Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Using ultrasounds to determine gestational age could result in baby's death

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Using ultrasounds to determine gestational age could result in baby's death

    http://www.naturalnews.com/029877_ul...nds_death.html
    MDA PRIMAL LIBERTARIAN GROUP

  • #2
    Irritates the heck out of me when due dates are changed because of 2nd trimester ultrasounds. It's like changing a kid's graduation date from school based on how tall he is.

    First trimester ultrasound is VERY accurate at figuring out due dates because the structural features appear in a very consistent way and at a very consistent rate across all embryos. Second trimester ultrasound is way too dependent on genes and mom's diet.
    Liz.

    Zone diet on and off for several years....worked, but too much focus on exact meal composition
    Primal since July 2010...skinniest I've ever been and the least stressed about food

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm not sure I really get it. Doctors aren't generally going to actively try to prevent or stop labor if you're reasonably close to your due date.

      Comment


      • #4
        What Lizch said... And I'm surprised there are many docs who base any guess at fetal age on a second trimester ultrasound rather than factoring in your period or an earlier ultrasound.

        I mean, what... Are all these women only appearing at the doc office during trimester 2?

        Either way it's not the ultrasound "resulting" in the baby's death like the article says. It's babies who run late, and are allowed to do so, who are more likely to die regardless. But there are plenty of women with accurate due dates who choose to wait for the baby even if late...

        Avocado, right -- I guess the risk here is from docs not inducing labor? Still surprises me considering the recent trend seems to be to induce on the due date, not letting them go way over, unless the parents really insist otherwise. So even if they misjudged by two weeks they'd still be within the normal plus or minus two week window...
        Last edited by Jenny; 09-28-2010, 06:59 PM.
        "Trust me, you will soon enter a magical land full of delicious steakflowers, with butterbacons fluttering around over the extremely rompable grass and hillsides."

        Comment


        • #5
          I didn't think they were generally inducing labor simply based on date calculations. They do start monitoring closely when going past term. But inducing is generally based on detecting distress, not calculated dates.

          Comment


          • #6
            Oh Avocado, how I wish that were true!!! The induction rate at our local hospital is 40%. 40% of their babies are not in distress. Doctors have been routinely inducing at 37+ weeks for reasons that research does not back up, ranging from "big baby" (inducing does not give the pelvis its natural relaxing hormones that enable it to flex, so it's harder to push a baby through it....it would be better to wait for natural labor even if the baby gets a big bigger, so the pelvis can flex) to "low fluid" (tenuous evidence at best) to "why not? I'm not on call next week, so let's get the baby out now."

            I think the trend will reverse soon because induction is linked to higher c-section rates, and because inducing prior to 39 weeks greatly increases the risk that the baby will go straight to NICU instead of mom's arms
            Liz.

            Zone diet on and off for several years....worked, but too much focus on exact meal composition
            Primal since July 2010...skinniest I've ever been and the least stressed about food

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah, judging by what many other new moms tell me, the local trend is to not let you go more than a couple days past your due date unless you insist -- due to the same concerns listed in the article.

              My OB won't induce early as Lizch describes above, but considering the trouble my 10 pound baby gave me, I wish they had!

              Avocado, seems like if they detect distress they'll send you straight in for a c-section... Not induce labor.
              "Trust me, you will soon enter a magical land full of delicious steakflowers, with butterbacons fluttering around over the extremely rompable grass and hillsides."

              Comment


              • #8
                If anyone wants to know more about the topic of induced labor and hospital births, they should check out the documentary, "The Business of Being Born"
                Our system is so horrible it makes me want to cry. The U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate of the first world nations, it's awful and definitely NOT a coincidence. Doctors are NOT EVEN TAUGHT about a natural vaginal birth in medical school. There are more C-sections preformed around 5 in the afternoon and at 10 at night than any other time of day by a HUGE margin. That's only one piece of evidence that tells us the doctors really do say, "oh, look "It's getting close to dinner time and I will hurry the process up because I want to go home." or, "Oh, look at the time. I don't want to be here all night. Let's induce labor artificially because we can."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lizch View Post
                  Oh Avocado, how I wish that were true!!! The induction rate at our local hospital is 40%. 40% of their babies are not in distress. Doctors have been routinely inducing at 37+ weeks for reasons that research does not back up, ranging from "big baby" ...
                  But this is opposite to the OP article. Maybe delaying delivery is a Swedish thing. I really don't know.

                  Originally posted by Jenny View Post
                  Avocado, seems like if they detect distress they'll send you straight in for a c-section... Not induce labor.
                  Depends on the situation. But yes, I didn't mean to specify induction vs C-section. I should have just said "deliver."

                  Originally posted by ZoŽ View Post
                  Doctors are NOT EVEN TAUGHT about a natural vaginal birth in medical school.
                  I agree our infant mortality is ridiculous. But false statements don't help your cause.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by avocado View Post

                    I agree our infant mortality is ridiculous. But false statements don't help your cause.

                    Whoops! I should have said something more like 'truly natural', not 'vaginal' *faceplam*

                    The way I wrote it makes it a deceiving statement, so I apologize (and thanks for pointing that out). Yes, they are informed on the processes that take place of a vaginal birth (but not a truly natural one). What I meant to say, was that they are not taught about birth in a real life scenario where the mother is not in a hospital setting (and therefore they have no idea what midwifery is all about and write if off as dangerous). It is true that they do not witness a vaginal birth until residency and even so, it is still in a hospital setting where the mother is in a completely unnatural position, often given an epidural which slows down the contractions and messes everything up, etc. Just because the baby came out of the vagina does not qualify it as a natural vaginal birth to me but I should have defined my opinion more clearly.
                    Last edited by ZoŽ; 09-28-2010, 09:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by avocado View Post
                      But this is opposite to the OP article. Maybe delaying delivery is a Swedish thing. I really don't know.
                      Europe has better neonatal mortality stats AND lower intervention rates. Yes, Swedes would tend to err more on the side of delaying/not intervening, American docs err more on the side of inducing early.

                      For anyone wanting the data, this is a great video that breaks down the US mortality stats and ultimately shows that even if we compare our most privileged, healthiest citizens with entire populations of other countries, we come fourth in world rankings for neonatal mortality. In other words, our healthiest against the rest of the developed world's average. Very sobering stuff. And we spend vastly more money on it than any other country.
                      http://www.lamaze.org/OnlineCommunit...e-Numbers.aspx

                      There's every bit as much ill-supported CW in birth as there is in nutrition.
                      Liz.

                      Zone diet on and off for several years....worked, but too much focus on exact meal composition
                      Primal since July 2010...skinniest I've ever been and the least stressed about food

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ZoŽ View Post
                        What I meant to say, was that they are not taught about birth in a real life scenario where the mother is not in a hospital setting (and therefore they have no idea what midwifery is all about and write if off as dangerous). It is true that they do not witness a vaginal birth until residency

                        I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't know where the heck you're getting this stuff from. Not even close to true.

                        and even so, it is still in a hospital setting where the mother is in a completely unnatural position, often given an epidural which slows down the contractions and messes everything up, etc. Just because the baby came out of the vagina does not qualify it as a natural vaginal birth to me but I should have defined my opinion more clearly.
                        However, I'm sure you're right they are not taught what you consider a natural birth.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Man, every time I see this thread, I cringe. Not just because of the horrible situation for births in the US (which is bad, I totally agree) but because I still take some exception to the title of the original article. They make it sound like the ultrasounds are somehow directly killing babies, yanno?
                          "Trust me, you will soon enter a magical land full of delicious steakflowers, with butterbacons fluttering around over the extremely rompable grass and hillsides."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lizch View Post
                            Oh Avocado, how I wish that were true!!! The induction rate at our local hospital is 40%. 40% of their babies are not in distress. Doctors have been routinely inducing at 37+ weeks for reasons that research does not back up, ranging from "big baby" (inducing does not give the pelvis its natural relaxing hormones that enable it to flex, so it's harder to push a baby through it....it would be better to wait for natural labor even if the baby gets a big bigger, so the pelvis can flex) to "low fluid" (tenuous evidence at best) to "why not? I'm not on call next week, so let's get the baby out now."

                            I think the trend will reverse soon because induction is linked to higher c-section rates, and because inducing prior to 39 weeks greatly increases the risk that the baby will go straight to NICU instead of mom's arms
                            I'd like to see the research that made you come to this conclusion. I'm a Respiratory Therapist that is there for deliveries week in and week out. The original article is correct that allowing a mom to carry a baby late is bad as many of these kids wind up with Meconium in the fluid. If the baby breathes that Meconium (baby poop is what it is) in, they usually wind up with Pneumonitis and several days in the hospital.

                            Babies born in the 36 to 38 week window generally do just fine. That pelvis flex idea is also sheer nonsense. Pitocyin is given to induce labor, but the moms hormones are also in play and not damped down by it. If the baby is too big, it's just too big. Trying to force a big baby out usually results in a severe deceleration of the baby's heart rate which in turn can lead to hypoxia with a limp, blue baby being born. I know, I've seen it.

                            And the idea that docs go for C-Sections as a matter of convenience is a gross overgeneralization. Every Friday night (I work 6p to 6:30a) for the last six weeks I've had a delivery between 3 and 5 a.m. when the team (including the docs) all had to be called in--four of them C-Sections from failure to progress. The docs didn't induce, the docs went home and the moms wound up not progressing and THEN the C-Section was done.

                            The OP is a good article that is right in line with what I see every week.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm amazed the message about not inducing/doing c-sections prior to 39 weeks unless absolutely necessary has not reached the respiratory therapist community! You're in a position to put pressure to change this.

                              http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-93...073-6/fulltext

                              The pelvis flex notion is not even remotely nonsense. Why do you think you can pour pitocin into a mom's veins at 36 weeks pregnant, and get nowhere, if pitocin is all it takes? There's a whole orchestra of hormones that precede oxytocin, including prostaglandins and relaxin.

                              Pushing a big baby out "usually" results in decels? That's not the major concern with big babies. I've seen 10-11lb babies born without a single decel and 6lbers decel'ing like crazy. The concern with big babies is primarily shoulder dystocia, and even ACOG is lukewarm about induction for macrosomia as a solution to that.

                              Yes, there are dangers in waiting too long for birth to happen naturally, including meconium aspiration, SGA, and stillbirth. But there are also risks to birth being forced prior to 39 weeks, whether you want to believe it or not.
                              Liz.

                              Zone diet on and off for several years....worked, but too much focus on exact meal composition
                              Primal since July 2010...skinniest I've ever been and the least stressed about food

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X