|
JustinMorgan posted:Hey goons! I'm not pregnant, my brother's wife is, and I have questions I feel weird/ rude asking her. 1. The issue with Rh incompatibility is this: if you are Rh-, it means that your own cells don't have the Rh antigen on them, so if you're ever exposed to Rh+ blood, they'll recognize those Rh antigens as foreign and produce antibodies. This usually isn't a problem for the first pregnancy, since fetal blood rarely makes it into Mum's system before birth, but at birth, it can happen, and Mum may start making antibodies. This is why Rh- mums with Rh+ babies usually (in Canada and the US, anyway) get a shot of RhoGAM, an immonoglobulin which prevents the formation of the antibodies. If Mum has already produced the antibodies and has a pregnancy with an Rh+ fetus, this is when the problems start to occur. There are few antibodies that cross the placenta, but the anti-Rh ones do, so Mum's anti-Rh antibodies make their way into fetal circulation and start attacking the fetus' Rh+ blood cells. This, obviously, is a big problem, which can in some cases be fatal to the baby. 2. Most things in real life aren't like the movies, and birth is no exception. Most of us didn't fall in love with our significant others at first sight, have one big crisis in the relationship, resolve it on the advice of our best girlfriend (or sassy gay best friend) and then live happily ever after, right? There are a lot of elements in a birth - such as the timing of labour or undiscovered complications - that can't be predicted or planned for, but there's a lot than can be! A birth plan includes information on how Mum would like the birthing environment to be structured - home, hospital or birth centre, soft or bright lighting, music or no music, etc. - as well as her preferences for things like pain relief (medical or non-medical), procedures like episiotomy, or support measures. Birth plans are helpful for caregivers, who (for the most part) want to do everything possible to help women have their best birth, however that looks; for women, who often find that the exercise of reflecting on what an 'ideal' birth for them helps them to be in a positive and open frame of mind on the day-of; and for support people like co-parents, other family members, and doulas, who can be most helpful and supportive at the birth if they know what Mum wants. A good birth plan - like any good plan - should be flexible, and I'm your sister-in-law understands that plans can change. But trying to structure her birth in a way that's going to be as nurturing and helpful to her as possible is a great step towards having a positive and empowering birth experience. You may find this article by Penny Simkin helpful for understanding the role of birth plans in labour and birth.
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
Fun Times! posted:I was talking to a friend today and the topic of home birthing came up. She claimed to be slightly opposed to hospital births (excepting complications) as home birthing is "more natural." Having not read much into the topic, my initial thoughts are that hospital births must be much safer for the child and mother. Can someone help educate me? As previously mentioned, it depends hugely on who you are and where you are. There are some circumstances in which a hospital birth is necessary - high-risk births shouldn't take place at home. For low-risk births, it's a matter of weighing factors such as how far away you live from a hospital (in case there needs to be an emergency transfer of care), whether you have access to a skilled birth attendant like a registered midwife (in Canada) or certified nurse-midwife (in the States) at home, and so on. I can't speak to home births anywhere but in Ontario, but epidural anaesthesia (which is what I assume you mean by anaesthesia) is not administered in a home birth setting. It needs to be given by an anaesthesiologist, and they generally don't make house calls. After the birth, if baby is healthy and happy, there's no reason for her to be taken to a hospital, so she stays at home. Safety is an interesting question. Overall, most (reputable) studies show that home birth is as safe as or very slightly less safe than hospital birth in terms of infant morbidity and mortality. Most studies, at the same time, show that hospital birth is not as safe as home birth for mothers - rates of episiotomy and infection, for example, are generally much higher in hospital births. So overall safety is really a matter of risk assessment in an individual case - there are pros and cons to each birth location. Many women choose a hospital birth because they find that having the option of interventions "just in case" is really reassuring. Many women choose a home birth because they find that the added risk of intervention makes them nervous. The most important thing in an uncomplicated, low-risk birth is for Mum to feel as comfortable and safe as possible, so, ultimately, it's a very personal decision and whatever a woman chooses is the right thing for her and her family.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
LuckyDaemon posted:Home birth for low risk mothers is safe with the right conditions. One condition is a trained professional. In the US there are two types of midwives: certified professional midwives and certified nurse midwives. CNMs have extensive training (a full six years of education plus residency), but CPMs have apprentice training. Yeah, the Wax et. al. study shows a tiny absolute increase in neonatal mortality, and also a huge absolute increase in maternal morbidity! So even IF we accepted that a metaanalysis that includes retrospective data from the 70s, studies with only eight participants from a single practice, etc. was valid (which we wouldn't do because we are all very smart), one would think that its recommendations would be "Let's make home birth safer by ensuring that everyone has a skilled attendant who's trained in neonatal resuscitation (the biggest cause of death reported in the study was respiratory failure) and is within safe transfer distance of a hospital," not "No one should ever give birth at home," which was the spin that was put on it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
MoCookies posted:I went all baby-crazy a few weeks ago, and got pregnant immediately after deciding that my husband and I should wait another year at least, get some money in the bank, etc. We've got a good situation for the most part, but waiting was the right decision for us. I've been in shock since I found out yesterday morning via pee test. I'm only a "little pregnant", as in I just missed my period a few days ago, so I have approximately 8 months to get my poo poo together. I'm freaking the gently caress out: 1. Many people don't. A lot of folks want to keep the pregnancy a secret for awhile, either because they like the idea of keeping it "just between them," or because they want to wait until the greatest risk of miscarriage has passed. But that may just not be you; some folks also tell everyone they know and post pictures of the pregnancy test they peed on on Facebook (please do not do this) as soon as they find out. Whatever makes you most comfortable. 2. You are absolutely correct that a ton - A TON - of women feel more ambivalent than overjoyed about their pregnancies. Many women who plan their pregnancies carefully and actively try to get pregnant for months are still ambivalent about their pregnancies. You're facing a big change in your life, and an unexpected one at that - it's completely normal to feel a little freaked out about it. As for managing it in relation to the people around you, there are lots of things you can say (like "It's all so overwhelming! I barely know if I'm coming or going right now!" with a little laugh) that come closer to authentically expressing your experience but don't put people in the uncomfortable position of not knowing whether it's OK to say "Congratulations!" or not. 3. MotherRisk is a database with lots of great information on health during pregnancy and breastfeeding, including a drugs database. Searching "insomnia" brought up some results that you may find helpful. 4. Ideally, you'd get in to see your midwife as soon as possible, and she can direct you more on the healthcare side of things, but right now is also a great time to start thinking (and talking to your husband) about what you envision for your birth, how you feel about parenting, all that kind of stuff. For many women, preferences about birth are something that they need some time to think and work through, so it's never too early to start. Also: beware which pregnancy books you buy! They're all different, and have very different focuses. I know a lot of women end up totally freaked out by What to Expect when You're Expecting, for example, because there's a lot of information on things that could potentially go wrong in it, and if you're a dwelling-on-the-worst-case-scenario kind of person, that can be hard to read. But other people love that it's so comprehensive. It also depends on what your birth values are - the Mayo Clinic Guide definintely has information that's aimed at a different audience than, say, Birthing from Within. If you're into the whole natural-birth deal, you may like that one, as well as Ina May's Guide to Childbirth, which I found really empowering to read. 5. I have no idea. Good luck! Having a baby is huge and seems scary, but you can do it!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
^^^^^ [edit] If they're committed to breastfeeding, formula just may not be an option for their family. Formula-fed babies are at higher risk for ear infections and upper respiratory infections, and miss out on all the sweet benefits from breastmilk like immunoglobulins and all the various proteins and fats that we haven't fully isolated and synthesized yet. I'm not saying that formula-feeding is bad, and it is definitely a lifesaver for some families, but if they really want to breastfeed, I don't see any reason to dissuade them. Also Ariza, if you do decide to formula-feed, please DO NOT use powdered formula until your baby's older than a month; powdered formula isn't sterile and so liquid formula is recommended for very young babies. Ariza posted:My old lady and I had a baby a couple of days ago and I have a question. I've been reading through google and can't get a straight answer. My wife is only going to be able to breastfeed for the week she has off (goes back next Wednesday the 30th) and then she's going to try and pump most of the time. She's started pumping the colostrum and I'm not sure how much there should be or if she should just completely hold off on using the pump for now. We're trying to make sure she's used to bottle feeding before it becomes not an option. We really really really don't want to use formula. She tried going through this with the lactation ladies at the hospital but never got a straight answer. They only seemed interested in making sure she was breastfeeding. I hope this makes sense, I've only slept 8 hours total the last 4 nights and am kind of out of it. Seconding the  - one week? One WEEK off? Yikes.Two options that I would consider right away, if you have the resources for it: first, contact La Leche League in your area. They will probably be able to put you in touch with someone who can provide your wife with better breastfeeding support than she's getting from the hospital. How useful LLL is to a particular family is really dependent on who's running the local chapter and also on what particular personalities and orientation toward breastfeeding you guys have, but they are often very helpful. You might also consider looking for an International Board Certified Lactation Consultant (the ones who have IBCLC after their names); they have thousands of hours of clinical practice under their belts and have generally seen just about every breastfeeding situation, so if it's feasible for you to consult one, go for it. (The ILCA has a directory for parents.) It sounds from your question like you may be concerned that she's not getting a lot of volume when she's pumping. As colostrum transitions into mature milk, volume gradually increases to keep up with baby's demand and feeding patterns - that is, generally speaking, the more baby breastfeeds, the more milk your wife will produce, and the more she'll be able to bank for when she goes back to work. Like Miss Shell said, the more breastfeeding, the better right now. Because of the low volume of colostrum, and because pumping is usually not as efficient as actual baby suckling, pumping may not be the best option for her while she's still at home and able to feed right from the breast. Some babies do have difficulty adjusting to a bottle, but be aware that there are other options like finger- and cup-feeding if that's the case for you guys. (My sister never took a bottle and started cup-feeding as soon as my mom went back to work, long before you'd usually think about introducing a cup. She just hated bottles, but was very happy to learn to take little baby cup sips.) Going back to work a week postpartum is stressful enough without worrying about what will happen if baby doesn't take to a bottle right away. Good luck to both of you! Also Janelle, this is a discussion you'll probably want to have with your care provider before birth, because there are some who don't do circumcisions themselves and your timeline will depend in that case on what referrals are like in your area. Dogfish fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Mar 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
bamzilla posted:I think this is more to do with the fact that people prop bottles while their baby is laying down flat and let their babies go to sleep laying down with a bottle, than the fact that it's formula. Well, that and breastfed babies may have higher serum concentrations of IgG antibodies that are specific to a bacterium that often causes ear infections... [edit] Nevermind, yes, the powdered formula obviously will probably not do any damage; it's often recommended to parents here to avoid it and so I thought I'd mention it. I agree that every family needs to choose the option that works for them, but maybe not second-guessing people's parenting choices is a good policy too? Dogfish fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Mar 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Economic Sinkhole posted:Hello thread, my wife is 11.5 weeks and we just had a marathon OB appointment with a genetic councilor, ultrasound, glucose test and doctor talk. Everything is looking great and the ultrasound was really cool. We are finally starting to believe that this is real. I have a question though. The genetic councilor talked to us about screening for cystic fibrosis, first explaining that both of us would need to be a carrier for the baby to have a 25%. She went on to say that our state requires that the baby, once born, to be tested for cystic fibrosis. Last, she explained that the test for my wife would cost us $300. We told her that we'd decide later on the test. So my concern is, if we elected to do this test and we were both carriers for the disease, where would that get us? I have been trying to read about it and I can't imagine choosing to abort if the baby had it. I mean, that's the point of these screens at this time, right? To find out if the baby has some huge, unmanageable issue? It doesn't seem like cystic fibrosis is one of those. Can anyone help me think this through? Is this a high-risk pregnancy? Do you or does your wife have a heritable genetic condition? I'm wondering why you saw a genetic counsellor at 11 weeks, and also why your wife had an early glucose test, because if your pregnancy is high-risk or you are at elevated risk of genetic anomalies then none of what I'm about to say applies. (Or maybe genetic counselling and early glucose testing are just standard in the States?) I suspect what the genetic counsellor meant is that your state has mandatory newborn screening, which is different than a diagnostic test for CF. Where I live, newborn screening isn't mandatory, but is recommended; we do a heel-poke test that looks for markers of about 30 different conditions. If that test comes back positive (elevated risk) for one of the conditions, we do more precise diagnostic testing to see for sure if the baby is affected. We don't offer prenatal carrier screening for couples at low risk of CF because I live in socialist Canada and the cost:benefit ratio doesn't make sense if you're spending taxpayer dollars. If you choose to be screened for the carrier gene, and both you and your wife have it, there's a 25% chance that the baby will have CF. You can confirm whether or not the baby is affected by doing an amniocentesis during the pregnancy, or by testing the baby after it's born. Cystic fibrosis is a serious disease that significantly shortens lifespan; like most conditions that can be detected with prenatal genetic testing, the only people who can decide if you want to know if your baby is at risk are you guys. I usually counsel my patients that there are three kind of people: people who would choose to terminate a pregnancy (these people should be tested), people who wouldn't terminate but would like to have the extra time and information to prepare for a baby with differences (these people should be tested), and people who wouldn't terminate and would spend the rest of the pregnancy worrying if they knew they were expecting a baby with differences (these people shouldn't be tested). Only you and your wife know which category you're in. Yes, the purpose of early testing is to offer the option of termination if that's what you want, but that's not the only reason it might be useful. ucmallory posted:Even when I was 30+ weeks, I would lay on my back with just a pillow under one hip. You just don't want to be flat. Also, seconding the comment about comfort. I could tell very clearly when I needed to NOT be on my back because it felt like I couldn't breathe well or I'd get lightheaded. You'll feel that long before your baby would and will be able to adjust with ample time, even if you are asleep. This is 100% correct. Anything that's cutting off blood flow to your placenta is also cutting off circulation in the entire lower half of your body. You'll feel dizzy and sick if your IVC is being compressed. If you're comfortable, your baby is OK, no matter what position you're in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Good luck with the pregnancy! I am also currently enjoying the first trimester of a high-risk pregnancy, so I sympathise. My high-risk OB is a colleague and a friend, though, so she sees me at her low-risk practice to make me feel more normal. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Well, I don't know if it is where you live; I work in Ontario so if you're in a different province or country, it might not be. I am a midwife and being too high-risk for my own scope of practice is really weird. I know too much for peace of mind, but have too little expertise in high-risk to be able to evaluate my own case.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Unfortunately the options for migraine treatment in pregnancy are pretty limited. If caffeine isn't a migraine trigger for you, try drinking a small cup of coffee when the aura first appears if your migraines have an aura, or when you first feel the pain start, if they don't. Take the Tylenol at the same time if you find it helps; some people don't get any relief from Tylenol at all, so if it's not helping, don't take it. Definitely get your midwife to write you a note; we do it all the time. If it helps, almost all people who have migraines find that they decrease significantly in frequency in the second and third trimesters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Hope they get better soon; migraines suck. On another subject, what are everybody's top tips for nausea? I've been nauseated pretty much since the moment I was pregnant (like, before I had a positive test) but now that I'm 9w it's getting really bad. I'm significantly nauseated and dry-heaving all day, and in the last couple days I've started vomiting as well, which is really unusual for me. So far I've tried: - Eating every 1.5 hours, balanced protein and simple carbs - Diclectin TID with Gravol for breakthrough nausea - Ginger tea, ginger ale, ginger candy, ginger everything I think I'm going to add in some ranitidine in case part of what's causing the nausea is excess acid, and somebody told me about making Jello with coconut water to maintain a good electrolyte balance, which she swore by. Any other suggestions? This is pretty miserable and I've tried all the stuff I usually recommend to people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
cailleask posted:I think Diclectin is the UK version of Diclegis? If so, are you up to the maximum (4x daily pills) dose? It's honestly the only thing that does anything significant for me at all. Actually Diclegis is the American version of Diclectin - Duchesnay is a Canadian company. I'm taking five a day currently because four was not cutting it. Considering bumping it to six if things don't improve. Four is actually the recommended standard starting dose. Some people can take less but many have to take more. All my patients swear by it so I was kind of expecting it to be magic. I think my expectations were too high. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
skeetied posted:If it makes you feel better, I was taking two four times a day and still dry heaving everywhere with my second pregnancy. One pill three times a day seems to be holding that off with my third one, but all liquids disgust me, which is causing another host of issues (constipation), especially since I'm breastfeeding a 2.5 yo still and working at my 4 yo's outdoor preschool. It shouldn't make me feel better to hear about other people's misery...but it does! I feel you on the liquids thing; I used to have a smoothie for breakfast every day but can't even look at the blender without gagging now. I'm eating really juicy fruits like oranges and watermelon and hoping that makes up for my lack of liquids so I don't turn into a raisin. Eponymous Bosch posted:I tried all that when I was pregnant and the best thing was sucking on a lemon/lime and drinking plenty of water all day. Along with eating frequently and a few ginger candies. Sour candies work as long as they're in my mouth! But then I'm just as sick after they're finished. I feel like I'm a case of gestational diabetes waiting to happen. I tried the lemon thing and lemons just taste like bitter death to me right now. Food aversions are so weird.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Probably the same reason most people who breastfeed do so: because the kid likes it and it's good for him/her? Just guessing. WHO recommends breastfeeding for at least two years "or beyond."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Alcohol and pregnancy is such a tricky topic because it's nearly impossible to get good data. Here is what we do know. 1. Alcohol is a powerful teratogen (causes birth defects, from the Greek meaning literally "monster-maker!") and it affects everyone differently because everyone metabolizes it at different rates. That's where "no safe amount" comes from: what might be totally harmless for Alex might give Taylor's baby FASD. There is no way to know what the threshold for a particular pregnant person is, short of giving them measured doses of alcohol in different pregnancies and seeing which of their kids are affected worse. We know that the teratogenicity is dose-dependent: more is worse. We just don't know at what point we start to see noticeable effects in a given pregnancy. 2. Alcohol use is really hard to study because people dramatically under-report their consumption because of the stigma associated with drinking while pregnant. That means that we probably have lots of people in the "no alcohol" group who are in fact drinking some alcohol, and we probably also have way more alcohol consumption than we know about in the "drinks alcohol" group. That makes it really difficult to isolate risk factors. 3. Alcohol use, because it's not a socially accepted behaviour in pregnancy, is usually comorbid with other factors that increase the risk of bad pregnancy outcomes, like smoking and poverty. That makes it really difficult to tease out which effects are a result of the alcohol, and which results are caused by other issues. 4. All the studies that have been done are based on reported consumption, which, as discussed in (2), isn't great data, but also means that we get better data from countries like France where alcohol consumption is less stigmatized. Of the large-scale studies that have been done, the best conclusion we've been able to reach is that a small amount of alcohol (1-3 drinks per week) is PROBABLY not associated with a significant statistical increase in FASD or other pregnancy complications, but a moderate or large amount probably is. 5. FASD is in some cases very difficult to diagnose, so it's possible that there are lots of babies who are affected and we just don't know it. Severe FASD is associated with a characteristic facial appearance as well as severe behavioural problems, but mild FASD can be really subtle and can present as ADHD, learning difficulties, or simply a "difficult" child. That makes it very hard to track. So that's the bottom line in terms of risk: alcohol definitely has the potential to case harm, but we don't know how much alcohol it takes for an individual person. How an individual proceeds is going to depend on their own risk assessment from there. There's another major issue when it comes to alcohol in pregnancy, and that's the idea that pregnant women should be constantly policed by their communities. That's a huge problem, and we all deal with it because our culture has a poisonous view of women. Nothing makes me want to swig publicly from a bottle of tequila more than hearing people's judgmental nonsense all the drat time. Pregnancy advice books are the worst; I had to read all the major ones so I could with good conscience make recommendations to my patients, and by the end of it, I was so sick of reading "Ask yourself: is every bite of food you take the best bite you could give your baby?" that I wanted to scream! And I wasn't even pregnant yet. My current diet consists primarily of Jello and my own tears, and that's awful enough without feeling guilty that I'm not giving my baby organic vitamins or whatever. So, my conclusion is that we should all support the individual choices that pregnant people make and trust them to make compassionate and safe decisions for themselves and their families unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. In cases of obvious uncontrolled harm like alcoholism or other judgment-impairing illness, we should treat those pregnancies as high-risk and provide as much support as possible to the person affected.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
One thing that can really help with late-pregnancy pelvic instability is paying close attention to your positioning. Your ligaments are especially loose this late in pregnancy, which means your pelvis has a ton of flexibility. That's great for getting a baby through there - not so good for things like "walking upright" and "not being in pain all the time." Anything that destabilizes your pelvis is going to make that worse by putting strain on the ligaments unevenly and tightening up the muscles in response. Don't cross your legs or ankles, and try to move your legs together when you're rolling over in bed or changing position. You basically want to keep each side of your pelvis even and level with the other. I assume you're sleeping with a pillow(s) between your knees but if you're not, start. Also I think due dates are one of the cruellest things we do in obstetrics. We should really give pregnant people a "baby window" that ranges from 37 to 42 weeks because anything in there is normal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
SquirrelFace posted:I'm only 36 weeks and already have sharp hip and back pain when I roll over in bed or try to get up to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. It also feels like my pubic bone is bruised and babies head is pressing into it every time I walk. Midwife said yesterday that it's all a normal part of things getting loosened up for labor. So enjoy! You can definitely have a version of the birth you want if you have an induction. I have lots and lots of gals who need inductions for whatever reason and we still stick pretty close to the birth plan. If your blood pressure gets really high, you might need to make some changes for medical reasons (sometimes, for example, we recommend an epidural to bring down blood pressure, and for really bad pre-eclampsia we sometimes give a medication that means you can't walk around during labour) but the vast majority of the time you can get up and walk around, be in the tub or shower, do whatever. People will tell you horror stories about inductions but I can't even tell you how many inductions I've run with no epidural, no directed pushing, low light, lots of skin-to-skin, all the usual accoutrements of natural birth. Remember, too, that your medical team is there to explain things, offer suggestions, and make recommendations. Nobody "lets" you do anything. You're in charge, unless one of them is willing to give birth to your baby for you. You can say no to hands and tools in any part of your body at any time, and your team should respect that. If it's an emergency and they absolutely need to do something for your or your baby's health, they'll tell you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 22:44
|
|
. My normally sub-average BP has shot up 20 points in the last 3 weeks and yesterday they found protein in my urine. I have to go back Thursday to see if my BP and protein levels are still rising.
|
54 40 or gently caress posted:Perineal massages. Are they helpful and how early? There is no evidence that indicates that perineal massage during pregnancy makes any difference to the incidence of tears, so like all things to do with your vagina you may do it if you like at any time you like. There is one large-scale trial called the Hands Off Or Poised (HOOP) trial that examined whether care providers could make a difference to the incidence of tears by supporting/massaging/using warm compresses for the perineum in labour, and it concluded that it made no difference either way. Some people like warm compresses during the last bit of the pushing stage because they find it comfortable; I usually offer it but don't actively recommend it. There is one small study that indicates that using a perineal trainer like the Epi-No MIGHT reduce the risk of tears but guess who sponsored that study!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
You know what? I just did a quick literature search in case someone had done a study since I last checked, and they had! A RCT of about 500 women who've never had babies before was done in Québec and they found about a 9% absolute decrease in risk with perineal massage starting at 34 weeks. So if you want to start massaging at the end of pregnancy you may in fact reduce your chance of tearing by 10% or so. Prenatal classes are mainly useful to give you a foundation of knowledge about the whole process so you have a structure already in place in your mind that helps you contextualize what's happening in labour as it happens. Like, for example, it's really helpful to know that the most intense part of labour (transition) is also the shortest part, because when you're in it someone can remind you, "Remember, this is really intense but it's the shortest part of labour before you can start to push your baby out." But direct labour support is definitely the most helpful thing. Your midwife will also go over a lot of stuff with you. We talk about labour so much in the third trimester my clients get sick of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
ArmadilloConspiracy posted:
Good luck!!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 15:04
|
|
Contractions!
|
Babies are built to last. If one could permanently damage oneself by headbutting one's mother while trying to get to a breast we would all have horrible brain damage. Don't shake or drop your baby and it will most likely be fine. Congratulations! Way to rock that labour.54 40 or gently caress posted:Can I get varicose veins from walking too much or not enough? Because I see long periods of standing can be a contributing factor yet taking a brisk walk can prevent them. I'm on a trip for the weekend that involves a lot of walking on hard concrete and want to be mindful. Varicose veins are caused by a combination of inherent weakness in the blood vessels exacerbated by hormones (so, nothing you can do anything about) and blood staying in your legs too long and putting pressure on those blood vessels. Standing for a long time makes it hard for blood to get out of your legs, especially in pregnancy, so can make varicose veins worse. Walking does the opposite because the contractions of the muscles push blood back toward your heart.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Aaagh you guys, the nausea/vomiting continues to get worse. Someone please give me some kind of magic remedy that will make me un-miserable. I'm taking six Diclectin a day plus Gravol for breakthrough nausea, plus Zantac. I'm doing everything I'm supposed to do: lots of fluids, snacks every hour, going to bed early. This morning I couldn't even keep down water. It usually gets better in the late afternoon or evening but pretty much from when I wake up to 4 p.m. I'm miserably puking or miserably trying not to puke. Someone tell me this will go away.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
I'm 10+3 so if this follows the usual course I should only have a couple weeks left, I hope. We usually don't admit anyone to hospital here unless they're dehydrated (or at severe risk for dehydration, so not keeping down water for 12 hours or not making urine for 8 hours) or unless they have hyperemesis gravidarum. I haven't had an IV but today I was moments away from texting a colleague to come do one at home for me, haha. I don't think I'm dehydrated - I'm making clear urine and have managed to keep down about a litre of water this afternoon. We do have Zofran here and it would be the next step . I might text my OB tomorrow and see what she thinks. I haven't tried peppermint oil but I have found that chewing mint gum helps briefly. How do you use it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
I definitely will. I would rub my cat's rear end on my temples right now if I thought it would let me get a solid hour without nausea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Ondansetron (Zofran) or metaclopramide (Reglan), and they are both given to pregnant people who are experience severe nausea. Safety data is always tricky in pregnancy; Diclectin is the only anti-nausea mediation that's actually been tested in pregnancy. There was a study last year that linked Zofran to an increase in cardiac malformations, but not a large increase. (And the study was done by a doctor who has significant financial ties to Duchesnay, who make Diclectin, and who has come under scrutiny for his financial disclosures or lack thereof.) Some of my nausea probably IS in fact chemotherapy nausea since I'm being treated with interferon right now. Which makes me scared that this won't go away after the first trimester.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
I have a blood disease, in the same family as leukemia but involving a different group of cells. Interferon is the only treatment that's safe in pregnancy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
I am watching my hydration status very carefully and if I stopped peeing normally I would definitely go to the hospital, don't worry! I did lose quite a bit of weight early on but I'm starting to slowly gain it back since the Diclectin by grazing constantly in the evening when it gets better. I'll talk to my OB tomorrow and see if she thinks a different medication or even some fluids would be appropriate. Thanks for all the advice and sympathy, gals; I'm mostly just wanting to have a little moan about it and your listening is appreciated!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
If an adult is awake (and likely to stay awake) it's fine to let a baby sleep however they want: on your chest, in the incredibly expensive baby swing, whatever. Always make sure you can see baby's whole face (i.e. it isn't covered by a blanket, soft carrier strap, etc) and that you're keeping a close eye on his breathing. If he can't breathe well, you'll know and you'll adjust him. "Back to sleep" is the advice we give for when adults are asleep and not available to make an immediate adjustment if necessary. Skin-to-skin is really excellent for your baby in all kinds of ways, not just breastfeeding, so do it as much as you can. Plus it's so snuggly!!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Dizzy spells and vertigo during pregnancy could be almost anything, ranging from "normal pregnancy weirdness" to a serious issue. I think you're doing the right thing in seeing the doctor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
The Canadian recommendation is that pregnant women drink at least 2.3 L daily so it sounds like you're right on track. Talking makes you thirsty, too, so if you're talking for 75 minutes I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up drinking more. Your doctor or midwife will probably offer you screening for gestational diabetes around 22-24 weeks, so you could mention it at your next visit if you're concerned.
Dogfish fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
kittiesgomeow posted:Thanks Just mumble incoherently while you gesture vaguely at the PowerPoint and you'll be pretty much on par with 80% of the lecturers out there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
A double post for all my fellow pukers: you know what has been absolutely saving my life this week? Apple juice mixed 50/50 with water. I can't explain why it works but if I drink a big glass of it my stomach immediately settles enough to eat something. It's a weird miracle. Thanks again to you all for listening to me moan about my nausea earlier; this weekend was really really bad until the apple juice gods smiled upon me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
We're holding off on Zofran for now because the nausea seems to have taken a turn for the better, if you can believe that! I haven't puked for two days, and in those two days I've only dry-heaved maybe ten total times. A Christmas miracle, and it's not even Hallowe'en yet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
54 40 or gently caress posted:I wish you relief. Dry heaving is so painful and horrible. Gross story: my first morning sickness incident my husband had just taken a piss and hadn't flushed yet when I burst into the bathroom to start dry heaving into a toilet that hadn't been flushed. Isn't pregnancy just so beautiful, you guys?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Remember that your baby JUST came out of you. If you only knew two people in the entire world and everything about that world was new and intimidating, you wouldn't want to sleep alone either. The first couple of weeks include a lot of learning and zero adherence to a schedule, but nothing that's happening now is set in stone or necessarily reflective of how the next six months are going to be. All babies are different of course but here are some sleep milestones: When babies regain their birth weight, they tend to sleep more deeply and for longer at night.Then, when babies hit about six weeks, they tend to sleep better alone. That happens again at about three months. Your baby might not be a chill baby who just goes down in his bassinette at three months and sleeps through the night, but it's probably not going to be quite as intense as this forever. Are you taking lots and lots and lots of naps during the day? It really really sucks when your baby won't fall asleep but it sucks less if you've had at least some rest during the day. Having had some sleep during the day also will help you be relaxed about sleep at night, and the more relaxed you are, the more relaxed the baby will be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
If bed-sharing isn't an option for you and baby will sleep in the bassinette for a little bit when you put him into it, try putting him in the bassinette and putting your hand in there with him, gently resting beside him or or his belly, so he knows you're there. You can scootch the bassinette right up next to your bed and fall asleep like that. Alternately, if you're in the States, maybe look for a co-sleeper that attaches to the side of your bed? Lots of babies find they're close enough to their parents to sleep there. Also, it sounds like you're getting zero day sleep? Unless you're getting eight consecutive hours in the night, you need to be sleeping in the daytime. You WILL get exhausted, and that's going to be a really bad scene for everyone. Do you have friends or family who can come help you out when your husband goes back to work? Not sleeping all night and then being solely responsible for a baby all day isn't a sustainable solution.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
LizzieBorden posted:I've just had a call from the midwife. The results of our combined test are back and we've "screened positive" for Down's Syndrome with a 1 in 130 chance of having it. Our risk of Edward's and Patau's are about 1 in 7,000. Any result higher than 1 in 200 counts as a positive screen. Remember that 1:130 is still a very low chance: less than 1%. What 1:130 means is that if you had 130 women who were the same age as you and had the exact same amounts in their blood of the hormones we test for, one of them would have a baby with Trisomy 21, and 129 would have babies without. Or, put another way, 0.7% of people who have exactly the same results as you have a baby with Trisomy 21, and 99.3% don't. Here's how we picked 1:200 as the risk screening cutoff. Before the integrated prenatal screen was available, the only tests available were invasive: CVS or amniocentesis. These tests are definitive diagnostic tests (as opposed to the screening test you've had so far) but carry about a 1:200 risk of miscarriage. When we developed the non-invasive testing, its purpose was to reduce the number of people who had a potentially harmful test unnecessarily, so we made the cut-off for a positive screen the point at which the risk of the pregnancy being affected was equal to the risk of harm from the diagnostic test. That's all. It's not because 1:200 is a very high chance of true positive; it's just because we don't want to expose people to invasive testing unnecessarily. Do you have access to a cell-free fetal DNA test like Harmony where you are? Where I work, if you have a positive first trimester screen you're eligible for Harmony on the government's dime. Cell-free fetal DNA testing isn't as accurate as an invasive test, but it's very close, and there's no risk to the pregnancy. Usually here if someone has a positive first trimester screen they get Harmony and then if that's positive they have an amnio. Some people choose to have invasive testing right away because they're sure they would terminate the pregnancy if it were affected, they don't want to wait for the Harmony to come back, and the risk of harm from the invasive procedure is worth it to them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Sharks Below posted:I thought the Harmony was just a screening test too? We were given the exact same info about it as you just gave above about it being a x in y chance etc etc. Surely repeating a screening test isn't the greatest idea here seeing as it's likely to give the same result? Harmony is a screening test, just with much higher accuracy rates than first trimester screening. We use it as a second step because, again, the goal of screening is to prevent unnecessary use of invasive tests - the Harmony is so accurate that we can be comfortable that a positive Harmony screen is associated with a much greater risk of a true positive on amnio or CVS. Conversely, we can be fairly confident that a negative Harmony is likely to be a true negative result, which offers reassurance to the patient and prevents us from putting a probably healthy pregnancy at risk through invasive testing. Harmony looks for cell-free fetal DNA, which is DNA from the fetus that's in the mother's circulation. The first trimester screen looks at a couple of different proteins and hormones in the mother's circulation. The reason Harmony is more accurate is because it gathers different information.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Yes, as I said in my previous post, Harmony is a screening, not a diagnostic test. Harmony has a detection rate of about 99% for Trisomy 21, and a false positive rate of 0.1%. CVS and amnio both have detection rates of 99.99% and false positive rates less than 0.1%. Harmony doesn't directly sample fetal cells. Instead, it looks for cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal circulation, which comes from the placenta. The amount of cell-free DNA circulating varies between individuals, and if someone happens to have a particularly low amount in their blood, that could cause a false negative result. Both amnio and CVS examine samples directly from within the uterus, reducing the chance of error. Because they are invasive tests, they are more accurate and also carry more risk than Harmony, which is non-invasive.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
I work in hippie socialized Canada so Harmony is only offered to people at elevated risk of an affected pregnancy (i.e. people who screen positive on the integrated screen) because it's super expensive vs. first trimester screening. Or patients can pay out of pocket and have it done at a private lab. My suspicion is that as it gets cheaper and more accurate over time, it will eventually replace first trimester screening as the initial screen offered.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 23:27
|
|