I guess I'm eating my words now, aren't I? :) I'm currently *still* pregnant. I really can't believe it.
I had a prenatal on Thursday which made me feel better. I have come to terms with a 1/20 edd instead of 1/16, which makes me 4 days earlier so only 41+3 instead of 42 today. This gives me until Wednesday to reach 42 weeks and then possible other interventions. I was concerned about the baby's position, if there were some reason why baby isn't dropping down further and putting pressure on my cervix or if there's just too much fluid. The midwives both agreed that the fluid level appears to be fine by their palpations (which is a guess) and that baby seems to be positioned fine. They did give me a referral to get a biophysical profile done in case I wanted one. I may go in on Monday if I haven't had the baby by then.
Other excitement is that we don't know if we have health insurance right now. I thought that since dh was home the Army couldn't screw with us anymore, but apparently I was wrong. While he was gone we were on TriCare Standard - the kids and I. I was told by TriCare reps that when dh returned we'd get put on TAMP coverage for 180 days, which gives us time to find our own insurance or enroll in TriCare Reserve Select (which is our plan). I got logged into TriCare online today and it says we are not covered. ??? So now it's Saturday, I could have this baby any time now, TriCare is closed until Monday, and I don't know if I have insurance. Nice, huh? I have been talking with a guy at the Family Assistance Center (who is a gem, I must add), and he's trying to get ahold of his local contact to see if we are indeed covered in TAMP and if not we have to quickly enroll in Reserve Select before I have this baby so we can get the birth paid for. I don't know how the coverage is different for Reserve Select vs TAMP/Standard either, hopefully it's similar so our homebirth will be paid for.
Oh the joys...
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
"Term" Pregnancy Public Service Announcement
I realize I should really be posting pictures from Squirrely Girl's birthday, but I feel the need to share just one more opinion first. (Plus I'm having a hard time getting pics to upload that I took with my mom's camera.)
Being that my edd by lmp (how good are you with acronyms?) was last Saturday I'm getting a lot of, "How long are they going to let you go over?" "When will they induce?" questions. Let's explore exactly where a woman's "due date" comes from.
Georgeling the third, just this afternoon
An average menstrual cycle lasts 28 days. On day 1 your period starts, you ovulate day 14, and then enter the luteal phase through day 28 and start your next cycle on the 29th day, or day 1. Pregnancy is then assumed to be 40 weeks, starting from day 1 of your last menstrual cycle, so when a woman discovers she is pregnant she is already 4 or 5 weeks along. So assuming someone has a 28 day cycle and ovulates on day 14, she *should* have her baby around the estimated due date the doctor gives her.
Let's just start off by putting more of myself out there than is necessary and tell you that I do not ovulate on day 14. In fact, many women do not. I ovulate later and actually have a short luteal phase. When I was pregnant with the Squirrel I had been charting my cycles and my midwife actually changed my edd by a full week because she saw when I ovulated. If you take that into account, she was only 3 days "late". Similarly, the Monkey was "due" on the 7th but born on the 16th. If you add a week to his ESTIMATED due date that makes him only 2 days "late". You can see where I'm going.
My edd with this Georgeling was 1/16, adding a week makes it 1/23 give or take a few days. I'm not even in the realm of "oh this baby is way late" yet. In fact, the whole time I've figured the baby would be born on 1/24 because both of my babies were Sunday morning babies.
Back to "term" pregnancy. I'm not sure who decided that 40 weeks is the magic number and no baby should stay inside longer than that, but it is definitely the going theory out there. I can't help but wonder why. The human race has been in existence with a growing population for 6,000 years, yet birth has only become "medical" in the last 100. So what happened to women in the 5,900 years before that? Yes, I know there was higher maternal and infant mortality than there is now, but a lot of that has to do with hemorrhaging and sanitation, far more than a baby being "post dates".
I was talking yesterday with my midwife about it and we figure it's a combinaton of CYA and convenience. People are afraid of birth, they just are. In other cultures women give birth calmly and peacefully surrounded by people who love and care for them. Mom is expected only to nurse for weeks. In our culture we are alone in a hospital room, screaming, surrounded by people we've never met and a couple days later expected to cook, clean, and care for our older children. I'm not trying to idealize another culture because I know they all have their flaws, but I really hate the stigma around birth in our society. It's scary, it's painful, and someone please deliver me from this mess my husband got me into!
The one consistent thing about birth is that it's not predictable. There are certain "norms", but true "normal" is a very wide range. Hospitals like to put everyone into the same box, but we need to realize that everyone just doesn't fit. I understand crowd control, and it's difficult for the hospital staff to be sensitive to the different needs of each birthing mother since they can vary so widely. It is for that purpose that they set up "norms" and "standards" that they expect everyone to abide by. Unfortunately, as a birthing mother you often get little to no choice as to how things go, your body and your baby decide. It's up to you and your caregiver to read what your body is saying and work with it instead of change it. And that's where the CYA comes in. Who is going to sue an ob for doing a caesarean section? For saving their baby from an unsafe situation? No one, even if the situation was safe and the c/s unnecessary. But if an ob hesitates and the baby or mother are harmed because of it, a lawsuit is almost certain.
Convenience also plays a part. If they time things right a planned induction can be over by dinnertime. No one has to stay up late, get woken up in the middle of the night, miss their anniversary, or change their schedule. Of course this is *if* everything goes right, and it often doesn't. I have to friends who gave birth this fall, both were inductions. One as a result of some possible kidney trouble, the other because she was less than a week past her edd and she had partial placental abruption (the placenta started to detach before the baby was born). In each case there was a medical diagnosis to justify artificial induction. Both moms ended up with c/s. They both dilated fully, pushed for a couple of hours, and it was then determined that the baby was "stuck". My theory on this getting stuck stuff is that their water was broken and that gave the baby a more difficult journey. They were not surrounded by the protective bag of waters which would allow easier movement into an ideal position in the pelvis.
Neither of these stories are "horror" stories about the chain of events that can happen once an induction started. Remember that story about the woman at Christmas in CO who ended up in cardiac arrest? They "saved" her and her baby. Yes, they did, but the media left out the fact that they also CAUSED the event. Speculation is that the epidural either caused a "high block" and went up as well as down, or they got a bad batch of drugs (I have a friend who delivered emergency c/s at the same hospital a few days later and almost died with cardiac trouble). The woman at Christmas didn't *need* to be induced right away. Her water had broken, but they gave her no time to start contracting on her own and started an induction immediately. How different would their lives be if the doctors gave her a few hours to let labor begin on it's own?
The point of all this is perhaps just to raise some awareness, (vent) and discourage moms from thinking that the date the doctor gives her is THE date her baby should be here by. There are all sorts of factors that can change it - her normal cycle length and pattern, if she had stress pre-ovulation, and just the length of time it takes her body to "cook". We get so set on due dates and doctors start to get pushy once you pass 40 or 41 weeks. "Term" is as early as 37 weeks, which we all remember, but it also goes as far as 42 weeks. So until you start approaching 42 weeks please, just give your body and your baby a little extra time. It's worth it in the long run to avoid long-term complications or even the emotional trauma of a forced birth.
Being that my edd by lmp (how good are you with acronyms?) was last Saturday I'm getting a lot of, "How long are they going to let you go over?" "When will they induce?" questions. Let's explore exactly where a woman's "due date" comes from.
Georgeling the third, just this afternoon
An average menstrual cycle lasts 28 days. On day 1 your period starts, you ovulate day 14, and then enter the luteal phase through day 28 and start your next cycle on the 29th day, or day 1. Pregnancy is then assumed to be 40 weeks, starting from day 1 of your last menstrual cycle, so when a woman discovers she is pregnant she is already 4 or 5 weeks along. So assuming someone has a 28 day cycle and ovulates on day 14, she *should* have her baby around the estimated due date the doctor gives her.
Let's just start off by putting more of myself out there than is necessary and tell you that I do not ovulate on day 14. In fact, many women do not. I ovulate later and actually have a short luteal phase. When I was pregnant with the Squirrel I had been charting my cycles and my midwife actually changed my edd by a full week because she saw when I ovulated. If you take that into account, she was only 3 days "late". Similarly, the Monkey was "due" on the 7th but born on the 16th. If you add a week to his ESTIMATED due date that makes him only 2 days "late". You can see where I'm going.
My edd with this Georgeling was 1/16, adding a week makes it 1/23 give or take a few days. I'm not even in the realm of "oh this baby is way late" yet. In fact, the whole time I've figured the baby would be born on 1/24 because both of my babies were Sunday morning babies.
Back to "term" pregnancy. I'm not sure who decided that 40 weeks is the magic number and no baby should stay inside longer than that, but it is definitely the going theory out there. I can't help but wonder why. The human race has been in existence with a growing population for 6,000 years, yet birth has only become "medical" in the last 100. So what happened to women in the 5,900 years before that? Yes, I know there was higher maternal and infant mortality than there is now, but a lot of that has to do with hemorrhaging and sanitation, far more than a baby being "post dates".
I was talking yesterday with my midwife about it and we figure it's a combinaton of CYA and convenience. People are afraid of birth, they just are. In other cultures women give birth calmly and peacefully surrounded by people who love and care for them. Mom is expected only to nurse for weeks. In our culture we are alone in a hospital room, screaming, surrounded by people we've never met and a couple days later expected to cook, clean, and care for our older children. I'm not trying to idealize another culture because I know they all have their flaws, but I really hate the stigma around birth in our society. It's scary, it's painful, and someone please deliver me from this mess my husband got me into!
The one consistent thing about birth is that it's not predictable. There are certain "norms", but true "normal" is a very wide range. Hospitals like to put everyone into the same box, but we need to realize that everyone just doesn't fit. I understand crowd control, and it's difficult for the hospital staff to be sensitive to the different needs of each birthing mother since they can vary so widely. It is for that purpose that they set up "norms" and "standards" that they expect everyone to abide by. Unfortunately, as a birthing mother you often get little to no choice as to how things go, your body and your baby decide. It's up to you and your caregiver to read what your body is saying and work with it instead of change it. And that's where the CYA comes in. Who is going to sue an ob for doing a caesarean section? For saving their baby from an unsafe situation? No one, even if the situation was safe and the c/s unnecessary. But if an ob hesitates and the baby or mother are harmed because of it, a lawsuit is almost certain.
Convenience also plays a part. If they time things right a planned induction can be over by dinnertime. No one has to stay up late, get woken up in the middle of the night, miss their anniversary, or change their schedule. Of course this is *if* everything goes right, and it often doesn't. I have to friends who gave birth this fall, both were inductions. One as a result of some possible kidney trouble, the other because she was less than a week past her edd and she had partial placental abruption (the placenta started to detach before the baby was born). In each case there was a medical diagnosis to justify artificial induction. Both moms ended up with c/s. They both dilated fully, pushed for a couple of hours, and it was then determined that the baby was "stuck". My theory on this getting stuck stuff is that their water was broken and that gave the baby a more difficult journey. They were not surrounded by the protective bag of waters which would allow easier movement into an ideal position in the pelvis.
Neither of these stories are "horror" stories about the chain of events that can happen once an induction started. Remember that story about the woman at Christmas in CO who ended up in cardiac arrest? They "saved" her and her baby. Yes, they did, but the media left out the fact that they also CAUSED the event. Speculation is that the epidural either caused a "high block" and went up as well as down, or they got a bad batch of drugs (I have a friend who delivered emergency c/s at the same hospital a few days later and almost died with cardiac trouble). The woman at Christmas didn't *need* to be induced right away. Her water had broken, but they gave her no time to start contracting on her own and started an induction immediately. How different would their lives be if the doctors gave her a few hours to let labor begin on it's own?
The point of all this is perhaps just to raise some awareness, (vent) and discourage moms from thinking that the date the doctor gives her is THE date her baby should be here by. There are all sorts of factors that can change it - her normal cycle length and pattern, if she had stress pre-ovulation, and just the length of time it takes her body to "cook". We get so set on due dates and doctors start to get pushy once you pass 40 or 41 weeks. "Term" is as early as 37 weeks, which we all remember, but it also goes as far as 42 weeks. So until you start approaching 42 weeks please, just give your body and your baby a little extra time. It's worth it in the long run to avoid long-term complications or even the emotional trauma of a forced birth.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Crying Babies
I prefaced this blog with the fact that I'm an opinionated parent. Here you get to see the first of it. :)
I gave someone a link to this article on letting your baby cry. I was then told that letting them cry is going to teach them to feel "independent and safe in their cribs". (Nevermind the fact that my kids have never spent the night in a crib.) I just don't understand this logic. Infants do not develop object permanence until they are nearly a year old, so if my newborn cannot see me she doesn't know I still exist. Let's say I lay her down and walk away. She starts feeling kind of lonely, after all she has been with me for the last 9 months, all of her life, and she starts to cry. I leave her there to cry because she just ate and has a clean diaper and clearly doesn't "need" me. Does this teach her that the world is a safe place? Does it reinforce that I am here for her and my heart's desire is to meet her needs? Is she going to feel safe and independent or vulnerable and insecure?
By responding to my child's cries I believe it reinforces that I am here for them, and they can begin to build upon the knowledge that I will meet their needs. Not all needs are physical, many for small children are not - many are psychological. They need to *feel* safe, close, and loved and my words won't do anything to convey that, but my actions will. Studies have shown that babies who are held while they cry have lower cortisol levels than babies who are alone. Remember those commercials about why we're all fat - because our cortisol levels are too high? And if you take this pill it will lower your cortisol and make you able to lose weight. How much do we expect our infants to respond to increased cortisol levels? Can it really be a good thing?
Am I saying this friend is a bad parent and abusive to their child? By all means, no. She is doing what she thinks is best for her family, like we all do. I just believe wholeheartedly that she is wrong.
I gave someone a link to this article on letting your baby cry. I was then told that letting them cry is going to teach them to feel "independent and safe in their cribs". (Nevermind the fact that my kids have never spent the night in a crib.) I just don't understand this logic. Infants do not develop object permanence until they are nearly a year old, so if my newborn cannot see me she doesn't know I still exist. Let's say I lay her down and walk away. She starts feeling kind of lonely, after all she has been with me for the last 9 months, all of her life, and she starts to cry. I leave her there to cry because she just ate and has a clean diaper and clearly doesn't "need" me. Does this teach her that the world is a safe place? Does it reinforce that I am here for her and my heart's desire is to meet her needs? Is she going to feel safe and independent or vulnerable and insecure?
By responding to my child's cries I believe it reinforces that I am here for them, and they can begin to build upon the knowledge that I will meet their needs. Not all needs are physical, many for small children are not - many are psychological. They need to *feel* safe, close, and loved and my words won't do anything to convey that, but my actions will. Studies have shown that babies who are held while they cry have lower cortisol levels than babies who are alone. Remember those commercials about why we're all fat - because our cortisol levels are too high? And if you take this pill it will lower your cortisol and make you able to lose weight. How much do we expect our infants to respond to increased cortisol levels? Can it really be a good thing?
Am I saying this friend is a bad parent and abusive to their child? By all means, no. She is doing what she thinks is best for her family, like we all do. I just believe wholeheartedly that she is wrong.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
It's About Us
So I've been inspired to start a personal blog. I have one for my business but have hesitated on starting anything personal for several reasons.
1. I'm slightly concerned about stalkers. I am hesitant to put too much of myself out there for fear that something might happen to my family.
2. I'm opinionated on some sensitive issues and don't want to damage my business because of my personal thoughts.
Yeah, I guess that's mostly it. I had one over at Xanga for awhile but just have neglected it because, well, I'm over here on Blogger and it's easier to just stay here. So now I have started a personal blog on Blogger so I can access them both from the same place. I am not, however, having my personal blog show up on my profile for reason #2 above... but... here I am!
1. I'm slightly concerned about stalkers. I am hesitant to put too much of myself out there for fear that something might happen to my family.
2. I'm opinionated on some sensitive issues and don't want to damage my business because of my personal thoughts.
Yeah, I guess that's mostly it. I had one over at Xanga for awhile but just have neglected it because, well, I'm over here on Blogger and it's easier to just stay here. So now I have started a personal blog on Blogger so I can access them both from the same place. I am not, however, having my personal blog show up on my profile for reason #2 above... but... here I am!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)