Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Dont wake the mom and epidurals
The First Hour Following Birth: Don’t Wake the Mother! - by Michel Odent
God is so good to provide for a baby and mother's needs this way!
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/firsthour.asp
A new study of homebirths vs hospital births
400+ Certified Proffesional (non-nurse)midwives, 5000+ moms
"Results; 655 (12.1%) women who intended to deliver at home when labour began were transferred to hospital. Medical intervention rates included epidural (4.7%), episiotomy (2.1%), forceps (1.0%), vacuum extraction (0.6%), and caesarean section (3.7%)[c-section rates in the general population at this time were nearly 30%]; these rates were substantially lower than for low risk US women having hospital births. The intrapartum and neonatal mortality among women considered at low risk at start of labour, excluding deaths concerning life threatening congenital anomalies, was 1.7 deaths per 1000 planned home births, similar to risks in other studies of low risk home and hospital births in North America. No mothers died. No discrepancies were found for perinatal outcomes independently validated.
"Conclusions; Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States. ...
"Individual rates of medical intervention for home births were consistently less than half those in hospital, whether compared with a relatively low risk group (singleton, vertex, 37 weeks or more gestation) that will have a small percentage of higher risk births or the general population having hospital births (table 3). Compared with the relatively low risk hospital group, intended home births were associated with lower rates of electronic fetal monitoring (9.6% versus 84.3%), episiotomy (2.1% versus 33.0%), caesarean section (3.7% versus 19.0%), and vacuum extraction (0.6% versus 5.5%). The caesarean rate for intended home births was 8.3% among primiparous women and 1.6% among multiparous women. ...
No maternal deaths occurred. After we excluded four stillborns who died before labour but whose mothers still chose home birth, and three babies with fatal birth defects, five deaths were intrapartum and six occurred during the neonatal period (see box). This was a rate of
2.0 deaths per 1000 intended home births.[the US average is around 7 deaths per 1000 births] The intrapartum and neonatal mortality was 1.7 deaths per 1000 low risk intended home births after planned breeches and twins (not considered low risk) were excluded. The results for intrapartum and neonatal mortality are consistent with most North American studies of intended births out of hospital11-24 and low risk hospital births (table 4).14 21 22 24-30 ...
"When the author compared 3385 planned home births with 806 402 low risk hospital births, he consistently found a non-significantly lower perinatal mortality in the home birth group. The results were consistent regardless of liberal or more restrictive criteria to define low risk, and whether or not the analysis involved simple standardisation of rates or extensive adjustment for all potential risk variables collected.22"
Read the whole report of the study here http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7505/1416<
The Dangers of Epiddurals
Avoid epis (for birth) if at all possible. The best way to avoid epis is to avoid induction. Induced labor hurts more necessitating more pain relief. Avoiding epis also lowers your risk of c-section.http://www.sarahjbuckley.com/articles/epidural-risks.htm
God is so good to provide for a baby and mother's needs this way!
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/firsthour.asp
A new study of homebirths vs hospital births
400+ Certified Proffesional (non-nurse)midwives, 5000+ moms
"Results; 655 (12.1%) women who intended to deliver at home when labour began were transferred to hospital. Medical intervention rates included epidural (4.7%), episiotomy (2.1%), forceps (1.0%), vacuum extraction (0.6%), and caesarean section (3.7%)[c-section rates in the general population at this time were nearly 30%]; these rates were substantially lower than for low risk US women having hospital births. The intrapartum and neonatal mortality among women considered at low risk at start of labour, excluding deaths concerning life threatening congenital anomalies, was 1.7 deaths per 1000 planned home births, similar to risks in other studies of low risk home and hospital births in North America. No mothers died. No discrepancies were found for perinatal outcomes independently validated.
"Conclusions; Planned home birth for low risk women in North America using certified professional midwives was associated with lower rates of medical intervention but similar intrapartum and neonatal mortality to that of low risk hospital births in the United States. ...
"Individual rates of medical intervention for home births were consistently less than half those in hospital, whether compared with a relatively low risk group (singleton, vertex, 37 weeks or more gestation) that will have a small percentage of higher risk births or the general population having hospital births (table 3). Compared with the relatively low risk hospital group, intended home births were associated with lower rates of electronic fetal monitoring (9.6% versus 84.3%), episiotomy (2.1% versus 33.0%), caesarean section (3.7% versus 19.0%), and vacuum extraction (0.6% versus 5.5%). The caesarean rate for intended home births was 8.3% among primiparous women and 1.6% among multiparous women. ...
No maternal deaths occurred. After we excluded four stillborns who died before labour but whose mothers still chose home birth, and three babies with fatal birth defects, five deaths were intrapartum and six occurred during the neonatal period (see box). This was a rate of
2.0 deaths per 1000 intended home births.[the US average is around 7 deaths per 1000 births] The intrapartum and neonatal mortality was 1.7 deaths per 1000 low risk intended home births after planned breeches and twins (not considered low risk) were excluded. The results for intrapartum and neonatal mortality are consistent with most North American studies of intended births out of hospital11-24 and low risk hospital births (table 4).14 21 22 24-30 ...
"When the author compared 3385 planned home births with 806 402 low risk hospital births, he consistently found a non-significantly lower perinatal mortality in the home birth group. The results were consistent regardless of liberal or more restrictive criteria to define low risk, and whether or not the analysis involved simple standardisation of rates or extensive adjustment for all potential risk variables collected.22"
Read the whole report of the study here http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7505/1416<
The Dangers of Epiddurals
Avoid epis (for birth) if at all possible. The best way to avoid epis is to avoid induction. Induced labor hurts more necessitating more pain relief. Avoiding epis also lowers your risk of c-section.http://www.sarahjbuckley.com/articles/epidural-risks.htm
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The Pill: Making Motherhood “Better”?
No, I don't think so.
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/?p=1071
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/?p=1071
Friday, November 30, 2012
How Breastfeeding Benefits Mothers' Health: Scientific American
At these rates, I should live forever,LOL.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=breastfeeding-benefits-mothers&page=3">How Breastfeeding Benefits Mothers' Health: Scientific American</a>
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Study Confirms Link Between Autism and Use of Cells From Abortions in Vaccines
Guess I might be wrong. It's not the mercury causing the autism (though I still think it unwise to give a baby the RDA "safe" amount of mercury for a 400 pound man!)
I think I would prefer the mercury.
Study Confirms Link Between Autism and Use of Cells From Abortions in Vaccines
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Women's Care
Yep, Bo really cares about women.
Unless they are over 70. Then their doctors may not be allowed to treat them in an emergency room (already being enacted).
Or they are women who think it's more important for their family to have food than health insurance.
Or they are women who believe it is a sin to preform an abortion or hand out birth control.
Or, of course, if she is a woman who is not born yet. Than she doesn't even have the most basic right to life.
You know, actually, it looks like BO only really cares about women who want to kill their babies. Hmmm.
What socialized medicine actually is is telling one woman she has to pay for another woman's doctor and medicine.
I have a novel Idea: let's each ay for our own medical expenses.
Unless they are over 70. Then their doctors may not be allowed to treat them in an emergency room (already being enacted).
Or they are women who think it's more important for their family to have food than health insurance.
Or they are women who believe it is a sin to preform an abortion or hand out birth control.
Or, of course, if she is a woman who is not born yet. Than she doesn't even have the most basic right to life.
You know, actually, it looks like BO only really cares about women who want to kill their babies. Hmmm.
What socialized medicine actually is is telling one woman she has to pay for another woman's doctor and medicine.
I have a novel Idea: let's each ay for our own medical expenses.
Friday, October 5, 2012
insulin resistance
I thought it was time to write up a post about what I did different in my last pregnancy. Just to recap:
Baby 1 weighed 8.5.
Baby 2-9.1
Baby 3 was miscarried at 10 weeks
Baby 4- 8.12
Baby 5- 8.8
Baby 6-9.2
Baby 7- 9.8
Baby 8- 10
Baby 9- 10.8
Baby 10 miscarried at 11 weeks
Baby 11 miscarried at 10 weeks
Baby 12 miscarried at 6 weeks
At this point I have too big concerns;
Stop the miscarriages
Grow smaller babies
When I realized I was pregnant for the 13th time, I began using progesterone cream every day. I did that for three and a half months and weaned off of it.
Miscarriages apparently solved.
Those big babies though are a sign of gestational diabetes. I had perfectly normal numbers until baby 9. Then I tested borderline gd and had a couple of fainting spells. GD carries several potintial complications for both mom and baby. When I first realized I was pregnant, I started my mom's "hypoglicimia diet." I tweaked it a bit with help from my midwife. The results?
Baby 13- 8 pounds even
(and me 20 pounds lighter by my 6 week than before I got pregnant.)
Here's what I did:
I ate some sort of protein food every two hours (this would be meat, nuts, milk, cheese, yogurt, eggs or in a pinch, a protein bar, though I had to watch those. They have sugar and taste too good, so I am always tempted to eat too many of them. Half a bar is suficient)
When I ate a meal, I made sure I had no more carbs than protein. I did not count most veggies as a carb, but I did count fruit and all grains (including corn) and breads.
No sugar. (Well, ok, if the hubby and the dc were having cookies for desert I would have ONE. Or if there was one of my favorite deserts at our church potluck, I would have about three small bites. Otherwise though, no sugar)
I did NOT limit my calories. If I was hungry, I ate. i just made sure it was mostly protein.
I drank lots of water.
We monitored my blood sugar with A1C tests every three months instead of one glucose tolerance test at 20 weeks. The GT test tells you how your body is responding today to sugar (and always makes me sick for the rest of the day). The A1C measures the amount of glucose attached to your hemoglobin. This tells you how much sugar has dumped into your blood over the last three months. No fasting or sugarry dirnks necessary!
An A1C score of 8.0 is considered diabetic, 6.0 is pre-diabetic, 4.8 is "normal." With baby 9 I was 6.1.
My scores with baby 13, while eating the above diet, were:
5.9
5.5
5.1
And baby was 2lb 8oz lighter than his older sister. Because of the complications we had in his delivery, had he been a bigger baby, he would likely have died. (You can read about Josh's birth here, but I don't recommend it if you are subject to fear)
As it was, today he is a perfectly healthy toddler who just celebrated his first birthday.
I highly recommend this type of diet for anyone concerned about too big babies or Gestational diabetes.
Baby 1 weighed 8.5.
Baby 2-9.1
Baby 3 was miscarried at 10 weeks
Baby 4- 8.12
Baby 5- 8.8
Baby 6-9.2
Baby 7- 9.8
Baby 8- 10
Baby 9- 10.8
Baby 10 miscarried at 11 weeks
Baby 11 miscarried at 10 weeks
Baby 12 miscarried at 6 weeks
At this point I have too big concerns;
Stop the miscarriages
Grow smaller babies
When I realized I was pregnant for the 13th time, I began using progesterone cream every day. I did that for three and a half months and weaned off of it.
Miscarriages apparently solved.
Those big babies though are a sign of gestational diabetes. I had perfectly normal numbers until baby 9. Then I tested borderline gd and had a couple of fainting spells. GD carries several potintial complications for both mom and baby. When I first realized I was pregnant, I started my mom's "hypoglicimia diet." I tweaked it a bit with help from my midwife. The results?
Baby 13- 8 pounds even
(and me 20 pounds lighter by my 6 week than before I got pregnant.)
Here's what I did:
I ate some sort of protein food every two hours (this would be meat, nuts, milk, cheese, yogurt, eggs or in a pinch, a protein bar, though I had to watch those. They have sugar and taste too good, so I am always tempted to eat too many of them. Half a bar is suficient)
When I ate a meal, I made sure I had no more carbs than protein. I did not count most veggies as a carb, but I did count fruit and all grains (including corn) and breads.
No sugar. (Well, ok, if the hubby and the dc were having cookies for desert I would have ONE. Or if there was one of my favorite deserts at our church potluck, I would have about three small bites. Otherwise though, no sugar)
I did NOT limit my calories. If I was hungry, I ate. i just made sure it was mostly protein.
I drank lots of water.
We monitored my blood sugar with A1C tests every three months instead of one glucose tolerance test at 20 weeks. The GT test tells you how your body is responding today to sugar (and always makes me sick for the rest of the day). The A1C measures the amount of glucose attached to your hemoglobin. This tells you how much sugar has dumped into your blood over the last three months. No fasting or sugarry dirnks necessary!
An A1C score of 8.0 is considered diabetic, 6.0 is pre-diabetic, 4.8 is "normal." With baby 9 I was 6.1.
My scores with baby 13, while eating the above diet, were:
5.9
5.5
5.1
And baby was 2lb 8oz lighter than his older sister. Because of the complications we had in his delivery, had he been a bigger baby, he would likely have died. (You can read about Josh's birth here, but I don't recommend it if you are subject to fear)
As it was, today he is a perfectly healthy toddler who just celebrated his first birthday.
I highly recommend this type of diet for anyone concerned about too big babies or Gestational diabetes.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Thoughts on homebirth
There is a common accusation that homebirthers are more interested in having a good experience than in their baby's safety. This is actually an incredible insult. It is an accusation of such extreme selfishness as to be criminally dangerous.
The truth is that every homebirther I have ever met was way more concerned about safety than the "experience."
The evidence shows that for a low-risk pregnancy home is almost always safer. Period.
It is just coincidence that it is also a much more pleasant experience than a hospital birth.
In other words, what is safer for baby is also nicer (and safer, by the way) for mommy.
(Now, high risk pregnancies may actually need our medicalized hospital births, but that is a small percentage of the population. Yes, some babies who die or are injured at home wouldn't be if they were born at the hospital. But we aren't told of the many children that are injured or killed by the procedures at the hospital who would have been fine if born at home.)
The truth is that every homebirther I have ever met was way more concerned about safety than the "experience."
The evidence shows that for a low-risk pregnancy home is almost always safer. Period.
It is just coincidence that it is also a much more pleasant experience than a hospital birth.
In other words, what is safer for baby is also nicer (and safer, by the way) for mommy.
(Now, high risk pregnancies may actually need our medicalized hospital births, but that is a small percentage of the population. Yes, some babies who die or are injured at home wouldn't be if they were born at the hospital. But we aren't told of the many children that are injured or killed by the procedures at the hospital who would have been fine if born at home.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)