Wanting to tell 44 weeks and breech friend she's risking her baby?

[scottishlass43]

My friend is 44 weeks pregnant with a footling breech. She's determined to have a natural birth at home with another friend of ours who's a midwife. She's been declining all intervention till now and has no cut off point - she wants to let the baby come naturally and doesn't want scans or any monitoring. She refuses to consider a c-section.

She's older (late thirties) and has been waiting for several years for this baby. I have no idea why she'd risk it now.

AIBU wanting to tell her what I think? Am I (and other worried friends) overreacting? Does anyone know of anyone who's done this, and how it went?

I had a growth scan at 30 weeks due to a health problem that I was diagnosed in pregnancy, she measured just under the 10th centile with her AC small. So started to have bi weekly scans for growth scans and Doppler scans.
The next scan she didn't grow much, then it dropped and then was static and decided it was better for her to come.
Some visible signs of placenta deterioration and she grew rapidly after birth.

@Metallicalover

I had a growth scan at 30 weeks due to a health problem that I was diagnosed in pregnancy, she measured just under the 10th centile with her AC small. So started to have bi weekly scans for growth scans and Doppler scans. The next scan she didn't grow much, then it dropped and then was static and decided it was better for her to come. Some visible signs of placenta deterioration and she grew rapidly after birth.

They might have been following the SBP then as her growth slowed in utero, which is a clear sign of something not being quite right.

My daughter was the opposite, always tracked small (dates were wrong too) used to drink 30+ oz of milk a day (breastfed but pumped to see how much she got) and she climbed from 2nd to like 15th centile but it took her 2 years. She tracked around 5th In utero and her placenta was healthy, we’ll refer her to an endocrinologist now due to still being small but it clealry wasn’t a placental issue so she’d have benefited from some more time inside to grow despite being sga, she was clearly constitutionally small

44 weeks?! Jesus she really needs to put her want of the birth she envisages and think of her baby. What if they are born with complications due to her refusing medical help

@LynetteScavo

Genuine question- do babies keep growing until they're born? My mum once told me after a certain point babies stopped growing. (She's always claimed she was pregnant with my DSis for more than 43 weeks before being induced.)

I'm glad it worked out for your friend. I imagine she had a horrible time before she got to the point of having the caesarean. I wish it was a case of our bodies always know what to do.

Healthy babies continue growing in utero until they are born. If babies stop growing, of if their growth declines based on their customised growth chart, it is most of the times due to placental insufficiency (the placenta not working properly). This can have many causes, but the consequences are always the same: less oxygen delivered to the baby, who will result in the baby using several strategies to cope with this. The strategies will eventually deplete their energy reserves and make them much more sensitive to any other stress, especially the stress of labour. And will mean their glucose metabolism is altered, which will affect their ability to keep their sugar levels within normal ranges after birth regardless of how much they feed. Low blood sugars at birth, left unchecked, result in different levels of brain damage which will affect these babies for the rest of their lives.

If a reduction in growth velocity is noticed, these babies need to be closely monitored. Yes, stillbirth rates increase after week 37, but this is an average that includes both the most IUGR babies and the constitutionally small babies, as everything in between. That is why monitoring SGA babies needs to be done on an individual basis, to decide the optimal time at which they can be born safely, which may be 37 weeks or 41 depending on the baby.

(I am the clinical leader in my hospital for the implementation of the IUGR and SGA babies' guidelines)

My first was iugr... Led to growth scans for subsequent pregnancies. I didn't want to be induced at all with second but apparently she was on the 5th centile falling from around 50th at 28 week scan. All scans showed growth scan pattern- normal 30-40th centile head and abdo-

They told me my placenta wasn't looking great at 43+ weeks

Why would you want this person as your friend? Guessing the poor baby will be an antivaxx baby as well. So never safe really.

[quote Glassofshloer]@Theregoesmyhomebirth but if you don’t know if you would be that 1 in 5000 or whatever, what circumstances make taking that risk acceptable?[/quote]
If I informed you that you had a 1:5,000 chance of having xxxx cancer and therefore told you that you had to have a xxxxectomy today, wouldn’t you like the chance to actually decide for yourself what treatment you would like and discuss what other options might be available to you.
A 1:5,000 chance is statistically the same for anyone given it. Their response to it and how they would choose their treatment could greatly differ.
You might choose surgery. Someone else might choose medication. Someone else might choose to wait and see. None of those choices are wrong for the certain individual.

@DropYourSword but as far as I’m aware that’s what the doctors do - they weigh up the risk for us, and the best thing to do is to follow their advice. Of course nobody should be made to follow it, but it’s foolish not to. It’s amazing that the anti vaxxers on here (who have also ‘done their own risk assessment’) are slammed on here for ‘thinking they know more than scientists after half an hour on Google’, yet in maternity care the attitude is the opposite.

DD was born at 41 weeks and the placenta had started to deteriorate, came away from the cord, and I haemorrhaged and had to have an unpleasant procedure to remove it.

By 44 weeks I dread to think what state it would’ve been in. Probably not in a good enough state to support my baby’s nutrition. She’s risking her baby’s life.

Oops sorry, missed your last post. Good that all turned out well, even though she didn’t get the woo birth she wanted.

[quote Glassofshloer]**@DropYourSword* but as far as I’m aware that’s what the doctors do - they weigh up the risk for us, and the best thing to do is to follow their advice. Of course nobody should be made* to follow it, but it’s foolish not to. It’s amazing that the anti vaxxers on here (who have also ‘done their own risk assessment’) are slammed on here for ‘thinking they know more than scientists after half an hour on Google’, yet in maternity care the attitude is the opposite.[/quote]
I’m not sure if you’re deliberately misunderstanding what I’m saying here?
Doctors can’t possibly know what your preference is. The example I gave you discussed the fact that a doctor will present you with your options, and provide you with a statistical risk. You weigh up which is the best option for you.
I can’t believe for a second you would think it would be acceptable for a doctor to demand you had a mastectomy if your chance of breast cancer was 1:5000, for example, and that you would think women should just go along with that without deciding if that was the right option for her.
Because a lot of the time there are no single right answers - it entirely depends on the context and people’s situations.
Not sure why you’re conflating that with anti-vaxxers who’ve spent half an hour on Google thinking they know more than doctors as that not even remotely what I’m saying here.

This makes me feel so sad. I lost my first baby at 27 weeks, had a miscarriage at 13 weeks and then almost lost my daughter who had to be born at 34 weeks to a crowd of paediatricians who put her in NICU for two weeks. She’s fine thankfully. People don’t seem to realise how lucky they are to have a straightforward pregnancy. All that matters when it comes down to it is your baby being born safely.

This friend is being utterly stupid and I hope she doesn’t learn the hard way. My friend’s sister had a stillbirth and it was utterly horrific.

Birth is a means to an end, why it needs to be a certain experience I don’t know.

@DropYourSword I’m not misunderstanding.

An anti vaxxer’s risk of dying from covid is not dissimilar to the risk you state above. Yet the general consensus on here is that you are ridiculous not to have the vaccine. Nobody says ‘oh it depends on your perception of risk’, they just tell them they’re an idiot to take the chance.

However in maternity care, it seems perfectly acceptable for women to turn down medical advice based on the opinion of strangers on Internet forums, and it’s all ‘your body your choice’.

I’m just saying the difference in attitude is stark & illogical.

@Glassofshloer
@DropYourSword I’m not misunderstanding

Yeah, you are

@Theregoesmyhomebirth you explained this really well

There feels like there is an attitude that as long as mum and baby are alive when they leave the hospital that's all that matters

Of course this matters, but it's not all that matters in my opinion

If a woman leaves traumatised because of a cascade intervention then this matters

I had heard that the recent statistics are now saying you are now more likely to be induced or have a c section than give birth "naturally" and this isn't even including all the sweeps. Yet still birth rates are not changing.

Men in suits who known nothing about pregnancy or women are making these decisions because of liability, because of money.

It is possible for all women to be cared for on an individual basis so why isn't that happening? Women should be offered these life saving interventions because they are needed, not as a matter of routine and liability.

@Glassofshloer I used to think this as well. Not anymore though.

@RedRobyn2021

I think people (myself included) are lied to about the need for intervention. With DS1 he was “measuring 10lbs plus” at 39 weeks so he was induced (my father had been 13lbs and my brother 11lbs). If I had had any idea of the fucking horror show of induction and the fact that a large baby would be fine to deliver naturally I would have just declined! I was also told all the way along my cervix was “favourable”. They were “sure”
The sweep would work. They were “sure” the second time pessary would work. They promised to come back at 11pm to check on me and guess what? They didn’t! I was vomiting as they had “forgotten” (OOPS) the antiemetics drug alongside the pethedine and I was in active labour and alone like a wild fucking animal as no one as around. I can never forget the panic. Absolutely agree re the word trauma.

As it was, DS1 was 9lbs. Popped out easily. What was the fucking point.

@Namechangetimes100

Your after care makes me so fucking angry. Bastards

Absolutely the most stupid and irresponsible thing I've read in ages.
The friend does not deserve to be a parent at all if she's this cavalier in her attitude towards the health of her unborn baby. It will be a miracle if they both come out of this alive to be honest .

@RedRobyn2021 excellently put! The experience of each women does matter, how they are treated in birth does matter. Yes mum and baby being alive and well is the most important thing but it’s not the only important thing.

@Justheretoaskaquestion91 honestly that’s like 5% of it, I’d consider my birth a serene and calm experience that I’d gladly repeat compared to my horrific stay on the maternity ward, that was horrendous. Laughed in my face when I said I had anxiety, baby was 2nd centile so needed blood sugar checks before and after feeds they were forgotten, feeding help was actively refused and I was told breastfeeding is meant to hurt and what do I expect she has small mouth, begged for help and then was thrown a colostrum collector syringe from the door of my room (no cup to collect it in) and told to figure it out. Second birth I refused to stay in.

@Namechangetimes100 I'm very risk averse because my baby nearly died, she was under the 0.4th centile.

@aurynne Thank you.

For me, preventing stillbirth has to be the most important thing. I know how bad birth trauma is, I was very traumatised by the birth and it took a long time to get over it. I still panic if I hear the crash alarms going off in hospital, it takes me back.

So relieved to hear baby safely delivered by C-section!

[quote RedRobyn2021]@Theregoesmyhomebirth you explained this really well

There feels like there is an attitude that as long as mum and baby are alive when they leave the hospital that's all that matters

Of course this matters, but it's not all that matters in my opinion

If a woman leaves traumatised because of a cascade intervention then this matters

I had heard that the recent statistics are now saying you are now more likely to be induced or have a c section than give birth "naturally" and this isn't even including all the sweeps. Yet still birth rates are not changing.

Men in suits who known nothing about pregnancy or women are making these decisions because of liability, because of money.

It is possible for all women to be cared for on an individual basis so why isn't that happening? Women should be offered these life saving interventions because they are needed, not as a matter of routine and liability. [/quote]
Induced births and c sections are more expensive than “natural” labours. This is not about money. Unless it’s limiting liability to have to pay out settlements to parents of babies who have been stillborn or suffered catastrophic birth injuries because they should have been induced or delivered via c section earlier? Which I’m on board with, tbh.

And still birth rates are, thankfully, reducing.

@RedRobyn2021

The comments in this thread make me sick to my stomach.

If I was her and you spouted some of this to me, I would never ever forgive you.

Please don't say anything. It's not your place, she has looked at the risks and chosen to birth her baby the way she wants.

Honestly, I don't know if I'm even going to stay on this site after reading through these comments, I'm absolutely disgusted. Some women have actually talked about forcing her to have her baby against her will.

My best friends brother was born naturally footling breach. It's people like the women in this thread which make me frightened to have anymore children, not birth itself.

Please don't say anything. It's not your place, she has looked at the risks and chosen to birth her baby the way she wants

Even if she is being a fucking idiot? And possibly killing her child???

[quote RedRobyn2021]@Theregoesmyhomebirth you explained this really well

There feels like there is an attitude that as long as mum and baby are alive when they leave the hospital that's all that matters

Of course this matters, but it's not all that matters in my opinion

If a woman leaves traumatised because of a cascade intervention then this matters

I had heard that the recent statistics are now saying you are now more likely to be induced or have a c section than give birth "naturally" and this isn't even including all the sweeps. Yet still birth rates are not changing.

Men in suits who known nothing about pregnancy or women are making these decisions because of liability, because of money.

It is possible for all women to be cared for on an individual basis so why isn't that happening? Women should be offered these life saving interventions because they are needed, not as a matter of routine and liability. [/quote]
Completely agree. And the NHS is great in many ways but it no way perfect. France has a very good health system, for example, and they don't have the horrible processes the UK does. They also don't induce as quickly or start offering sweeps (which have hardly any medical benefit!) or other forms of induction for barely being over the due date.