Monday, March 20, 2006

Week 37

At my weekly checkup tonight the obstetrician said that the baby still hasn't descended into the pelvic area. At 37 weeks the baby should be further down. She warned me that if the baby remains so high up by week 40, she would schedule a C-section.

I don't have any problem with this. The obstetrician seemed to think that I'd be disappointed if I didn't have "natural childbirth." I so don't care about that. I just want the baby to be healthy.

5 comments:

Lt. Cmdr Oneida said...

So true. I had a friend who wanted a drug free childbirth. She is now pregnant with her second child and wants lots of drugs and doesn't balk like she did with the first baby when someone mentions a c-section. In the end, all that matters is a healthy happy baby, not so much it's route of delivery.

Michelle Pessoa said...

I don't really get this "natural" thing. I've never met anyone who would consider having their wisdom teeth pulled with no drugs and that only takes five minutes. Meanwhile, a short labor is five hours.

When an athlete refuses to leave a football game when he has a concussion or a fracture women roll their eyes and joke about how silly testosterone is. But women now seem to think that they're "not a real woman" or they're "a failure" if they get an epidural instead of using breathing techniques and self-hypnosis during a 48 hour labor.

WTF?

I just don't get it.

JamaicanQueen said...

GET YOUR DRUGS IF YOU NEED THEM!!!!

*ahem* sorry. But I went through natural labor and still had to have a c-section. That pain is no joke and if I ever somehow wind up pregnant again, I want drugs from my seventh month on!

And don't rush the baby out. I wouldn't want to leave either.

Claude said...

If you schedule the C-section, all bets are off. Not that there's a prize involved with the pool, but still. (-;

I think the whole drugs/no drugs argument is a holdover from years ago (like, say, when I was born) when they'd knock the mother out altogether. Go to sleep, wake up, bingo: you're a mom. But in putting mom through general anesthesia, you're doing the same to the baby. So there was a decent argument there.

Nowadays the anesthetic is much more targeted, what with the locals and the epidurals and whatever else they have, so I don't think there's nearly as much danger involved. Local anesthetic and you're still conscious for it. It's the best of both worlds!

Michelle Pessoa said...

I thought you were younger than me, Claude. Didn't they stop doing general anesthesia after the 50's? ;)

My mom wasn't put under general anesthesia when she had me in the mid '60's, but maybe it depends on what state or what hospital you were born in.