# Scheduled C-Section cause the baby is estimated @ 9 lbs. - *Update*



## kymholly (Jul 18, 2004)

?????

I just got off the phone w/my sil who's heading off to a baby shower for a friend of hers. The friend isn't due for 4 weeks, but she's having a section in 10 days 'cause the dr. estimates the baby to be big. And this woman has already delivered another child vaginally. But, according to my sil, the friend, "had to really push hard" to get her 9# daughter out. I just listened to my sil flabbergasted... I just can't imagine agreeing to having myself cut open two weeks early without even really knowing anything! Those estimates can be off by 2 pounds!!! :sigh:

OK, I'm done now. I just wanted to share with people who might understand my shock, 'cause my sil & her friend think it's all just ducky.









I finally got an update from my sil about her friend. Her estimated due date was 8/23 & she was scheduled for a section on 8/9. On 8/6 she went out to dinner & her water broke! So off she went to the hospital where she delivered a 10# 6 oz. baby boy... via c-section.

At least the baby got to pick his own birthday... kind of!


----------



## a_work_in_progress (May 17, 2006)

That is all.


----------



## Guest* (Aug 5, 2004)

It's hard to hear stories like that.

I had a friend who recently had her first. She did have a c/s after a few hours of labor. When the baby was born and found to be an 8 1/2 pounder, the docs said they would have scheduled the c/s if they had known it was that big!







: But, since the u/s said the baby was barely a 7#er, they "let" her labor.

I'll never understand the reasoning and why there aren't more women who question their docs when they tell them this.


----------



## wildbirth (Jul 29, 2006)

I can relate to your frustration. These women have no clue as to the power they could be experiencing, birthing, and nurturing as was intended. Of my 6 babies, two were under 9 lbs, two were under 10 and two were 10lbs. I am so glad I didn't fall for the"too big" crap and go under the knife. How do you get all the cute little symbols on the bottom of your writings?


----------



## Kleine Hexe (Dec 2, 2001)

Yep, happens all the time. My friend was induced three and a half weeks early because OB said the baby was well over 8 pounds and would be close to 10 pounds by her due date. So they induced and baby came out weighing a whopping 6lbs 1oz. He spent the day in an incubator as his lungs needed "a bit of help" but he was perfectly healthy, don't ya know.


----------



## katja (Apr 13, 2004)

Let us know how big the babe turns out to be. I hate these stories.


----------



## kymholly (Jul 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wildbirth*
... How do you get all the cute little symbols on the bottom of your writings?

Go to "user CP" towards the top left of your screen & then select "edit signature" But remember... you can only have 2 lines of text!


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

I hate drs like that! ds was estimated to be nearly 9lbs a month before I was induced.......when he was born he was 8lb 9oz.

I have a freind that delivers both her 10lber kids vaginally with no painkillers, and she didnt have GD or anything else.


----------



## kymholly (Jul 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kleine Hexe*
Yep, happens all the time. My friend was induced three and a half weeks early because OB said the baby was well over 8 pounds and would be close to 10 pounds by her due date. So they induced and baby came out weighing a whopping 6lbs 1oz. He spent the day in an incubator as his lungs needed "a bit of help" but he was perfectly healthy, don't ya know.

That's just what I'm thinking. I am praying that she goes into labor the day before she's scheduled... at least then the baby would actually be ready to be born.


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

Wow. And here I was thinking that painwise, I had an easier time laboring and birthing ds (shoulder dystocia aside) at 10 pounds 4 ounces than I did his 7 pound 12 ounce big sister. I certainly tore less with him -- he weighed more, but her head was bigger, and fat is squishy!

ETA: And that would be a drug-free birth, I should say.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

I know a lady that had a c-section because her baby was suppose to be 10 lbs. The baby was actually 7 lbs. I would have been PO'd.


----------



## LizaBear (Feb 1, 2003)

These stories are horrifying, but sadly not surprising









I can say that I had to "push really hard" to birth my 7#8 oz baby, but my 8#12 oz baby was a breeze ! But the reactions I get when someone finds out that my DD was 'nearly 9 lbs' is priceless - I think fully 1/2 the people who know automatically asume I had an epidural and should have had a section - the rest know that she was an unassisted home waterbirth !


----------



## Clarinet (Nov 3, 2005)

I had gestational diabetes with my first and I consented to the induction (but a week after her due date) because I was told she'd be too big what with going over and the GD. She was a tiny little 6 pounds, 11 ounces. And the induction was soooooo not worth it. My second was 8 pounds and much easier.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I'm sorry but her ob must be an idiot. Hope everything goes well for her and the baby.


----------



## IamPink (Jun 26, 2006)

With ds2 (first biological child) I had an ultrasound Sept 7th. They estimated him to be over 7 lbs and said that we might need to go ahead with a c/s. I had the u/s because he had been breach up until the night before !








They started talking about going ahead and scheduling one on the 15th. He was due (according to them) Oct 10th and they couldn't get over how far I always measured.. of course they also wouldn't listen when I told them I knew the dates so I just ignored their date!








I didn't agree to a c/s or induction and went on to have my baby Sept 24th which was 2 days before *my* due date. He was 8lbs 7 1/2 oz. I had to laugh when they put down 37 weeks and went on and on about how if he had been born near his due date that he would have been 12 lbs. I still haven't found out why that would have been a problem!







:
Just goes to show you that their due dates mean diddly!!


----------



## CrazyCatLady (Aug 17, 2004)

I was also told that my baby would be 10+ pounds. I was supposed to report to the hospital to be induced with a likely c/sec. I just kept not showing up at the hospital and I when I finally went into labor (3 weeks late), I just went to a different hospital where I didn't know anyone. Baby ended up being 6.10 at 43 weeks. Think how small she would have been if I had let them take her at 38-40 weeks.







During those last few weeks where I kept not showing up at the hospital, the dr's office sent me some scary and threatening letters. I can see how other woman get bullied into doing what their doctor says.


----------



## kymholly (Jul 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*







I'm sorry but her ob must be an idiot. Hope everything goes well for her and the baby.

I totally agree! I will be getting his/her name to be sure that I never deal with him/her. (Although, I doubt I'll ever stop seeing my nmw)


----------



## shelbean91 (May 11, 2002)

My sisters friend was induced early b/c of a 'huge' baby. Induction failed, c-section happened. 'huge baby' turned out to be 6lb 11oz.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

ick ick ick ick....


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

When babies are born at 6 pounds and need to be in the NICU for days after c-sections for "suspected macrocosmia" why don't people sue? Is it just that they're embarrassed to admit that they fell for the lies? If I was stupid enough to fall for some OB telling me "your baby'll be *huge* you need a c-section NOW!" I'd be willing to publicly admit I was stupid and gullible in order to denouce the sOB as a manipulating liar.


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

I had a 10 lb. 2 oz. baby at home with no meds and pushed him out 15 minutes with no trauma.
Soooo incredibly ridiculous.


----------



## doula and mom (Nov 28, 2005)

I went with a client to a CNM appt and the CNM told me she was absolutely 100% CERTAIN that the baby was 11lbs. Suuuuuuuuuuure. Client ended up having a c-s (long story) and the baby was 9.5 -- pretty big, but nowhere near 11lbs. Gah.







:


----------



## texaspeach (Jun 19, 2005)

one of the things I don't understand - I mean besides the obvious - is why the OBs schedule a section two weeks early. If you accept the baby is going to be large and won't be born vaginally (willing suspension of disbelief here!) what is the harm of letting it cook until 40 weeks? They schedule all these unnecessary sections weeks early and end up with babies being born under-developed. I fail to see the logic behind it.


----------



## kymholly (Jul 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texaspeach*
one of the things I don't understand - I mean besides the obvious - is why the OBs schedule a section two weeks early. If you accept the baby is going to be large and won't be born vaginally (willing suspension of disbelief here!) what is the harm of letting it cook until 40 weeks? They schedule all these unnecessary sections weeks early and end up with babies being born under-developed. I fail to see the logic behind it.

I hear you!

I think that their warped mentality is that they don't want the woman to go into labor 'cause then they might need to do an emergency section instead of a scheduled one.







:


----------



## mandib50 (Oct 26, 2004)

it is so discouraging to hear this.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texaspeach*
one of the things I don't understand - I mean besides the obvious - is why the OBs schedule a section two weeks early. If you accept the baby is going to be large and won't be born vaginally (willing suspension of disbelief here!) what is the harm of letting it cook until 40 weeks? They schedule all these unnecessary sections weeks early and end up with babies being born under-developed. I fail to see the logic behind it.

cause there's less chance of going into labor thus requiring an unscheduled c-section. Not near as convenient as a scheduled one is for the OB and hospital staff. Also, I'm sure it's easier to pull the baby out the incision if it's smaller rather than larger. Not really good logic IMO but it happens all the time.


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

I gave birth to a 9lb 50z baby with no drugs, not episiotimy, no IV, no monitor, at 18 years old in a hot tub! And that's after she got stuck inside me and I had to march all over the room to get her unstuck. If I had been in the hosptial I bet I would've been sectioned or induced weeks before b/c of a "big baby"







: She still had vernix on her, too.


----------



## a_work_in_progress (May 17, 2006)

Big babies can be born vaginally with no problems. My first was 9lbs 13oz, born at a hospital. After that, I went on to have a 9lber and a 10lb 8ozer at home unassisted.

My last child was my biggest, and the shortest labor out of all of 'em. 5 ½ hours of labor to get that guy out!


----------



## MamaTaraX (Oct 5, 2004)

I think there needs to be a poll called "Do you personally know someone who had a c/s for a supposedly big baby that turned out to be not veyr big at all?"







I just don't get why people odn't question more things! I see it all the time though. Women looked completely shocked when I tell they don't HAVE TO do anything their doctor says and that they HAVE A CHOICE BECUASE IT IS THEIR BIRTH. I have seen more jaws drop than I ever thought I would. It's sad.

Namaste, Tara


----------



## Full Heart (Apr 27, 2004)

Had a friend 2 years ago now that was induced because of GD. They didn't want the baby getting too big. Poor thing weighed 5 lbs 9 oz! She was teeny tiny! I didn't talk to them about how they felt about the induction but they didn't seem very happy.

Then I was talking to another lady. Her baby was the same age as mine and she was relating her horror story of a birth. Epidural and huge episiotomy for shoulder dystocia because her baby was soooo big. Just under 9 lbs. I said Oh thats too bad. I had such an easy labor with mine, at home too. Then she asked how big he was when he was born...Oh he was 9 lbs.







The look on her face was priceless. She was soooo proud she could share her horror story. She never said another word about it.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

I had a friend who was induced for "big baby" two weeks early and it turned out that she was actually FIVE weeks early when the baby came out. Baby spent weeks in the NICU because he just didn't handle it well. Some do, some don't. I notice induced babies handle it way worse.

Second time?
She did it again!! I was beyond shocked. I couldn't believe that after all that, after all the anger, she actually let herself be induced for 'big baby' ten days early. Another oops: #2 was barely 7lbs.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

It is sooooo common!


----------



## a_work_in_progress (May 17, 2006)

Oh yeah... I forgot... about 7 ½ years ago, my friend had a c-section because the doctor told her baby was already 12+ lbs. The baby wasn't even 8 lbs.


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Uhhh... I think you generally have to push hard to get babies out?

Besides which... 9lbs is NOT THAT BIG!!!

I really don't like doctors........ ugh...


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan*
When babies are born at 6 pounds and need to be in the NICU for days after c-sections for "suspected macrocosmia" why don't people sue? Is it just that they're embarrassed to admit that they fell for the lies? If I was stupid enough to fall for some OB telling me "your baby'll be *huge* you need a c-section NOW!" I'd be willing to publicly admit I was stupid and gullible in order to denouce the sOB as a manipulating liar.

sapphire_chan,








, with your reply been that stupid anough.

Anyway, hospital that I volunteer at, they automatic do cesearans if the mother contactions start, no matter what, that what I think happens, I'm not sure for sure on this.


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *texaspeach*
one of the things I don't understand - I mean besides the obvious - is why the OBs schedule a section two weeks early. If you accept the baby is going to be large and won't be born vaginally (willing suspension of disbelief here!) what is the harm of letting it cook until 40 weeks? They schedule all these unnecessary sections weeks early and end up with babies being born under-developed. I fail to see the logic behind it.

Amanda,


----------



## ndakkitten (Jul 1, 2006)

My first son was born vaginally at 8 lbs 11oz and 41 weeks, thank you very much! Yes, I had a 2nd degree internal tear, but that was because he had his hand beside his head, not because he was a big baby.

Its a known scientific fact that u/s become more inaccurate about size the farther along you are in pregnancy. Its also shown that babies born from women allowed to labor before having a c/s have better outcomes. Man, why does obstetrics have to be the one science that loves to ignore all the facts and research??

Maybe eventually OBs will finally wake up and realize that women can actually HAVE babies without their "help." Yeah right....


----------



## gentlebirthmothr (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaTaraX*
I think there needs to be a poll called "Do you personally know someone who had a c/s for a supposedly big baby that turned out to be not veyr big at all?"







I just don't get why people odn't question more things! I see it all the time though. Women looked completely shocked when I tell they don't HAVE TO do anything their doctor says and that they HAVE A CHOICE BECUASE IT IS THEIR BIRTH. I have seen more jaws drop than I ever thought I would. It's sad.

Namaste, Tara

Tara,


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessicaabruno*
Anyway, hospital that I volunteer at, they automatic do cesearans if the mother contactions start, no matter what, that what I think happens, I'm not sure for sure on this.

Wait... they automatically do a c-section if the mother's contractions start? Um.... that makes absolutely no sense at all


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mandib50*








it is so discouraging to hear this.

yes it is...







:

I am so going for a homebirth for any future kiddo...


----------



## CEG (Apr 28, 2006)

I too delivered a 8'11" baby at 42 w 1 d with a second degree tear and 20 minutes of pushing. No problems. Big fat baby though







Biggest cheeks you've ever seen and fat rolls on her wrists. My MW just laughed sweetly at me when I asked a week before if my baby would be around 6 pounds like I was.

A mom was chatting to a play group a few months later and told how she HAD to have a c-section because the baby was soooo big. Her baby 8'10"







. I didn't say anything but one of my friends said "Hey wasn't your baby bigger than that?" I said yes and we discussed it a little but the lady was absolutely convinced because her OB told her there was no way she could have a baby that big vaginally. As far as she was concerned I was a freak. And she was actually a rather large woman so I wonder what his excuse was? It couldn't have been the old "you're too small." Grrr, OB's suck.


----------



## DQMama (Mar 21, 2006)

I always thought it was the size of the baby's HEAD, not the baby's weight, that determines what pushing will be like.

My son was 7 lbs 5 oz and his head was in the 90th percentile. I pushed for almost 2 hrs and required 14 stitches.

My daughter was 7 lbs 11 oz, head in the 25th, and I pushed 2-3 times. The third push I barely pushed at all, she just kind of came out, and I had one stitch.

This is just anecdotal of course, but it certainly makes sense. The head is the biggest part anyway.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

ooh no, ds's head came out fine, his shoulders tore me! he had linebacker shoulders and was coming out with his shoulders on an angle


----------



## julie128 (Jan 9, 2003)

A friend of mine who is 5'2" gave birth to a 10.5 lb boy. So there!


----------



## DocsNemesis (Dec 10, 2005)

I have had 4 babies-the smallest was 6lbs 14oz. The biggest was 8lbs 12oz. I have to say that my 8 pounder was by far the easiest to push out. I never had an urge to push with the other three, just the biggest one. I think its because my babies are supposed to be that big.

I have a friend who had a cesarean with her first because he was too big (9lbs something). Decent size but not huge. She had her second baby VBAC and she was 11 pounds! Her third was almost 11 pounds too and was born at home. Some women are just meant to have bigger babies.

I did talk to my old OB about this and he said that in the 25+ years he has been practicing, he has literally never seen a woman who was unable to push out her baby (he is a pretty crunchy OB though and I think he employs the Gaskin maneuver when needed). He was worried with a tiny asian woman and her rather large samoan hubby, but even in that case everything was fine. The baby was like 8 pounds, but not too big for her.


----------



## broodymama (May 3, 2004)

My 10 lb DD was an easier birth than my 8 lb 3 oz DS, and they were both born with a hand beside their faces. Fat really does squish.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

My 10 pounder was born in exactly 4 hours, with 15 minutes of that being pushing. I did not have GD, either.
My first was 6 lb 14 oz, while I was told at 38 weeks that he would be HUGE. Stupid OB.

I know a woman in my old church who basically scheduled her c-section at conception, for 38 weeks, because her first was 9 lbs, and her husband is very big, therefore this baby would be impossible to get out the regular way.







:

What I can't understand, is, do these people not think about the gigantic incision cut into them, and the (im)practicalities of pulling a baby out of an opening it wasn't designed to come out of? If the baby is indeed so huge, wouldn't the idea of a c-section be even more frightening? I'm trying to imagine hauling my 10 pound baby out of a cut in my abdomen. Yikes! I'd rather push him out and tear a little!!







:


----------



## lizziejackie (Jun 1, 2005)

Stuff like that just makes me vomit. Yes, I think women should start suing -- that is just #$*(# malpractice, that is all there is to it. Of course, I suppose, women need to get smart and figure out it's not just "meant to be" and start questioning things their sOB's say and do. ARGH.


----------



## Rmeg (Jul 8, 2005)

This is all maddening stuff to read.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

for a tiny baby?!?! dont they usually give you steriods and have you stay in hosital to try and beef up the child? thats outragous that they would induce at that size! not to mention, the baby might have been that tiny because the dates were off!!


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lizziejackie*

Q: What was your c/s for?
A: They tried inducing me at 36 weeks because of a small baby (2lb. 11oz.) and she couldn't handle labor, she was in distress so they did a C/S.









: In what universe is this logical???


----------



## MamaTaraX (Oct 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CryPixie83*







: In what universe is this logical???

















: For real though! What with all the c/s for big babies, people gettin' their limbs amputated and everything, I sure don't see why everybody isn't running willy-nilly away from the hospitals! They flock to 'em in droves. Good for my life as a doula but c'mon! Do you know how many clients I have had that have actually quiestioned their doctors about their inductions or c/s WITHOUT me telling them they could question? It's a VERY small number. Hmm..think I'll stick that anecdote in another thread too...

Namaste, Tara


----------



## CEG (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *romans_mum*
for a tiny baby?!?! dont they usually give you steriods and have you stay in hosital to try and beef up the child? thats outragous that they would induce at that size! not to mention, the baby might have been that tiny because the dates were off!!

Well, I think maybe if there is a reason for a small baby- like Intrauterine growth retardation. Of course I think diagnosis of that is only as good as the ultrasound and the doctor, so who knows how realistic it is.


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

But at 36 weeks? Come on, there's a good 4-8 or more weeks you could let that baby cook... I swear some OBs have their patients brainwashed into believing that the womb is the most dangerous place their babies could be.


----------



## CEG (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CryPixie83*
But at 36 weeks? Come on, there's a good 4-8 or more weeks you could let that baby cook... I swear some OBs have their patients brainwashed into believing that the womb is the most dangerous place their babies could be.

ITA. I am not sure what kind of diagnostics they use- I think they usually say there's a placenta problem causing the baby not to grow well. I *think* this is a true concern with babes whose moms are drug abusers (esp cocaine) because it causes abnormal placenta functioning, but of course that's not the norm. I truly believe your average OB sees pregnancy and birth as a problem waiting to happen and the mother's body as a potential threat to the baby instead of the miracle it is.


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Quote:

I truly believe your average OB sees pregnancy and birth as a problem waiting to happen and the mother's body as a potential threat to the baby instead of the miracle it is.
Mmmhmmm That's because they're trained to treat problems, not the whole person... which is skewed because doing that is what often times causes problems to begin with.


----------



## ApplePieBaby (Jun 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lizziejackie*
Here's another good one off another chat site:

Q: What was your c/s for?
A: They tried inducing me at 36 weeks because of a small baby (2lb. 11oz.) and she couldn't handle labor, she was in distress so they did a C/S.

Do they REALLY think a baby that timy would do better on the outside than inside??

If the placenta isn't functioning properly to allow baby to grow...


----------



## ApplePieBaby (Jun 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CEG*
ITA. I am not sure what kind of diagnostics they use- I think they usually say there's a placenta problem causing the baby not to grow well. I *think* this is a true concern with babes whose moms are drug abusers (esp cocaine) because it causes abnormal placenta functioning, but of course that's not the norm. I truly believe your average OB sees pregnancy and birth as a problem waiting to happen and the mother's body as a potential threat to the baby instead of the miracle it is.

Not just drug users, but if you have high blood pressure or preeclampsia, your placenta just doesn't work as well. Your body sends blood to your vital organs (heart,brain), and that doesnt include your placenta... so baby stops getting enough oxygen & nutrients to grow. I know with me, my less essential organs (liver, kidneys) starting showing signs of losing function too.


----------



## JBaxter (May 1, 2005)

My 92lb size 0 SIL delivered a 8lb 12oz boy w/ a 14 in head and did great.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

There's a LOT of evidence out there to suggest that the outcome for babies improve at 39 weeks, as opposed to 38.
There is no clinical justification for performing a c-section for macrosomia. The worst case scenario is that baby simply won't come out.


----------



## CEG (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack*
There's a LOT of evidence out there to suggest that the outcome for babies improve at 39 weeks, as opposed to 38.
There is no clinical justification for performing a c-section for macrosomia. The worst case scenario is that baby simply won't come out.

Can you explain that? Do you mean the baby will be overdue? Just curious. I haven't met anyone who had "small baby" but I am curious how it is diagnosed/"treated" in medicine vs. midwifery. Thanks!!!


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

FAT IS SQUISHY!!!!

That is all.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CEG*
Can you explain that? Do you mean the baby will be overdue? Just curious. I haven't met anyone who had "small baby" but I am curious how it is diagnosed/"treated" in medicine vs. midwifery. Thanks!!!

http://www.perinatal.nhs.uk/reviews/..._sd_11_abs.htm

From the point of view of the actual birth, the biggest risk is shoulder dystocia: which occurs in approximately 1% of births. There's also the possibility that baby's head is too big and simply refuses to engage even late into labour: I've never heard of it happening to anyone standing upright and not using drugs, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
Over here, we don't have a differentiation between medicine and midwifery: we have midwives to apply the common sense and evidence-based approach that the obstetricians lack, but they're both singing from the same hymn sheet and reading from the same textbook.


----------



## josybear (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kymholly*

according to my sil, the friend, "had to really push hard" to get her 9# daughter out.

she had to push hard? well, no wonder, then. none of us pushed hard, did we, ladies? me, i glanced down and there was ds, sliding down my leg and i said 'now how did that get there?'

sorry for the sarcasm. some people get me going...


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Josybear


----------



## Full Heart (Apr 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *josybear*
she had to push hard? well, no wonder, then. none of us pushed hard, did we, ladies? me, i glanced down and there was ds, sliding down my leg and i said 'now how did that get there?'

sorry for the sarcasm. some people get me going...









That reminds me of the monty python skit


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *josybear*
she had to push hard? well, no wonder, then. none of us pushed hard, did we, ladies? me, i glanced down and there was ds, sliding down my leg and i said 'now how did that get there?'

sorry for the sarcasm. some people get me going...









...........i really didnt push hard.........i had an epi and couldnt feel a thing.......so i just pretended like i was peeing.....and TADA! a crowning baby.


----------



## kymholly (Jul 18, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *josybear*
she had to push hard? well, no wonder, then. none of us pushed hard, did we, ladies? me, i glanced down and there was ds, sliding down my leg and i said 'now how did that get there?'

sorry for the sarcasm. some people get me going...

Yeah, that comment was almost as shocking as the rest of it. And my sil said it to me with a straight face... like of course, I should be able to understand why *that* shouldn't have to happen again. UGH!


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ApplePieBaby*
Not just drug users, but if you have high blood pressure or preeclampsia, your placenta just doesn't work as well. Your body sends blood to your vital organs (heart,brain), and that doesnt include your placenta... so baby stops getting enough oxygen & nutrients to grow. I know with me, my less essential organs (liver, kidneys) starting showing signs of losing function too.

This can also happen with diabetes (both types plus GD) and with clotting disorders. The latter is the reason my daughter was stillborn, as far as we could figure out from testing. If you have a high alpha feto protein level without a concurrent neural tube defect, that can be a warning sign of placental malfunction.


----------



## CEG (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *flapjack*
http://www.perinatal.nhs.uk/reviews/..._sd_11_abs.htm

From the point of view of the actual birth, the biggest risk is shoulder dystocia: which occurs in approximately 1% of births. There's also the possibility that baby's head is too big and simply refuses to engage even late into labour: I've never heard of it happening to anyone standing upright and not using drugs, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
Over here, we don't have a differentiation between medicine and midwifery: we have midwives to apply the common sense and evidence-based approach that the obstetricians lack, but they're both singing from the same hymn sheet and reading from the same textbook.

Thanks- I misunderstood your post and I thought you were talking about the small for dates baby. Thanks for the explanation though


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

I have a friend whose doctors said she was measuring 42 weeks at 37 weeks, so needed to be induced for huge baby. Ended in C-section of course, and baby was a whopping 6 lbs 8 oz.







: But in her case, it turned out to be a good mistake, as they'd totally missed the glaring signs of pre-e, and it finally ended up being diagnosed a week later when she was back in the hospital with heart problems.









On the small baby thing... If a baby is only 2 lbs 11 oz at 36 weeks, YES that baby probably needs to come out. There are cases where the baby can do better on the outside than on the inside, and that's a pretty obvious case to me. My son was a lb bigger than that at 29 weeks! If you leave an IUGR baby in too long, it could end up dying in the womb. On the outside, you can make sure it's getting the nutrients it needs. And no, IUGR is not just found in drug users or malnutritioned women. There are numerous things that could cause placental insuffiency. Obviously, that baby hadn't been getting enough nutrients for a long time. I believe that's the typical weight of a 29-30 weeker (my son was big for his gestational age).


----------



## CEG (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CEG*
ITA. I am not sure what kind of diagnostics they use- I think they usually say there's a placenta problem causing the baby not to grow well. I *think* this is a true concern with babes whose moms are drug abusers (esp cocaine) because it causes abnormal placenta functioning, but of course that's not the norm. I truly believe your average OB sees pregnancy and birth as a problem waiting to happen and the mother's body as a potential threat to the baby instead of the miracle it is.

I'm sorry- I didn't mean to imply that drug users were the only ones who get IUGR. That's just the only example I was pretty confident about.


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

Quote:

I have a friend whose doctors said she was measuring 42 weeks at 37 weeks, so needed to be induced for huge baby. Ended in C-section of course, and baby was a whopping 6 lbs 8 oz.
Holy crap! I'd better go get indued RIGHT NOW! I'm 35 weeks, measuring 40, this kid is going to be giant!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself







:


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CEG*
I'm sorry- I didn't mean to imply that drug users were the only ones who get IUGR. That's just the only example I was pretty confident about.

Gotcha.


----------



## eco_mama (Feb 10, 2006)

That's insane. I just gave birth, naturally, to a 9lb boy. I've heard alot of stories of mamas giving birth to 10-13lb babies.

Doctors suck..


----------



## poopzmom (Jul 29, 2006)

Doctors just love finding excuses to cut you up. My daughter was 10 lbs. 6 oz. and I delivered her naturally. It took me 6 hours to push her out and my midwife just let me go. There was no reason for a C-section. The only intervention I had was a very annoying, extremely uncomfortable episiotomy. Oh and by the way even when I was in labor they told me my daughter was going to be about 8 lbs. They are never right.


----------



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

Just gave birth two weeks ago to my fatty 13 pound girl! At home, unassisted.


----------



## ollineeba (Apr 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama in the forest*
Just gave birth two weeks ago to my fatty 13 pound girl! At home, unassisted.


















You go, mama!!









I had a vbac with my daughter who was 9 lbs. Everyone looked at me like I was







: It was a great birth....








All I have to say is thank goodness I didn't stay with my OB and I switched to a midwife halfway through my pg. He would NEVER have been cooperative about a big baby, especially 10 days past my EDD.
My midwives were awesome


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *josybear*
she had to push hard? well, no wonder, then. none of us pushed hard, did we, ladies? me, i glanced down and there was ds, sliding down my leg and i said 'now how did that get there?'

sorry for the sarcasm. some people get me going...

ha ha ha laughup


----------



## MommytoTwo (Jun 20, 2004)

It is criminal to intentionally deliver a baby that early with no cause. If they are so worried about it why not just wait till the poor kid is ready to come out and then section her? Unreal.

Oh forgot to mention. My DS was estimated to be over 9 pounds at 37 weeks. When my induction failed and I was sectioned, he weighed a WHOPPING 7.12


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I delivered my 9lb 8oz son vaginally. I would never let them section me just for a "large" baby.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lizziejackie*

Here's another good one off another chat site:

Q: What was your c/s for?
A: They tried inducing me at 36 weeks because of a small baby (2lb. 11oz.) and she couldn't handle labor, she was in distress so they did a C/S.

Do they REALLY think a baby that timy would do better on the outside than inside??

Are you serious?

A baby estimated at under 3 pounds at 36 weeks is NOT thriving in the womb. Period. For whatever reason, something is not going as it should for a baby to be THAT small at 36 weeks.

IUGR is a very serious, potentially life threatening complication of pregnancy that simply cannot be ignored just so mom can have her magical birth experience...unless a live baby is secondary to her birth plan.

So, my answer to you is YES, a baby that tiny at 36 weeks most assuredly is safer OUTSIDE the womb vs. inside, even if it means sectioning mom to get baby out. No doctor in their right mind would allow a pg to continue under those conditions unless he or she was just itching to have a dead/damaged baby and a lawsuit on their hands.

Perhaps before *assuming* that everyone who is ever induced or has a section must either be an idiot or have been under the care of an idiot, it would serve you well to actually do some research on what might very well be a valid medical reason for serious intervention.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Are IUGR babies prone to stillbirth?
I was IUGR... full term. No 26'000 ultrasounds during pregnancy back then to diagnose stuff like that.


----------



## tullyleague (Jul 10, 2006)

My OB doesn't do medically unnecessary c-sections. In fact, the hospital doesn't allow them. I was very overdue and vaginally delivered a 10 pound 6 ounce boy with no tearing, thanks to my OB's amazing perineal massaging.

Although, I do know of women who had issues with the size of their pelvis and ability to deliver. I just don't think that a "large" (and I use that term loosely, because I really don't consider an 8 pounder large) baby should automatically require a section.


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littleteapot*
Are IUGR babies prone to stillbirth?

From this website, I got this quote:

Quote:

Severe IUGR may result in stillbirth. It may also lead to long-term growth problems in babies and children.
A 2 lb 11 oz 36 weeker sounds like severe IUGR to me. Remember that in IUGR, baby is not getting enough nutrients via the placenta/umbilical cord (for whatever reason). Thus it could die in utero if the lack of nutrients gets bad enough, while on the outside, baby can get all the nutrients it needs (via IV if necessary, or via breastmilk if oral feeds are possible).

Yes, many IUGR babies are able to go full term and just be a bit small (like 5 lbs), but the above baby does not sound like one of those cases of IUGR. That is VERY small for that gestation. It's obvious that the baby was not getting the nutrients it needed for growth in the womb.


----------



## Julz6871 (Jun 14, 2006)

I think sometimes the problem is that people do not really understand or ask enough questions. They come away telling people their baby is too small so they are inducing. Makes no sense in that light, but it would seem the doc knows there is IUGR and all those complications.....perhaps the doc didn't communicate well, or the patient wasn't listening/understanding/asking questions. I have a friend who had a c-section because she had a herpes outbreak when her water broke. She tells people she had it because the docs thought the baby was too big. People roll their eyes cause her baby was 7#10oz but obviously her herpes status is none of their business.

That said, docs are more afraid of getting sued for breaking a baby's arm, clavicle, or injuring the brachial plexus-paralyzing an arm during shoulder dystocia than they are getting sued for an unneccessary section. If you give mom a perfectly healthy baby they are soooo in love and grateful-blind and sliced open but grateful-so they don't sue. If you hand over a baby with a birth injury they are POed. I attended my oldest sister's birth when she was 18. She had a 10#5oz baby (no GD) and the shoulders got stuck. She went totally natural and moved around in labor. They "allowed" her to push on her hands and knees. Head was out and shoulders would not budge.........the doc was on his knees trying different angles, tried getting to baby's arms, moved her to side lying and repositioned her legs, suprapubic pressure finally after 2.5 min (I guess the cord in compressed in the birth canal so baby isn't getting oxygen in this time. His heart rate was really low) he rolled my sister on her back and took the sissors cut an episiotomy-didn't work so he took the sissors and placed on inside her rectum and the other at the base of the epis and cut in!!!!!!! Horrifying! But the baby delivered without any injury to him. My sister on the other hand had no distinction in her rectum and vagina.....one gaping hole-keep in mind she only had a local so she felt almost all of this. It took an hour and a half to repair her vagina, and they gave her antibiotics. The doc came in and tried to explain how you cannot predict this, and it is all about a woman's tissue and women have 10# babies without these problems She says her perineum is firm with scar tissue but she says sex isnt painful. I was 16 when I saw all of this and was trying to process what happened for a long time. Was it necessary? How could I ever have a baby after seeing this? Well, my sister swore no more vag. deliveries, but at age 28 she went all natural again. She went into labor at 37 weeks (she agreed to be induced at 38 for "big baby"). I was happy she went on her own and all natural, but as she pushed out her 7#3oz girl her scar tissue ripped back open!!!!!! Another hour and a half repair. She swears the docs saved her baby and is glad they hurt her not him. I wonder if there aren't more maneuvers they could try before literally cutting her a new one. I had all but one of my babies at home (had a congenital anomaly so I went to the hosp). My sister's case is rare, but I imagine it only takes one like that to change a doc's protocol.

That said, why don't they go over the risks of each. I think most women are blind to the risks of c-sections. Why can't a woman sign something saying I understand the risk of shoulder dystocia but I wish to have a trial of labor? I suppose many women would be too afraid to sign...........


----------



## DocsNemesis (Dec 10, 2005)

I dunno. This is literally like the first case where I have heard of the mom actually being in the hands and knees position and the baby still getting stuck. I dont really see how cutting her up like that could have possibly helped though. The baby gets caught on the pelvic bones, not the skin. (usually they get stuck against the symphysis) I can see how a regular episiotomy might be helpful in getting the baby out quickly once the shoulders are unstuck, but IMO all that extra cutting was really unneccessary. I dont know why the baby finally came out, but I doubt it had anything to do with having her rectum chopped up


----------



## DocsNemesis (Dec 10, 2005)

Oh, and here is a little article about it-it says having a cesarean or induction for expected macrosomia does NOT lessen the incidence of shoulder dystocia.

Evidence is lacking to support labor induction or elective cesarean delivery in women without diabetes who are at term when a fetus is suspected of having macrosomia.14 In two studies of 313 women without diabetes, induction for suspected fetal macrosomia did not lower the rates of shoulder dystocia or cesarean delivery, nor did it improve the rates of maternal or neonatal morbidity.15 [strength of recommendation (SOR) evidence level A, meta-analysis] While labor induction in women with gestational diabetes who require insulin may reduce the risk of macrosomia and shoulder dystocia, the risk of maternal or neonatal injury is not modified. Not enough evidence is available to routinely support elective delivery in this population.16,17 [SOR evidence level B, systematic review including a single randomized trial]

In women without diabetes, labor induction for suspected fetal macrosomia does not lower the rates of shoulder dystocia or cesarean delivery.

Similarly, prophylactic cesarean delivery is not recommended as a means of preventing morbidity in pregnancies in which fetal macrosomia is suspected.9 [SOR evidence level C, expert opinion based on cost-effectiveness analysis] Analytic decision models have estimated that 2,345 cesarean deliveries, at a cost of nearly $5 million annually, would be needed to prevent one permanent brachial plexus injury in a patient without diabetes who had a fetus suspected of weighing more than 4,000 g. In the subgroup of women with diabetes, the frequency of shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus palsy, and cesarean delivery was higher, leading the authors to conclude that a policy of elective cesarean delivery in this group potentially may have greater merit.9 [SOR evidence level C, expert opinion based on cost-effectiveness analysis]

And this is what it says about treatment in the case of SD:
H Call for help.
This refers to activating the pre-arranged protocol or requesting the appropriate personnel to respond with necessary equipment to the labor and delivery unit.
E Evaluate for episiotomy.
Episiotomy should be considered throughout the management of shoulder dystocia but is necessary only to make more room if rotation maneuvers are required. Shoulder dystocia is a bony impaction, so episiotomy alone will not release the shoulder. Because most cases of shoulder dystocia can be relieved with the McRoberts maneuver and suprapubic pressure, many women can be spared a surgical incision.
L Legs (the McRoberts maneuver)
This procedure involves flexing and abducting the maternal hips, positioning the maternal thighs up onto the maternal abdomen. This position flattens the sacral promontory and results in cephalad rotation of the pubic symphysis. Nurses and family members present at the delivery can provide assistance for this maneuver.
P Suprapubic pressure
The hand of an assistant should be placed suprapubically over the fetal anterior shoulder, applying pressure in a cardiopulmonary resuscitation style with a downward and lateral motion on the posterior aspect of the fetal shoulder. This maneuver should be attempted while continuing downward traction.
E Enter maneuvers (internal rotation)
These maneuvers attempt to manipulate the fetus to rotate the anterior shoulder into an oblique plane and under the maternal symphysis (see Figure 2). These maneuvers can be difficult to perform when the anterior shoulder is wedged beneath the symphysis. At times, it is necessary to push the fetus up into the pelvis slightly to accomplish the maneuvers.
R Remove the posterior arm.
Removing the posterior arm from the birth canal also shortens the bisacromial diameter, allowing the fetus to drop into the sacral hollow, freeing the impaction. The elbow then should be flexed and the forearm delivered in a sweeping motion over the fetal anterior chest wall. Grasping and pulling directly on the fetal arm may fracture the humerus.
R Roll the patient.
The patient rolls from her existing position to the all-fours position. Often, the shoulder will dislodge during the act of turning, so that this movement alone may be sufficient to dislodge the impaction. In addition, once the position change is completed, gravitational forces may aid in the disimpaction of the fetal shoulders.


----------



## moonmama22 (Mar 31, 2005)

I







It makes me so sad to think that as women, we are being encouraged to be afraid of, and not to trust, something as natural as childbirth. When did it become such an unnatural event? (I know, I know, when it made it more convenient for the doctors to have births fit their golf schedule...) I actually had someone in medical school tell me that she enjoyed her rounds observing c-sections, because you know what to expect!!?? My ds was 9.9lbs and though one OB told me, while I was in labor, that I would probably not be able to have him vaginally, my own OB checked me sometime later, and said, "He's big, but I know you can do this!" I LOVED my OB - he would get annoyed when the hospital would suggest additional u/s once I was overdue - he was really all about just letting things take their course.
It is so frustrating that so many women fall for the c-section thing - I know so many who have - I would switch OBs or hospitals or whatever it took...


----------



## kristenburgess (Sep 15, 2002)

that makes me so sad to hear. The worst part is that most of those babies come out much smaller than they were "estimated" to be. My little 8lb 10oz-er was easier on me than his 7lb, 14oz sister...

I wish that women would stop accepting their doctor's word as law in these situations and stand up for their bodies...


----------



## kymholly (Jul 18, 2004)

Added update info to original post for all who, like me, were curious about how accurate the birth weight estimate was.


----------



## snowbird25ca (May 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*
Are you serious?

A baby estimated at under 3 pounds at 36 weeks is NOT thriving in the womb. Period. For whatever reason, something is not going as it should for a baby to be THAT small at 36 weeks.

IUGR is a very serious, potentially life threatening complication of pregnancy that simply cannot be ignored just so mom can have her magical birth experience...unless a live baby is secondary to her birth plan.

So, my answer to you is YES, a baby that tiny at 36 weeks most assuredly is safer OUTSIDE the womb vs. inside, even if it means sectioning mom to get baby out. No doctor in their right mind would allow a pg to continue under those conditions unless he or she was just itching to have a dead/damaged baby and a lawsuit on their hands.

Perhaps before *assuming* that everyone who is ever induced or has a section must either be an idiot or have been under the care of an idiot, it would serve you well to actually do some research on what might very well be a valid medical reason for serious intervention.

While I agree with this for the most part, the only thing I really wonder about is how accurate the dates were. OB's are very well known for basing a due date strictly off of lmp & some women don't ovulate until cd 28 or later. So if this woman's due date was off, her baby may not have actually had IUGR. Hard to say without knowing the circumstances, but unless serial u/s were done & her fundal height wasn't increasing, basing the diagnosis off of an estimate of the baby's weight along with a "36 weeks" gestation which may not have been accurate... it's possible the baby wasn't IUGR.. but like I said, impossible to know without knowing the whole circumstance.

My 1st was 8lbs and my 2nd was 8lbs 9ozs. 2nd dd delivered in one contraction and no tears.







I'm expecting this guy to be over 9lbs and I'm not the least bit concerned about it.









I have a friend who delivered a 10lbs 7oz baby with no difficulty - and she was told afterwards if they'd known how big her baby was, they wouldn't have even let her try to deliver him vaginally.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

waaa.... shucks. why did the c/s?


----------



## MamaTaraX (Oct 5, 2004)

Well that's about depressing! Hmph!

Namaste, Tara


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

its a bitter sweet ending I guess.......at least her body was ready for the birth and the baby was a good size.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

Wow. At least as you said, the baby came when it was ready.

I have a friend who had a csection for breech. Then with second baby (not breech) she went into labor naturally, rushed to the hospital, and had a section as planned.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

Breech babies are born vaginally all the time. So sad.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

I'm not getting why it's 'so sad' that this baby was born by section considering there is absolutely ZERO indication as to WHY the section was done.









Is it being *assumed* that they immediately sectioned her upon arrival when her water broke? That certainly would be an option to present to mom with a baby that large, however women often *can* deliver 10+ pound babies vaginally...and well, you don't know til you try.

However, since there was no indication that this was actually the case, I'm left wondering if maybe the section was due to some sort of emergency that presented itself once she was in labor. It *is* possible for that to be the case.









Either way, that is one HUGE baby. Not even 38 weeks and well over 10 pounds! Yikes. I shudder to think what the baby would have weighed at 42 weeks.


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
Breech babies are born vaginally all the time. So sad.

And when breech babies are born vaginally under the care of a provider that is *experienced* at vaginal breech delivery, it can be as safe, or even safer, as doing an elective section (assuming we're excluding certain breech presentations like footling where vaginal birth is not supported statistically no matter what the provider's experience level happens to be).

Unfortunately, it's very difficult, sometimes impossible, to find a provider with ANY experience delivering vaginal breech babies. At that point, the safety of attempting vaginal birth without an experienced provider goes way down according to research.

We couldn't find a homebirth midwife willing to deliver a second born twin who happened to be breech 5 years ago, and we lived in a fairly large city at the time. Nobody we talked to had enough experience to feel confident in taking on not only a twin homebirth, but the distinct possibility of needing to deliver the second baby breech.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

wifeandmom- do you believe a woman can birth vaginally without drugs? my mil had a 11'6 oz baby. A 10'2 baby and a 9'8 baby. She was fine.


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

and that is sad to.


----------



## blissful_maia (Feb 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan*
When babies are born at 6 pounds and need to be in the NICU for days after c-sections for "suspected macrocosmia" why don't people sue? Is it just that they're embarrassed to admit that they fell for the lies? If I was stupid enough to fall for some OB telling me "your baby'll be *huge* you need a c-section NOW!" I'd be willing to publicly admit I was stupid and gullible in order to denouce the sOB as a manipulating liar.

My MIL with her 3rd babe (my DH's much younger brother) was recommended to have a C/S because he was thought to be big ("big enough to be born" 3 weeks before EDD). Well, it turned out that he was under 6lbs and needed to stay in the NICU for 3 weeks, she never got to bf (she bf'ed the others), and found out later that he was born prematurely because her sOB was going on vacation around her due date (only OB in very small town). She sued. And won.


----------



## boscopup (Jul 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *snowbird25ca*
While I agree with this for the most part, the only thing I really wonder about is how accurate the dates were. OB's are very well known for basing a due date strictly off of lmp & some women don't ovulate until cd 28 or later. So if this woman's due date was off, her baby may not have actually had IUGR.

2 lbs 11 oz would be small even for 32 weeks, let alone 36 weeks. I highly doubt dates would be off THAT badly, even if you went by LMP! We're talking a 2 month difference in size here, not just a couple weeks. If the woman had no clue (within MONTHS) of when the baby was conceived then yes, the dates could be way off (that's where dating u/s can be very useful). But if there IS an LMP, I honestly can't see a dates problem in that scenario. Dates problems end up with being a couple weeks off usually, not 2 months. And I'm one who ovulates later in the cycle, and thus LMP is totally wrong for me. But even if they went by LMP, they would not be finding a 2 lb 11 oz baby anywhere NEAR 36 weeks LMP. My baby probably weighs more than that already, and I'm only 27 weeks! (basing this on the fact that my DS #1 was born 29w4d at 3 lb 13 oz, and DS #2 was measuring ahead already at 20 weeks, probably going to be bigger than DS #1)


----------



## wifeandmom (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Emilie*
wifeandmom- do you believe a woman can birth vaginally without drugs? my mil had a 11'6 oz baby. A 10'2 baby and a 9'8 baby. She was fine.

Oh absolutely!









However, I also believe the OP made reference to this woman 'having trouble' or something along those lines being mentioned regarding the woman-in-question's first delivery with a 9-ish pound baby.

We really don't know what the exact details are surrounding that particular birth, but it's certainly possible that there was concern over baby getting stuck during that delivery, which would of course cause concern if future babies were much larger.

And let's face it, a 10lb 6oz baby at *less than* 38 weeks is NOT normal by any stretch of the imagination.

I was really just kind of confused over the 'sadness' and all that jazz considering there was no mention of exactly what happened prior to the section. After reading the OP again, however, it seems like perhaps size alone WAS the determining factor, but again, depending on the cirucumstances of her first birth (which we have no clue about, and would do well to keep that in mind before passing judgment IMO), maybe not attempting vaginal birth with a baby that large was a good idea *for this particular mother*. It's really hard to know for sure without a whole lot more details.


----------



## ericswifey27 (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blissful_maia*
My MIL with her 3rd babe (my DH's much younger brother) was recommended to have a C/S because he was thought to be big ("big enough to be born" 3 weeks before EDD). Well, it turned out that he was under 6lbs and needed to stay in the NICU for 3 weeks, she never got to bf (she bf'ed the others), and found out later that he was born prematurely because her sOB was going on vacation around her due date (only OB in very small town). She sued. And won.

Good for your MIL for taking a stand! That's disgusting her doctor did that to her and her baby







:


----------



## nznats (Jul 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wifeandmom*

And let's face it, a 10lb 6oz baby at *less than* 38 weeks is NOT normal by any stretch of the imagination.


I find this kind of offensive! My daughter would have been 10lbs or very very close to it at 38 weeks considering she was born 10lbs7oz
We wouldnt know what 'normal' was considering many woman arent 'allowed' to get this far and babies are being forced out earlier and earlier... Check out the UC board, there are many mamas there who have had babies that size or larger earlier than the expiry date!


----------



## blissful_maia (Feb 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nznats*
I find this kind of offensive! My daughter would have been 10lbs or very very close to it at 38 weeks considering she was born 10lbs7oz
We wouldnt know what 'normal' was considering many woman arent 'allowed' to get this far and babies are being forced out earlier and earlier... Check out the UC board, there are many mamas there who have had babies that size or larger earlier than the expiry date!









Don't be offended, mama! However big your babe grows is normal for you and your babe. Of course there are outside factors that can affect the weight of a baby, but having a 10-12 lb baby is not all that rare! In fact, many, many women don't go to their due date these days, so American birth weights are sort of skewed. People think an 8lb baby is HUGE. The nurses at my dd's birth were in shock that I delivered her naturally at 8lb13oz!







If we look at less industrialized countries, we can see that, and I don't think it's up to someone to decide what is "normal" based only on what they have seen.


----------

