Baby weighing nearly 14 pounds born in Iowa

[trcy]

No c-section, no epidural...I think this mom should win some type of award. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/01/30/baby-boy-weighing-nearly-14-pounds-born-in-iowa/

[KLD313]

I just saw that on the hypnobabies page on FB. Wow is all I can say.

[Tondi G]

HOLY MOLY!!!! Thats insane! My biggest baby was half the size of him! He looks like a 4 month old baby in the pic! WOW! SUPERMOM!

[AngB]

I think she is incredibly lucky they are both alive and well to tell about it. I have more thoughts on this, but they are pretty critical, so I'll just leave it at that.

[JBaxter]

Jack was 10lb1oz and same length I had the aid of epidural for 20 minutes before it stopped. but HOLY CRAP.

[boolady]

I have more thoughts on this, but they are pretty critical, so I'll just leave it at that.

I have no idea what your thoughts are, but I'd genuinely like to know what you're talking about. I'm not looking to bait anyone-- now my curiosity is aroused. :) Do you think this was for publicity or something akin to that?

[AngB]

I have no idea what your thoughts are, but I'd genuinely like to know what you're talking about. I'm not looking to bait anyone-- now my curiosity is aroused. :) Do you think this was for publicity or something akin to that?

No, I'm thinking she either had incredibly incompetent doctors (who missed that she was carrying a 13 lb+ baby) or went against medical advice and got lucky it didn't end tragically. I know ultrasounds have a larger margin of error as the baby gets bigger, but still. It does make me cringe a little when people make comments that sound like this is a good thing...don't get me wrong, it's good that they both survived and are "healthy"...if you can call a nearly 14 lb newborn "healthy". One of my good friends was a 10 lb 36 weeker due to her mother's uncontrolled gestational diabetes, I can't imagine how that isn't the case here. I just hate to think that stories like this might make other women disregard their medical advice because it turned out okay in this case.

[edurnemk]

I'm assuming the 12 pound baby she had only 15 months earlier was also a vaginal birth? Yikes!

[JBaxter]

No, I'm thinking she either had incredibly incompetent doctors (who missed that she was carrying a 13 lb+ baby) or went against medical advice and got lucky it didn't end tragically. I know ultrasounds have a larger margin of error as the baby gets bigger, but still. It does make me cringe a little when people make comments that sound like this is a good thing...don't get me wrong, it's good that they both survived and are "healthy"...if you can call a nearly 14 lb newborn "healthy". One of my good friends was a 10 lb 36 weeker due to her mother's uncontrolled gestational diabetes, I can't imagine how that isn't the case here. I just hate to think that stories like this might make other women disregard their medical advice because it turned out okay in this case.

Sigh... her first baby was 12lbs born 15 months ago. The article I read said they knew he was going to be big just not THAT big. The momma said she wanted to avoid a Csection and had no relevant medical conditions to cause a large baby. She pushed him out her choice. Kudos to her taking charge of the birth SHE wanted. Her body Her choice.

[JElaineB]

I'm assuming the 12 pound baby she had only 15 months earlier was also a vaginal birth? Yikes!

Yes, I am pretty sure it was. I saw the family on the news last night (I live in Iowa). To be honest, my first thought was "uncontrolled gestational diabetes" but that's just an assumption...they did say that that their family tends to have big babies. The older sibiling running around was a perfectly normal looking toddler.

[Multimama]

No, I'm thinking she either had incredibly incompetent doctors (who missed that she was carrying a 13 lb+ baby) or went against medical advice and got lucky it didn't end tragically. I know ultrasounds have a larger margin of error as the baby gets bigger, but still. It does make me cringe a little when people make comments that sound like this is a good thing...don't get me wrong, it's good that they both survived and are "healthy"...if you can call a nearly 14 lb newborn "healthy". One of my good friends was a 10 lb 36 weeker due to her mother's uncontrolled gestational diabetes, I can't imagine how that isn't the case here. I just hate to think that stories like this might make other women disregard their medical advice because it turned out okay in this case.


Sigh... her first baby was 12lbs born 15 months ago. The article I read said they knew he was going to be big just not THAT big. The momma said she wanted to avoid a Csection and had no relevant medical conditions to cause a large baby. She pushed him out her choice. Kudos to her taking charge of the birth SHE wanted. Her body Her choice.

I can see both sides of this. Absolutely it's her baby, her birth and her choice and from what we know it sounds like in her particular case this was a good one.

But as AngB said, the ACOG would have recommended a c-section in her case (as I understand it, which isn't extremely well!) because the estimated size of the baby (even given margin of error) would indicate that the risks of a vaginal birth (especially shoulder dystocia) would be higher than the risks associated with a c-section. So for the article to just say they didn't want a c-section because that "wouldn't have been good for Asher" is kind of misleading. They made a choice and it turned out to be the right one for them and I'm sure it was a very, very hard one. But as I understand it, according to the ACOG's current perspective, in this gamble the odds were not in their favor.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong because I'm still trying to figure this stuff out myself!

[vonfirmath]

Yes, I am pretty sure it was. I saw the family on the news last night (I live in Iowa). To be honest, my first thought was "uncontrolled gestational diabetes" but that's just an assumption...they did say that that their family tends to have big babies. The older sibiling running around was a perfectly normal looking toddler.

I truly believe some there is gestational diabetes that does not show up as a positive on the test. My mother was a 11.5 pound baby back in 1945. My sister's babies and both of my own have been big as well (though thankfully none QUITE that big) with no positive test for gestational diabetes

[Multimama]

I truly believe some there is gestational diabetes that does not show up as a positive on the test. My mother was a 11.5 pound baby back in 1945. My sister's babies and both of my own have been big as well (though thankfully none QUITE that big) with no positive test for gestational diabetes

I've heard that insulin resistance can lead to a larger baby without triggering a positive GD test. My first baby was large and at least one midwife recommended that I follow a GD diet regardless of what any tests showed.

[ilfaith]

I have a friend who, at just over 11 pounds, was the smallest of his mother's three babies. She never tested positive for GD (this would have been in the late 60s/early 70s...don't know if testing has changed). Both parents were larger people (dad about 6'4", mom 5'9"...and neither were exactly slim). I remember when his wife was pregnant she was terrified she'd have a huge baby...but she had an average 8 pounder).

[JBaxter]

I think its different once you have had one larger than average baby. One of my OB group recommended that I have a csection since it was a good bed Jack was going to be over 10lbs. Nathan weighted 9lb8oz so 10lbs didn't phase me. You can't be forced to have a csection I'm sure she went into labor knowing she could birth a 12lber.

[crayonblue]

I cannot even fathom! I had a hard enough time pushing out 6 and 7 lb. babies!

[Multimama]

I think its different once you have had one larger than average baby.

What's different? Do you think your risks are lower of problems if you've already delivered a large baby vaginally? Do you know of any studies? (I'm really trying to find studies on this stuff.) Or just your attitude/perspective is different?

[JBaxter]

What's different? Do you think your risks are lower of problems if you've already delivered a large baby vaginally? Do you know of any studies? (I'm really trying to find studies on this stuff.) Or just your attitude/perspective is different?

From what my OB discussed with me when I was pregnant with Jack ( the OB who I liked and had delivered Nathan) said if Jack was my first baby estimated over 10lbs he would really try to convince me to consider a csection. But being that I had already delivered a 9lb8oz baby with 3 pushes he was content to get me deliver vaginally with no constraints. I pushed for 5 minutes with Jack ( 3 pushes)

[MSWR0319]

Just curious, does anyone know at what weight they consider it "safer" to have a c-section if the baby is thought to be big? I haven't done a whole lot of research yet, but at my last ultrasound, both the tech and doctor mentioned this baby was big and questioned the size of DS. He was only 7.5 lbs and it was a hard, long, long labor. I still have about 14 weeks, so things could change. This story just made me wonder.

[JBaxter]

Just curious, does anyone know at what weight they consider it "safer" to have a c-section if the baby is thought to be big? I haven't done a whole lot of research yet, but at my last ultrasound, both the tech and doctor mentioned this baby was big and questioned the size of DS. He was only 7.5 lbs and it was a hard, long, long labor. I still have about 14 weeks, so things could change. This story just made me wonder.

for some reason 10lb 4oz sticks in my head... I dont know why. I personally would not have scheduled a csection because u/s can be off by a lot. But thats me and my family does have big babies. 9 and 10lbers are not an oddity.

[amldaley]

I think she is incredibly lucky they are both alive and well to tell about it. I have more thoughts on this, but they are pretty critical, so I'll just leave it at that.

Thank goodness I am not the only one. I was hugely annoyed when a reporter from Headline News referred to her first as a "hero" and then as a "saint".

[theriviera]

...The momma said she wanted to avoid a Csection and had no relevant medical conditions to cause a large baby. She pushed him out her choice. Kudos to her taking charge of the birth SHE wanted. Her body Her choice.


...

But as AngB said, the ACOG would have recommended a c-section in her case (as I understand it, which isn't extremely well!) because the estimated size of the baby (even given margin of error) would indicate that the risks of a vaginal birth (especially shoulder dystocia) would be higher than the risks associated with a c-section...

Totally curious as I have no skin in this game but...

Can someone help me understand, if a mother goes against a doctor's recommendation (in this case, to have a c-section) does she also waive her right to sue the doctor if something goes wrong? I know that it's impossible (or at least really difficult) to prove why something goes wrong but I can understand why moms and doctors seem to be in opposition in cases like this. while the mom wants to make the best choice for her, it can put the ob in a bad position if he/she has to carry all of the liability. Obviously, the mom is taking on risk too but in my limited understanding of the law the fault would be placed on the MD.

[kellij]

Totally curious as I have no skin in this game but...

Can someone help me understand, if a mother goes against a doctor's recommendation (in this case, to have a c-section) does she also waive her right to sue the doctor if something goes wrong? I know that it's impossible (or at least really difficult) to prove why something goes wrong but I can understand why moms and doctors seem to be in opposition in cases like this. while the mom wants to make the best choice for her, it can put the ob in a bad position if he/she has to carry all of the liability. Obviously, the mom is taking on risk too but in my limited understanding of the law the fault would be placed on the MD.

More than likely they would make you sign a waiver, try to convince you and be angry with you. I think sometimes they will make you leave the hospital, or least they tell you they will. I'm sure they would give you all kinds of worst case scenarios and scare you to death. I had a vbac with my last baby and I felt like I was doing some sort of illegal crazy thing because I didn't want to be cut open if there was no medical reason. By the way the average baby weighs 7.5-9 pounds today.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Just curious, does anyone know at what weight they consider it "safer" to have a c-section if the baby is thought to be big? I haven't done a whole lot of research yet, but at my last ultrasound, both the tech and doctor mentioned this baby was big and questioned the size of DS. He was only 7.5 lbs and it was a hard, long, long labor. I still have about 14 weeks, so things could change. This story just made me wonder.

I was just talking to another poster about this. Unless the ACOG changed it's recommendation from 2001 (which it could have, that was a while back now!), there isn't a magic number because it comes to fit of mom and baby. A good trial of l&d is what is needed to determine fit. 4000-4500g is the definition of macrosomia though.

Baby's position should be considered as much or even more than size. A well positioned, big baby can be easier to birth than a smaller, malpositioned baby. And the good thing is that there are things mom can do to get baby in a good position and ways she can move during l&d to get her and baby in good shape. Not enough emphasis is put on baby's position (I was pretty well versed and I had no idea what a posterior baby was till I was in labor with one!). No where near enough emphasis is put on the laboring mom being in good positions to help in labor (anything but laying in bed) or delivery (almost anything but laying in bed with legs in stirrups).

[Kindra178]

Totally curious as I have no skin in this game but...

Can someone help me understand, if a mother goes against a doctor's recommendation (in this case, to have a c-section) does she also waive her right to sue the doctor if something goes wrong? I know that it's impossible (or at least really difficult) to prove why something goes wrong but I can understand why moms and doctors seem to be in opposition in cases like this. while the mom wants to make the best choice for her, it can put the ob in a bad position if he/she has to carry all of the liability. Obviously, the mom is taking on risk too but in my limited understanding of the law the fault would be placed on the MD.

You really can't waive your right to sue. So if something went amiss, she could have sued the hospital, the doctors, etc. The hospital and doctors would have good defenses to the suit, including the fact that the mother refused their recommended care. Remember, though, the hospital and the doctors would still have to get attorneys, file an answer, etc.

[amldaley]

You really can't waive your right to sue. So if something went amiss, she could have sued the hospital, the doctors, etc. The hospital and doctors would have good defenses to the suit, including the fact that the mother refused their recommended care. Remember, though, the hospital and the doctors would still have to get attorneys, file an answer, etc.

I don't know how it is in civilian hospitals or if perhaps this differs by state, but if the Dr makes a recommendation before labor occurs and the mother go against it, at the military hospital I had DD1 (and soon DD2) at, they can refuse to allow me to deliver there.

[MSWR0319]

I was just talking to another poster about this. Unless the ACOG changed it's recommendation from 2001 (which it could have, that was a while back now!), there isn't a magic number because it comes to fit of mom and baby. A good trial of l&d is what is needed to determine fit. 4000-4500g is the definition of macrosomia though.

Baby's position should be considered as much or even more than size. A well positioned, big baby can be easier to birth than a smaller, malpositioned baby. And the good thing is that there are things mom can do to get baby in a good position and ways she can move during l&d to get her and baby in good shape. Not enough emphasis is put on baby's position (I was pretty well versed and I had no idea what a posterior baby was till I was in labor with one!). No where near enough emphasis is put on the laboring mom being in good positions to help in labor (anything but laying in bed) or delivery (almost anything but laying in bed with legs in stirrups).

Thanks! I'm not worried yet. DS was a posterior baby, and after almost 40 hours of unmediated labor he finally came out! We tried every position there was, he was just stubborn. That being said, I plan on asking the closer we get what position he is in so I'm better prepared.

[lalasmama]

What's different? Do you think your risks are lower of problems if you've already delivered a large baby vaginally? Do you know of any studies? (I'm really trying to find studies on this stuff.) Or just your attitude/perspective is different?

In my doula classes, we had a lot of discussion about this topic.... basically, a woman who has had one larger baby already has what they call a "proven" pelvis--ie, it's proven that it can do what's needed when push comes to... well, when push comes to shove, LOL, I suppose! I'm not sure about recent studies, but for the purpose of our class, it was talked about in regards to safety of VBACs and understanding when a doc may advise a c/s. If a mother having her 2nd baby wants a VBAC, she's got an "unproven" pelvis, which means the doctors basically think "maybe she can, maybe she can't" about having a vaginal birth. But, a mother having her 3rd baby (lets stay it was a vaginal for the first, and a c/s for the second), VBAC would be seen as "less risky" since the mother has already "proven" that she can push a baby out.

In the case at hand, the mother had already proven that her body could birth a 12-pound baby, so, likely, the doctors warned her to be ready for a c/s, but she was allowed to try for a vaginal birth because she'd already proven what her body could do.

(On my soap box for a moment... I HATE THE IDEA OF THE "PROVEN" PELVIS! I understand it, I understand why it makes doctors more comfortable to let things go at their own pace, but I hate the insinuation that you have to "prove" that your body can do what it was made to do! It's one of the reasons I really prefer the midwifery school of thought--that a body is capable until proven otherwise, instead of the medical school of thought that a body is incapable until proven otherwise. I know not all doctors think like that, but many do! Okay, back off my soapbox!)

As for the original case, I've gotta say I'm impressed with the mom. Hero status? No. Saint? No. I haven't been in labor but I've been at enough births to know it's d@mn hard work, and this lady brought forth a child that's 4-5 pounds heavier than a typical baby, and did it without medicinal pain relief. I'm impressed. Staring into the idea of a 12-pound baby, even as a midwifery student, I'm willing to bet I'd be trying to pay the nurse for some extra nice medicinal pain relief! :)

[MissyAg94]

No, I'm thinking she either had incredibly incompetent doctors (who missed that she was carrying a 13 lb+ baby) or went against medical advice and got lucky it didn't end tragically. I know ultrasounds have a larger margin of error as the baby gets bigger, but still. It does make me cringe a little when people make comments that sound like this is a good thing...don't get me wrong, it's good that they both survived and are "healthy"...if you can call a nearly 14 lb newborn "healthy". One of my good friends was a 10 lb 36 weeker due to her mother's uncontrolled gestational diabetes, I can't imagine how that isn't the case here. I just hate to think that stories like this might make other women disregard their medical advice because it turned out okay in this case.

:yeahthat:

[JoyNChrist]

This makes me really uneasy too. Super happy that they're well and healthy of course, but I have a good friend (an RN) who delivered a 9lb, 8oz baby girl naturally. Then two years later she decided to do the same with her son, who doctors warned would be a very large baby (a c-section was recommended). He ended up being 11lb, 15oz, there was major shoulder dystocia, and both he and mom suffered some negative effects from the birth. My friend wishes she would have had the c-section.

I can see both sides, and I'm all for women's choices, but this scares me a little. C-sections aren't inherently evil and they ARE medically indicated at times. I've had babies both ways and can't say that my experience or their health was diminished by either birth experience.

[Multimama]

I don't know how it is in civilian hospitals or if perhaps this differs by state, but if the Dr makes a recommendation before labor occurs and the mother go against it, at the military hospital I had DD1 (and soon DD2) at, they can refuse to allow me to deliver there.

:yeahthat: I wanted to go against a recommendation from the OB(s) when I was in labor and they said that if I refused they didn't know how much longer they could continue my care. And it was a civilian hospital.

[JBaxter]

:yeahthat: I wanted to go against a recommendation from the OB(s) when I was in labor and they said that if I refused they didn't know how much longer they could continue my care. And it was a civilian hospital.

Really. That's abandoning a patient. They cant really do that.

[KpbS]

C-sections aren't inherently evil and they ARE medically indicated at times. I've had babies both ways and can't say that my experience or their health was diminished by either birth experience.

:yeahthat:

ITA.

[american_mama]

I think the public has too little information to say much about this birth other than Wow. We don't know her health status, her testing/monitoring related to gestational diabetes, what monitoring was done in her labor. We don't know if she had forceps/vaccuum, an episiotomy, shoulder dystocia, nothing. I've seen photos of the parents seated, but we don't know the parents height and weight. We don't know anything about her first labor. Maybe she delivered in an OR with a crash cart, blood typed and match, backup OB, and pediatrician at the ready.

The two reports I've read/watched weren't even consistent about the duration of her labor. One said 6 hours of labor, another said 6 hours of pushing (which would be believable given the size but not so believable that pushing would go on so long in a contemporary American hospital).

A nearly 14 pound baby is huge, unusual, plus being a vaginal birth, plus being without an epidural. Of course it's news - it sounds both risky AND impressive. It seems to push the limits of what I thought was possible. But to criticize the mom or doctor when we really don't know anything about their actions seems silly to me.

Also, I don't get the suspicion that the baby is not "healthy." The reports say he is, the parents act like all is well, he appears to be fine dressed in clothes for the interview and being held in his moms arms, rather than being in a diaper and an isolette with monitors on him. I know there are some conditions that might occur in a large newborn, but from the information given to the public, that does not seem the case here. How would you feel if someone said of your newborn, "Oh, but are you sure he's healthy? He's so big. You say he's healthy, but is he?"

I am not too concerned about the trickle down of this story. It's simply too unusual in terms of physiology, medical practice, and maternal preference. Easy for me to say wow, congratulations, and move on.

[kijip]

Re: big babies always being a sign of GD. This is NOT true. Just like some healthy babies are barely 5 pounds at fullterm, there are healthy babies born to non-GD moms that are in the 10+ pound range. There is a range of sizes at play. My mother was 6 feet tall in her bare feet, with the shoulders of a linebacker (seriously, she looked like she was wearing 80s shoulder pads in a plain t-shirt- she had to tear all shoulder pads out or she would look like an NFL player). and wore a size 9 ring on a bony finger and size 13 shoe (12 if she pinched). Her ideal weight was somewhere about 180-190. I was well over 10 pounds as was my brother. One brother was smaller but he was early. It stands to reason that a woman that much larger than average would have larger babies and that it should not be cause for alarm. Most of the 10+ pound babies in our family are also 22-nearly 24 inches in length.

[Beth24]

Very interesting discussion re the large baby GD connection. I had GD during my last pregnancy and my OB told me that when babiies weigh more then 8 pound there's some sort of undiagnosed GD or insulin resistance at play. But I think what Katie just posted re larger people just having larger babies makes a lot of sense!

[georgiegirl]

That is where I give birth to DS! It's not a particularly pro-natural childbirth hospital.

[Multimama]

Really. That's abandoning a patient. They cant really do that.

Well, I'm sure their goal wasn't to follow through, but to pressure a vulnerable woman in labor into doing what they wanted. It worked.

[vonfirmath]

Very interesting discussion re the large baby GD connection. I had GD during my last pregnancy and my OB told me that when babiies weigh more then 8 pound there's some sort of undiagnosed GD or insulin resistance at play. But I think what Katie just posted re larger people just having larger babies makes a lot of sense!

Except, at least in our family, the mothers are NOT larger people. Nor are the fathers. I'm 5'2"! My grandmother and my sister are both just average.

[AngB]

Re: big babies always being a sign of GD. This is NOT true. Just like some healthy babies are barely 5 pounds at fullterm, there are healthy babies born to non-GD moms that are in the 10+ pound range. There is a range of sizes at play. My mother was 6 feet tall in her bare feet, with the shoulders of a linebacker (seriously, she looked like she was wearing 80s shoulder pads in a plain t-shirt- she had to tear all shoulder pads out or she would look like an NFL player). and wore a size 9 ring on a bony finger and size 13 shoe (12 if she pinched). Her ideal weight was somewhere about 180-190. I was well over 10 pounds as was my brother. One brother was smaller but he was early. It stands to reason that a woman that much larger than average would have larger babies and that it should not be cause for alarm. Most of the 10+ pound babies in our family are also 22-nearly 24 inches in length.

In my GD-diet class, they pretty much considered all babies over 9 lbs as GD babies. The instructor did not officially/technically have GD but both her kids were over 9 lbs, and she ended up being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes years later.

[lhafer]

No, I'm thinking she either had incredibly incompetent doctors (who missed that she was carrying a 13 lb+ baby) or went against medical advice and got lucky it didn't end tragically. I know ultrasounds have a larger margin of error as the baby gets bigger, but still. It does make me cringe a little when people make comments that sound like this is a good thing...don't get me wrong, it's good that they both survived and are "healthy"...if you can call a nearly 14 lb newborn "healthy". One of my good friends was a 10 lb 36 weeker due to her mother's uncontrolled gestational diabetes, I can't imagine how that isn't the case here. I just hate to think that stories like this might make other women disregard their medical advice because it turned out okay in this case.

:yeahthat: ITA with you. Glad she and the baby are healthy.


Sigh... her first baby was 12lbs born 15 months ago. The article I read said they knew he was going to be big just not THAT big. The momma said she wanted to avoid a Csection and had no relevant medical conditions to cause a large baby. She pushed him out her choice. Kudos to her taking charge of the birth SHE wanted. Her body Her choice.

I also agree with this to an extent. Until the woman goes against medical advice, and something bad happens. Then she has a right to sue the hospital, doctors and nurses.

Here's where I get a little iffy about all this. I am totally for a woman's rights, how she wants to deliver her children, etc. But doctors go to school for a long time for this stuff. They know and understand outcomes of various options better than the patient in most cases.

But being a nurse, I guess I'm biased to all of this.



Really. That's abandoning a patient. They cant really do that.

No it's not. They offered their services and you refuse it. What are they supposed to do? Doctors take an oath and will not let someone die. But if the facts are reviewed, and options are given on concensus, and those options aren't taken....the patient is on their own unless it's known they will die otherwise.

[Radosti]

No, I'm thinking she either had incredibly incompetent doctors (who missed that she was carrying a 13 lb+ baby) or went against medical advice and got lucky it didn't end tragically. I know ultrasounds have a larger margin of error as the baby gets bigger, but still. It does make me cringe a little when people make comments that sound like this is a good thing...don't get me wrong, it's good that they both survived and are "healthy"...if you can call a nearly 14 lb newborn "healthy". One of my good friends was a 10 lb 36 weeker due to her mother's uncontrolled gestational diabetes, I can't imagine how that isn't the case here. I just hate to think that stories like this might make other women disregard their medical advice because it turned out okay in this case.

I want to address this. The first baby she had may have been a margin of error on the U/S, or she may have wanted to try to deliver the baby before going the C-section route and succeeded. At that time, the doctors most likely noticed two things:

1. She had no problem delivering the baby
2. She likely has what is termed medically as "Adequate Hips", or what is known as good birthing hips.

Once one big baby comes out without an issue, the doctors become a lot more laidback about the second big baby. It happened with me. The doctor actually called in her intern because the intern was not likely to see such a wide open pelvis for a long time again. I apparently could have fit a much bigger kid out, grateful that 10 lbs 1 oz was my biggest, but it was well within possibility that he could have been bigger and still come out.

I had epidurals. I am not a nice person without them...

[JBaxter]

:yeahthat: ITA with you. Glad she and the baby are healthy.



I also agree with this to an extent. Until the woman goes against medical advice, and something bad happens. Then she has a right to sue the hospital, doctors and nurses.

Here's where I get a little iffy about all this. I am totally for a woman's rights, how she wants to deliver her children, etc. But doctors go to school for a long time for this stuff. They know and understand outcomes of various options better than the patient in most cases.

But being a nurse, I guess I'm biased to all of this.




No it's not. They offered their services and you refuse it. What are they supposed to do? Doctors take an oath and will not let someone die. But if the facts are reviewed, and options are given on concensus, and those options aren't taken....the patient is on their own unless it's known they will die otherwise.

No Nurses and Doctors can't walk away from you without adequate notice If you refuse a csection in labor your doctor can't just walk away an leave you. I would negate any grounds to file a lawsuit for malpractice but he cant just say I'm outta here.. Same with Nurses


What is Patient Abandonment?

Patient abandonment happens when your doctor suddenly stops treating you without giving you notice or referring you to another doctor.

Doctors are bound by a code of ethics, stating that a doctor who begins treating a patient’s illness willingly should complete the treatment to the best of his or her abilities. The doctor should not stop treatment unless he is not able to treat the patient correctly or if he disagrees with the patient about the way in which treatment is administered. For example, suppose you do not believe in taking medication and your doctor believes that you need to take antibiotics to cure an infection. If you refuse his treatment then the doctor can let you go.

The ethics code doesn’t mean that the doctor has to treat you no matter the circumstances. The code states that when the physician wants to stop treating a patient he must give ample notice and must refer the patient to another physician. A doctor cannot be charged with patient abandonment if he refers the patient to another physician.

http://www.medicalmalpracticehelp.com/abandonment-vs-negligence

He would have to find another doctor to take over...


And in ALL this no place have I ever read that the momma's doctor wanted her to have a c-section or went against HER doctors advice. As women we get to make our choices if that is doing natural child birth, elective c-cection, VBAC , abortion or what ever its a choice we get to make. She wanted to try natural she has that right. But a Doctor cant walk away from you as a patient while your are in labor. I also believe there is rules about "firing" you as a patient and specific time frame when it comes to pregnancy.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Very interesting discussion re the large baby GD connection. I had GD during my last pregnancy and my OB told me that when babiies weigh more then 8 pound there's some sort of undiagnosed GD or insulin resistance at play. But I think what Katie just posted re larger people just having larger babies makes a lot of sense!

My ds2 was 9.5lbs and I am petite. I tested fine for GD (not even close to the high end on the 1 hour) and never had any symptoms. Now, he came at almost 42 weeks so he had more time to grow. It's hard to compare things like birth weights sometimes because you have such a range for full term- 5 weeks- and babies can gain .5lb/ week. My midwives never worried about GD and there was no testing done after the birth. All was well...I think I just grew a big baby (I blame it on my addiction to chocolate milk during that pregnancy :)).

[Uno-Mom]

What is Patient Abandonment?

Patient abandonment happens when your doctor suddenly stops treating you without giving you notice or referring you to another doctor.


I don't want to get involved discussing that particular case, but my curiousity is piqued about this patient abandonment issue.

If the doctor is required to refer you to another physician... is there ANY requirment that they refer you to a doctor/hospital that takes your insurance coverage, etc?

So, for example the military hospital culture mentioned: could they refer the mom to a civilian hospital that would just charge them full price for everything, vs the base hospital where things are covered? That is, essentially, giving no referral or alternate option at all for most military families.

(I know nothing about how military coverage works, so forgive me - I'm just guessing for the purpose of this example!)

[kijip]

In my GD-diet class, they pretty much considered all babies over 9 lbs as GD babies. The instructor did not officially/technically have GD but both her kids were over 9 lbs, and she ended up being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes years later.

I think this is a really big leap to make. 6 feet tall women who are giving birth to babies nearly 2 feet long do not all have GD if the baby is over 9 pounds. My son was 9 pounds and he was about 23 inches long. Women are not all 5'4" and 120 pounds. Some of us are 4'11" and 85 pounds. Some of us are 6 feet tall and 130 pounds. Or 6 feet tall on a man sized 175 pound frame. It is all within the range of normal.

Yes, kids are too heavy at birth today. But all large babies should not be a cause for alarm.

I see from the picture that the woman is heavier. It is certainly possible that there are are health issues at play. I also know that the risks of a c-section increase with being overweight, especially the anesthesia. Given that she had a 12 pounder before (and did not know she was having a 14 pounder- no way to accurately gauge size before birth) she may very well have been safer with the vaginal delivery. I have had 2 c-sections and have nothing against them but honestly, I don't think it needs to be the default for large babies. My mother delivered me in several pushes. I came so fast, I was born in the front seat of the car in the parking lot at the hospital. :ROTFLMAO:

[khm]

Flip side, if this mom was on here saying she didn't have GD, her last baby was 12 lbs, completely healthy and born vaginally.... wouldn't the majority of us be up in arms about how inaccurate weight estimates are if the doc was saying "baby seems big, lets schedule a c-section"? Doc kinda can't win. ;)

I get 14 lbs is huge, but there's really no way to know that he WAS that much bigger that the last baby. There's always outliers and maybe these babies are just that. Outside the norm big, but healthy babies. Was he overdue did they say?

Some moms do just seem to grow 'em a certain size. Mine were both exactly 8 lbs, 2 oz. My friend (who happens to be a doc) had a 10+ pounder and one slightly heavier 10+ pounder. They were both born vaginally without forceps, etc. Perfectly healthy elementary schoolers now who do trend high in the height charts, just like mom and dad.

My friend is very tall and lanky (not at all overweight), but has a wide bone structure - wide hip/pelvic area, wide shoulders and wide ribcage. She still looked so thin and lanky at the end of the pregnancies, total "fake actress pregnancy basketball under the shirt" shape vs. my short un-lanky I just feel fat everywhere shape!

[wallawala]

If the doctor is required to refer you to another physician... is there ANY requirment that they refer you to a doctor/hospital that takes your insurance coverage, etc?

So, for example the military hospital culture mentioned: could they refer the mom to a civilian hospital that would just charge them full price for everything, vs the base hospital where things are covered? That is, essentially, giving no referral or alternate option at all for most military families.




To "fire a patient" is pretty unusual, but sometimes is necessary and best done in a methodical way. It's never something that would happen in the midst of an acute medical situation like a delievery.
It's much easier to "fire" your doctor.

A physician can let you know they are not able to treat you, and recommend you see another physician. But they don't recommend a specific physician; it is up to you to find the new one. Since you find a new one, any changes like insurance coverage, distance, access to appointments are also your responsibility.

[kellij]

As women we get to make our choices if that is doing natural child birth, elective c-cection, VBAC , abortion or what ever its a choice we get to make. She wanted to try natural she has that right. But a Doctor cant walk away from you as a patient while your are in labor. I also believe there is rules about "firing" you as a patient and specific time frame when it comes to pregnancy.

I wish this was true. As someone who had to fight for a vbac and drive 2 hours away to find the ONE dr. in the state that would do it, I don't feel like we just get to choose whatever we want to do. (There was actually a second dr. who would do it if I just had one c-section but since I had two he said he didn't want my family to sue him if my child and I died during labor, so he wouldn't do it. This is not the most pleasant thing to hear when you're 7 months pregnant).

Here, in Oklahoma, almost all of the dr's have a type of malpractice insurance that says that they CANNOT do vbacs. Ever. So they won't. I was told they would, if you literally show up at the hospital at a 10, but otherwise, repeat c-section it is. (Even if the reason you had a c/s before was because the dr induced you too early and broke your water because your due date would have meant a holiday interuption for the dr, i.e., no real health need for one). I also had to sign something at the beginning of this pregnancy acknowledging that my dr is the only dr that will do a vbac and if he is out of town for whatever reason, I have to have a c-section. So I know they say certain things about not being able to force you, but I'm not sure how that really works out in practice.

[amldaley]

I don't want to get involved discussing that particular case, but my curiousity is piqued about this patient abandonment issue.

If the doctor is required to refer you to another physician... is there ANY requirment that they refer you to a doctor/hospital that takes your insurance coverage, etc?

So, for example the military hospital culture mentioned: could they refer the mom to a civilian hospital that would just charge them full price for everything, vs the base hospital where things are covered? That is, essentially, giving no referral or alternate option at all for most military families.

(I know nothing about how military coverage works, so forgive me - I'm just guessing for the purpose of this example!)

Civilian doctors have no obligations to help patients find care within their insurance coverage nor within their financial means. OT to Obstetrics, but I had a family I was helping where the wife had a shunt in her brain and they needed to find their own provider after the local neurosurgeon refused to treat her.

As for the military part...it is a little tricky. If I had refused, they agreed to refer me to one of three other hospitals within a three hour drive who are covered by my insurance and handle complicated deliveries. I believe that the doctors would have written a letter of medical necessity on my behalf for insurance stating that due to my health issues, they were not equipped to allow me to deliver there.

The military insurance provider (Tricare is the overarching name...we have different contractors in different regions), could have either agreed to let me go to one of those other three hospitals or declined and sent me back to the Military Treatment Facility.

Then, each one of those hospitals would have assessed me to see if it was suitable for me to deliver there. They also would have been able to decline me as a patient, unless I presented so far in to labor that there was a risk to mother or child. My current OB basically says, unless I show up crowning, it's not going to happen!

However, the closest hospital of the three was 45 minutes away with no traffic, more typically 1 hour & 10 minutes, the next is 2 hours away and the last is 3 hours away. I was not keen on winging it for a vaginal delivery when I completely understood WHY they did not want me to deliver there. I have multiple complicating health issues. Getting DD out of me safely was a far bigger concern for me than trying for a vaginal delivery that multiple OB's and anethesiologists agreed would likely result in an emergency section anyway.

[theriviera]

I guess I don't get the anger/frustration with doctors in these situations. I feel like if anything is to blame, it's our litigious happy society. OBs have sky high malpractice insurance rates. I can see why they would want to minimize risky outcomes given that they carry so much liability.

I get why women are frustrated with their limited options when it comes to natural childbirth and VBACs. A woman is definitely within her rights to ignore medical advice and choose how she wants to proceed. Who knows, maybe if our malpractice laws were different, you would see doctors taking a different approach.

[mom2binsd]

Here is an interview with the couple form GMA this morning. I watched it, and they were very clear in the interview that this is what worked for them. They had researched all birthing options and like her first birth, did everything they could to avoid a c-section/induction etc. They also stressed that this is what worked for THEM and that they felt it was best for their baby and the mom. They were very well spoken and the mom said she has been blessed with a body built to handle big babies.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/mother-14-pound-baby-gave-birth-naturally-171724903--abc-news.html

[amldaley]

Here is an interview with the couple form GMA this morning. I watched it, and they were very clear in the interview that this is what worked for them. They had researched all birthing options and like her first birth, did everything they could to avoid a c-section/induction etc. They also stressed that this is what worked for THEM and that they felt it was best for their baby and the mom. They were very well spoken and the mom said she has been blessed with a body built to handle big babies.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/mother-14-pound-baby-gave-birth-naturally-171724903--abc-news.html

Glad for them that it worked and that they had the knowledge to make the decision.

My biggest issue with the whole thing is that people are holding her up to be some sort of wonder woman.

[mom2binsd]

I don't see many other women trying to emulate her....I mean, I know very few people IRL who even considered going without an epidural! I bet they never expected all this publicity, they just don't seem the type.

[kijip]

Who knows, maybe if our malpractice laws were different, you would see doctors taking a different approach.

I think what has also changed is that people have zero tolerance for a less than perfect outcome and zero understanding that some things can happen despite the very best care, with no one at fault. My younger brother has CP. It is a birth related injury. Thankfully, his CP is rather mild and he is able to live a pretty physically active life (SAHD with 2 girls, drives, plays softball). That said, my parents were understandably sad when he was injured and wished it had been different for him. However, they understood that it was not the fault of the doctor- that my brother was breech and it was a looooooong, complicated labor. The standard of care then dictated that a c-section was too risky for a mother with epilepsy so they really put off the c-section that they otherwise would have done earlier (and my brother flew out abruptly on the operating table when it decided that the risks of surgery were worth it, just as they were prepping her.) The doctor and hospital were able to genuinely react and they worked hard to make sure my brother got the care and therapy he needed.

[essnce629]

my OB told me that when babiies weigh more then 8 pound there's some sort of undiagnosed GD or insulin resistance at play.

Really??? More than 8 pounds!!! The average US baby is 7 1/2lbs, so just being a tiny above average is a sign of GD or insulin resistance? This just doesn't make any sense and I'd be wary of any OB who said that. DS2 was 8lbs 10oz at just 38 weeks and I pushed him out in just 2 contractions, just like DS1 who was 7lbs 15oz (also at 38 weeks). I'm 5'7, 125lbs, and have no hips at all (boyish figure like my mom) and have had extremely easy births.

As a doula I've seen moms have really long, drawn out labors with tiny 5 and 6lb babies since they have more room to get in weird positions and such (like my best friend who's baby was in the 6lb range and took a while to push out since she was born with her hand besides her face). In the homebirthing circle there's a saying that "fat squishes" and a bigger baby is preferable to a small baby since they are less likely to be malpositioned. Also I've heard that women that take the Bradley classes and follow the Brewer diet (eating 80-100 grams of protein a day) tend to have larger babies. I'm a former Bradley mom and have followed the Brewer diet with both of my pregnancies. I'm sure if I would have gone to my due date or past (instead of 2 weeks early each time) I would have had a 9+ lb baby.

[carolinamama]

I delivered an 11 lb baby 3 years ago. He was 23.5 in as well. We knew he was on the big side and I was post dates but my first was 7lb 14oz so we had no idea that he would be THAT big. He was delivered by a midwife and I am somewhat convinced that he was safely delivered because of it - she had me changing positions during the delivery based on his position and knew how to handle it. After it was over she did tell me that we caused alot of gray hairs on her head! :) It was a bad recovery for me as I ended up with a pubic symphasis diastasis. No signs of GD during that pregnancy but it was my first question after they weighed DS2. ETA: it was an easier delivery than DS1's. Only 5-10 minutes of pushing.

I went on to have DD last year, who was 8lb 14oz, without any trouble. During that pregnancy, I not only had the 1 hr GTT (which I passed without trouble) but also had several fasting and postprandial glucose tests. They were all normal. Dream delivery - up and walking around within 15 minutes.

I don't know what my experience really says about the lady in Iowa, but I guess now I understand how some people have big babies as a normal thing. I did notice that the mother is heavy. I have started all my pregnancies at a normal weight, although it does take me a year or so to lose the baby weight afterwards.

[BabyMine]

I read this yesterday and my vagina hurt.
The end result was wonderful and that is all that matters.

[amldaley]

I read this yesterday and my vagina hurt.


:rotflmao:

[ang79]

I read this yesterday and my vagina hurt.
The end result was wonderful and that is all that matters.

Ditto! My girls were each only 7 and 8 lbs. and they both tore me pretty good (I think because they came out so fast!). I was in misery recovering from stitches after each, I can't imagine birthing a bigger baby!

[AnnieW625]

So glad that the baby and mom are safe. 14lbs is just huge, but like every healthy baby I am glad he is healthy.



I can see both sides, and I'm all for women's choices, but this scares me a little. C-sections aren't inherently evil and they ARE medically indicated at times.

I feel the exact same way. I went through the entire second trimester (and the first couple of weeks of the third) thinking I would have a 1 in 5 chance of having to need a c section due to placenta previa. By about week 34 my placenta had moved up enough that I was able to have a vaginal birth. I don't know how my birthing experience would have been any different had I had a c section, but i don't think it would have been a bad thing.

A year later I had a friend who had to have a c section due to placenta previa and her close friends made it seem like she had the plague for even needeing one. I ended up feeling so bad for her because she had little support.

I really think that criticizing those who need to have a c section for medical reasons is something no one should do until they have btdt experience.

[american_mama]

>> I really think that criticizing those who need to have a c section for medical reasons is something no one should do....

But this mom is getting criticized for NOT having a c section! It's unfair either way.

Did she need a c section for medical reasons? I think it depends on how you look at it. Leaving aside the important issue of what was estimated about baby's size, a 14 pound baby is huge and common sense seems to say that a c section is indicated. And yet her case shows the complete opposite: she apparently was able to birth him easily (6 minutes of pushing, according to the GMA interview). And she had a history of an apparently easy birth for her previous 12-pound son.

So, should she and her doctor have gone by common sense and general cases, or by her individual case and preferences? They both are valid and lead you to opposite conclusions. And then let's remember that these decisions were being made without knowing the baby's ultimate size.

Which is why I say back off. She's a really unique case.

[BabyBearsMom]

I really think that criticizing those who need to have a c section for medical reasons is something no one should do until they have btdt experience.

I agree, except even if you have btdt, I still don't think anyone should criticize someone for having a c-section for medical reasons. As an outsider, you never know the whole story.

[kijip]

I really think that criticizing those who need to have a c section for medical reasons is something no one should do until they have btdt experience.

I had 2 c-sections myself. I see your point generally but I don't think that is going on here. Merely stating that a c-section is something she wanted to avoid if possible is not criticism. C-sections have high risks and are not always the safest option. I don't think it is ok to to make women feel as is surgery is THE only option unless it truly is.

[JBaxter]

Didn't the mother say something like that in the video clip that was posted. That she would never say not to have a csection but natural was something that was right for her family.
I'm all about choice. You someone wants to have a csection for any reason I think they should be able to have one but flip side I dont think you should be forced to have a scheduled csection just because a doctor wants to protect himself from a lawsuit. This mother was in the hospital where monitoring was available she had a short (ish labor) and pushed for 6 minutes. I know a relative who is 5'8" average size who pushed for 3 hrs with a less than 8lb baby had shoulder distocia and they broke the baby's collar bone delivering it. Many factor go into labor/delivery but we should get to have informed choices. My 10lb delivery was MUCH easier than my 8lb er heck my almost 9lb/ posterior delivery was easier than my 8lb. Each labor is so different with every momma and that should be the biggest factor what gets the most favorable outcome with a healthy baby. To the mentioned momma a vaginal deliver was that.