to be completely shocked and disgusted at the leaflet I've just been given by my mw???

[mummylovesnancy]

This leaflet, titled 'Raised BMI in Pregnancy' was passed on to me by my midwife at my booking in appointment yesterday. Along with the words 'You can't have a home birth, you probably won't deliver naturally and you'll be given consultant led care.'
I'm 28, I have 2 PERFECTLY healthy children who both have perfect height to weight ratios, eat well, are active and are generally normal children. I weigh 13st and I'm 5'2 which puts me in the 'obese' catagory according to the good ol' BMI index of wonder. I have been roughly this weight and exactly this height for all of my adult life. I am overweight, I accept that, but what I don't accept is being told to read this sodding leaflet which tells me, among various other little pearlers, that:
*I will have raised blood pressure. (Not 'I may', 'I WILL')
*I will be prone to urinary tract infections. (never had one in my life!)
*'Bigger Ladies' (exact wordage) get more blood clots. (Dumb Fuck)
*Examinations will be difficult. (Why? Because you have to part all my layers of fat to get to my vag?! How fucking degrading)
*I will have restricted mobilisation. (Will I? Because I don't now, will it automatically come with being fat and preggers?)
*Putting in a drip will be difficult. (yeah because my hands are so freaking chubby.)
*Breastfeeding will be challenging (I've managed it with two babies, now because you've changed your guidelines I think I might struggle.)
And my favourite one yet:
*The risk of stillbirth or your baby dying in the first 28 days is increased in 'larger ladies' (Thanks for that one, nhs, I just had a misscarriage 8 weeks ago. Was it because I'm fat?)

It also mentions on about 7 occasions that I may want an epidural. Is that to keep me quiet?! It also offers to refer me to a dietician and a counsellor.

I have been overweight (or a larger or bigger lady, as the nhs prefers) and given birth naturally twice with absolutely no complications and one of them was a home birth. I can't believe I have to read all this shit. The idiot who wrote this doesn't even know how to place an apostrophe or comma ffs!

Does anyone agree with me that this is a disgusting, degrading, scare mongering piece of shit or am I being an unreasonable pregnant wreck??

I think it's a misuse of data too. Basic principle of data protection law is that you use the data only for the purpose it was afforded to you for. That's not happened here. If Chicletteeth had talked in general terms about her research that would be fine - but she has used specific data and that's not fine. It's ethically and legally dubious.

"thunderboltsandlightning Fri 04-Nov-11 14:59:03
dieting and pregnancy - not a good idea" (link to article)

"Add message | Report | Message poster chicletteeth Fri 04-Nov-11 15:02:34
Thunder if you are obese, this does not necessarily apply.

If you are very very big, depending on other factors (after an appropriate clinical assesment), it may be acceptable to not gain any weight at all and in some cases, desirable."

And your research is into helping women either maintain (not gain) weight in pregnancy or actually lose it? Thats' correct isn't it?

I'll bet its all down to insurance - your midwife will have, no doubt, ticked a box after seeing you to say that you had been given a leaflet. That way, liabilities covered! The world's gone mad, IMO...There is also the other issue of staff time and a home birth is more labour intensive, no punn intended!

There are far greater risks to a baby than its mother being overweight...and anyway, the term "obese" refers to anyone over a size 12 these days.

OK in an ideal world we wouldn't take any risks but then again there still aren't any guarantees. I wouldn't worry about it...because there is no point now and other MNs are right in saying what are you going to do? Go on a crash diet NOW?!...if you want a home birth and have weighed up the pros and cons...then go for it. Its your decision, afterall.

What has being argumentative got to do with anything?

I said you took issue with what I said chic. This is a discussion thread in AIBU. Pretty much everybody is argumentative here.

At least I didn't insist someone was fat, to point score in an argument though. :)

It is neither ethically nor legally dubious.

I'm sure this will go on and on, but I'm going to bow out and get some sleep

thunder our primary outcome is not weight loss, the intervention is not with a view to losing weight. That said, small weight loss which occurs as a result has thus far given us an indication that it is beneficial in many cases and so we are investigating it further.

Thunder I'm not trying to score points. What would be the point!

Not ethically or legally dubious to post not as yourself about the details of collected data on a specific individual that has not been published and to do so for your own entertainment? You are confusing what you might get away with, with what is actually right.. Also, it surprises me that data presented at a conference disseminating research was a "dime a dozen". I thought the whole point of case presentations was to prove the worth of research e.g. that it added something new or different and was quite specific. Silly me. Sleep easy.

That starting metabolic profile in obese pregnant women is a dime a dozen, not the study as a whole. Results collected from the study are novel.

And that's weight loss whilst the woman is still pregnant right? She is getting lighter whilst her pregnancy develops.

Why doesn't your ethics committee insist on the outcomes for the baby being included in this research? Maternal nutrition has a direct effect on the foetus.

As a matter of interest what form does the intervention take?

Also asking why consultants might not always have their patients best interests at heart - because some consultants are more interested in their career and their publication record, rather than patient care.

My brother was born on a ward where pregnant women were being injected with radioactive iodine, some of whom have gone on to develop thyroid cancer. Some consultants have no interest in the well being of their patients whatsoever. Luckily ethics committees are stronger these days to keep them under control.

As I said thunder keep checking the literature, you will have some more information in the near future.

We aren't the first start investigate this and really, I'm not going to tell you what the intervention is because at that point, I will have breached code of ethics.

I can assure you thunder I do have my patients best interest at heart.

They used to do all sort of horrible stuff, so yes, thank god for robust ethics committees.

Really am going to bed.

Night night

Whose code of ethics would you have breached? The ethics code is there to protect your experimental subjects, not the content of your research.

If you presented this as a paper at a medical conference, then the details of your intervention must already be out there.

I've just read and joined the thread in time to see the most breathtaking post I've seen in weeks. Months.

BadScience rocknrolls.

thunderbolts please accept my award for being stalwart and strong in the face of nutsness.

Did I honestly see someone say "she started it" ?

Anyway some of the "fat-haterz" on this thread aren't. They are merely trying to point out to some people who refuse to admit there is an issue here. I could understand if it was the difference between normal range and overweight, but its not. Its a much bigger difference we are talking about. I do not see how anyone who is the same height as me and 13stone could ever be right no matter what build they are. As for the muscle argument. My DH is 6'2" cycles 28 miles daily and carries a lot of muscle is 12 stone 10. Its not healthy.

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, we haven't got a copy of the leaflet so we don't know about what it actually says or just how sensitive is is. But I will point out that OP stated that it mentioned about being referred to a counsellor as well as a dietician. Entirely appropriate.

And I'm still trying to work out how the OP would like to be referred to, instead of 'bigger lady' or 'larger lady'. I think thats fairly neutral yet descriptive for the purposes of the leaflet which is necessarily. Anyone got any alternatives we could use instead that won't cause offense. I would love to hear some suggestions.

There are some highly entertaining and delusional corkers on this thread. And if I was a crueller minded person, maybe they would make me smile, but they don't, as it actually break my heart that the posters believe them. I think the phrase goes, that you can't help someone that won't admit they have a problem in the first place.

It seems the only logic going on here is that all people who are not obese are the enemy and "fat-haterz". Its really not true. I'm really not sure what you are actually supposed to say to a 'larger lady' if you are trying to help and how you can do it without offending. It seems nothing is acceptable. And I'm not referring the the wording of the OP...

Ywon't allude to the intervention because the intervention identifies you. The patient data doesn't so you can chuck as much of that about as you like without risk. Right?

I didn't get this leaflet but did have to have most of my appointments at a special clinic at the hospital. On the plus side I got extra scans on the negative side had to put up with a size ten consultant looking completely horrified when she found out I had a waterbirth with my previous pregnancy and asking if I was the same size then as they wouldn't let me now. Told me I would get high blood pressure- I actually have very low bloody pressure which gets even lower when pregnant? I would get gestational diabetes, would have reduced mobility. I would probably have to have a c section, it would be best to have an epidural immediately I went into labour in case I wanted one eventually, would have to be continuously monitored etc etc.

I ended up being 'allowed' a waterbirth eventually after I argued that I'd had no complications whatsoever during the pregnancy and therefor did not feel continuous monitoring with the belts was necessary, however as they insisted on monitoring baby with a Doppler in between each contraction (less than a minute apart so no time really to do this) I ended up getting out of the water. Still gave birth to s back to back almost 10lb baby completely naturally with only gas and air and only midwives present no doctors. However they did insist i inject myself for 10 days after to reduce the risk of blood clots.

Completely supportive and lovely modwives at the clinic and if it wasn't for them and advice from family I don't think I would have had the confidence to argue my case. Good luck.

and anyway, the term "obese" refers to anyone over a size 12 these days.

I think this is the problem. This is simply not true at all and is dragged out when people are in denial. 13stone cannot be a healthy weight for someone who is only 5ft 2 ins. It is better to do something about it than pretend that a size 14 or 16 is obese and therefore the whole thing can be dismissed as rubbish.

I think that's a problem though, exoticfruits. I'm a 12 these days but was a 14 for many years (I'm 5'11). And was told, with a straight face, by a sales assistant in Benetton that I was "outsize". It was a completely random experience, as every other UK shop I'd ever encountered went up to an 18.

But when I went to the states a few years ago - I was in Abercrombie and Fitch (before they came to the UK and we all had a better idea what we were dealing with) and told them I was a UK 12 which I thought was a US 8, and the assistant said "oh right, that will be an extra large". Oh no, my friend. Extra large is the woman I've just seen in the food hall with the two canes stirring six sachets of sugar into her bucket of Fanta. And all US stores seemed to me to be like that. There were stores for US sizes 0-10 people, and stores for larger people.

It creates a "two tribes" mentality. Where people bigger than a UK 14/16 think, well, fuck it then. And I really don't think that helps.

I am now a 12 but it would have been a 14 at one time, sizing has changed because I fit size 10 trousers which I never go into when young, despite being slimmer. I find that places like M&S are swamped with large sizes, I find it quite difficult to get a 12.I would just ignore size 12 being large-I find I need a small or medium.

You guys say " in denial" , like it's some lovely place full of cake and fun. Yes alot of overweight people are in denial, but it's generally not a voluntary fun place to be. It's generally a pretty scarey place full of self loathing . It's a mental illness for many, and no amount of " just do something about it"'will help.

Dress size isn't a medical term though. BMI, body fat % and waist/hip/height ratios are.
Regarding clothes sizes, when I was growing up [in the 70's] anything over a 14 was outsize. If you wanted to buy reasonably fashionable clothes in a 'standard shop' you had to be 10, 12 or 14. A few shops sold size 8 . Most people fitted these sizes.