# WWYD? vaginal breech?



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

None of the area hospitals will 'allow' vaginal breech birth. Seperate but related issue- they've all recently voted to no longer do VBACs.
None of the homebirth midwives will touch it, either.
This leaves the option of a section or UC.
What would you do?
No birth centers here will do it, either.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

When are you due? It looks on here not for awhile- your baby could turn.

I personally would not feel comfortable with a UC breech.
It would be a really tough call but I guess I would go for the C/s or travelt o a hospital or mw who would see me.

Emiie


----------



## De-lovely (Jan 8, 2005)

Get the opinion of a wonderful midwife from here on MDC or in your area....I would skip a UC IMO-but definetly not plan a section either-there is still plenty of time fir your baby to turn......what about a birth center with the access you would need for a breach child?


----------



## Jimibell (Feb 18, 2003)

find a mw who will support your choice and travel there for the birth....


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Can you go to the Farm? There's a birth story from someone who travelled from NY to the Farm to birth a breech baby that I remember reading...


----------



## De-lovely (Jan 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
Can you go to the Farm? There's a birth story from someone who travelled from NY to the Farm to birth a breech baby that I remember reading...

OT but I sooo wanna go to the Farm for one of those weekend retreats.....


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

I'd love to, but I haven't been able to find any financial information on the costs of that. We don't really have a lot of disposable income, so that makes this even harder.


----------



## ktbug (Jul 8, 2006)

this might be totally out of fashion now, i dunno, but what about external version? is your provider trained in those methods or comfortable trying it? i know it doesn't always "take", but it might be less of a pain in the ass (in a way) than going all the way to the Farm.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
I'd love to, but I haven't been able to find any financial information on the costs of that. We don't really have a lot of disposable income, so that makes this even harder.

If you call them (their number is on their website) they can give you more up-to-date info, but I can tell you that they charge $3000 and have very good luck getting it all covered by insurance. They bill as a "maternity clinic." They like you to have visited once before you come down, but are flexible on that.

The main expense would probably be room/board. That you'd have to ask them about.

I researched this, because I am so irritated with my birth situation...


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
If you call them (their number is on their website) they can give you more up-to-date info, but I can tell you that they charge $3000 and have very good luck getting it all covered by insurance. They bill as a "maternity clinic." They like you to have visited once before you come down, but are flexible on that.

The main expense would probably be room/board. That you'd have to ask them about.

I researched this, because I am so irritated with my birth situation...

Any idea if they work with out of state medicaid? I'm desperate.







:


----------



## Julz6871 (Jun 14, 2006)

Can you not just labor on your own and walk in to the hospital complete? If you are of "sound mind" and are oriented they cannot force a c-section-even if they think the baby's life is at risk. You would have to sign a billion procedure refusal forms, but they cannot force you to have surgery.

There is still time to flip. Have you tried any of the spinning babies techniques?


----------



## lrlittle (Nov 11, 2005)

You have a LOT of time still! Try not to stress out, really. Odds are in your favor that the baby will turn. To answer your question I would not have a section or a UC. I would find the nearest experienced provider, even across state lines or I'd go to the Farm.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Julz6871* 
Can you not just labor on your own and walk in to the hospital complete? If you are of "sound mind" and are oriented they cannot force a c-section-even if they think the baby's life is at risk. You would have to sign a billion procedure refusal forms, but they cannot force you to have surgery.

We're discussing this on another thread. It's happened, apparently.







:


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Julz6871* 
Can you not just labor on your own and walk in to the hospital complete? If you are of "sound mind" and are oriented they cannot force a c-section-even if they think the baby's life is at risk. You would have to sign a billion procedure refusal forms, but they cannot force you to have surgery.

There is still time to flip. Have you tried any of the spinning babies techniques?

Yes, I'm trying all the spinning babies stuff. I've also had a version- baby flipped right back. It's stubborn.








The official policy here is that even if a woman arrives complete they will push a section- I've heard a nurse boast that w/in 7 minutes of a mother arriving they sectioned her.

If I did just refuse, would a doctor HAVE to attend me? Does it clear them of legal liability if they mishandle things?
I don't really want to go to a hospital, but a breech UC isn't really at my comfort level either.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
Yes, I'm trying all the spinning babies stuff. I've also had a version- baby flipped right back. It's stubborn.








The official policy here is that even if a woman arrives complete they will push a section- I've heard a nurse boast that w/in 7 minutes of a mother arriving they sectioned her.

If I did just refuse, would a doctor HAVE to attend me? Does it clear them of legal liability if they mishandle things?
I don't really want to go to a hospital, but a breech UC isn't really at my comfort level either.

Here's what I know: Under EMTALA they have to treat you; they can't throw you out of the hospital. HOWEVER, they can make life very difficult for you if you won't section... and they might do it anyway.

I hate some of the language of spinningbabies... it really seems to lay the blame for malpresentation on the mother, which I just don't think is the case, usually. Still, if works for you, great!

Best of luck. Let us know how things turn out.


----------



## monkeybum (Jan 1, 2005)

You're way too early for an external version IMO, and they can apparently be dangerous and painful later in pregnancy. Do some research on that - I have heard horror stories of broken bones, bruises, etc. to baby.

"Statistically", baby's are considered breech if they are not head down by about 36 weeks or so, you have lots of time. Baby's bop all over the place before then.

If, by 35 weeks or so he is still breech, there are lots of suggestions for turning your baby naturally; talk to your baby, tell him/her that it's ok to turn and settle in to a natural birthing position; try sitting in a warm bath covering the lower belly with ice pack on your upper belly (baby apparently turns away from the cold for the warm); the most common midwife suggestion - put earphones with nice music on your lower belly - baby apparently moves it's head towards the sound...there are lots of things to try. I personally had GREAT success with a local Chiropractor who does the Webster technique, (their office has a 92% success rate of turning breech babies right up until labour).

But worring about this now is kind of a waste of stress IMO, as your baby will probably turn back and forth - possibly many times - between now and 36, 37 weeks so no real point in trying to "get" him/her turned before then.

My guy was breech up until a few days ago (I'm 37 1/2 weeks). My midwife told me that after 36 weeks or so, it's "rare" for a baby to turn, but I was optimistic. I had one chiro treatment 3 days ago, (Webster technique) my pelvis realigned (apparently - whatever happened, it felt great - like a hugh relief of pressure), and within hours babe was not only head down but he dropped down low in to my pelvis in to the "optimal" birthing position, (acc to my midwife).

I told 3 people that my guy was breech last week. The first, my boss, said "Yeah, my first was breech and my doctor told me he wouldn't turn after 35 weeks, but 2 days before my due date I was sitting on the couch and felt him turn. I was almost 40 weeks and had a normal delivery".

The second, my sister, said, "Yeah, so was DS2, but he turned when I was in labour".

The third, a coworker, said, "Yeah, my eldest was too but she turned at 39 weeks...".

And as I said, my guy just turned at 37 1/2 weeks.

So it can't be that rare!

I know 2 other mamas who had breech babies who listened to their docs and went in for a c-section 2 weeks before their due date (at 38 weeks) b/c their doc said babe won't turn now. Don't believe it!!!

... And I can't say HOW impressed I was with the chiro treatment - I highly recommend it. HTH!!

Kathy.


----------



## Julz6871 (Jun 14, 2006)

They have to treat you. Making you sign refusal forms keeps you from being allowed to sue them if something goes wrong in the "dreaded" breech birth. Don't get me wrong, they will use every scare tactic under the sun and ask you questions like date, location, time to verify your mental status. If you are strong, you can sign away and they would be forced to deliver you vaginally. Of course, things may just happen too fast for all this to transpire.

I understand being uncomfortable with UC and money being an issue with a midwife. I am hoping that baby will turn.


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
If you call them (their number is on their website) they can give you more up-to-date info, but I can tell you that they charge $3000 and have very good luck getting it all covered by insurance. They bill as a "maternity clinic." They like you to have visited once before you come down, but are flexible on that.

The main expense would probably be room/board. That you'd have to ask them about.

I researched this, because I am so irritated with my birth situation...


OMG! Midwives in this area run closer to $4000 and insurance is unlikely to cover but $500 or so of it. So the thought of full coverage, the lowest csec rates and stories of wonderful breech births...wow! If my babe stays breech I am seriously considering finding a way to get out there...and I am in California. The thought of another csection literally makes me want to throw up.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkeybum* 
But worring about this now is kind of a waste of stress IMO, as your baby will probably turn back and forth - possibly many times - between now and 36, 37 weeks so no real point in trying to "get" him/her turned before then.

I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't think it can hurt to make a Plan B (Plan Breech?). The OP is trying to make sure she has her bases covered--I think she'll have less stress is the long run if she knows she has a plan in place, whatever happens.

Sorry, but this is kind of a sore subject, as the midwives at the birth center I go to keep telling me it's "too early" to worry about this or that thing... I don't want to be blindsided at 38 weeks with some unforseen issue, KWIM?


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Wow, monkeybum- that really made me feel better!


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't think it can hurt to make a Plan B (Plan Breech?). The OP is trying to make sure she has her bases covered--I think she'll have less stress is the long run if she knows she has a plan in place, whatever happens.

Sorry, but this is kind of a sore subject, as the midwives at the birth center I go to keep telling me it's "too early" to worry about this or that thing... I don't want to be blindsided at 38 weeks with some unforseen issue, KWIM?

That is exactly what I'm trying to do- I don't want to wake up one day in labor and not have a plan. I want to have all of my options- good and bad.


----------



## hapersmion (Jan 5, 2007)

Like people have said, babies can turn right up until the point they're born.







So you have plenty of time.

But I always have to recommend the Farm (as I'm sure people who hang out here are getting to know







). I loved my ds's breech birth there, even with all the stress of switching providers half a week before the baby was born.







But it was a beautiful place, Ina May was very hands-off, and I couldn't have asked for a better birth. I would never go into a hospital if I wanted a vaginal breech - that kind of stress would not be fun at all during labor.

We did try everything to turn him, even an external version. If you end up trying one of those, I recommend not waiting too long after 36 weeks. DS was just too big by the time we tried, I think he'd dropped into my pelvis too, and he wouldn't budge. It was not a fun way to spend my evening - it hurt quite a bit, though luckily the baby was fine.

As to the cost, $3000 is for regular births, unfortunately. We paid $4000 out of pocket for a breech. They do take out-of-state insurance, but we didn't get very much back from ours. Maybe your insurance would be better about it. I bet you could talk to the midwives, though, if it comes down to it, and work something out. Also, the room and board isn't bad at all, so that helps. It's $200 per week, if I recall correctly, to stay in the birth houses. Better than a hotel. (As for board, though, they don't provide food, I don't think, but there is a little shop somewhere, and you can always bring your own groceries, since you'll have a kitchen in your birth house.)

Your baby will probably turn, but if s/he doesn't, the Farm is sooo worth it. Good luck!

hapersmion


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

$4000? Oh, wow. There's no way that we could swing that.







:
I wish this wasn't even the issue.


----------



## BirthingGoddesses (Mar 21, 2004)

I am 40 weeks today... and my baby is - at the moment laying transverse. {head at 9 feet at 3} Earlier today he was up and down- kicking my cervix.







thanks wee one









I have "big" babies, and am not worried about it, I know that woman left alone get it done. I wouldn't be here and nor would you if that weren't true.

#1 was breech till 40 weeks, just wasn't interested in being upside down still hates it









#2 - was head down alll the time - still loves to be hung upside-down.

#3 - didn't know - fully trusted it - she came out just fine.

#4 - waiting to see - have thought a lot about breech birth, what it means how it works, etc. Discussed it with a midwife. Still planning to go ahead with a UC - definitely will be in the water if its breech {planning water birth anyway}.

Shoudl you do a UC? Well- that's really up to you and your gut feelings and instincts. You said earlier that you are not really that comfortable with that so- seek something else.

My personal idea: decide what you want- then focus on getting it- and know that it will come to you.

If you want a HB midwife- then look hard- search the net- call everyone of them in your area and tell them the stats- that you are x weeks along- and you are already being pressured about a c-section if your baby doesn't turn. See what they have to say. You might be surprised to find exactly what you are looking for.









And in reply to prev. post- sure- knowing what you plan to do in a situation is always good. Always. Not to an obsessive point, but be prepared with plans/choices/decisions.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

i already want to UC, but quite honestly, i would UC. i consider c-sections more dangerous than vaginal breech. thus, i would do whatever i could to avoid a c-section, particularly for the reason of breech.

the 'vbac' issue is a bit more challenging. it depends on the previous reason for the section, how you healed, how the scar is responding to the pregnancy and birth process, and what your specific needs are and may be in relation to that and how or whether breech would negatively affect the uterus during labor and vaginal birth.

Assuming that all of these things are considered and accounted for, and the vaginal breech is still safer than a section, then i would do anything in my power to avoid a section--which would then 'require' a UC in your case (considering there are no care providers in your area willing to work with you).

good luck to you either way--and i'm terribly, terribly sorry that there arent' care providers willing to assist you appropriately.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

_on the financial issue of The Farm_

first, i would call them and ask them what the different financial arrangements are--if there is a payment plan option or what might be available to you.

second, consider asking family and friends for help with this process. a friend of mine decided that she wanted to go to the farm to have her baby, so her baby shower had a 'money tree' for this purpose. they didn't have the money (or insurance) to go there, but the shower provided more money than she and her partner needed to travel from PA to TN and back, plus the cost of the farm, and a little extra for their car seat and some other things. AND they got baby gifts.

People want to help, don't be afraid to ask.


----------



## tessamami (Mar 11, 2002)

is just NOT a good option. Why? Because many doctors do NOT know how to assist in the case of a breech birth, even a simple one. And that's the truth. Breech birth delivered vaginally is often not even taught. Scary, huh?


----------



## erin_brycesmom (Nov 5, 2005)

I wouldn't worry at all. Just start getting regular webster adjustments and you should be fine. You say the version worked but your baby flipped back? That should be a sure fire sign that Webster will work for you. My last baby was confirmed breech at 38 weeks and he flipped head down immediately after my first webster adjustment. Then he returned breech so I went back to the chiro and he returned head down and remained with regular webster adjustments twice a week. He was 9.5 lbs so not a small guy and he had no problems filpping twice with webster that late in my pregnancy (38th and 39th weeks). Plus there are no risks involved with webster and it is cheap. You can find a chiro certified in Webster in your area at www.icpa4kids.com . I'd start asap! Super high success rates, there is no reason to think you can't have a vertex baby







.


----------



## ErinBird (Dec 5, 2005)

HAnds down, UC. If I strongly suspected breech, I would be reading up on how to handle it, knowing that there is a decent chance of baby turning during labor. If baby hasn't turned in spite of me never sitting reclined, etc.... there is likely a reason for it. Either way, I'm not scared to birth a breech.


----------



## Justmee (Jun 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkeybum* 
My midwife told me that after 36 weeks or so, it's "rare" for a baby to turn, but I was optimistic.


Wow, I didn't realize how rare it was for them to turn that late.

OP, my Rivka was breech at 38 weeks, she turned at some point before my 39 week appointment. I was starting to stress too, but I didn't do any chiro or anything (no $$ and two 16 month olds in tow







)

There is still time, try not to over stress.


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

I am fortunate to have access to midwives who will attend me with a breech vbac. If I didn't have that, I don't know what I would do. I would search far and wide for an experienced, willing attendant, but I might well end up having a cesarean.

I would not go into a hospital pushing with a breech baby. That is a recipe for disaster IMO, given that the major risks to breech babies come from panicked, inexperienced attendants, and that is exactly what you would get if you showed up ready to deliver. If I were dead set on a vaginal birth I would UC in the parking lot before I would go into the hospital to let unknown caregivers yank on my baby.

On the topic of it being too early to worry or not, in my understanding that depends on whether you are having your first baby, a subsequent baby when your other babies have all been head down, or a subsequent baby when you've had a baby breech until delivery in the past. I've only seen one small study on it, but it showed that if all your other babies have been head down, you still have a good shot at turning even after 36 weeks, 50% or more. But if you have had a baby stay breech before, the chances that the baby will turn are very low. Even at 32 weeks it was maybe 25% who would turn spontaneously, and by 36+ it was ~5%. While everyone has a story of someone whose baby turned in labor, the fact is that ~1 in 30 babies are indeed born breech, so I don't think anyone is at all silly or jumping the gun to be making a plan if the baby is breech in the third trimester. It's far easier to figure out what you will do and who will help you when you have two months than when you have two weeks or less.


----------



## Leetahalfelven (Feb 21, 2007)

This was at the University of Richmond, VA Medical center-w/ OB & CNM!

If you are wiling to drive-call around to all the hospitals w/i range of where you could stay for awhile and find out if they will no a Vag-breech w/ no other complications.

Do not give up hope women! My son turned footling breech about 2 weeks before Delivery and we tried a version (yuck) didn't work. But worth trying! Also tried the many breech tilt exercises - keep on trying girls! The EX's are good for us anyway!

Most US hospitals prefer C-sec..... I was just one of those moms trying to go as natural as possible and hated the thought of a C.... I didn't want any unnecessary surgery on my womb. And I got lucky, everything was favorable for a vaginal try as long as I agreed to the Epi and was already in the OR for emergency C. I know there are some mamas like me that hated the idea of a C unless it was truly unavoidable. I was just lucky in that it was avoidable for me; it is not always for others. And the baby's safety IS most important! It's just not always as necessary to do C sections as the Doctors in this country believe. Sometimes they can do more damage trying too hard to be "preventative". Women have been delivering breach babies for over 100,000 yrs! It just has to be the right kind of breach position with no other complications, that's all. And now a days, with our technology we can see if it's going to be ok before they commit to one option or the other! Ultrasounds & heart monitors are available during labor!

BUT- he folded his legs up (frank) and was butt first by the time my water broke and my midwife and doctor agreed to try a V-birth (w/epi) and have everything ready for a C if necessary.

It was easier than my first! He just rolled on out and they were both there to help keep him in the right position for his neck - NO PROBLEMS!!!!

Don't despair Ladies! Of course there had to be no other complications for my DR to agree with it but we were in the OR and all ready if it went wrong & IT WENT BEAUTIFULLY!









~Here wishing you all the best & safest outcomes!
Good luck!


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

erin- I'm not scared of UC in general- it was kinda my plan. Something about a breech UC feels different to me, though- and I'm not sure what.
I just know that I need to explore options, even if I ended up right back where I started!

If I did end up in the hospital, I have the unpleasant feeling it would be a section. And that terrifies me- but not as much as having someone interfere and botch a breech delivery.








:


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

I hope this helps...

http://www.breechbabies.com/pictures.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech_birth

I'm 36.5 weeks and my babe has been in breech the whole pregnancy. S/he turned for a few weeks last month, but recently turned back (week 34). S/he's been turning in and out of breech for the past two weeks and is currently not breech. According to my research, only 8% of babies remain in the breech position for the birth. Babies DO turn all the way up until the birth. Ifmy baby stays in breech I will attempt a vaginal UC as planned, but I'll watch very closely for any abnormal stuff and be prepared to transfer if I have to. Educating yourself is key. If you know what to lookfor in a vaginal breech delivery, you will bemore calm and able to get through it, IMO.

Kristi


----------



## momto l&a (Jul 31, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ericswifey27* 
OMG! Midwives in this area run closer to $4000 and insurance is unlikely to cover but $500 or so of it. So the thought of full coverage, the lowest csec rates and stories of wonderful breech births...wow! If my babe stays breech I am seriously considering finding a way to get out there...and I am in California. The thought of another csection literally makes me want to throw up.

There is a mw in Sacramento who will deliver breeches. She even taught/teaching a class for mw about breech deliveries.

That was one of the first questions i asked her as my babies cant ever make up their mind which way they want to be.









Yes, she charges the $4,000 but she gives discounts for paying before the birth and some other things.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Statistically (I've been researching this all day







) the danger to the baby with a vaginal breech birth IS greater than the danger to the baby with a C-section delivery.

However, the danger to YOU during a c-section is actually greater than the danger to the baby during a vaginal breech. In other words, you are more likely to suffer an adverse effect during the c-section than the baby is to suffer an adverse effect during the vaginal birth. Or, in other words again, the vaginal birth is not as dangerous for the baby as the c-section is for you. This is the statistic that often does not get mentioned when this is being debated.


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
Statistically (I've been researching this all day







) the danger to the baby with a vaginal breech birth IS greater than the danger to the baby with a C-section delivery.

However, the danger to YOU during a c-section is actually greater than the danger to the baby during a vaginal breech. In other words, you are more likely to suffer an adverse effect during the c-section than the baby is to suffer an adverse effect during the vaginal birth. Or, in other words again, the vaginal birth is not as dangerous for the baby as the c-section is for you. This is the statistic that often does not get mentioned when this is being debated.

That really, really makes me want to avoid a section. My other concern is the availability of VBAC options- here there are none. While we are moving after this baby, it's troubling to me- my husband and I are planning on a large family (we believe HBC is wrong) and I don't want a c-section at 22 to possibly limit our family size.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

No- you definetly DO NOT want that.
Hugs mama. I am thinking of you!!!!!
Turn baby turn!


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

I highly, highly recommend the book "Breech Birth" by Benna Waites. It has a very complete look at the research, including its limitations, and is the best resource I have seen for evidence based info on why babies are breech, turning techniques, making choices for the birth. The evidence IMO is very ambiguous WRT vaginal breech vs. cesarean, and of course a natural/active birth approach to vaginal breech has hardly been studied at all. I think it's very telling that ACOG itself changed its recommendation, from "no breech birth no way" to "depends on the experience of the caregiver", after serious criticism of the Hannah breech trial was published.

So yes, if you look at breech versus vertex, there are more risks to breech babies. But if you look at lower-risk presentations (butt), not preterm, without congenital problems, there are plenty of studies that show no significant diffference in outcome btw vaginal and cesarean. And often the differences in outcome that are there are related to the experience and technique of the caregiver.

The other issue, if you want a large family, is that the risks of a c-section will continue into the future, not only for you but for your future children.


----------



## hapersmion (Jan 5, 2007)

Actually, it's not necessarily true that C-section is safer for the baby. There is a study out there that shows a small increase in risk with vaginal breech, but I read another article saying that the study is seriously flawed. They didn't do a good job dividing their groups, they used unreliable methods of determining the babies' health at birth (such as cord blood gas levels, tested at different times after delivery), and most importantly, the vaginal breech births were attended by medical doctors who weren't necessarily experienced with vaginal breech, and who certainly weren't hands-off. So all the study is qualified to test is c-section versus managed hospital vaginal birth, not natural birth with an experience midwife. When I compared Ina May Gaskin's statistics (she was my midwife at the Farm), from her book Ina May's Guide to Childbirth, with the national statistics (though they are unreliable and very hard to find), her outcomes were as good or better than hospital births.

And your health is important too. Your risk of dying is increased 3-4 times by a c-section, and you have to worry about infection, uterine rupture, all kinds of bad stuff. But the real clincher in my case is the increased risk to future children by a c-section. I definitely want more than one, and knowing that having that scar on my uterus would put me at increased risk for miscarriage, stillbirth, placental abruption, etc - there was no way I was going to a hospital if I could find a way around it. After having my ds, I'd go UC in the woods before I'd step into a hospital, if frank breech was the only "complication".









And on the financial side, ITA with zoebird. You CAN make it work. I can't imagine the midwives there refusing to work with you on payment, they are very active in helping women. You might even see if they're interested in barter of some kind, who knows!

Don't give up, and good luck! Most likely that baby will turn over any day now anyway, and all the worrying will be for nothing.








hapersmion


----------



## hapersmion (Jan 5, 2007)

Heh ccohenou and I posted at the same time.









I also wanted to mention the new study that people have been talking about on here. (Sadly I don't have time to go find a link just now.) It found that vaginal birth is better for the baby than elective (pre-labor) c-section, because of the breathing issues. Labor is good for babies. I was always annoyed that the doctor I talked to before finding the Farm wanted to schedule a c/s before my due date, but they are afraid that if they let you go into labor naturally you'll have the baby before they can do the c/s!







:

Anyway, best wishes!

hapersmion


----------



## NatureMama3 (Feb 25, 2004)

I would do a UC, BUT.. if you aren't comfy with that, try finding a perinatologist who is willing? my perinatologist with my twins was willing to birth breech and so were his partners.

or, go to a neighoring state?


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 

If I did just refuse, would a doctor HAVE to attend me? Does it clear them of legal liability if they mishandle things?

If I am misunderstanding your question here, please please please just ignore what I am about to say.

But when you ask 'does it clear them of legal liability', it indicates to me that you'd consider litigation if something went wrong. Correct?

If so, that would be so grossly unfair to the doctor being forced to attend you IMO. By telling you they don't deliver breech babies, they are basically telling you they DO.NOT.KNOW.HOW. to do so safely.

If *you* refuse to acknowledge this fact, that they do.not.know.what.they.are.doing....well, how is it THEIR fault if something goes wrong? They've already TOLD you they are out of their league, so if you STILL feel comfortable forcing them to attend a birth in which they have no experience or expertise, why on earth would you be surprised if they did something that wasn't right, resulted in injury or death to your child, etc?

It's like if I went to a surgeon that had never done heart surgery, they TELL me they don't do heart surgery, and I still insist they do it anyway...then complaining when the results are less than perfect.

If a provider doesn't have experience with vaginal breech birth, I absolutely positively would NOT consider it an option to 'force' them at attend mine and hold them responsible for MY choice.


----------



## ErinBird (Dec 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
That really, really makes me want to avoid a section. My other concern is the availability of VBAC options- here there are none. While we are moving after this baby, it's troubling to me- my husband and I are planning on a large family (we believe HBC is wrong) and I don't want a c-section at 22 to possibly limit our family size.

This is one of the huge things that makes me so adamant about helping women avoid that first C-section. Unfortunately many women don't get a chance to even attempt VBAC. There is a real limit to the number of sections someone can have- while I've read about women having huge families, all born by cesarean... its much more common for mom to run into major issues with subsequent surgeries and seriously consider not haivng more biological children.

FWIW, I don't believe in HBC either. I would hate to be forced to make the choice between haivng a tubal ligation to prevent future pregnancies or risking death and leaving my family motherless.


----------



## Rockies5 (May 17, 2005)

Is this your first baby? Do you have a history of malpositioned (oh I hate that word!) babies in the family? Late turners? Auntie so and so and a 9 day labor?

I do, and my *first* was 9lbs, 23.5inches, 15" head and turned three days before his birth (at 39weeks, adjusted)

1.I'd work on finding a MW.
2.I'd have a UC (second choice, I consider a breech less normal then vertex and I've never assisted one so I wouldn't choose UC as my first option..I have no suctioning equiptment)
3.I'd give birth in a van, in the hospital parking lot








4.I'd plan a section

But you need to remember it is *YOU* that is having the baby and only your reasons matter.

My little boy didn't budge until labor began, then WHAM he stood up on my spine for about 2 minutes and settled into vertex. I spent many weeks on a slant board and lying on my left side watching soaps and trying to "masssage" him into position. I was told I couldn't birth vaginally because I was too small (under 5'3, under 150lbs at 9months preg and looked like I was 13 (I was 19) so I went home and told the little booger to flip because I wasn't letting him out any other way.

*YOU HAVE TIME* I don't know why women, mws and other providers get so worked up about this. I haven't had a SINGLE baby of our *five* that have been head down before 34 weeks!!

It is my opinon that if baby is breech, its the position he needs at that time. Gentle nudgings, yes...external versions, no!

I'd hate for you to worry yourself and be so uptight with your "chemicals "out of whack and your so unhappy that baby gets depressed and doesn't turn. ENJOY your pregnancy, and TRUST BIRTH! Trust your baby.

Whoever said that the spinning babies site drove you nuts...ITA! I also at once love/hate the optimal fetal positioning book. It all makes sense, but it treated like an emergency problem that is caused by the mother. All my babies were posterior as welll and it wasn't body positions as much as it was physiology...and I refuse to feel guilt for my genes.


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom* 
If I am misunderstanding your question here, please please please just ignore what I am about to say.

But when you ask 'does it clear them of legal liability', it indicates to me that you'd consider litigation if something went wrong. Correct?

If so, that would be so grossly unfair to the doctor being forced to attend you IMO. By telling you they don't deliver breech babies, they are basically telling you they DO.NOT.KNOW.HOW. to do so safely.

If *you* refuse to acknowledge this fact, that they do.not.know.what.they.are.doing....well, how is it THEIR fault if something goes wrong? They've already TOLD you they are out of their league, so if you STILL feel comfortable forcing them to attend a birth in which they have no experience or expertise, why on earth would you be surprised if they did something that wasn't right, resulted in injury or death to your child, etc?

It's like if I went to a surgeon that had never done heart surgery, they TELL me they don't do heart surgery, and I still insist they do it anyway...then complaining when the results are less than perfect.

If a provider doesn't have experience with vaginal breech birth, I absolutely positively would NOT consider it an option to 'force' them at attend mine and hold them responsible for MY choice.

I do think you misunderstood- that or I wasn't very clear (been known to happen).
I wasn't asking about accidents, but deliberately mishandling care because I refused to comply. Does that make more sense?


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
I do think you misunderstood- that or I wasn't very clear (been known to happen).
I wasn't asking about accidents, but deliberately mishandling care because I refused to comply. Does that make more sense?


I think you'd never prove they 'deliberately' mishandled things during a delivery they never agreed to attend. Whatever might go wrong, the blame would easily rest at YOUR feet in the eyes of the general public (who would make up the jury, therefore making it difficult to impossible to find a lawyer to take the case). YOU would be the one responsible for forcing them to attend a birth they had no training, no experience, and no plan of ever attending.

The things that usually go wrong during a vaginal breech are things that adequate training and experience go a long way towards preventing. That fact would be your downfall, as they are already very clear that they are not prepared to handle such a delivery.

I just don't understand why anyone would WANT a provider who has no experience delivering their baby. It baffles me.

If it came right down to it, and you simply could not bring yourself to have a section, I'd say it would be safer to deliver someplace very NEAR a hospital, but not IN a hospital. And I am *not* a supporter of UC *at all*. But I think it'd be safer to attempt a vaginal breech by yourself than to have an inexperienced doc pulling on the baby in panic.


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom* 
I think you'd never prove they 'deliberately' mishandled things during a delivery they never agreed to attend. Whatever might go wrong, the blame would easily rest at YOUR feet in the eyes of the general public (who would make up the jury, therefore making it difficult to impossible to find a lawyer to take the case). YOU would be the one responsible for forcing them to attend a birth they had no training, no experience, and no plan of ever attending.

The things that usually go wrong during a vaginal breech are things that adequate training and experience go a long way towards preventing. That fact would be your downfall, as they are already very clear that they are not prepared to handle such a delivery.

I just don't understand why anyone would WANT a provider who has no experience delivering their baby. It baffles me.

I don't- I was just asking a question.


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom* 
I think you'd never prove they 'deliberately' mishandled things during a delivery they never agreed to attend. Whatever might go wrong, the blame would easily rest at YOUR feet in the eyes of the general public (who would make up the jury, therefore making it difficult to impossible to find a lawyer to take the case). YOU would be the one responsible for forcing them to attend a birth they had no training, no experience, and no plan of ever attending.

The things that usually go wrong during a vaginal breech are things that adequate training and experience go a long way towards preventing. That fact would be your downfall, as they are already very clear that they are not prepared to handle such a delivery.

*I just don't understand why anyone would WANT a provider who has no experience delivering their baby. It baffles me.*

If it came right down to it, and you simply could not bring yourself to have a section, I'd say it would be safer to deliver someplace very NEAR a hospital, but not IN a hospital. And I am *not* a supporter of UC *at all*. But I think it'd be safer to attempt a vaginal breech by yourself than to have an inexperienced doc pulling on the baby in panic.


I sincerely doubt the OP or anyone else for that matter WANTS a provider with no experience delivering their baby.

On the flip side, who WANTS a csection that is unneccessary?

I also don't think it's wise _for someone who would otherwise want assistance from an OB or midwife_ to be forced into delivering unassisted simply because baby was in breech position. UC should be a desired birthing choice for its own merit, not made out of desperation, IMO.

The real problem here is that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to find providers that are willing to deliver breech. This is an assault against women because it is taking away our choice. If a woman wants to deliver breech instead of an automatic csection, it is the hospital that should be REQUIRED to provide s.o. experienced at breech deliveries. It should not be on the shoulders of the pregnant woman. That is just ridiculous.

And there is the catch 22. How can hospitals provide doctors experienced with breech deliveries if nearly all breech babies are being delivered by csection?







: It really is INSANE.

BTW, my mother delivered me breech, followed by my twin sister 4 minutes later. That was in the 1970s and already doctors were choosing csection over breech vaginal delivery. My how things have changed...







:


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Wow, ericswifey27- that's exactly what I wanted to say but couldn't seem to get out!

I think UC is a perfectly valid choice- and under different conditions one that I was seriously considering. I don't think that it's something anyone should have to do because there isn't a competent, safe care provider available who is not only willing to attend but allowed by policy and precedent.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ericswifey27* 
If a woman wants to deliver breech instead of an automatic csection, it is the hospital that should be REQUIRED to provide s.o. experienced at breech deliveries. It should not be on the shoulders of the pregnant woman. That is just ridiculous.

Where is the hospital going to get these providers from? What exactly should happen to the hospital if mom shows up with a breech and nobody is there to attend the birth with previous breech experience? Should they be required to have 24/7 coverage with a provider experienced at breech births? We already saw what happened when 24/7 coverage was implemented with VBAC deliveries....the hospitals just don't do them period. And we live in America (or most of us do anyway). Nobody is going to go along with FORCING a business (and that's what a hospital ultimately is) to do something they don't want to, something that could very well cost them out the wazoo.

And who exactly is going to pay the malpractice claims when women sue docs for less than perfect outcomes with the very delivery THEY insisted upon?

Same exact thing has happened with VBAC deliveries, where doc follows ALL guidelines for VBAC but STILL loses their a$$ in court when things go wrong during delivery. Then we wonder why they don't want to do VBACs at all.

Women can't have it both ways. There are RISKS to vaginal breech deliveries (and VBACs since it's a similiar predicament for both women and docs), and those RISKS are very real. If mom isn't willing to accept those risks, and by that I mean understand that IF something goes wrong that nobody could have prevented, they have NO RIGHT to sue the doc.

But you know what? It happens. And then we wonder why things are like they are with malpractice carriers refusing to cover docs and/or hospitals who do certain deliveries or charging such huge premiums that it's not financially feasible to stay in practice if they attend certain births.

It's not rocket science here. You can't FORCE hospitals to deliver breech babies so their docs can get practice. That is so incredibly not practical at all. If we want to fix the system, the only real way I can see to make some immediate changes would be to stop women from suing for THEIR choices when things go bad.

And things WILL go bad sometimes, it's just a part of birth. But I see this everywhere...when something goes wrong, without even knowing WHAT went wrong OR *why*, within the first 5-10 replies (if that) the suggestion to sue is already being thrown around.

Something has to give, that much I think we can all agree on. I envision many hospitals stopping the baby business all together if things continue as they are. We see many hospitals refusing to do breech deliveries, refusing to do VBACs, with 40+% c-section rates, and this is already happening today. Give it another 10-20 years and it's frightening to think of what it will be like.

Already many docs who once practiced obstetrics AND gynecology are no longer taking OB patients. It's too costly and the liability is too high. I'm afraid this 'baby must be perfect or we will sue' attitude is going to ultimately cost women way more than any of us ever imagined.


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Wifeandmom- are you here to educate and empower women? To build them up?
Or to stand on a soap box and be mean?

I started this thread to ask what people would do. I think you've made your opinion clear. Thank you for it, but please don't derail this thread into nastiness and hypotheticals.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
Wifeandmom- are you here to educate and empower women? To build them up?
Or to stand on a soap box and be mean?

I started this thread to ask what people would do. I think you've made your opinion clear. Thank you for it, but please don't derail this thread into nastiness and hypotheticals.

Interesting.

When someone doesn't like what is said, it's called derailing and hypothetical. Who knew.

Really, I was replying previously to another poster that was very adament that hospitals be REQUIRED to provide an experienced provider for vaginal breech deliveries. That is simply impractical at best. How is it that *I* was the one derailing things?

There's a big difference in empowering and educating women and wishful thinking (which is what the idea of requiring hospitals to provide experienced providers is). There's a difference between pointing this fact out and being 'nasty'. I didn't make the rules here, I don't necessarily like them either, but I fail to see how it's mean and nasty to point out when something is simply not based in reality.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
Wifeandmom- are you here to educate and empower women? To build them up?
Or to stand on a soap box and be mean?

I started this thread to ask what people would do. I think you've made your opinion clear. Thank you for it, but please don't derail this thread into nastiness and hypotheticals.

OK, let's be calm. I actually agree with wifeandmom on this, in part!

I don't think OBs are the devil, and I KNOW that part of the reason for the drive to section everyone has been a zero-tolerance-for-a-less-than-perfect-outcome policy on the part of parents. I also agree that vaginal breech carries risks.

That said, wifeandmom, I think it's really very wrong to allow the medical profession to simply section all breech births---obviously, the techniques for breech delivery need to be revived. Honestly, it may be hard, but medical school is about learning how to do hard medical things. I think simply refusing to learn or teach breen delivery and forcing surgery on women indiscriminately is reprehensible.

That said, I really don't know what I'll do if the baby stays right-side-up. Try to get the money for the Farm, I think.


----------



## birthgreeter (Aug 31, 2006)

sending you a pm .


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 

That said, wifeandmom, I think it's really very wrong to allow the medical profession to simply section all breech births---obviously, the techniques for breech delivery need to be revived. Honestly, it may be hard, but medical school is about learning how to do hard medical things. I think simply refusing to learn or teach breen delivery and forcing surgery on women indiscriminately is reprehensible.

It's really not that simple though.

And it's also not 'indiscriminately' that they are basing the concept of automatic c-section for breech babies either. It's been done in the past. Sometimes, more often than with a vertex baby, the results are less than perfect. Research shows this, and any doc wishing to remain in business with reasonable malpractice premiums takes the current standard of care very seriously.

Bottom line is a mother can come in demanding a vaginal breech that the doctor clearly is not comfortable with and then turn right around and sue the doctor if something goes wrong. Change that fact and we might see more docs willing to go out on a limb for the less-than-ideal vaginal birth situation.

As long as women demand perfect babies, docs are going to demand textbook labor and deliveries with a section at the least little blip. And a vaginal breech is a fairly significant 'blip' in terms of risk to the baby according to documented research.


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

In regard to the greater risk to the baby of vaginal breech, AIMS published some stuff a few years ago (can't put my hands on it right now - can anyone supply a reference?) which suggested that there are two sets of standards for breech birth. If you're having a breech birth in a typical hospital with an OB who, like most, doesn't know how to handle a vaginal breech and who uses the usual interventions, many of which are especially inappropriate for a breech birth, then a C-section is safer for the baby.
On the other hand, if you're attended by a midwife or doctor who is accustomed to attending breech births and handles them appropriately, then a vaginal birth is safer for the baby than a C-section.
Obviously, the OP doesn't have access to the second option, but I thought it put things in perspective.


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

I do think teaching this in med school is a good way to reintroduce vaginal breech birth. I don't expect a doctor to know something he wasn't taught, I just wish that it was being worked on.


----------



## ~~Mama2B~~ (Mar 9, 2006)

I don't expect people to cater to every unsusal situation, but the fact that they have all but stopped teaching vaginal breech delivery isn't right. I live in the Seattle area and in the ENTIRE region there is only ONE OB who will touch a breech birth vaginally, and the criterion include low risk preg., not the first birth and small baby. This OB practices in Anacortes which is 2 hours from here. That's very sad that options are not available-not because hospitals aren't giving into our bizarre demands, but that something that was once textbook learning is now some outdated and impractical task that no one is willing to do.

Kristi


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom* 
Something has to give, that much I think we can all agree on. I envision many hospitals stopping the baby business all together if things continue as they are. We see many hospitals refusing to do breech deliveries, refusing to do VBACs, with 40+% c-section rates, and this is already happening today. Give it another 10-20 years and it's frightening to think of what it will be like.
.

This seems to be the only thing we agree on.

And it's funny you said "baby business" because that's what it has become. It's all about the $$$$ and cover your a**. Where is the "do no harm"?

You're putting the blame on the women. It was not women who chose to make birthing into a business.

Women are losing their choices. Women are suffering.

Who are you going to blame when women start suing for unneccessary csections?

I don't even know where to start with the rest of what you said.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ericswifey27* 
This seems to be the only thing we agree on.

And it's funny you said "baby business" because that's what it has become. It's all about the $$$$ and cover your a**. Where is the "do no harm"?

I think it's gotten somewhat lost in there amongst the 'I'm going to take you for everything you've got mentality' that so many people in our country have when something goes wrong. Doctors are humans too, and they most assuredly have a vested interest in being able to pay their bills just like the rest of the world.

Are they blameless across the board? Heavens no. But surely it's not such a stretch of the imagination to consider the position they are in...mom comes in having a baby. Whether doc agrees or not, current generally accepted practice is to do continuous EFM. Baby shows a blip of distress. Hello c-section.

Necessary? Who knows really? Surely the doc doesn't KNOW that baby is ok, as in beyond a shadow of a doubt, and THAT is how certain they better be cause God help them if they are wrong.

Quote:

You're putting the blame on the women. It was not women who chose to make birthing into a business.
No, but *some* parents have decided that nothing less than a perfect outcome will do, and they will sue for anything less.

Quote:

Women are losing their choices. Women are suffering.
Yes, they are. And it sucks. And I don't know what the 'answer' is here. But blaming it ALL on the doctors or the system is no better than saying it's all the woman's fault (which I am NOT saying at all...I think it's a great big screw up that's next to impossible to 'fix').

Quote:

Who are you going to blame when women start suing for unneccessary csections?
They first have to prove harm was actually done, other than emotional trauma, which doesn't cut it for malpractice. I have no problem whatsoever suing for what is clearly an unnecessary section, I just don't know that you'd get very far with it. If it became a new trend though...well, that might get some attention.

Quote:

I don't even know where to start with the rest of what you said.
Ok. Want to think on it and get back to me? Seriously. I'm all for learning and thinking, and find the current birth climate incredibly interesting to say the least.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Wifeandmom, I get where you're coming from. I do. I lurk on ob/gyn forums and have heard the argument you're making numerous times. I agree it's a problem.

Here's this issue: the U.S. has no system of accountability for medical malpractice other than litigation. There is literally no way to address a problem and make sure it never happens again other than to sue. The only recognition that a patient will ever get that a real mistake was made is in the courtroom.

There have been various proposals floated to introduce some non-litigous accountability into the U.S. healthcare system. Until we have something different, it's really wrong to castigate patients for filing lawsuits when that's the only recourse that is available to them.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom* 
They first have to prove harm was actually done, other than emotional trauma, which doesn't cut it for malpractice. I have no problem whatsoever suing for what is clearly an unnecessary section, I just don't know that you'd get very far with it. If it became a new trend though...well, that might get some attention.

That's right. We have to prove that harm was done. Can you think of any other instance where a woman can be coerced into being cut open against her will (or even forced into it) and have to _prove_ that she was harmed? Can you imagine a mugger leaving a scar across a woman's abdomen, and costing her a significant percentage of feeling in her pelvis...and the woman having to _prove_ that harm was done? No, because that's absolutely ridiculous. If you're not a doctor, the simple act of cutting someone open when they don't want to be cut is considered a criminal offense.

I don't like it when women sue for things that go wrong in a birth, either. But, the bottom line is that women can't prove they've been harmed when they've been cut open against their will. Can anyone explain how the issue of proving harm when surgery has been informed without someone's consent even exists?

Anyway - what is a "clearly" unnecessary section? Talk to the ICAN moms who get cut because their doctor tells them the baby is just too big to birth vaginally...and then comes up with some other excuse in the OR, when they find out that the baby is only 6.5 pounds. Sure - there's a case that it was clearly unnecessary as the official cause was invalid...but you can bet that if it came down to a court case, the doctor would be there explaining how it was lucky that it happened, because they'd have had to do an emergency section for X, Y and/or Z, anyway.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
Wifeandmom, I get where you're coming from. I do. I lurk on ob/gyn forums and have heard the argument you're making numerous times. I agree it's a problem.

Yeah - I've also heard the "wouldn't a 100% c-section OB hospital be great? We'd be able to work a normal work day, blah, blah, blah" discussion more than once. I also don't believe I've seen a single medical professional on the forums mention any risk to a c-section...ever. They treat them as a 100% benign procedure..scary group-think.

uke


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Storm Bride,

It is so true.








:


----------



## Jimibell (Feb 18, 2003)

I don't think the potential for litigation is any reason not to do a vaginal breech birth. Doctors should be responsible for providing the proper care for the situation. If they aren't trained for it that is not the patient's responsbility, it is the doctors'.

I wouldn't recommend asking a poorly trained OB to do a breech birth in the current situation but if more and more women go to mws and OBs lose business because of it, maybe they would start getting the proper training......

but maybe the point would be moot because why are OBs attending births anyway???? they're surgeons, by their nature they are trained to do surgery......I wish to look to conscious mws to change the scene.....and of course they cannot do that without client support and societal change.........

how come all those women who have horrible hospital birth experiences aren't suing? the ones who go in and get churned through the system and are left humilated and disempowered but have no tangible reasons why because they have just followed hospital procedure and think this is the thing to do........everywhere around us the message comes that what goes on in hospitals is normal, even with the high rates of intervention and perinatal mortality.......
people don't have a clue.....

I rack my brains to try to think of a way to help change things and the only thing I can come up with is to get involved at the grass-roots level and speak to pregnant women.....as pp said, OBs and hospitals are not going to stand up for pregnant women, why would they?


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

wifeandmom said:


> Quote:
> 
> Ok. Want to think on it and get back to me? Seriously. I'm all for learning and thinking, and find the current birth climate incredibly interesting to say the least.
> Allrighty... I'll take a stab at it...
> ...


----------



## knowerofnada (Dec 4, 2006)

My baby turned at 34 weeks after several treatments with moxibustion. Have you even looked into this? It has high success rates and is not invasive like version.


----------



## Nutter (Mar 8, 2007)

You have my sympathy. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place!
My understanding is that deliverying a vaginal breech, while perfectably 'do-able' is not a common skill anymore. (I know many medical skills no longer teach it)

So even if you waited until the last minute to go to the hospital, and if you were able to avoid the cesarean, you still would likely end up with a care provider who
(a) is upset that you have 'forced' them into doing something they don't want to do/are uncomfortable doing and
(b) may not even have the skills necessary to deliver a baby in the breech position.

I would definately look at going out of state and/or finding an 'underground' midwife who might be in a position to help. I don't know how exactly you go about doing that, but it's worth a try.

Good luck! And keep working on getting that little bundle to flip around - there's still time! All the best.


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

OP - My midwife and I talked about this... if I had a breech baby (with my first - with subsequent babies she would be comfortable delivering at home) and transferred to the hospital and NO doctors there would allow vaginal breech birth then I could simply say NO to the c-section and inform them that my midwife would deliver the baby since they refused to.

So... I would find a midwife who would be comfortable delivering a breech in a hospital and you can always refuse the c-section unless your baby is in danger.

I didn't read the whole thread though and realise that may not be an option for you







I hope your babe turns or you figure out a good workable option!

You could always go to Tennessee and see Ina May







: Though I totally understand why that wouldn't be an option if you live a long way away from there...

love and peace.


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
I have to respectfully disagree.

I don't think it can hurt to make a Plan B (Plan Breech?). The OP is trying to make sure she has her bases covered--I think she'll have less stress is the long run if she knows she has a plan in place, whatever happens.

Sorry, but this is kind of a sore subject, as the midwives at the birth center I go to keep telling me it's "too early" to worry about this or that thing... I don't want to be blindsided at 38 weeks with some unforseen issue, KWIM?

I have to say I'm ITA. My MW kept saying, it's too early to worry, it's too early to worry, she'll turn, she'll turn. It wasn't, and she didn't, and I wasted a lot of time that I could've been working on a solution to the problem.

My entire story is at www.breechbirth.ca. I ended up with a c/s, but not a scheduled one because I refused to have one without being in active labour, and the OB on call legitimately didn't have the experience to safely catch a breech.

What I did:
I asked my MW to ask around and identify OBs in town who would catch the baby vaginally if "I walked in pushing". There tend to be some "rebels" around but it takes some bush-beating to find them becuase they're afraid of professional censure if they say out loud that they'll do it. The good news is that ACOG changed their guidelines in July to say that vag breech birth should be offered by experienced OBs.

I tried ECV 4 times, with 2 different MWs, in both home & hospital settings.

I found a chiropractor who did Webster. She also kept me walking.

I did hypnosis, lying on a slant-board with my feet up, scrubbing the kitchen floor on hands & knees.

I found an acupuncturist to do moxibustion but I did this too late. It has an excellent success rate but it can take up to 6X with a couple of days in between so GET ON IT.

What I WISH I had done:

I wish I had gone to each of the hospitals and presented myself to the nurses' desk. I would ask which OBs are the most senior and which ones THEY would trust to catch a breech baby. Because so far as I'm concerned, the OB doesn't need to LIKE my choice, s/he just has t be qualified. And I KNOW there are OBs in town here who I did not have identified at the time, THREE of them, in fact.

I would not trust my MW as much as I did to give me complete information or to stick up for me. She was so scared of breech birth that even though I knew a MW who would have caught the baby at home, I didn't think it was a legitimate choice. I know better now - I'd go home and call the other MW.

Would I personally do UC? Probably not. But I don't know that I'd be comfortable with a UC even with a vertex birth... altho with a vertex if it was c/s or uc I'd go uc. I guess it comes down to trusting birth. If you believe firmly that a labour that goes smoothly results in a birth that goes smoothly (which is what my "alternate" MW said to me after she found out my 75 minute labour wiht my breech babe ended with me puffing off pushes to allow the c/s), then that's something you can monitor at home and only go in if you feel there's a problem.

It's a tough one. But anyway. As many have said, you have time. But use the time. Maybe the babe would turn anyway and it's lots of effort that you didn't need to spend, sure. But if, like mine, the babe just wants to be bum-first... Personally I needed to know that I did everything in MY power.

xo Robin


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

WWYD? vaginal breech?
theretohere ~ I was faced with this question for my last birth 7 months ago. I had an unassisted pregnancy and was planning another UC. My babe lay breech for all the pregnancy. I did a lot of research, soul searching and knew in my heart it was the safest thing to birth my baby at home without intervention, attendants, or uneducated professionals. (preferably and particularly those wielding knives). I was committed to birth my breech baby UC.j I did nothing to try to turn her or mess with her in any way. I let her just be.

Then, the day of her birth, my water broke, she turned vertex, and I had a two hour labor in the pool and birthed my 13 pound girl in utter bliss. They really CAN turn at the last minute.







:


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

In a choice between cesarean or UC I'd *never* knowingly choose cesarean. Way too risky, and puts my body and future babies at risk. I refuse to have unnecessary surgery just because I can't find someone who "knows how" to keep their hands off my breech baby as he's coming out.
I was forced into a cesarean for breech presentation (he was crowning when they realized I was in labour, I went in because I was preterm) - so I feel very passionately about this.


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Well, for me it's not *just* that I want someone who knows how to keep their hands off (though I do), but I also want someone who knows how to safely help the babe out if s/he should have nuchal arm or deflexed head or some other mechanical problem on the way out (and I'm confident that I do, here, too).
But I think it's maybe too simplistic to see the adage 'hands off the breech' and think that means that all one needs to safely attend a breech birth is not to do anything, ever.


----------



## bobandjess99 (Aug 1, 2005)

If it were a choice between section and UC? UC, hands down.
but - if there could possibly another choice, I'd certainly try to figure it out....underground midwife, travelling to birth, whatever.

But, if it came down to it....I think hospitals are more dangerous than doing it alone. (not to say hospitals don't sometimes help, they do, but overall, they hurt way more than they help...)


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ccohenou* 
Well, for me it's not *just* that I want someone who knows how to keep their hands off (though I do), but I also want someone who knows how to safely help the babe out if s/he should have nuchal arm or deflexed head or some other mechanical problem on the way out (and I'm confident that I do, here, too).
But I think it's maybe too simplistic to see the adage 'hands off the breech' and think that means that all one needs to safely attend a breech birth is not to do anything, ever.

This is where I was at, too. And I actually was somewhat willing to compromise on birthing position, etc to get such a person to attend me. Now, if my official referral OB had been on call all of that was moot, he didn't require any of the "extraction" routine of me, but I knew if I ended up at a different hospital or with somebody I didn't know I might have to bend. But as it turned out, I got somebody who wasn't qualified to help me, and everybody in the room knew that the OB was the only liability. It was so freakin' dumb.

ITA with pp that hospitals need to put priority on ensuring that residents get experienced in breech catching. This may mean they need an exchange programme with another hospital where they have senior OBs with experience who have not retired. It may mean paying somebody to come out of retirement, to be on call just for breech babies. In Ottawa we're trying to set up a "breech squad" - a group of practitioners (obs or MWs, we don't care) who are qualified to catch breeches and are willing to be on call at their own hospital. Then breech mamas can call when they go into labour and find out which hospital to go to. It's not perfect, it's not somebody, all the time, at every hospital, but it's SOMETHING in a town where statistically we have at least 1 breech baby born every day.


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robinna* 
This is where I was at, too. And I actually was somewhat willing to compromise on birthing position, etc to get such a person to attend me. Now, if my official referral OB had been on call all of that was moot, he didn't require any of the "extraction" routine of me, but I knew if I ended up at a different hospital or with somebody I didn't know I might have to bend. But as it turned out, I got somebody who wasn't qualified to help me, and everybody in the room knew that the OB was the only liability. It was so freakin' dumb.

ITA with pp that hospitals need to put priority on ensuring that residents get experienced in breech catching. This may mean they need an exchange programme with another hospital where they have senior OBs with experience who have not retired. It may mean paying somebody to come out of retirement, to be on call just for breech babies. In Ottawa we're trying to set up a "breech squad" - a group of practitioners (obs or MWs, we don't care) who are qualified to catch breeches and are willing to be on call at their own hospital. Then breech mamas can call when they go into labour and find out which hospital to go to. It's not perfect, it's not somebody, all the time, at every hospital, but it's SOMETHING in a town where statistically we have at least 1 breech baby born every day.

Wow, I'm glad to hear that your town is working out at least a workable situation!

I've been trying chiropractic, moxibuxtion, and inversion. I've been trying pretty much everything that is suggested- this baby just seems to want to be head up.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

I've been trying chiropractic, moxibuxtion, and inversion. I've been trying pretty much everything that is suggested- this baby just seems to want to be head up.
I always felt that there was a good reason why my babe was breech. She was born with a true knot & a very short cord ~ who knows what might have happened if I'd _tried_ to turn her.

What do your instincts tell you about your baby?


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest* 
I always felt that there was a good reason why my babe was breech. She was born with a true knot & a very short cord ~ who knows what might have happened if I'd _tried_ to turn her.

What do your instincts tell you about your baby?

Honestly, that it's meant to be breech, at least right now. At the beginning of my pregnancy I was having frequent, strong, beautiful UC dreams- they've stopped. Now I dream of my baby, but not the birth. Never the birth. I almost feel as if I'm not present for it.


----------



## mama in the forest (Apr 17, 2006)

Quote:

Honestly, that it's meant to be breech, at least right now. At the beginning of my pregnancy I was having frequent, strong, beautiful UC dreams- they've stopped. Now I dream of my baby, but not the birth. Never the birth. I almost feel as if I'm not present for it.


----------



## Jimibell (Feb 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest* 
I always felt that there was a good reason why my babe was breech. She was born with a true knot & a very short cord ~ who knows what might have happened if I'd _tried_ to turn her.

What do your instincts tell you about your baby?

I've never had a breech baby but reading this post also makes me think, if they're like that, aren't they like that for a reason.....
just a thought......


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

Where is the placenta? if the placenta is low this may be why the baby is breech- babies frequently orient themselves to the placenta- if the placenta is in the fundus then their head is usually far from it down low if in front they often move their body to the back and face the placenta -- along with inversion and moxa , walking, ice on the head or bottom dive in a swimming pool , visualization, have someone do deep massage-- psoas muscles -- rule out gallbladder acting up

and for myself I would try to turn my own baby--not a medical version - a bit of guidance a hand on the back of the bottom if not enguaged -- just like when you might put your hand against what ever part is pushing out hard and hurting or when you reach up under your rib cage and protect your stomach from the upward pressure-- a hand on the bottom firmly when I am laying down relaxed- some babies just swim right around-- this should not involve pain or discomfort- what so ever- and if you have a deep sense of no- then don't either--


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

The placenta is anterior. I don't know if it's high or low.
The baby is pretty resistant to being oved like that, I've tried.


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Thinking of you - how far along are you? Have you had any luck with CPMs/DEMs in your area? Or is that not a direction you are comfortable with?

Mwherbs, funny that you should say that about the low placenta, b/c the OB who did my unsuccessful version last week said that he thought the baby was breech because my placenta was anterior/fundal, and he felt that fundal placentas predisposed to breech. Just another instance in the whole breech thing where it seems like there are strong opinions that totally contradict each other.

As another with a breech babe at 38 weeks today - breech since 32 weeks or earlier, and in spite of chiropractic, an ECV attempt, homeopathy, hypnosis, tilts - I believe too that some babies are meant to be that way, or are most comfortable breech because of our body shapes, and will stay that way until birth regardless of what we try. It's good to know that there's a possibility that the baby could turn, but if you hang your hat on turning and are left without a plan at 38 or 39 weeks or labor, options become really limited.


----------



## Starleigh (Jul 27, 2003)

You've still got time. I remember vividly at 37 weeks my son turning a full somersault around while I was at work. That was the absolute strangest sensation I had my whole entire pregnancy. LOL.

Have you seen the page www.spinningbabies.com? They have some very helpful exercises to help turn a baby, and it's never too early to start.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

Well your doctor is right just looked at the studies and it seems that there are mixed results but cornu-fundal and breech are associated as is previa --

as for versions- frontal placenta is less likely to result in a successful version--


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Ok but if low, high, and anterior all cause breech presentation, what's left? One will only have a vertex baby if the placenta is smack in the middle of the back







? I question his opinion anyway, as I have had a breech baby all the way to birth before with a posterior placenta - I think it's something in the shape of my uterus/pelvis (though it's not bicornuate or otherwise grossly malformed), or genetic.


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
Honestly, that it's meant to be breech, at least right now. At the beginning of my pregnancy I was having frequent, strong, beautiful UC dreams- they've stopped. Now I dream of my baby, but not the birth. Never the birth. I almost feel as if I'm not present for it.

Oh hon. my heart is so with you.


----------



## mwherbs (Oct 24, 2004)

sorry sorry sorry-- I meant that if in the front hard to turn or not likely to turn with a version-- I didn't mean that it causes breech, and they didn't look at how many babies turned on their own -- I think I want to hide my head today -- and previa is not just low-- KWIM and we are talking third trimester -- the majority of placentas i guess are mid-front/ mid-back or mid-side--- not what I was taught at all-- and even with high it is only % that is breech but it is the highest % does that make sense-- in the end only about 5% total stay breech--

take care


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

I talked to my mother about this today- she told me that a section is best for the baby if it stays breech. She also made a lot of noise about it being selfish to not be ok with that.


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
I talked to my mother about this today- she told me that a section is best for the baby if it stays breech. She also made a lot of noise about it being selfish to not be ok with that.

Jeez that makes me mad. hugs.

ask her when the last time was she met somebody who grew up without a mother, and if they would trade a life with their mother for a minor birth injury they wouldn't remember anyway.

Drives me crazy when people say we're selfish to want to avoid a c/s. I didn't want ds to have to go through not only a sibling adjustment but a mama who suddenly couldn't pick him up. People kept saying, oh, he'll adjust, they learn so fast... My point being WHY SHOULD HE HAVE TO?????

I feel strongly that there's no reason that my children and my husband should assume the risk of losing their mother and partner so that their new sibiling avoids the risk of a completely heal-able injury. That's crap. In my book, you have to weigh the risks for the family as a whole, not for one baby at a time.

Hugs hon. Especially when it's your mum - that really sucks that she's giving you that.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robinna* 
Jeez that makes me mad. hugs.

ask her when the last time was she met somebody who grew up without a mother, and if they would trade a life with their mother for a minor birth injury they wouldn't remember anyway.

Drives me crazy when people say we're selfish to want to avoid a c/s. I didn't want ds to have to go through not only a sibling adjustment but a mama who suddenly couldn't pick him up. People kept saying, oh, he'll adjust, they learn so fast... My point being WHY SHOULD HE HAVE TO?????

I feel strongly that there's no reason that my children and my husband should assume the risk of losing their mother and partner so that their new sibiling avoids the risk of a completely heal-able injury. That's crap. In my book, you have to weigh the risks for the family as a whole, not for one baby at a time.

Hugs hon. Especially when it's your mum - that really sucks that she's giving you that.

It sounds as if you are suggesting that the *only* potential problem with a vaginal breech delivery is a 'completely heal-able injury', and that is simply NOT the case. Surely you are aware of this fact?


----------



## hapersmion (Jan 5, 2007)

I had the same thing from my parents for a while too - they even had my grandmother (who had two of her kids born vaginal breech, but was in twilight sleep or something and didn't remember it) writing me emails about how worried she was that I wouldn't be in a hospital. But my parents came around after I showed them all the information that supported my choice. Not after I got pretty stressed out by what they said, and they were still a bit worried too, but they at least admitted that I'd done my research.

You aren't being selfish at all! I think it's important to make the best choice, not the most popular one. It's hard, though. Good luck!

hapersmion


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

I don't even know where to go to process this now. My mom is usually good for listening and hearing me out, even when she doesn't agree.
I'm not really comfortable with ANY of my current options, and I don't know where to go.
DH is worried and scared enough as is. I don't have many friends here (we're a seminary family and moving soon).
I just feel alone and scared and angry...







:







:


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Oh, I am so sorry.
I have been there, it is so difficult







.
If you want to talk through your options I'd be happy to..here or PM or whatever.


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom* 
It sounds as if you are suggesting that the *only* potential problem with a vaginal breech delivery is a 'completely heal-able injury', and that is simply NOT the case. Surely you are aware of this fact?

Not Robinna but of course there are more dire risks in any birth - however - I believe the argument is that it was only the inclusion of such injuries under "mortality and serious morbidity" that produced a statistically significant advantage for cesarean over vaginal breech in terms of baby outcome.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ccohenou* 
Not Robinna but of course there are more dire risks in any birth - however - I believe the argument is that it was only the inclusion of such injuries under "mortality and serious morbidity" that produced a statistically significant advantage for cesarean over vaginal breech in terms of baby outcome.

Hmm, well, I personally consider a permanent brachial plexus injury something to be taken seriously. And it's absolutely NOT an injury that ALWAYS heals itself. I can attest to that with 100% certainty as I treated several as an Occupational Therapist.


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

For those of us not versed in the big words, the brachial plexus is a nerve group running from the spine through to the arm sort of below the collar bone. It can get wrenched and damaged in a difficult breech (or any other) birth, either vaginal or c/s.

The two-year follow up to the Term Breech Trial show that at the 2 year mark the vaginal breech babes were actually in slightly (ie statistically insignificantly) BETTER condition and overall health than the c/s babes. So any injuries that were recorded at birth were certainly healed as defined by this large and conservative trial, and the rates of permanent injury were also virtually identical between groups.

If anybody would like to read any of the research I can send you links, or go see the articles section on my website. The 2-year followup has been published but isn't posted on the site yet, but I have it saved on my 'puter if you'd like to see it before we do the site update.


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

I'd UC for surem but then I already am a UC'er. I don't consider breech to be a complication so it wouldn't change my plans at all.

Laura


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Ok, I don't know if this is going to bring you any comfort at all, but I'll go for it anyway.

In 1979 my mother birthed my frank breech brother vaginally. That's butt-first for anyone who may not know. She did tear alot, I'll tell you that.

If it can be done in 1979, there is no reason it can't be done now.

Trust yourself, trust your baby. Keep trying for the baby to flip, but know that you'll be ok if he doesn't.


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Thanks for the kind words everyone. Baby is still breech. I have had a chiropractor suggested to me who has helped a few of my friends' babies.
I'm really trying to be positive here!


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theretohere* 
Thanks for the kind words everyone. Baby is still breech. I have had a chiropractor suggested to me who has helped a few of my friends' babies.
I'm really trying to be positive here!

How are you doing?


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Still breech.







: Thanks for the thoughts, I really need them.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

Get to that chiro now and I am thinking and have been thinking of you!!!
Hugs mama!


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

Thinking of you & sending lots of hugs & support.
xo Robin


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Baby is vertex- now I just need it to stay!
Thanks mommas!


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

awesome! did the chiro work?


----------



## hapersmion (Jan 5, 2007)

Woo hoo! Fingers crossed!









hapersmion


----------



## nadia105 (Jul 16, 2003)

Yay for the vertex! Was it the chiro that worked? My babe is sitting breech at 29 weeks and I am trying to prepare for what I'll need to do if he/she doesn't turn.


----------



## Robinna (Aug 11, 2003)

That's fantastic! Stay there, baby!!!


----------

