!

 

[pavelover]

Thank you Kaleigh and NF for the good thoughts on my baby''s u/s! It''s so nice to get that news for sure.

Neatfreak- I hope your babies are growing fine and I''m sure they are with your diligence and your weight gain- do you get any u/s soon or not until closer to your edd? Are you definitely being induced after a certain point? I can''t remember. My sil sister just had twins(early) and it had to be 3-4 weeks ago- they were 3 lbs something too and that was a while ago, although I can''t remember exactly how many weeks she was. I think she was originally due in Nov? Everyone is doing well as I am told and they had been breathing on their own from the start!! Great news, huh? I can''t rmember what her specific issues was but even though she did go on bedrest, the babies still came- they weren''t waiting! I was so glad to hear that they were doing well, though.

Kaleigh I saw on df thread that you live near her in/near phila? I didn''t realize you were from that area. I grew up in overbrook and my parents live in Devon now. I just visited in September and it was great to be back(for a little bit). What area are you in if you don''t mind saying? I love Ca(where I live now) but I also love finding ppl from my old ''hood.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/29/2008 9:08:44 AM
Author: pavelover
Thank you Kaleigh and NF for the good thoughts on my baby''s u/s! It''s so nice to get that news for sure.


Neatfreak- I hope your babies are growing fine and I''m sure they are with your diligence and your weight gain- do you get any u/s soon or not until closer to your edd? Are you definitely being induced after a certain point? I can''t remember. My sil sister just had twins(early) and it had to be 3-4 weeks ago- they were 3 lbs something too and that was a while ago, although I can''t remember exactly how many weeks she was. I think she was originally due in Nov? Everyone is doing well as I am told and they had been breathing on their own from the start!! Great news, huh? I can''t rmember what her specific issues was but even though she did go on bedrest, the babies still came- they weren''t waiting! I was so glad to hear that they were doing well, though.

We are having another one on Nov 11 (assuming I make it that far which so far we don''t have any indication I won''t as of right now...but you never know), so I am looking forward to that. I then we''ll have them pretty regularly after that. Basically with my twins everything has seemed good and because they don''t share any sacs or placenta or anything there are fewer syndromes and problems they can run into, so they don''t monitor it quite as closely as they do with mo/di or mo/mo twins (mine are called di/di).

The last u/s they were right in line with a singleton, and even on the heavier side (at 26 weeks and 6 days they were 2 lbs 3oz and 2 lbs 6 oz), so I am hoping they''ve continued to thrive! My belly has certainly gotten bigger, so if that''s any indication I hope these boys are getting nice and big. My new "due date" is December 20 basically because my doctor won''t let me go past 38 weeks. So if by chance I don''t have the babies by then, we''ll either induce or schedule a c-section the week before x-mas depending on what position the boys are in.

 

[Upgradable]

Date: 10/28/2008 8:52:58 PM
Author: *Lindsey*

Date: 10/28/2008 8:43:53 PM
Author: mrssalvo
Lindsey, I just want to say your post about Rh- blood was very informative. I'm Rh- and I have no idea what my hubby's blood type is. I had rhogam with all 3 of my kids and all 3 ended up with my blood type so I didn't need the second post birth shot. I never knew that some woman would become sensitized to the rhogam. looking back, I'm glad I didn't know b/c I tend to freak out about little things when i'm preggo and that would have given me one more thing to worry about

. anyway, I will add you to my list of pricescopers to keep in my prayers. oh and also, I always thought that usually first babies usually did not cause the problem even if they are RH+ but the second, third etc would? Obviously, I never really researched it at all.

The first child is not a problem for Rh- women carrying an Rh+ baby, because they don't have antibodies to Rh+ blood yet. If they miscarried the child, or was exposed to the baby's blood during birth and did not receive Rhogam (which prevents you from creating antibodies if you're exposed to Rh+ blood), then you will create antibodies, which can affect the next child. After you've created antibodies (become sensitized), there's no reason to give you Rhogam in subsequent pregnancies because as I said it prevents you from creating antibodies, but you'll already have them at that point. Every time you're exposed to Rh+ blood, your antibody levels (titers) will increase, which is why the problems can intensify with each subsequent pregnancy.

The reason it affects my first pregnancy is because I already have the antibodies, because I've been exposed to Rh+ positive blood during a transfusion.

Lindsey, I want to commend you on what a great explanation you gave! My background is in immunohematology (blood banking) and the situation you're in is rather rare these days since the advent of Rhogam. I'm wondering about how you were sensitized?

I know that when a pre-menopausal Rh- woman needs a transfusion, all stops are pulled out to transfuse with Rh- blood. In fact O- is the defacto choice for ALL emergency transfusions since it contains no major antigens that could stimulate antibody production. I'm interested in what circumstances intervened in your case that caused such a young woman to receive an Rh+ transfusion. From my knowledge it would be in only two situations: 1) imminent danger of losing your life, or 2) a medical mistake on part of the medical institution. Wait, I thought of a third: if there was no Rh- blood available, but that still runs into the situation that you would have had to have been faced with possibly losing your life in a short amount of time, or they would have brought some O- in for you.

Were you given massive doses of Rhogam after the Rh+ transfusions?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 10/29/2008 10:39:20 AM
Author: Upgradable
Lindsey, I want to commend you on what a great explanation you gave! My background is in immunohematology (blood banking) and the situation you''re in is rather rare these days since the advent of Rhogam. I''m wondering about how you were sensitized?

I know that when a pre-menopausal Rh- woman needs a transfusion, all stops are pulled out to transfuse with Rh- blood. In fact O- is the defacto choice for ALL emergency transfusions since it contains no major antigens that could stimulate antibody production. I''m interested in what circumstances intervened in your case that caused such a young woman to receive an Rh+ transfusion. From my knowledge it would be in only two situations: 1) imminent danger of losing your life, or 2) a medical mistake on part of the medical institution. Wait, I thought of a third: if there was no Rh- blood available, but that still runs into the situation that you would have had to have been faced with possibly losing your life in a short amount of time, or they would have brought some O- in for you.

Were you given massive doses of Rhogam after the Rh+ transfusions?

If I recall correctly, Lindsey and her doctors did not discover this issue until she got pregnant, so working backwards they surmised that she must have been transfused during her surgery 10 years ago. GIven that she didn''t know, one can assume that it was a medical mistake since in scenerios 1 and 3 the docs would have known what they did and would have told her and would have, as you suggested, given her Rhogam. Correct me if I am wrong Lindsey!

After hearing the details of the complications of this issue for Lindsey''s pregnancy I am seriously shocked that such a large mistake was made! If I am understanding the situation correctly, this would not have been an issue if Lindsey''s hubby had not been Rh+? Such terrible luck in that regard!

 

[mela lu]

Hi Girls. I'm in a rare spot and need your wise words.

I've reached a really really emotional "phase" where I'm crying at nothing even though I'm not upset (commercials, songs etc) - total hormone overload. Reading about all of your struggles is hard - and I find I cry reading them.

Which leads me to my question.

A recent conversation with my close girlfriend about childbirth got my hot under the collar. Out of 8 girls (only one of which is preggers, and NONE have children) they are all ADAMANT about getting an epidural. Their rational being "you can give birth on a bed of nails or a bed of roses" and "why suffer needlessly".

- My general understanding of 'natural vs. epidural' is that - natural is a more active while epi is slightly more passive.
- Two coworker who have had children had some adverse effects from the epi and are going to try natural for their second. ETA: Both were basically not given the natural childbirth option at the time of their first; the epi was strongly "recommended".
- Pain threshold / Risk level etc.
- I have more thoughts on this but its not terribly relevant to my overall question

I just feel like epidurals are being offered up like a menu item and the majority of women assume that it's the way to go; without doing any research into the benifits of natural. My pregnant girlfriend said that 90% of women in her hospital get epidurals. Is it just me, or is that a little HIGH?

*This is not meant as a judgment on anyone here who is opting for an epidural. I myself am open to one if 'natural' turns out to be 'not for me' at the time*

Has anyone else found this phenomenon to be true? Are women these days basically programed to think natural childbirth is outdated and epidural are the new norm? Is everyone 'too posh to push'?

...Or am i just all hot and bothered Hormona?

Mela aka Hormona 10w5d

 

[cdt1101]

hey mela - I think it's an interesting topic for sure! Of all my friends I'm the last to be preggo and all of my friends w/ the exception of one, had c-sections...2 of which were pushed for by them! My friends are so 'against' vaginal birth let alone natural it's ridiclous! It's almost like they view vaginal as dirty in some way

It's weird. And for me, disturbing! And they certainly would NEVER not choose an epi. So I think you are right on w/ the "too posh to push" thing. It's like my friends act like they are superior in some way for never having had their vagina tampered with

It's so weird!

As for me, I've thought about it, and I honestly do not think I could handle the pain! I"m a big baby even when i'm nauseous 24/7! So i don't know. My mom had me and my 2 siblings au natural and had short labors. If i knew i would follow in her footsteps, i would definitely go for natural...but there are no guarantees unfortuantely. I'm shaped NOTHING like my mother so I highly doubt i will take after her. Dont' know why I think that, but I take after my dad's side so much I just don't think my pregnancy is going to mirror my mother's at all. But I definitely do not want a c-section if it can be avoided in anyway. I also don't want to be induced (of course ask me that if i'm late and i may change my mind

).

anyway, I"m rambling....but I don't think it's your hormones making u so upset over this issue. Even before I got preggo I was would get SOOOO upset w/ my friends and their attitude towards labor. So i get it!

ETA: DD mentioned breastfeeding..that's another area where my friends view it as weird or gross! so strange! I defintiely intend on giving it a try.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:13:55 AM
Author: mela lu
I just feel like epidurals are being offered up like a menu item and the majority of women assume that it's the way to go; without doing any research into the benifits of natural. My pregnant girlfriend said that 90% of women in her hospital get epidurals. Is it just me, or is that a little HIGH?

Mela, I think this is an accurate observation. One of my close friends recently had a natural birth in a hospital setting and she was told after by the nurses that only about 1% of the women they see have a natural birth.

This topic has come up a number of times around here, and opinions and strong either way. I feel strongly about having a natural birth, for many reasons, and have found caregivers who support that. Four of my close friends recenty gave birth "au natural", two after a previous epi birth, and their stories and very interesting. All loved the natural birth experience, and the two with previous epi births preferred the natural birth experience and observed positive outcomes for themselves and for the babies (e.g., better latch post birth etc). Of course, this is not a large sample, and these women both had negative births the first time and that was why they opted for natural the second time around. So nothing is proved by this, but I found it interesting.

I notice that the norm is certianly to have a medicated birth, and also to formula feed, not to co-sleep etc etc. But who cares about the norms

Among my hippie friends the norm is natural birth, perhaps at home, co-sleeping, and breastfeeding until kiddies are 2 years old. Given that natural birth in this country is so rare, yet so common in many other industrialized countries, well conducted studies about positive or ill-effects of either are almost impossible to run: if everyone but a few "loonies" is using an epi, we can't really compare the two groups! Same goes for other countries where natural birth is the norm and only emergency cases use epis--those are not equivalent groups so you can't really compare.

I think my midwife said it best when she said that the best environment for a woman to give birth is one in which she feels confident, supported, cared for, and secure. When a woman feels that way, birth progresses better and complications are limited. We do live in a culture of fear about child birth, though, that makes this type of environment difficult for most women to find, and that makes me really sad

Fear and anxiety about birth are just so common! Not all industrialized nations share this attitude, and I think it doesn't benefit women or their babies. But we can't change it wholesale, all we can do is try to find our own culture of confidence about birth and hope that we can pass on more positive attitudes about the whole thing to our own daughters.

I am reading a really great book right now, called Birthing From Within. If you are interested in natural birth, then I highly recommend it. It is just great.

 

[robbie3982]

I'm terrified of getting an epidural. I HATE needles and I really don't like anything/anyone touching my spine, let alone putting a needle in it! That being said, I'm also really bad with pain. I think I'd like to just kind of see how it goes, but then I get worried that by the time I decide that the pain is overpowering my fear of needles it would be too late to get one.

ETA: I'd also be scared that even if the pain was bearable, there'd be a complication requiring a c-section and I'd be completely out and miss the birth of the baby.

 

[cdt1101]

Robbie - i have the same fear! I''m open to giving natural a try, but i''m afraid i''ll be in so much pain and then it''s too late

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:13:55 AM
Author: mela lu
Hi Girls. I''m in a rare spot and need your wise words.

I''ve reached a really really emotional ''phase'' where I''m crying at nothing even though I''m not upset (commercials, songs etc) - total hormone overload. Reading about all of your struggles is hard - and I find I cry reading them.

Which leads me to my question.

A recent conversation with my close girlfriend about childbirth got my hot under the collar. Out of 8 girls (only one of which is preggers, and NONE have children) they are all ADAMANT about getting an epidural. Their rational being ''you can give birth on a bed of nails or a bed of roses'' and ''why suffer needlessly''.

- My general understanding of ''natural vs. epidural'' is that - natural is a more active while epi is slightly more passive.
- Two coworker who have had children had some adverse effects from the epi and are going to try natural for their second. ETA: Both were basically not given the natural childbirth option at the time of their first; the epi was strongly ''recommended''.
- Pain threshold / Risk level etc.
- I have more thoughts on this but its not terribly relevant to my overall question

I just feel like epidurals are being offered up like a menu item and the majority of women assume that it''s the way to go; without doing any research into the benifits of natural. My pregnant girlfriend said that 90% of women in her hospital get epidurals. Is it just me, or is that a little HIGH?

*This is not meant as a judgment on anyone here who is opting for an epidural. I myself am open to one if ''natural'' turns out to be ''not for me'' at the time*

Has anyone else found this phenomenon to be true? Are women these days basically programed to think natural childbirth is outdated ands epidural are the new norm? Is everyone ''too posh to push''?

...Or am i just all hot and bothered Hormona?

Mela aka Hormona 10w5d

Ha...I don''t even think epidurals are the "new" norm...elective C-sections are!!!

A lot of women that I know don''t seem to understand some people want to really experience all that there is to childbirth. My BFF had the same heated argument....and of course her husband is an anesthesiologist. She asked me if I would want to get a root canal without numbing. I''m thinking...uh...duh...I''m not pulling out a dead tooth here...I''m trying to get a new life out of me!

Due to my toxemia and all kinds of other complications, I did end up getting an epidural, and ended up in c-section. I gotta say...the epidural is niiiiiiiiiiiiiice. But if it weren''t for all the complications, I feel like I could have done without. As it was when they gave me the magnesium sulfate (for the toxemia) and the pitocin (because the MS relaxes muscles), I refused the epidural at that time and continued laboring 5-6 hours without it. I will say pitocin contractions suck though!

Having a done a good dose of both, I wouldn''t quite say it''s bed of roses vs bed of nails. But it''s close (and I didn''t even get to the transition stage without the epi. My epi was "light" and I could feel the pressure and I gotta say, toward the end, it was INTENSE. I felt like my bowels were going to blow out with each contraction, and this was WITH the epi!). However why do people do things like hike mountains? It''s pretty grueling, and you don''t stay too long for the view on top! Some women will never understanding that there are some of us who marvel in our bodies and want to experience all it can do without modern medicine telling us how we need to do it. Some people enjoy pushing the limits. Or maybe it''s that if given the choice, we''d prefer our babies not to have drugs in their system.

If they are so adamant, tell them to go get knocked up and get their own. In fact, be ADAMANT they get pregnant NOW. Pester them until they are beyond irritated...let em see how fun it is when people tell you what to do with your own body.

 

[Upgradable]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:00:57 AM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 10/29/2008 10:39:20 AM
Author: Upgradable
Lindsey, I want to commend you on what a great explanation you gave! My background is in immunohematology (blood banking) and the situation you're in is rather rare these days since the advent of Rhogam. I'm wondering about how you were sensitized?

I know that when a pre-menopausal Rh- woman needs a transfusion, all stops are pulled out to transfuse with Rh- blood. In fact O- is the defacto choice for ALL emergency transfusions since it contains no major antigens that could stimulate antibody production. I'm interested in what circumstances intervened in your case that caused such a young woman to receive an Rh+ transfusion. From my knowledge it would be in only two situations: 1) imminent danger of losing your life, or 2) a medical mistake on part of the medical institution. Wait, I thought of a third: if there was no Rh- blood available, but that still runs into the situation that you would have had to have been faced with possibly losing your life in a short amount of time, or they would have brought some O- in for you.

Were you given massive doses of Rhogam after the Rh+ transfusions?

If I recall correctly, Lindsey and her doctors did not discover this issue until she got pregnant, so working backwards they surmised that she must have been transfused during her surgery 10 years ago. GIven that she didn't know, one can assume that it was a medical mistake since in scenerios 1 and 3 the docs would have known what they did and would have told her and would have, as you suggested, given her Rhogam. Correct me if I am wrong Lindsey!

After hearing the details of the complications of this issue for Lindsey's pregnancy I am seriously shocked that such a large mistake was made! If I am understanding the situation correctly, this would not have been an issue if Lindsey's hubby had not been Rh+? Such terrible luck in that regard!

There should be specific documentation in her medical chart of the unique identifying numbers of any transfused units of blood, so logically she could track them back to verify if this was when she was sensitized. If this is when it happened, and this has affected her pregnancy, I suggest she get ahold of a medical malpractice lawyer.

The only other way in which she could have become sensitized is if she had an earlier Rh+ preganancy that terminated (such as a miscarriage or termination). If it was followed in a medical environment, she should have received Rhogam to prevent the sensitization.

This is a purely clinical question on my part, as it was held out as a "horror story" in my education. It disturbs me to hear that it is causing such at terrifying situation for Lindsey! BTW- I used to work in the blood bank at Rush Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago.

 

[mela lu]

Thank CDT and DD Robbie for your posts. I feel better already.

ETA - thanks Tgal for your hilarious suggestion lol. You're the best.

DD - That makes a tonne of sense. "I think my midwife said it best when she said that the best environment for a woman to give birth is one in which she feels confident, supported, cared for, and secure." ETA - I'm going to pick up that book. LOVE me a good read.

I guess I just took a bit of offense when one of them said to my PG friend who is sold on getting an epi, "You seem to be honest enough and realistic vs altruistic. There’s a reason why 90% of ladies get the big, good needle in their back!"

Um...yah FEAR and programming may be contributing to why 90% are getting epis!!!

I guess hearing their comments made me feel like they thought I was not being honest and realistic about the process. Maybe I'm being too sensitive.

Anyways, CDT, I have one friend who is so afraid of damaging her whoo hah that she wants a C-section.

Then again, when any of them actually decide to have children, it may be a different story. Time will tell.

 

[robbie3982]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:36:25 AM
Author: Upgradable

Date: 10/29/2008 11:00:57 AM

Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 10/29/2008 10:39:20 AM

Author: Upgradable

Lindsey, I want to commend you on what a great explanation you gave! My background is in immunohematology (blood banking) and the situation you''re in is rather rare these days since the advent of Rhogam. I''m wondering about how you were sensitized?


I know that when a pre-menopausal Rh- woman needs a transfusion, all stops are pulled out to transfuse with Rh- blood. In fact O- is the defacto choice for ALL emergency transfusions since it contains no major antigens that could stimulate antibody production. I''m interested in what circumstances intervened in your case that caused such a young woman to receive an Rh+ transfusion. From my knowledge it would be in only two situations: 1) imminent danger of losing your life, or 2) a medical mistake on part of the medical institution. Wait, I thought of a third: if there was no Rh- blood available, but that still runs into the situation that you would have had to have been faced with possibly losing your life in a short amount of time, or they would have brought some O- in for you.


Were you given massive doses of Rhogam after the Rh+ transfusions?

If I recall correctly, Lindsey and her doctors did not discover this issue until she got pregnant, so working backwards they surmised that she must have been transfused during her surgery 10 years ago. GIven that she didn''t know, one can assume that it was a medical mistake since in scenerios 1 and 3 the docs would have known what they did and would have told her and would have, as you suggested, given her Rhogam. Correct me if I am wrong Lindsey!


After hearing the details of the complications of this issue for Lindsey''s pregnancy I am seriously shocked that such a large mistake was made! If I am understanding the situation correctly, this would not have been an issue if Lindsey''s hubby had not been Rh+? Such terrible luck in that regard!

There should be specific documentation in her medical chart of the unique identifying numbers of any transfused units of blood, so logically she could track them back to verify if this was when she was sensitized. If this is when it happened, and this has affected her pregnancy, I suggest she get ahold of a medical malpractice lawyer.


The only other way in which she could have become sensitized is if she had an earlier Rh+ preganancy that terminated (such as a miscarriage or termination). If it was followed in a medical environment, she should have received Rhogam to prevent the sensitization.


This is a purely clinical question on my part, as it was held out as a ''horror story'' in my education. It disturbs me to hear that it is causing such at terrifying situation for Lindsey! BTW- I used to work in the blood bank at Rush Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago.

I think I remember her saying that they knew it was from the transfusion because of how high her numbers were.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:39:38 AM
Author: mela lu
Thank CDT and DD Robbie for your posts. I feel better already.

ETA - thanks Tgal for your hilarious suggestion lol. You're the best.

DD - That makes a tonne of sense. 'I think my midwife said it best when she said that the best environment for a woman to give birth is one in which she feels confident, supported, cared for, and secure.' ETA - I'm going to pick up that book. LOVE me a good read.

I guess I just took a bit of offense when one of them said to my PG friend who is sold on getting an epi, 'You seem to be honest enough and realistic vs altruistic. There’s a reason why 90% of ladies get the big, good needle in their back!'

Um...yah FEAR and programming may be contributing to why 90% are getting epis!!!

I guess hearing their comments made me feel like they thought I was not being honest and realistic about the process. Maybe I'm being too sensitive.

My husband has had similar issues at his work, with people being really judgemental about our decision to sleep in the same room as our baby for a long time. Apparently this will ruin our child

I didn't get that memo.

I find it really interesting that people who are pro-epi or c-section feel no compuction about lecturing me or other women about their choice NOT to take that road. For every person who tell me I am a "hero" or that I will not feel this way once I am in labour, or who tells me ther horror story, I can turn around and tell them just as many stories supporting the other side! But I choose not to, because I feel that their lectures ring a little defensive. "Thou dost protest too much" at times, me thinks. But if they open the can of worms then maybe it is fair game? Huby felt really bad when his co-workers were lecturing him, so I told him that co-sleeping babies are more securely attached, smarter, and never die of SIDS (unless parents are crack addicts), and he said, "Well I can't tell them that! How can I say our baby will be smarter and happier because we co-sleep?" I said, "Well they seem to have no trouble telling us that our kid will be ruined! So tell them our "truth"!"

If you feel strongly about natural birth, read some books so you have some ammo to come back at people who try to tell you what to do. Better yet, I LOOOOOVE TGals option of hounding them to death about getting pg!

PS: re pain. My friends who had natural births all describe it as "intense, hard work" but it is a good pain. Also, your body naturally responds to labour be releasing its own opiates, so you enter an altered state that makes the pain bearable. And they also say that women will find ways of entering a meditative state when in heavy labour, with ritualized motion (e.g., rocking) or noise or a mantra that helpd manage the feelings. Of course, any type of drugs--pitocin or epi--interrupt this natural process and so defeat the body's ability to cope. Also, if you have intense fears or think of the pain as being similar to a root canal, as TGal mentioned, your brain can override these natural things. Being in a setting that is not supoortive of natural labour will also completely override this natural process too, because no one can do the work of labour if nurses are offering epis every two seconds or interrupting the woman in labour constatly. Mind over matter is a big part of it, but you have to trust your body and feel positive about it before that will actually work. Anxiety, fear, and labour are a really bad combination.

 

[Courtneylub]

I know it''s a little off topic here, but I thought I''d post a couple of belly pics since it''s really popped out recently!!

12 weeks:

 

[Courtneylub]

And 13:

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:33:27 AM
Author: robbie3982
I''m terrified of getting an epidural. I HATE needles and I really don''t like anything/anyone touching my spine, let alone putting a needle in it! That being said, I''m also really bad with pain. I think I''d like to just kind of see how it goes, but then I get worried that by the time I decide that the pain is overpowering my fear of needles it would be too late to get one.


ETA: I''d also be scared that even if the pain was bearable, there''d be a complication requiring a c-section and I''d be completely out and miss the birth of the baby.

Honestly it was not bad at ALL! I didn''t even NOTICE the doctor putting it in (I was having wicked contrax by then. My dad puts in epis for a living and they are so safe.

 

[Courtneylub]

My pain tolerance is very low as well, so my plan has been to get the epi. My cousin had all 3 of her babies natural (water births) and I give her tons of credit for that.

I haven''t done enough to research to think otherwise and I''m just not to the point yet to jump that far ahead. It''s overwhelming enough reading a couple of weeks ahead in the books!!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Cute belly Courtney! I think you are going to show early since you are so slim!

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 10/29/2008 12:00:29 PM
Author: Courtneylub
My pain tolerance is very low as well, so my plan has been to get the epi. My cousin had all 3 of her babies natural (water births) and I give her tons of credit for that.

I haven''t done enough to research to think otherwise and I''m just not to the point yet to jump that far ahead. It''s overwhelming enough reading a couple of weeks ahead in the books!!

I hear you on this! Nature was smart making pregnancy 9 months long! Plently of time to get used to everything... I try not to think too far ahead. But then that is my plan for life in general, helps avoid too much worry.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:29:15 AM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 10/29/2008 11:13:55 AM
Author: mela lu
I just feel like epidurals are being offered up like a menu item and the majority of women assume that it''s the way to go; without doing any research into the benifits of natural. My pregnant girlfriend said that 90% of women in her hospital get epidurals. Is it just me, or is that a little HIGH?

Mela, I think this is an accurate observation. One of my close friends recently had a natural birth in a hospital setting and she was told after by the nurses that only about 1% of the women they see have a natural birth.

This topic has come up a number of times around here, and opinions and strong either way. I feel strongly about having a natural birth, for many reasons, and have found caregivers who support that. Four of my close friends recenty gave birth ''au natural'', two after a previous epi birth, and their stories and very interesting. All loved the natural birth experience, and the two with previous epi births preferred the natural birth experience and observed positive outcomes for themselves and for the babies (e.g., better latch post birth etc). Of course, this is not a large sample, and these women both had negative births the first time and that was why they opted for natural the second time around. So nothing is proved by this, but I found it interesting.

I notice that the norm is certianly to have a medicated birth, and also to formula feed, not to co-sleep etc etc. But who cares about the norms

Among my hippie friends the norm is natural birth, perhaps at home, co-sleeping, and breastfeeding until kiddies are 2 years old. Given that natural birth in this country is so rare, yet so common in many other industrialized countries, well conducted studies about positive or ill-effects of either are almost impossible to run: if everyone but a few ''loonies'' is using an epi, we can''t really compare the two groups! Same goes for other countries where natural birth is the norm and only emergency cases use epis--those are not equivalent groups so you can''t really compare.

I think my midwife said it best when she said that the best environment for a woman to give birth is one in which she feels confident, supported, cared for, and secure. When a woman feels that way, birth progresses better and complications are limited. We do live in a culture of fear about child birth, though, that makes this type of environment difficult for most women to find, and that makes me really sad

Fear and anxiety about birth are just so common! Not all industrialized nations share this attitude, and I think it doesn''t benefit women or their babies. But we can''t change it wholesale, all we can do is try to find our own culture of confidence about birth and hope that we can pass on more positive attitudes about the whole thing to our own daughters.

I am reading a really great book right now, called Birthing From Within. If you are interested in natural birth, then I highly recommend it. It is just great.

Actually I am in quite the Yuppie group of friends and the majority co-slept (I have to say, with some interesting results). I was in the minority putting my baby in the crib at 6 weeks.