Does anyone else get frustrated...

stahlop

when you read birth stories about planned c-sections because the baby would have been too big to 'birth naturally' at 8-9 lbs?  Isn't the average weight for a baby between 7-9 lbs?  I just read  one where the doctor told them to get a c-section because the baby would be big and she wouldn't be able to birth it naturally and then the baby was 6lbs 9oz.  Maybe it's just because we seem to be more in tune with the fact that our bodies were made to birth babies no matter the size, but if my doctor (before I changed to a midwife) had told me that a c-section would be the best because my baby might be 9lbs, I would have thought she was crazy.

Texas77again

yep, it is frustrating. 

KateLouise

I'm 5'9. I never expected to have a tiny baby. I was measuring big and I went along for growth scans. It looked like the baby would be "big".

I imagined they meant 11 pounds. When I asked, what does "big" mean? I was told the baby might be 8 1/2- 9 pounds. I was immediately relieved.

My brother was 10 1/2 pounds. I was 8 1/2 pounds. 9 pounds just sounds average to me.

But I'm taller than average. So I guess Drs deal in averages and 9 pound babies are on the big side of average. 

As it turned out my daughter was 9 pounds on the button, we had an easy delivery. 

thebigmare

My MW "joked" with me that I'm going to have a 10 lb baby, but it will be easy for me since I'm 5'10". The only time I would agree to a c/s based on baby's size would be if the baby was 11 lbs or more. 

Corbin30

I am 5'9" with hips like a plow horse. My DD was 11 lbs. No meds, no tears, no stitches. No fuss. I would pretty much never agree to a CS based on predicted size of the baby. I already know I can give birth to a small moose...

desmerelda317

The frustrating thing to me isn't the idea of planning a c-section for a large baby.  There are definite risks to vaginally delivering a macrosomatic (is that the proper adjective form of macrosomia?)  baby.  But many babies are being predicted as macrosomatic when in fact they aren't at all.  That diagnosis can only be made in hindsight.  It is not possible to diagnose macrosomia based on ultrasound/mathematical equations (because that is being done - an equation based on the size of a few bones as measured by the ultrasound) alone.  What frustrates me is the fact that the doctors NEVER seem to mention that their "estimates" are often (usually?) wrong.  My sister had the same issue.  One of the reasons she was induced was fear of a large baby.  After a failed induction turned non-emergent c-section, her daughter was born at just 7 lbs.  The doctors have to know they're often wrong, right?  I mean they are aware of that yes?  So why are they not telling their patients, "here's what the ultrasound measurements predict your baby to weigh, but here's how often these estimates have actually been correct/wrong in my practice."  And then allowing the patient to make an informed decision rather than just scaring the crap out of them.

iris427

Yes I do find that frustrating.  Studies consistently show that cesareans for suspected large size based on u/s measurements don't improve outcomes, at least in moms who don't have GD.  And since u/s can be off by a pound or more at term, you hear a lot of stories about moms who had c/s and the baby turned out to be a lot smaller than predicted.

AutumnBride929

Yeah, it's pretty frustrating.  Our friend's OB told them that their baby was measuring large based on the u/s (not sure why she was getting a late-term u/s unless her fundal height was way off or something) and so she was sent for an induction (not even 40 weeks yet).  Well, of course it failed so she ended up with a c-section and a 7 lb. baby girl.  Oh well I guess.