OBEM - 9lb 6oz baby

[herethereandeverywhere]

(Have searched if this has already been mentioned in a thread but couldn't find anything - apologies if it has).

Was anyone else FURIOUS that they induced/allowed that poor young woman to labour for 4 days when from the outset they knew she was going to have a baby that was very large for her size and she'd probably need a c-section. The midwives discussing it on their coffee break said exactly that (CS) and how worried they were about the baby's size.

Why oh why with that knowledge did they put her through all that? It is nothing short of cruel and arguably disingenuous to not share those (medically informed) opinions with her.

I just don't believe that everyone can give birth naturally and when those with the requisite knowledge are saying as much the health and wellbeing of the mother should go a little higher up the agenda.

I was also thinking the same when I was watching...but then again my mum had me naturally and I was 9lb 4oz- I am also facing the same prospect with my pregnancy at the moment- baby is predicted to be on the large side. Doc said no special treatment is given for ladies of big babes, they still want you to labour 'naturally' as much as possible.

No option of ELCS or early induction...

people have babies a lot bigger than that and are ok.

your own size is not necessarily an indication of whether or not you can birth a big baby.

it's normally down to being in a poor position (was she left stuck on her back for example?) or poor position of baby, things like that.

Yep from what I saw from the moulding on that baby's head she was malpositioned - looked posterior. People can deliver large babies vaginally (my son was exactly this weight and I had a normal delivery
). I don't think that having a big baby is a justified reason for a cs. On another message board maternity services are being slated for it's 26 per cent cs rate - damned if we do damned if we don't. Important to judge each case on it's merits - we weren't there, were we?

The weight of the baby is almost irrelevant. Head size and position are what make a difference. People have 'easy' natural labours with much bigger babies. I had a terrible labour and emcs with a much smaller baby. It was a malpositioning problem.

That baby had very severe moulding and a lengthy, slow to progress induction. I suspect the baby was in the wrong position.

Yes they did say they worried about cs but in the privacy of their staff room they can think out loud if they want.

So when the baby is malpositioned, we still persist with the 4 days of torture, hoping it might turn? Did you see the state of her by the time she signed for a CS? My heart went out to her.

I would be interested to see what % of women have "easy natural labours" with a first baby very large in proportion to the mothers size.

I have read a study (think it was done in Singapore if you fancy googling) which showed likelihood of needing forceps was increased where there was a low ratio of mothers height to baby's head circumference so size DOES play a part (why else would the midwives have said the things they said?)

I'm 5'3" and size 8. I looked enormous and ready to drop by 7 months so by the time I was 2 weeks overdue I was vast. Induced. baby back to back. Malpositioned (transverse arrest) then Kiellands forceps. Looking back there was no way I was ever going to birth her naturally, all the signs were there. First baby. No natural start to labour, they knew she wasn't in an optimum position and I was enormous. How many women in these circumstances have easy natural labours?

I was in labour for a couple of days, I pushed for 6hrs. They didn't know dd was malpositioned because she was so high (also deep transverse arrest) until they operated. We don't know if they knew the baby's position last night either. We saw only a snapshot of Oakley's labour, there's no way of knowing the actual progression of events or what she requested during labour. I do know from reading some blurb about her before I watched OBEM last night that she really wanted a natural delivery so maybe she made decisions similar to the ones I did but in the end it was futile.

And I did say that head size was relevant. I said that weight wasn't.

but a baby's head circumference has nothing to do with its overall weight.

the fact is it's impossible to know what will happen during a labour.
you can look enormous and have a small baby, or look tiny and have a big one.
some people birth 12lb babies naturally, others struggle with a 6 or 7lber.

I haven't watched the prgramme you're talking about, but presumably you don't know if they offered her a CS before and she refused. she may have wanted to try and have the baby naturally, but everything was against her.

i ended up with a ventouse delivery of my first baby who was 9lb 1. I strongly believe this is because they broke my waters too early (thus not allowing him to easily get into a good position) and I had too many drugs and spent most of my labour lying on my back.

I birthed my next 2 (9lb 5 and 9lb 11) in a pool at home with no pain relief. 6 hours for number 2 and 48 mins for number 3

you can't just tell people they need a CS because they look like they might have difficulty birthing a baby.
well, actually, you can... the daughter of my mum's friend was told she should have a CS with her second child as her first got stuck (she is very petite).
However her second decided to come early and when she got to hospital it was too late for a section and she had him naturally.... so it's just impossible to tell

I had a op baby for my first after 18 hours of constant cc, no break and unable to have pain relief because no dilation, I was offered a cses because they thought I would get to tired. I refused and baby was born 6 hours later no intervention still facing up. So she may have done it just because a csec is likely doesnt make it a certainty and she may have turned down a csec you didnt see the whole birth so with respect you cant guess better than medically trained professionals what she needed from 30 minutes of film out of a 4 day labour.

oh and it is easy to know guess the winning horse after a race has ended.

My sister is 5ft 3 and had an 11lb 8oz baby. She delivered naturally after induction with no tearing.

Her DH is 6ft 7 so I guess he was always going to be big.
With her second they recommended she have a ELCS. She went into labour naturally however 3 weeks early and actually wishes she had just gone ahead and delivered naturally. They whisked her to surgery, she had the CS and her DS was born weighing 10lb 5. She suffered terribly after the CS, with a wound infection and all sorts. 5 years later she has a horrific scar, really prominant scar tissue and a complete lack of sensation in her belly button and surrounding area.

With respect, I wasn't guessing her situation. I was specifically referring to the comments made by the midwives (more relevantly qualified that I and definitely in command of more of the facts of her case) who actually made reference to the size of the baby and the fact she would end up with a c section hours if not days before she actually did. They knew she would struggle and almost definitely fail to birth naturally and she did.

I know that personal anecdote does not equal statistically relevant fact but my personal experience colours my view hence it is relevant to disclose. I suffered terribly with an opened episiotomy wound and incontinence so every intervention has risks and potntially painful and life-long complications (DD is also permanently facially scarred).

There IS a significant +ve correlation between baby head circumference and baby size although I accept they are not the same thing.

Of the first timers in a similar position to me and Oakley (on OBEM) I wonder what % have an "easy natural birth" and what % have high forceps or CS deliveries. If I ever get pregnant again I will not risk enduring that torture again. It will be CSection or suicide.

yes but a midwife can think what she pleases... the decision ultimately rests with the mother.
she may have CHOSEN to do this.

you have no right to be "FURIOUS" about her labouring for 4 days when you have no idea whether or not it's what she wanted.

midwives told a friend of mine she shouldn't go for a c-section and her baby would be fine. she asked, during labour if she could have one as babies (it was twins) were starting to get distressed. the midwives AND consultants insisted she try and birth them naturally.

one died.

so, with respect, what midwives chat about in the staff room may NOT be the right thing to do.

and perhaps it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

you've been induced (so baby isn't ready to come anyway), you're stuck on your back, your midwives already think you can't do it.....

Nobody can predict how much the baby's head will compress (that's why skull not fused) or woman's pelvis will expand (that's what relaxin does). Agree with others that more movement to get baby to shift might have made things easier for her.

My dad was 10lb, and my nan was a petite 5 foot nothing!

She had him naturally (although he was an only child!).

Best guess isn't a guarantee when it comes to labours and the pre-show spiel said Mum wanted a natural birth so if she wanted to try up to her

My friend who is just 4ft 9 inches delieverd an 7=8.5 pounder first time around naturally; ds2 was 6 lb 11oz and hard to delvier as he got stuck in OP position; and the MW when I had ds1 (induced due to pre-eclampsia) said ti would be a three day induction and it was 12 hours.

Babies are useless at conforming to rulebooks and guides so you amke your choice, pursue the birth you want and have the knoowledge and confidence to call it when you've had enough (if).

Redonkulous!

As if a small woman has anything to do with the size your pelvis is once fully dilated and in a beneficial birthing position! And the baby's head? Well, that changes shape and size too- the skull plates are really rather maliable actually and slide over each other to help the birth process.

I know plenty of petite women who had right whoppers. She probably was offered a c-section, or might well have been. She certainly seemed very upstet at being practically frogmarched into induction, so maybe she declined it.

I only watched a part of the program ('cos it makes me too mad to watch a whole episode) but you hwould certainly agree with thisisyesterday on almost every point.

Would add that labour is good for your baby, even if you ultimately end up in theatre.

Labouring for four days?

You mean three days where they tried Prostin but she didn't actually go into labour, and then rather than have her waters broken she decided to wait and went into labour later on...then after actually going into labour, gave it a really good go and had a c/s because the contractions stopped when she was knackered?

No of course I wasn't furious. They warned her that induction could take days. They told her that a natural delivery would be difficult (the midwife said "If you're to have any chance of pushing this baby out..." which implies they did have the discussion). Oakley wanted to try a natural delivery. She was really brave, and I felt for her when I saw how exhausted she was, but I don't think there are any grounds for being 'furious' at her care.

As one other poster said, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - someone would have found something to get 'furious' about if she'd been too strongly encouraged to have a CS earlier, if that wasn't what she wanted.

I do wonder why they didn't do an ultrasound before inducing though. The midwife told her (Oakley) they had no clue about her baby's position from feel alone. Perhaps this would've shown malposition and prevented some unnecessary pain?

but you can't give every single person an ultrasound

think of the cost.

even an OP baby can be born vaginally. I know, my 9lb 5 baby was OP!

there are many factors that can contribute to the need for intervention in a labour, and i very much doubt that they can be foreseen in advance

'but you can't give every single person an ultrasound'

It's not every single person, though.

It's someone who has been found to need medically induced.

So instead she wound up costing 4 days in hospital as opposed to a scan and about half an hour of a consultant's time to determine if it were going to be even be reasonable for her to try to give birth vaginally.

ok, i also don't think that the NHS would find it cost effective to scan every single person being induced either

if they had felt she needed it they would have done so.

I rather suspect that most inductions don't take 4 days....

and, being induced doesn't mean that there is anything worrying or abnormal with the pregnancy. it might just mean you've gone over dates.

as such there is no more reason to scan someone being induced than someone who has gone into labour naturally.

you can go into labour naturally and still labour for 4 days and end up with a c-section

It's less likely, though.