February 2012 Moms

s/o the December 12 moms- being "overdue"

2

Re: s/o the December 12 moms- being "overdue"

  • I was induced at 42 weeks and 2 days with my oldest. I will never do that again ( was not my choice). Now I have planned c-sections and my last one was at 38 weeks 5 days.

     

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • Oh good grief!!! 

    Here's what confuses me NL, in the previous discussion thread, this is your quote "That's precisely what happened to me. I wanted so badly to go into labor once I hit 37 weeks but no dice. Went into labor on my due date and had her 25 hours later at 40 weeks, 1 day."  If you cannot believe anyone would want an induction early, then why oh why did you want to go into labor even that early!!!???  I do agree that early, and I do mean early, inductions are pretty crazy.  But anything past 38wks+, well, to each their own.  I would've never had an induction scheduled by my dr said no going to 40wks or more for me, so I trusted her judgement a lot more than I'd ever trust my own in a circumstance like this.

    And I agree with pretty much everyone else.  There are absolutely medical reasons to induce at 41+ weeks...there's no reason NOT TO!  I'd almost say that there's not really a medical reason not to.  There's no healthy reason to keep the baby in at that point.  And I know that late term U/S can be way off.  However, if you're being monitored for other things pretty much the whole time, then they're really not that far off.  At 32 weeks I had to start NST and Growth U/S once a week, because of GD.  It was over kill and trust me I got soooooo annoyed with it all.  However, I knew it was in the best interest of my son, so I played along and went with their err of caution (having to pay $40 a week for every U/S).  At my last appt, the Thursday before I had him on Monday, he was measuring at 7lbs 15oz.  When he was born, again 4 days later, he was 7lbs 13oz.  So, if you're being monitored that closely, I'd say that late term U/S are pretty stinkin accurate.

    And some people's bodies just don't do what they're supposed to!  And some babies don't cooperate.  So, sometimes inductions are necessary.  I know, statistically speaking (and I'm not a huge fan of statistics), that there tend to be more c-sections than actual deliveries from inductions (or so I read somewhere at some point in time, so DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS).  However, I'd do it again even if it's what my doctor said needed to happen...even though I did end up with a c-section

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

  • Loading the player...
  • imagechristinak22:
    imageNatesLady1309:

    imageSept07b2b:
    I echo what Sooner said, but I would also like to add that by the time you are at the end of your pregnancy, the gestational age of your fetus is no longer determined by your menstrual cycle.  More often than not, your u/s leading up to that point have been used to determine your "real" due date based on gestational size, so it's actually fairly accurate.  Many women have their due dates adjusted throughout their pregnancy based on u/s. 

    I hear you about the U/S based on size of the baby, but that's not foolproof either since it happens frequently enough that a woman will be told her baby is 10 pounds and needs to come out, and that baby will be born at 7.5 pounds.

    I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.  

    I get the U/S later in pregnancy not being used, but this is EXACTLY why they do an U/S at the beginning of pregnancy--to calculate due date. They grow so fast those first few weeks that due dates calculated based on their size early in pregnancy are really very accurate.

    I think the only way I can see what NL is saying is if someone were to not have an ultrasound early enough in their pregnancy. Since I did not find out I was pregnant until after the first trimester with this baby (#2), I did not get an early ultrasound. My doctor told me after my anatomy scan that we now have a due date (before I would've had NO idea - not even a guess), but emphasized that it could be off by a few weeks in either direction. I have been thinking about how nervous I will be if I get to the point where I am close to my "due date" and my doctor brings up induction. Because really, I could be a few weeks further along than we think or a few weeks behind, so I'll be really nervous if I get to that point. In a case like this, I can see NL point about the ultrasound not being very accurate in coming up with a due date. However, I disagree that that alone would be a basis to NOT induce at 41 weeks, because like someone else pointed out, yes, it's possible I could only be 38 weeks, or I could even be 43 weeks with this logic!

     

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagelancyjo:

    I don't have the time or patience for your naivete today kid. Thank God you have no say in how anyone else chooses to deliver their children.

    ETA:

    imageNatesLady1309:


    I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.  

    I'm beyond glad that my OB wanted to be cautious with my baby's life, as well as mine. Err away doctor, err away.

     

    YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes 

    I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said. All I'm saying is I'm glad I went in at TEN DAYS PAST DUE to be induced, upon my ob's recommendation. Anna was trying to "look up at the shiny light through that hole" and couldn't make it out on her own.

    Since 41 weeks isn't good enough for you, what do you consider a good time to be induced?

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageStarbuck128:
    The amount of ignorance being spouted off on this thread by ladies who claimed to have researched the topic is outrageous. I'm off to go weep for humanity.
      Oh, don't leave us hanging...please elaborate!!!  I'd love to know.  I know, for me personally, if it really meant something to me, then I'd go research whatever someone said, but nothing here is really affecting me at the moment...and I've just skimmed half of it anyway.  However, I'd really like to know what part of it's ignorant...and if you want to PM, I'm ok with that (as to not flame anyone).  I really, truly would like to know!

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

  • imagejmccall79:
    imageStarbuck128:
    The amount of ignorance being spouted off on this thread by ladies who claimed to have researched the topic is outrageous. I'm off to go weep for humanity.
      Oh, don't leave us hanging...please elaborate!!!  I'd love to know.  I know, for me personally, if it really meant something to me, then I'd go research whatever someone said, but nothing here is really affecting me at the moment...and I've just skimmed half of it anyway.  However, I'd really like to know what part of it's ignorant...and if you want to PM, I'm ok with that (as to not flame anyone).  I really, truly would like to know!

    Same here. Are all of us ignorant? You can't say something like that without an explanation. 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageStarbuck128:
    The amount of ignorance being spouted off on this thread by ladies who claimed to have researched the topic is outrageous. I'm off to go weep for humanity.

    Oh, no...please tell me that you also feel sorry for our babies? :)

    Here is just one study discussing managing the "prolonged pregnancy"

    https://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/prolongsum.htm

    From the article: 

    Data from large registries show that the risk of perinatal death, especially of antepartum stillbirth, increases with advancing gestational age. If risk is calculated based on the number of ongoing pregnancies, gestational-age-specific stillbirth risk reaches a nadir at 37-38 weeks and then begins to increase slowly. Risks increase substantially after 41 weeks; however, the absolute risk is still low

    Other adverse outcomes associated with uteroplacental insufficiency include meconium aspiration, growth restriction, and intrapartum asphyxia. In other cases, continued growth of the fetus leads to macrosomia, increasing the risk of labor abnormalities, shoulder dystocia, and brachial plexus injuries.

    Potential maternal risks associated with prolonged gestation, besides the obvious emotional trauma accompanying an unexpected fetal death or serious complication, include potential increased risk of injury to the pelvic floor associated with difficult deliveries of macrosomic infants.

    That is sufficient for me!  And doesn't contradict anything that has been said.  Yes, the overall risk only increases "some" between 41 and 42 weeks (after 42 weeks, it increases substantially).  But, I tend to always err on the side of caution when I can do anything to help minimize risk to my baby.  Especially since there are really no benefits to keeping a LO in for longer than 41 weeks. 

  • imagesooner1981:

    imageStarbuck128:
    The amount of ignorance being spouted off on this thread by ladies who claimed to have researched the topic is outrageous. I'm off to go weep for humanity.

    Oh, no...please tell me that you also feel sorry for our babies? :)

    Here is just one study discussing managing the "prolonged pregnancy"

    https://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/prolongsum.htm

    From the article: 

    Data from large registries show that the risk of perinatal death, especially of antepartum stillbirth, increases with advancing gestational age. If risk is calculated based on the number of ongoing pregnancies, gestational-age-specific stillbirth risk reaches a nadir at 37-38 weeks and then begins to increase slowly. Risks increase substantially after 41 weeks; however, the absolute risk is still low

    Other adverse outcomes associated with uteroplacental insufficiency include meconium aspiration, growth restriction, and intrapartum asphyxia. In other cases, continued growth of the fetus leads to macrosomia, increasing the risk of labor abnormalities, shoulder dystocia, and brachial plexus injuries.

    Potential maternal risks associated with prolonged gestation, besides the obvious emotional trauma accompanying an unexpected fetal death or serious complication, include potential increased risk of injury to the pelvic floor associated with difficult deliveries of macrosomic infants.

    That is sufficient for me!  And doesn't contradict anything that has been said.  Yes, the overall risk only increases "some" between 41 and 42 weeks (after 42 weeks, it increases substantially).  But, I tend to always err on the side of caution when I can do anything to help minimize risk to my baby.  Especially since there are really no benefits to keeping a LO in for longer than 41 weeks. 

    I've read books that echo this. Not every baby is going to die if they go past 41 weeks, but the risks of something going wrong does increase even if it is only a little. If a doctor wants to err on the side of caution and choose to induce at 41 weeks, then I wouldn't criticize them for it. That's what NL was referring to--irresponsibility in inducing at 41 weeks. I don't think it's irresponsible at all.


    BabyFruit Ticker
    Lilypie Fifth Birthday tickersLilypie Third Birthday tickers
  • This article from Science Daily actually found that inductions after 37 weeks reduced infant mortality.  It did however increase the number of infants needing NICU care.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120510224817.htm

    This review found that inductions led to a significant decrease in the mortality from meconium aspiration:

    https://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/S3/S5

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageStarbuck128:

    imagesooner1981:
    But, I tend to always err on the side of caution when I can do anything to help minimize risk to my baby.  Especially since there are really no benefits to keeping a LO in for longer than 41 weeks. 

    Except that the average pregnancy length for a first time mom is 41 weeks and 1 day. (Some say 3 days.) Forcing a baby out early is dangerous. Trying to force a woman into labor when her body isn't ready is dangerous. The drugs increase the chance of fetal distress, which increases the chance of numerous other complications. You already mentioned aspirating meconium. It also increases the risk of the woman needing a c-section and all the complications inherit in a major, unnecessary surgery. That in turn increases the risk of maternal death in every subsequent c-section.

    I get that NL started this thread and it is sooooo very cool to get together and jump all over her, disagreeing with everything she says just because she is the one who said it. Is she right? Not completely. Is Sooner right? Not completely. But she's married to a doctor, so of course she's quick to love every medical intervention out there for pregnancy. U.S. doctors love that stuff! They are the reason why we have these stunning statistics:

    Internationally, the U.S. ranks:

    #34 in infant mortality

    #50 in maternal mortality, behind almost all industrialized countries.

    While the maternal death rate is decreasing internationally, it is increasing nationally, despite a huge increase in pregnancy related medical spending. You are more than twice as likely to die in childbirth as your mother was having you.

    That makes me furious.

    All our medical advancements are amazing in their place, but sometimes they hurt us. The doctors are worried about liability. They want it to look like they did everything they can to delivery a healthy baby. That is not necessarily what is truly best for mom and baby. This is why I am so disappointed in women who don't take the time to educate themselves about childbirth. Childbirth isn't like any other reason you will find yourself in a hospital. You have a say in what happens, and a responsibility to your family to ensure you and your baby's well being. NO ONE else cares as much about that as you.

    That's all I have time to type. Cody is awake. I can't slack off at work to type a novella.

    I will respond to the bolded.

    1.  Yes, forcing a baby out before it is due is dangerous.  At 41 weeks, the baby is ready to be born.  In fact, the studies cited by bears and me show that, at some point (most doctors pick 41 weeks based on all the literature they have available), it is more dangerous for babies and their mothers for them to remain inside than to come out, even if that takes an induction.  Yes, inductions do lead to higher c-section rates than babies who come on their own time, but some of that higher rate can be explained by the fact that a much higher percentage of babies who go until 41 or 42 weeks have genetic abnormalities that caused them never to get the "instinct" to descend into the pelvis, causing labor to begin.  Not all--but definitely some.  Also, some of the remaining babies without any abnormalities are so big by 41 or 42 weeks that they need to be born via c-section because their heads are too big or they are at such a great risk for shoulder distocia.  So, there are risks both to leaving babies in and forcing babies out.  Trained medical professionals, researchers, public health professionals, etc. have analyzed these risks and have determined that 41 weeks is pretty much the optimal time, after which the risks outweigh the benefits.  Nothing you have said changes that.  Yes, as everyone has said, some babies are born at 42 or 43 or maybe even 44 weeks and they have lived perfectly healthy lives.  But medical professionals make policies based on evidence-based medicine, not on anecdotal tales of what worked in certain circumstances.

    2.  I wish you would stop holding my husband's profession against me.  I can't help it that he is a pediatrician.  But you lose all credit when you say that all doctors are  intervention-loving, money-grubbing people whose sole goal in life is to hurt their patients.  I mean---really?!  I know my husband loved working 80 hours/week in residency making minimum wage, just so that he could hurt children!  And I am sure, as a neonatology fellow, that he is pumped about spending the next three years trying to hurt premature babies, while still making minimum wage.  So, you can take that self-righteous blather about how doctors are only in it for themselves and hate their patients and stick it where the sun don't shine!  My husband spends too much time and emotional energy away from our family and the ones he loves most in the world so that he can treat sick kids he doesn't even know for you to say that!!

    3.  The US has a piss-poor mortality rate for infants and mothers for several reasons:

    a.  We don't have universal health care, so there are many areas of the country that are horribly under-served and poverty stricken.  It turns out that when expectant mothers get no prenatal visits, both they and their new babies are more likely to die before or soon after birth.  That is not the doctors' fault.

    b.  We don't have good, reliable, cheap access to hormonal birth control (see:  no universal health care), so people who have no business having children (drug users, young teenagers, etc.) end up having sickly, usually very premature kids who have higher mortality rates, and then also have a much higher risk neglecting them to death or actively abusing them in the days after they leave the hospital--both of which reflect poorly on our infant mortality rate (but don't reflect poorly on doctors, who have no control over this!)

    c.  We have amazing access in this country to advanced assisted reproductive technology which leads to:  (1) many, many more multiples than seen in the average population and (2) women of much higher maternal age getting pregnant and giving birth.  Both multiple pregnancies and AMA pregnancies lead to statistically-higher rates of maternal and infant mortality.  Again, this is not the doctor's fault (although I do think REs should be much more responsible in IUI management to ensure more octo-mom situations don't occur).

    d.  We are, as a population, the fattest and least healthy population in the world.  Obese women and the babies born to obese women have significantly higher mortality rates for a variety of reasons--none of which is the responsibility of their doctors.  In fact, the soaring obesity and increased maternal ages are also a big driver in why we have such high C-section rates in this country.  Turns out both of those groups are much less likely to be able to push a baby out naturally due to low muscle tone or physical stamina--so, again, a statistic that is unfairly placed on doctors/hospitals.

    e.  We do a shitty job of doing home-health visits to assess emotional and physical well-being of mother and baby when they go home from the hospital.  Increased mortality rate can be attributed to that as well.  Again, this is due to a lack of funding.  Not the doctors who deliver your child.

    f.  Neonatologists do a PHENOMENAL job in America of being able to rescucitate babies who are born at 23-25 weeks, due to conditions that would have killed them in utero if kept in the womb.  In many countries, doctors don't even give kiddos born this early a chance at survival.  Of course, when you rescucitate a lot of 23-25 weekers to give them a shot at life, many of them are ultimately going to die--and that is going to be held against the hospital.  If those premature and sick babies were just born stillborn at a later date because of lack of careful screening for things like twin-to-twin transfusion, GD, pre-eclampsia, etc., they would not be considered in a country's "infant mortality"s stats. Again, not the doctors' faults for doing more than most other countries to save the littlest and sickest babies.

    4.  You are pretty self-righteous saying that I am slacking off at work. I bill by the tenth of the hour.  Every 6 minutes of my time is accounted for.  If I take the time to respond to a post on here, that is just six additional minutes that I have to work after C goes to bed.  So, I would appreciate if you held off on the judgment--people who live in glass houses....blah, blah, blah.

    Now that my baby is in bed, and I have answered this post that I felt compelled to respond to, I better get back to my real job....trial briefs galore await me in my study.  Yay.

  • Here is the problem with this thread IMO. Everybody is a little bit right. (I'm sorry but Sooner's information is almost always very one-sided. And it is again in this thread. That's ok. That is her right but it doesn't represent a full picture of the issue.) I deplore the idea of inductions before 41 weeks for non-medical emergency. And size is not a medical emergency as sizing estimates in third tri are more often more wrong than right. After 42 weeks I think an induction is really important to consider. Between 41 and 42 weeks I think it is a judgement call between you and your care provider. But inductions also carry risks. I feel like a real discussion of those risks was largely ignored. I am not saying that an induction (after 41weeks) should not be done for fear of the risks but I am saying that a discussion of those risks is appropriate in this thread. If you cannot acknowledge and discuss those risks then the arguments for induction could be perceived as stubborn as NL's argument against it.
    Soon to be Big Sister Eowyn - DOB February 2012
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
     BabyFruit Ticker

    My family is a Foreign Service family. Families like mine are posted in every corner of the globe. We live our lives away from family, friends and the conviences and comforts of home. We often live and work in dangerous places among those that misunderstand our intentions and purposes. Sometimes members of our ranks sacrifice our lives to further diplomacy.  Please remember that we serve too. And I'm always open to questions.

  • Sooner - FFS we have had this conversation offline but I feel the need to say it again. Please stop taking every negative comment about doctors as a personal attack on your DH. You are too freaking smart for this. There are lots of sh!tty, greedy PEOPLE out there. Just because your husband is a saint desn't mean that complaints about the medical profession aren't valid or accurate.
    Soon to be Big Sister Eowyn - DOB February 2012
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
     BabyFruit Ticker

    My family is a Foreign Service family. Families like mine are posted in every corner of the globe. We live our lives away from family, friends and the conviences and comforts of home. We often live and work in dangerous places among those that misunderstand our intentions and purposes. Sometimes members of our ranks sacrifice our lives to further diplomacy.  Please remember that we serve too. And I'm always open to questions.

  • imagenoryang:
    Here is the problem with this thread IMO. Everybody is a little bit right. (I'm sorry but Sooner's information is almost always very one-sided. And it is again in this thread. That's ok. That is her right but it doesn't represent a full picture of the issue.) I deplore the idea of inductions before 41 weeks for non-medical emergency. And size is not a medical emergency as sizing estimates in third tri are more often more wrong than right. After 42 weeks I think an induction is really important to consider. Between 41 and 42 weeks I think it is a judgement call between you and your care provider. But inductions also carry risks. I feel like a real discussion of those risks was largely ignored. I am not saying that an induction (after 41weeks) should not be done for fear of the risks but I am saying that a discussion of those risks is appropriate in this thread. If you cannot acknowledge and discuss those risks then the arguments for induction could be perceived as stubborn as NL's argument against it.

    Nory, just for the record, NL's post made a blanket statement that women who choose inductions at 41 weeks are stupid, uneducated and their doctors are crazy.  That was the only point being discussed in this thread.  I agree with everything you said in your post.  Early inductions (before 41 weeks) should not be done across the board, except when a true assessment of risk v. benefit has been done by a trained professional (and preferably confirmed by a second opinion).  And nobody in this thread argued that early inductions are appropriate.

      I also agree that many healthy women with healthy pregnancies would be fine going past 41 weeks, as long as they are being carefully followed by their health care provider (hopefully doing BPPs and NSTs every few days).  But, I can't agree that women are "crazy" or "stupid" for agreeing to be induced at 41 weeks because, statistically, that is when the risks begin to rise.  Of course, my C was born at 40 weeks, 3 days with meconium--so I am so lucky she was ready to come out!  I can't imagine what would have happened if she had hung out in there for another 10 days ingesting and processing that meconium...but it woudn't have been pretty!  NL made a blanket statement that people reacted to.  That was why it seemed so one-sided. 

    If she had talked about inducing due to "size fears" or something like that at 38 or 39 weeks (technically full-term, but still a couple weeks from being "done"), then I think there could have been a real discussion with two sides.  As it was worded, however, there just isn't another side--because women who have inductions at 41 weeks can't just be lumped as a group into the "uneducated, crazy column" because there are real risks, based up by scientific studies showing that adverse events happen in greater numbers after 41 weeks (and there are no studies indicating that babies born at 41 weeks gestation do worse than those born at 42 weeks--in fact, all studies seem to indicate the reverse is true).

    I am against interventions when not medically necessary.  But in this case, I certainly understand that, in many circumstances, a 41-week induction can be medically necessary.

  • imagebearsbearsbears:

    Sooner, I love you response.  And thank you for this:

    imagesooner1981:

    2.  I wish you would stop holding my husband's profession against me.  I can't help it that he is a pediatrician.  But you lose all credit when you say that all doctors are  intervention-loving, money-grubbing people whose sole goal in life is to hurt their patients.  I mean---really?!  I know my husband loved working 80 hours/week in residency making minimum wage, just so that he could hurt children!  And I am sure, as a neonatology fellow, that he is pumped about spending the next three years trying to hurt premature babies, while still making minimum wage.  So, you can take that self-righteous blather about how doctors are only in it for themselves and hate their patients and stick it where the sun don't shine!  My husband spends too much time and emotional energy away from our family and the ones he loves most in the world so that he can treat sick kids he doesn't even know for you to say that!!

    I couldn't manage to say something similar without exploding, so thank you for expressing what I felt so well! 


    I also don't understand why people use your husband's profession against you (or mention it in a seemingly condescending way). My H works for a bank. If someone came on here with questions about extra fees they were charged or some other bank related question I would likely ask him and see if he had advice, or answer based on conversations he and I have had. It makes sense that we speak with our spouses about their day and their job, especially if its something that we find interesting and important (as I imagine you do since your H's career provides lots of information related to your child). Why is sharing that information a bad thing? Do you have a bias? Of course! But you're also very upfront and obvious about the fact that prefer medical solutions to homeopathic or alternative ones. Other people on here have biases in the opposite direction. It's just different philosophies, and that's fine.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagenoryang:
    Sooner - FFS we have had this conversation offline but I feel the need to say it again. Please stop taking every negative comment about doctors as a personal attack on your DH. You are too freaking smart for this. There are lots of sh!tty, greedy PEOPLE out there. Just because your husband is a saint desn't mean that complaints about the medical profession aren't valid or accurate.

    Nory--I have never said my husband is a saint.  But he is an honest man.  And he has a great heart.  And too many mornings and overnights and weekends, he has to tear himself away from his little girl to go spend the next 36 hours in the hospital fighting for the lives of kids who he doesn't know and who will never say thank you.  And statistically, many more kids don't insurance when compared to adults, so he will end up making only about 75% as much as doctors in adult professions make.  Not many doctors, and especially not many pediatricians, get into medicine for the greed/money.  It is a GRUELING road--and there are far easier paths (finance, law, MBA) to lucrative professions.  By the time he is finished with his medical education, he will have spent a total of 10 years AFTER COLLEGE doing nothing but training to be a doctor/neonatologist.  I only spent three years going to law school.  And I made more in my first year out of law school than many of his pediatrician friends started out making after 4 years of medical school and a 3 year residency (and approx. 250k in medical school loans!).

    And in this case, because Starbuck specifically called out my husband, I somehow thought that maybe she was directing her negativity towards him--how could I not?

  • Starbuck, I said PM me, lol! I knew "this" was where this was going to go! Sorry.

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

  • To add to Sooner's post, infant mortality rate in the United States is as high as it is partially due to the fact that the US has no federally or state subsidized maternity leave, requiring many mothers to return to work as soon as 4-6 weeks after giving birth.  There are many studies showing a link between infant mortality and length of maternity leave. 

    And Starbucks, the comment about slacking off at work to respond to a post was totally uncalled for!  You have the right to your opinion, but there is no need to be snarky about it!  It just undercuts any point you were trying to make.   

     

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • Oh look. At least SOME actual discussion happened. 

    So you know the part where I said in the original post "for the SOLE REASON that they are "overdue."?

    Or the phrase "unless there was a true medical reason or emergency"?

    Or "
    Going past 41 weeks should not be of any concern in a normal, healthy pregnancy. "

    NORMAL, HEALTHY pregnancy.

    Clearly, many of you decided to just pretend I never said any of those things and only focus on the parts that you wanted to get riled up about. It's so convenient how that happens. 


    Jmccall, to quote your quote of me from another thread...-  "That's precisely what happened to me. I wanted so badly to go into labor once I hit 37 weeks but no dice. Went into labor on my due date and had her 25 hours later at 40 weeks, 1 day."  If you cannot believe anyone would want an induction early, then why oh why did you want to go into labor even that early!!!???  

    my answer- Of course I was hoping my body would NATURALLY go into labor sooner rather than later (after 37 weeks). I'm sure the majority of us were. But I would not want to be INDUCED at that time (unless truly medically necessary, I will say again). If I went into labor naturally at 37 weeks or beyond, then my body would clearly be saying that it is time and it is doing it on it's own.

    Sorry I use caps a lot, formatting sucks in Chrome.

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
    image
    image
  • imagenoryang:
    Sooner - FFS we have had this conversation offline but I feel the need to say it again. Please stop taking every negative comment about doctors as a personal attack on your DH. You are too freaking smart for this. There are lots of sh!tty, greedy PEOPLE out there. Just because your husband is a saint desn't mean that complaints about the medical profession aren't valid or accurate.

    I do think it is human nature to be this way sometimes.  During the great SAHM/WOHM debacle I started to feel offended by small things being said about SAHM's because I am one.  Just like if someone said something negative about policemen I would be offended for my DH and if someone said something negative about teachers I would be offended for my mom.  It is really hard to say "well they think ___________ about doctors, but my DH isn't like that."  

    Don't you think you would be offended if someone started saying negative comments about diplomats or members of the foreign service even though they were not specifically talking about your DH?

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I don't always listen to my pedi, but I would just expect sooner to be a tad offended if I said something about pedis, just as I was offended by shoe saying SAHM's don't need an education, even though she wasn't talking about me.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageNatesLady1309:

    .

    What is it with inductions at 41 weeks? It is a major pet peeve of mine when someone gets induced at 41 weeks (or before) for the SOLE REASON that they are "overdue." So you're going to elect to have a medical procedure done (that most certainly carries with it a certain amount of risk) that effects not only you, but also your LO, simply because you are impatient- either the mother, the doctor, or both?? That's crazy. And irresponsible. Now if there is a valid medical reason then I get it but that seems rare compared to the number of inductions that are done just out of convenience or impatience. 

    But regardless, a "due date" is not an expiration date or a "best by" date. It is nothing more than a guess. I wish more women would remember that and quit freaking out when they go "overdue"- either out of impatience or worry or both.

    NatesLady--here is your original post.  And I bolded the part that most people took offense to.  There are valid, statistical studies that show that bad things happen in greater numbers after 41 weeks than before 41 weeks.  So, for many moms and doctors, the risk of something bad happening after 41 weeks is the "medical reason" that makes them decide together than an induction at 41 week is the safest option for that family.  Of course this applies to healthy pregnancies only--as pregnancies where there are health concerns generally are ended before 41 weeks as a rule.  

    So, your statement was ignorant because you said that it was "crazy" and "irrational" to decide to induce at 41 weeks, even though there is medical evidence to the contrary (and nothing really to back up your position--there are no studies indicating that infant mortality goes down after 41 weeks or that babies born after 41 weeks are healthier than those born at 41 weeks due to induction). 

  • Coming out of lurking again (I fell back in accidentally). I just want to throw out there what I was told by my doctor (not taking sides, just explaining my experience). My monitoring by my OB was pretty standard through my pregnancy (a few ultrasounds, all the measurements along the way) and she still told me that we wouldn't even begin talking about induction until I was at 41 weeks and that if we were to schedule something, it would be at about 42 weeks. In her eyes, the baby's safe window for arrival were weeks 38-42.  

    She and I did discuss it and that there was no medical reason in her eyes to worry about an induction at 41 weeks in a healthy pregnancy. (To be honest, she told me that it would have been more for my comfort to schedule the induction at 41 weeks). 

    After reading the thread I do see that there are studies to indicate that inductions at 41 weeks is wise, but bear in mind that there are doctors out there that weigh the pros and cons based on the research and in a healthy pregnancy would consider it an election if everything had otherwise progressed as normal. 

    That's not to say that all inductions at 41 weeks are elective, but in healthy standard pregnancies, there are some doctors that do encourage delaying induction.  

    image

    I Take Lots of Pictures: www.camerahappymom.com

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • imagelaurn321:

    Coming out of lurking again (I fell back in accidentally). I just want to throw out there what I was told by my doctor (not taking sides, just explaining my experience). My monitoring by my OB was pretty standard through my pregnancy (a few ultrasounds, all the measurements along the way) and she still told me that we wouldn't even begin talking about induction until I was at 41 weeks and that if we were to schedule something, it would be at about 42 weeks. In her eyes, the baby's safe window for arrival were weeks 38-42.  

    She and I did discuss it and that there was no medical reason in her eyes to worry about an induction at 41 weeks in a healthy pregnancy. (To be honest, she told me that it would have been more for my comfort to schedule the induction at 41 weeks). 

    After reading the thread I do see that there are studies to indicate that inductions at 41 weeks is wise, but bear in mind that there are doctors out there that weigh the pros and cons based on the research and in a healthy pregnancy would consider it an election if everything had otherwise progressed as normal. 

    That's not to say that all inductions at 41 weeks are elective, but in healthy standard pregnancies, there are some doctors that do encourage delaying induction.  

    I don't disagree with anything that you are saying.  My OB would have let me go to 42 weeks, if I had told her that was the most important thing to me to avoid all interventions.  But many doctors have read the studies we have previously discussed and have passed along the information contained in those studies to moms, who have together decided that it makes sense to schedule the induction for right before the risk of adverse events begins to noticeably rise.  If your doctor would have agreed to a 41-week induction, she clearly doesn't think that they are "irrational" or "crazy," as indicated by NL. 

    This is an important topic to discuss-and one where there are some disagreements about the exact parameters of when in the pregnancy the benefits of induction outweigh the risks.  But the initial post was so inflammatory and contained so little rationality (inductions done at 41 weeks are automatically crazy/irrational), that it provoked the response that I am sure NL intended to provoke.  It just didn't leave any room for rational agreement/disagreement because the initial statement was so ignorant.

  • My doctor may not have called me crazy or irrational to my face because my guess is that she'd support my decision, but if she was saying in words to me "that induction at 41 weeks is for the mother's comfort in a healthy pregnancy", odds are she might be questioning in her head why I'd risk the complications associated with induction if it's possible that I'd go into labor naturally within the week after 41 weeks.

    My note was just to comment that if your experience was with a doctor who was supportive of 42 weeks despite the research and didn't encourage induction before then, it's not out of the realm of possibilities for that person to then not understand why women with healthy pregnancies would elect to induce earlier than that. The choice of words to express that may have been a bit more shocking than should have been used, but they don't stretch the point too far off base to make the question completely invalid (though I do also understand that there's some history involved here with the OP).

    image

    I Take Lots of Pictures: www.camerahappymom.com

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • imageNatesLady1309:

    ...only focus on the parts that you wanted to get riled up about. It's so convenient how that happens. 

    my answer- Of course I was hoping my body would NATURALLY go into labor sooner rather than later (after 37 weeks). I'm sure the majority of us were.

    First of all,  you know this happens...all the time!  With your post, with my post, with any post.  If something gets said that strikes a nerve then that's what is going to be focused on.  My opinion is, that's just how forums work!  Not that it's right or wrong either way, it just is what it is. 

    Second, at 37 weeks, if I had gone into labor, my doctor would've tried to stop me!  37 weeks is still "pre-term"...why would you wish that upon yourself, or more so, wish that on your baby? At 37 weeks, nope I was glad he was still cooking!  Was I beginning to get uncomfortable?  Somewhat.  Did I want him out?  Only because I was so excited to see him, not because I was done being pregnant...and I'd venture to say that that's the majority...

    I think this topic has gotten way out of hand!  Maybe that's what you wanted, I don't know!  I'm not in the "NL" hate club.  But, it's resorted to 'name' calling which apparently is ok for some, but not for others.  That's the only thing that really annoys me about these things!  Otherwise, you're entitled to your opinion, however 'researched' it may or may not be...however many statistics and studies you may or may not have quoted...just as my opinion is what it is!

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

  • imagesooner1981:

    imagenoryang:
    Sooner - FFS we have had this conversation offline but I feel the need to say it again. Please stop taking every negative comment about doctors as a personal attack on your DH. You are too freaking smart for this. There are lots of sh!tty, greedy PEOPLE out there. Just because your husband is a saint desn't mean that complaints about the medical profession aren't valid or accurate.

    Nory--I have never said my husband is a saint.  But he is an honest man.  And he has a great heart.  And too many mornings and overnights and weekends, he has to tear himself away from his little girl to go spend the next 36 hours in the hospital fighting for the lives of kids who he doesn't know and who will never say thank you.  And statistically, many more kids don't insurance when compared to adults, so he will end up making only about 75% as much as doctors in adult professions make.  Not many doctors, and especially not many pediatricians, get into medicine for the greed/money.  It is a GRUELING road--and there are far easier paths (finance, law, MBA) to lucrative professions.  By the time he is finished with his medical education, he will have spent a total of 10 years AFTER COLLEGE doing nothing but training to be a doctor/neonatologist.  I only spent three years going to law school.  And I made more in my first year out of law school than many of his pediatrician friends started out making after 4 years of medical school and a 3 year residency (and approx. 250k in medical school loans!).

    And in this case, because Starbuck specifically called out my husband, I somehow thought that maybe she was directing her negativity towards him--how could I not?

    My SIL is a Doctor- she is a pediatric intensivist in the ICU- and she went to college/residency/fellowship for 16 years! I think with the amount of hours she worked vs. how much she made, it was maybe $8/hr. I don't think she is in it for the greed either! I think that there may be some Drs. in it for the money, but I think those are few and far between- and it takes a long time to get there! 

  • imageShmogan09:

    imagenoryang:
    Sooner - FFS we have had this conversation offline but I feel the need to say it again. Please stop taking every negative comment about doctors as a personal attack on your DH. You are too freaking smart for this. There are lots of sh!tty, greedy PEOPLE out there. Just because your husband is a saint desn't mean that complaints about the medical profession aren't valid or accurate.

    I do think it is human nature to be this way sometimes.  During the great Don't you think you would be offended if someone started saying negative comments about diplomats or members of the foreign service even though they were not specifically talking about your DH?

    Nope. Because a lot of diplomats are a**es. My husband isn't and LOTS aren't but some are. Just like doctors.

    My real frustration is that Sooner wants a peer reviewed study to back up every opinion. OK. Fair enough. But her justification that the medical profession doesn't have some serious problems is that HER husband is wonderful, honest, etc. etc. That doesn't jive.

    Some aspects of the medical profession are absolutely driven by pharmaceutical and insurance greed. Doctors is some situations are defintely forced to choose treatment options because of insurance companies regulations and restrictions. Often they are good doctors that have to make less than ideal choices.

    Regardless one doctor or diplomat does not speak for the entire profession - good or bad.

    Soon to be Big Sister Eowyn - DOB February 2012
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
     BabyFruit Ticker

    My family is a Foreign Service family. Families like mine are posted in every corner of the globe. We live our lives away from family, friends and the conviences and comforts of home. We often live and work in dangerous places among those that misunderstand our intentions and purposes. Sometimes members of our ranks sacrifice our lives to further diplomacy.  Please remember that we serve too. And I'm always open to questions.

  • imagesooner1981:
    imageNatesLady1309:

    .

    What is it with inductions at 41 weeks? It is a major pet peeve of mine when someone gets induced at 41 weeks (or before) for the SOLE REASON that they are "overdue." So you're going to elect to have a medical procedure done (that most certainly carries with it a certain amount of risk) that effects not only you, but also your LO, simply because you are impatient- either the mother, the doctor, or both?? That's crazy. And irresponsible. Now if there is a valid medical reason then I get it but that seems rare compared to the number of inductions that are done just out of convenience or impatience. 

    But regardless, a "due date" is not an expiration date or a "best by" date. It is nothing more than a guess. I wish more women would remember that and quit freaking out when they go "overdue"- either out of impatience or worry or both.

    NatesLady--here is your original post.  And I bolded the part that most people took offense to.  There are valid, statistical studies that show that bad things happen in greater numbers after 41 weeks than before 41 weeks.  So, for many moms and doctors, the risk of something bad happening after 41 weeks is the "medical reason" that makes them decide together than an induction at 41 week is the safest option for that family.  Of course this applies to healthy pregnancies only--as pregnancies where there are health concerns generally are ended before 41 weeks as a rule.  

    So, your statement was ignorant because you said that it was "crazy" and "irrational" to decide to induce at 41 weeks, even though there is medical evidence to the contrary (and nothing really to back up your position--there are no studies indicating that infant mortality goes down after 41 weeks or that babies born after 41 weeks are healthier than those born at 41 weeks due to induction). 

    Yes 

  • I haven't read all the responses, but why do you care how other women & their doctors choose to deliver their babies?

    My DD was born at 41w2d. I had an induction scheduled, but I went into labor on my own just before it. I had to do NST every other day once I went past my due date because they worry about the placenta breaking down. So yea, there's a valid reason right there for induction past the due date. 

    S- March 09 E- Feb 12 L- May 15


  • From Sooner: TB is yelling at me for "non-matching quote blocks". Whatevs, TB. Whatevs. 

    And in this case, because Starbuck specifically called out my husband, I somehow thought that maybe she was directing her negativity towards him--how could I not?

    To be honest I didn't quite read it this way. I would feel defensive if I felt that people were attacking my DH too. I think her statement came more from your long history of posts in which you talk about your husband. Maybe I am wrong. I am guessing here.

    But you do mention your husband being a pedi often. So it often reads (to me anyway) that because your husband is a pedi - you know everything about pediatrics. Maybe you don't mean it that way. But if I mentioned my husband being a diplomat in every (or at least most) political conversation - It would start to read like I think I know everything about foreign policy because of his job.

    The truth is that I know everything about foreign policy because of my job.  WinkStick out tongue

    In the recent past there have been some implications or outright statements that some ladies on the board get frustrated with your post size. Some statements have been made here - some on FB. I don't think it is about your post size. I think it more that many of your posts read as if you are an absolute authority on topics of opinion. I don't buy for a second that you don't care what "we" think of you. I think you are a smart, sensitive person that does care. Please know that I am really not trying to give you crap or be a snarky brat. I am giving you my perspective FWIW which may not be much.

    Soon to be Big Sister Eowyn - DOB February 2012
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
     BabyFruit Ticker

    My family is a Foreign Service family. Families like mine are posted in every corner of the globe. We live our lives away from family, friends and the conviences and comforts of home. We often live and work in dangerous places among those that misunderstand our intentions and purposes. Sometimes members of our ranks sacrifice our lives to further diplomacy.  Please remember that we serve too. And I'm always open to questions.

  • imagenoryang:

    Nope. Because a lot of diplomats are a**es. My husband isn't and LOTS aren't but some are. Just like doctors.

    My real frustration is that Sooner wants a peer reviewed study to back up every opinion. OK. Fair enough. But her justification that the medical profession doesn't have some serious problems is that HER husband is wonderful, honest, etc. etc. That doesn't jive.

    Some aspects of the medical profession are absolutely driven by pharmaceutical and insurance greed. Doctors is some situations are defintely forced to choose treatment options because of insurance companies regulations and restrictions. Often they are good doctors that have to make less than ideal choices.

    Regardless one doctor or diplomat does not speak for the entire profession - good or bad.

    Nory--your arguments are inconsistent.  I do like logic, statistics and studies.  They are very useful when trying to explain why I believe certain things or advocate so strongly for certain parenting decisions.  The studies showing an increase in adverse maternal events for pregnancies going longer than 41 weeks are, without a shadow of a doubt, why many, although not all, medical professionals choose to seriously recommend induction in many of their patients at 41 weeks.  That is not an opinion--that is just a fact.

    But I have never once, not in a million years, tried to prove the medical professional "doesn't have problems" by stating that my husband is wonderful and honest.  Not once.  I said that my husband is an honest man who takes very seriously his Hippocratic oath to "first do no harm" when Starbuck said that my husband was an intervention-happy guy who loves doing all sorts of harmful things to women in the name of greed and profits.  That was a direct attack and deserved a direct response.  But I would never try to "prove" the honesty of the entire medical profession by citing to my husband because I know better than to use anecdotal evidence to prove an argument.  I can say that it is my opinion that people who pay a quarter of a million dollars to go to school for 4 years and then get paid minimum wage for the next 10 years aren't doing it for selfish reasons.  But I don't try to state it as a hard, fast fact.  If you show me evidence of a greedy doctor, I will probably agree with you that the doctor is greedy.  But, that doesn't mean that all doctors (or even the majority of doctors) should be painted with the same brush.  Just like all women who decide, based on peer-reviewed studies, to get induced at 41 weeks shouldn't be labelled crazy or selfish.  

    I am truly sorry that I rub you and others wrong.  But I fail to see who any of your above post about "pharmaceutical and insurance greed" has anything to do with doctors looking at studes re: adverse events increasing after 41 weeks and choosing to share this information with their patients and/or make practice-wide policies in light of this peer-reviewed information.

  • imagesooner1981:

    imagenoryang:
    Here is the problem with this thread IMO. Everybody is a little bit right. (I'm sorry but Sooner's information is almost always very one-sided. And it is again in this thread. That's ok. That is her right but it doesn't represent a full picture of the issue.) I deplore the idea of inductions before 41 weeks for non-medical emergency. And size is not a medical emergency as sizing estimates in third tri are more often more wrong than right. After 42 weeks I think an induction is really important to consider. Between 41 and 42 weeks I think it is a judgement call between you and your care provider. But inductions also carry risks. I feel like a real discussion of those risks was largely ignored. I am not saying that an induction (after 41weeks) should not be done for fear of the risks but I am saying that a discussion of those risks is appropriate in this thread. If you cannot acknowledge and discuss those risks then the arguments for induction could be perceived as stubborn as NL's argument against it.

    Nory, just for the record, NL's post made a blanket statement that women who choose inductions at 41 weeks are stupid, uneducated and their doctors are crazy.  That was the only point being discussed in this thread.  I agree with everything you said in your post.  Early inductions (before 41 weeks) should not be done across the board, except when a true assessment of risk v. benefit has been done by a trained professional (and preferably confirmed by a second opinion).  And nobody in this thread argued that early inductions are appropriate.

    It is possible that I made some assumptions and gave her too much credit. I assumed she was talking about women who CHOOSE inductions. That to me implies that there is not a medical necessity but that the choice is being made due to issues of discomfort or guesstimated baby size. Admittedly I read her post before 6:00, one handed while nursing a baby who had one of her hands up my nose and the other entangled in my hair.

    Oh and I like to leave open the possibility that NL wants an honest discussion rather than just drama. Fingers crossed for that.

    Soon to be Big Sister Eowyn - DOB February 2012
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
     BabyFruit Ticker

    My family is a Foreign Service family. Families like mine are posted in every corner of the globe. We live our lives away from family, friends and the conviences and comforts of home. We often live and work in dangerous places among those that misunderstand our intentions and purposes. Sometimes members of our ranks sacrifice our lives to further diplomacy.  Please remember that we serve too. And I'm always open to questions.

  • imagenoryang:

    It is possible that I made some assumptions and gave her too much credit. I assumed she was talking about women who CHOOSE inductions. That to me implies that there is not a medical necessity but that the choice is being made due to issues of discomfort or guesstimated baby size. Admittedly I read her post before 6:00, one handed while nursing a baby who had one of her hands up my nose and the other entangled in my hair.

    Oh and I like to leave open the possibility that NL wants an honest discussion rather than just drama. Fingers crossed for that.

    Nory--C also loves to rip my hair out by the roots while nursing!  It is so loving and thoughtful of her.  i would love to hear more about your job, if you can tell us anything about it.  I know you were conflicted about whether to take it or not.  Is it working out so far?  Has the adjustment been tough?  I remember the first month of being back to work was among the roughest months of my life.  I felt like I sucked at every aspect of my life.  Thankfully, that feeling definitely subsided as I got used to the "new normal!"  But I think we would all like to hear a little bit about what your schedule is like now.

  • imagenoryang:

    From Sooner: TB is yelling at me for "non-matching quote blocks". Whatevs, TB. Whatevs. 

    And in this case, because Starbuck specifically called out my husband, I somehow thought that maybe she was directing her negativity towards him--how could I not?

    To be honest I didn't quite read it this way. I would feel defensive if I felt that people were attacking my DH too. I think her statement came more from your long history of posts in which you talk about your husband. Maybe I am wrong. I am guessing here.

    But you do mention your husband being a pedi often. So it often reads (to me anyway) that because your husband is a pedi - you know everything about pediatrics. Maybe you don't mean it that way. But if I mentioned my husband being a diplomat in every (or at least most) political conversation - It would start to read like I think I know everything about foreign policy because of his job.

    The truth is that I know everything about foreign policy because of my job.  WinkStick out tongue

    In the recent past there have been some implications or outright statements that some ladies on the board get frustrated with your post size. Some statements have been made here - some on FB. I don't think it is about your post size. I think it more that many of your posts read as if you are an absolute authority on topics of opinion. I don't buy for a second that you don't care what "we" think of you. I think you are a smart, sensitive person that does care. Please know that I am really not trying to give you crap or be a snarky brat. I am giving you my perspective FWIW which may not be much.

    I agree with Nory here. And I read this whole post and from my POV - Starbuck NEVER called your husband out as being a greedy, money grabbing Dr. She made a statement that there ARE Dr.'s out there like that who do things that are not in the best interest of their patients just to cover their asses.

    image 
    image
      image
    January2014 Blog ** Admin to the January 2014 FB group!
  • imageStarbuck128:

     Is Sooner right? Not completely. But she's married to a doctor, so of course she's quick to love every medical intervention out there for pregnancy. U.S. doctors love that stuff! They are the reason why we have these stunning statistics:

    Internationally, the U.S. ranks:

    #34 in infant mortality

    #50 in maternal mortality, behind almost all industrialized countries. 

    This is exactly what she said.  When I read it, i did feel like she was saying that my husband loved "every medical intervention out there for pregnancy" and therefore was at least partially responsible for America's appalling rate of infant mortality and maternal mortality.  If there is another way to read it in a light that is flattering to my husband (or a way to read it that even explains why SHE introduced my husband into this conversation!!), please explain it to me, and I will definitely consider it.

  • imagenoryang:
    imageShmogan09:

    imagenoryang:
    Sooner - FFS we have had this conversation offline but I feel the need to say it again. Please stop taking every negative comment about doctors as a personal attack on your DH. You are too freaking smart for this. There are lots of sh!tty, greedy PEOPLE out there. Just because your husband is a saint desn't mean that complaints about the medical profession aren't valid or accurate.

    I do think it is human nature to be this way sometimes.  During the great Don't you think you would be offended if someone started saying negative comments about diplomats or members of the foreign service even though they were not specifically talking about your DH?

    Nope. Because a lot of diplomats are a**es. My husband isn't and LOTS aren't but some are. Just like doctors.

    My real frustration is that Sooner wants a peer reviewed study to back up every opinion. OK. Fair enough. But her justification that the medical profession doesn't have some serious problems is that HER husband is wonderful, honest, etc. etc. That doesn't jive.

    Some aspects of the medical profession are absolutely driven by pharmaceutical and insurance greed. Doctors is some situations are defintely forced to choose treatment options because of insurance companies regulations and restrictions. Often they are good doctors that have to make less than ideal choices.

    Regardless one doctor or diplomat does not speak for the entire profession - good or bad.

    I do see your point, I guess I am just a little more sensitive to topics regarding my loved ones professions and quick to jump to the defense.  Maybe it's just because SAHM's and law enforcement seem to be attacked a little more often than other professions.  Yes, there are bad apples, but when I see a comment about SAHM's being lazy or cops having a god complex I am going to get pissed even though that is not us.

    I guess I can just understand why the typical "intervention happy" doctor bashing would get under Sooners skin. 

    I said earlier that I feel this topic was already beaten to a pulp during 3rd tri.  I guess I just feel the only people who can really weigh in on this are people who either 1) were induced or 2) went past 41 weeks without being induced.  

    I was very adamant about everything being natural with both of my boys births, and I know the nurses were totally over my crap when I didn't want an iv or was screaming and scaring the other women.  But, I did not go to 41 weeks so I really cannot say what my instincts would have told me had I gotten to that point.  My sister was induced and it went perfectly, I was not and it went perfectly.  

    Like I said earlier, for me this topic comes down to ~to each their own. 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagesooner1981:
    imageStarbuck128:

     Is Sooner right? Not completely. But she's married to a doctor, so of course she's quick to love every medical intervention out there for pregnancy. U.S. doctors love that stuff! They are the reason why we have these stunning statistics:

    Internationally, the U.S. ranks:

    #34 in infant mortality

    #50 in maternal mortality, behind almost all industrialized countries. 

    This is exactly what she said.  When I read it, i did feel like she was saying that my husband loved "every medical intervention out there for pregnancy" and therefore was at least partially responsible for America's appalling rate of infant mortality and maternal mortality.  If there is another way to read it in a light that is flattering to my husband (or a way to read it that even explains why SHE introduced my husband into this conversation!!), please explain it to me, and I will definitely consider it.

    From my understanding, all she is saying is that because you have a husband who is a pediatrician, you are quick to side with everything that comes out of the medical industry. My husband is an engineer so I tend to side with him when he, as a professional, gives an opinion on anything electrical in my house because he has been trained and studied for years in his field of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with that. But  that is what makes you seem so narrow minded when it comes to anything in the medical field, especially when it involves children. You have a husband who is a pediatrician, so you must be right. You can spout medical journals and peer reviewed articles all you want, but you never for a second think to question anything that comes from the medical industry because you have a personal stake in it - i.e: your husband.

    image 
    image
      image
    January2014 Blog ** Admin to the January 2014 FB group!
  • imagesooner1981:
    imageStarbuck128:

     U.S. doctors love that stuff!

    If there is another way to read it

    Pretty sure this doesn't say "Sooners Husband"...it says U.S. doctors....

    You asked for another way to read it...read it like it's written?

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

  • imagenoryang:

    But you do mention your husband being a pedi often. So it often reads (to me anyway) that because your husband is a pedi - you know everything about pediatrics. Maybe you don't mean it that way. But if I mentioned my husband being a diplomat in every (or at least most) political conversation - It would start to read like I think I know everything about foreign policy because of his job.

    The truth is that I know everything about foreign policy because of my job.  WinkStick out tongue

    In the recent past there have been some implications or outright statements that some ladies on the board get frustrated with your post size. Some statements have been made here - some on FB. I don't think it is about your post size. I think it more that many of your posts read as if you are an absolute authority on topics of opinion. I don't buy for a second that you don't care what "we" think of you. I think you are a smart, sensitive person that does care. Please know that I am really not trying to give you crap or be a snarky brat. I am giving you my perspective FWIW which may not be much.

    Okay--I have to address this.  I only talk about my husband in the way that everyone else talks about their husbands.  Just like Jen said earlier, if we were talking about whether we should re-finance our houses, and Jen said that her husband, a banker, said that right now was a particularly good time to do so, I would probably think that was interesting and maybe follow up on it with my banker the next day.  Similarly, if I was thinking about taking a vacation to a certain area and Shmogan said that her husband, a policeman, had recently told her that that particular area had the highest rate of baby kidnappings in the country, I probably would do some pretty serious investigation into that to see if we could successfully mitigate those risks or whether a new vacation spot might be better.  Likewise, occassionally I mention something that I learned from my husband. 

    All of this is a long way of saying that we ALL bring whatever collective expertise we have to this board.  If we all had the exact same life and educational experiences, every exchange would end with only one reply, because whatever the first person said--everyone would then agree with.  I value the thoughtful opinions of the women on this board.  If people don't value my opinion--as I have said a zillion and one times before--SKIP MY POSTS!  It is easy.  If it says Sooner next to it, then just scroll down to the next response.  I don't know why my posts are singled-out to snark at.  And I just don't get the whole "you come off as an absolute authority."  Why?  Because I quote scientific studies and peer-reviewed articles to support my positions?  Hey, if people don't want to believe science, more power to 'em.  But that doesn't mean I am going to stop using it to explain why I believe what I believe.  The reasons for many of my parenting decisions come from long conversations of "best parenting practices" among our family's group of friends, many of whom happen to be pediatricians or doctors in other areas of medicine.  Since doctors comprise such a large portion of our peer group and they just love to talk shop at the dinner table, my world is innundated with this kind of discussion.  I usually find it fascinating and enjoy passing it on to my work friends and other moms. 

    Of course, when citing these studies, I never say "this is my opinion on what is best for your child," because it  isn't my opinion.  I can't co-opt scientific knowledge. Scientific conclusions are just facts garnered from a series of tests.  You can have opinions about the validity of the study or the implications of a small sample size or something similar, but you can't argue with a fact.  It is just is what it is. 

    When I cite a conclusion reached by a team of doctors or scientists, the conclusion is not mine.  I am not holding myself out as the expert.  I am nothing more than the messenger, trying to add some value to the discussion and give some actual "facts" to be discussed, instead of us all having to rely upon nothing more than "mommy instinct" and "gut feeling."    Yes, those are important in lots of instances.  But "gut feeling" doesn't tell you when to flip your car seat to forward facing.  Gut feeling doesn't tell you when to introduce honey to your kid's diet. And so on.  The best "opinions" on these kinds of issues are the ones backed up by fact.  But my stating my factually-based opinion doesn't make me an expert any more than you sitting in your garage makes you a car.  I have never, ever held myself out to be an expert.  So, I can't help it if other people want to put that title on me, and then criticize me for it.  That is not my problem.

    I like this board.  But I am not going to change my posting style or stop linking to studies/journal articles/etc. just to avoid intimidating people who don't like to use facts in making their parenting decisions.  I just can't do it.  We, as an American society, treat intellectualism as a bad thing.  We put "gut instinct" on a higher pedestal than "book learnin'."  I am sick of that.  We have never, ever before as a human race had more knowledge and information at our fingertips.  Why not take advantage of that?

  • imageStarbuck128:

     But she's married to a doctor, so of course she's quick to love every medical intervention out there for pregnancy. U.S. doctors love that stuff!

    JMMcall--I guess I was focused on the quote as it was actually written.  But if you want to butcher the quote so that you can try to stick up for Starbuck, then that is your perogative.  Again, I don't see any way to read this, other than that Starbuck intentionally brought MY husband into play.  I didn't bring him into the conversation.  She did.  And you bet your butt, I stuck up for him.  I don't like seeing my family members get blamed for infant mortality rates when he spent all weekend on call up at the hospital in the PICU going room to room trying to treat those sick kids and get them back home with their families in time for Christmas.  I just don't get it.

  • imagejldubb0626:
    From my understanding, all she is saying is that because you have a husband who is a pediatrician, you are quick to side with everything that comes out of the medical industry. My husband is an engineer so I tend to side with him when he, as a professional, gives an opinion on anything electrical in my house because he has been trained and studied for years in his field of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with that. But  that is what makes you seem so narrow minded when it comes to anything in the medical field, especially when it involves children. You have a husband who is a pediatrician, so you must be right. You can spout medical journals and peer reviewed articles all you want, but you never for a second think to question anything that comes from the medical industry because you have a personal stake in it - i.e: your husband.

    Yeah, that's pretty offensive to say that I don't employ any critical reasoning skills in the vast number of parenting decisions I make every day for my daughter, and instead just look to my husband like an 18th Century housewife to find out what he deems is best for our family.  Are you kidding me?  My husband would look at me like I was crazy if I ever said, "Oh honey, why don't you just make all the decisions from now on--you are so wise and all-knowing, I will just go along with anything you say." He knew when he married a lawyer that I would apply my critical thinking to all the important decisions we have to make.  He gives me lots of opinions about things we need to do for C, but then I ask him "why."  Why are we doing this?  What makes this vaccine so important?  Why are there two flu shots and why are they spread out over a month?  What is the significance of C falling in the weight percentiles between her 6 and 9 month visit?  If he can't answer with a factually-based reason, either he or I look it up.  I am adept at research, and I put it to full effect when C's health is on the line. 

    After I read or listen to the sources he is looking at when reaching his initial opinion, I can then decide if I adequately trust that source, or if I want to examine the issue more.  We have an equal relationship and I wouldn't "spout the party line" anymore than he would. There are some issues about the medical profession that he and I are very critical of (and some that we disagree on)--but I can't think of any material disagreements that we have run into so far in the basic medical management of healthy newborns to 9-month olds. 

This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"