Refusing home birth for back to back baby!

[StarshitTerrorise]

Ffs.

I KNOW I have rights etc but why are they making it difficult.

Apparently I won't forgive myself if it goes wrong and I won't be able to cope with the pain.

how far round to your side is the bum, if its under your ribs then baby isnt back to back! but it could have been at your appointment, back to back means the baby has its tummy facing out forwards and its bum is at the back of your uterous so against your back and you wouldnt feel it.

most babies swing around so the bum will be top left one day and they may swing over and it will be top right later, they move all the time, the head if engage will rotate in your pelvis

the other positions are ROP and LOP (i think that is the shorthand they use) so meaning head down then babies back going up your sideish and bum at top on the left or the right, one of these ismeant to be more favourable than the other but i cant remember which, but most babies do rotate round in labour as they descent down in the pelvis :)

McK, it doesn't sound b2b to me, or at least not completely.

Are you being persuaded into something with this as an argument?

yep its def not completely back to back, it may be veering that way, but again thats normal as the baby will rotate round.

and what starlight asked :)

Bum is usually on my right hand side. Pretty much as far right as it can go. MW says head is in my hip rather than pelvis and legs and arms cross my bump. As if baby is lying along my right hand side IYSWIM. She's been transverse a few times too with head feeling like it is in my left hip.

It feels completely different to the boys who were both head down and not back to back.

MW only mentioned it after I was moaning about backache.

ok so not properly back to back but heading that way, there is plenty you can try to encourage the baby to swing round, esp if baby has been going transverse i would be trying to encourage baby to move into a better position.

and yes it may well make your back ache if baby is more back to back.

fairly normal for baby not to go right head down in pelvis until labour tho in subsequent pregnancies, mine always engaged in pelvis but as i am small and they were big i dont think they had the space to do otherwise.

i think your baby is what they call ROP see if it says that in your notes it may well do!

Notes say Ceph Free which confuses me as it seems to be completely different to what MW says when I am there.

I'm trying the ideas on spinning babies to get baby moving but she just seems to move her head from one hip to the other.

MW didn't seem too worried about back to back though. It's just the big baby bit they aren't keen on.

That just means head down but not engaged I think

Ooh, I haven't even gone down the big baby route yet but it's coming.....

that means head down but not engaged which fits with what you are saying about head being on your hip and not in pelvis and also that the baby is swinging round etc.

if she is moving her head from one side to the other she is probably rotating round and so going from back to back to not again? and not descending into the pelvis is again normal for a subsequent baby, were your other babies big? if you have succesfully delivered a big baby before you can again and tbh most women can deliver big babies, its the positioning that causes more problems than the size often or the combination of both.

lots of babies get in the right position during labour itself, the contractions help this generally.

MW I see and the MW at the hospital think it'll be fine. The bloody consultant didn't even want to see me as baby was on 95th centile so within the charts.

Now however he's decided it's too big. Despite scan being 5 weeks ago and I've got another next week. Bloody man!!!

DD2 was back to back and I had her in a pool at home. We didn't know she was back to back until the midwife said, "Oh! That explains why it was taking so long!" once her head finally popped out.

But birthing DD2 at home in a pool, back to back or not, was a million times more pleasant than birthing DD1 flat on my back in hospital.

5mad, DS1 was 7lb 2oz and then DS2 was 10lb 5oz. I never measured big or anything with him. Had him at home, straightforward labour and I thought less painful than little DS1.

Last bunch wanted me to have a growth scan. I refused on the basis that the size had no bearing on my birth plan.

This bunch don't even know me yet

well scans are notoriously crap ie i was told 6-7lb then baby was 9lb+ and after i had ds4 who was 10lb 13 they were terrified no 5 would be big i could tell baby wasnt as big, i knew what it felt like to carry a big baby but they wouldnt believe me! scan said 9lb+ she was 8lb exactly!

i had to laugh at the consultant i saw when preg with no 5, who without looking at my notes too one look at me (5 2 and small) and dp (6ft etc) and said well you are having a big baby if its 9lb or more you WONT be able to deliver naturally and will need a c section.

at which point i said if you look at my notes you will see ihave already delivered 4 babies all 9lb + one was almost 11lb and born in the birth pool!! taht was just luck apparently i told him to stuff his c section!

Tape measure says 95%

oh you will be fine then! i would tell them to stuff their growth scan they are crap and not a good predictor, i measured small for dates hence them thinking i was having a small baby and having extra scans, my babies were all big! adn then with dd they said she was big, i said no, scan said big and she was only 8lb which is still bigger than average but tiny for me!

Lol 5. They just make stuff up don't they?

they do indeed make stuff up, its funny how one high risk delivery makes you more high risk the next time but if you have uncomplicated delivery(ies) then they still think you wont be able to do it next time, they talk about having a 'proven pelvis' which i DID have (and midwifes always said i have a great pelvis for childbirth apparently!) yet they still said i was high risk and wouldnt accept that as i had previously delivered big babies fine that i would do again!

He didn't want me to have DS2 at home. I couldn't handle pain, I might need a CS, etc etc.

I just happily let them get on with it. I'm having a home birth unless something like pre eclampsia etc shows up. MW is happy and I'm happy. Just fed up of telling consultant to go away.

why are you seeing the consultant? you dont have to you can say 'thanks but no thanks' which i did in the end!

good midwife is happy, just ignore the consultant, when i said i didnt want to see them they wrote in BIG red pen on my notes that i was going against their advice and had been informed of the risk blah blah blah blah but that was all they did.

lol i do laugh at growth scans, i was sent for one with ds1 because i was measuring small for dates, after the scan we were told he'd be the smaller side of average, he popped out at 10lb 2oz

I am seeing him because I measure big. 38cm at 34 weeks. But I haven't actually seen him. I went for a growth scan at 30 weeks and was told she was on 95th centile and he looked at results and told MW it was fine and he didn't want to see me.

Now he is changing his mind in case she's now over 95th. But as I am having another scan next week how does he know she might be bigger? She might not be.

Sorry for hijack Star.

Hijack away!

Got a letter in the post. They have given me a booking in appointment. The date is in 2 weeks time.

2 weeks time?! FFS that's madness.

DS was estimated to be 9.5-10.5lb by growth scan.

It was wrong, by a lb.

11lb 7oz.