|
The only thing I wish we had saved for money for was my maternity leave. I basically didn't get paid while I was out (used my 2 weeks of paid vacation & then got $100/week). Thankfully our son was born in December & we were able to get our tax return in early February, which allowed me to be out for 10 weeks. But it was really tight at the end & I wish I'd been able to take the 2 more weeks available to me, but we needed my paycheck.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
I mean of course everyone wishes they HAD saved up money, but you don't have to for sure. We didn't. I have massive student loan debt, but a good job. She has/had a car payment, small student loan debt and a below average paying job. We, of course, made the even brighter decision of buying a house that needs work exactly one month before the baby was due. And we're STILL making it work. So if you had to pick between saving up and not wanting to get any older, I'd probably pick the latter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
I think as long as you have stable jobs with *health insurance* and you're not in collections or with crazy credit card debt then yeah, you might as well. Yeah it isn't ideal that you don't have tons of savings, but a lot of people have babies with less than you do now and make it work. I understand wanting to pay off your student loans, but if it's not some crazy 100k thing, just work on paying them off at a less aggressive rate after setting up a couple months' expenses emergency fund (if you don't have one already). Then again, I guess I might be projecting because I'm in not too dissimilar a situation and I just have to keep telling myself that there will be no perfect time for it. If I've been on birth control basically nonstop for the past 10 years, a Mirena for the past 2, about how long should I expect my body to take to ramp up to fertile levels after removal? I hear such conflicting stuff, ranging from immediately to 6+ mos. I get that every uterus is a special flower, but it would be nice to know an average for planning purposes. It's so weird with an IUD because I have to make a whole appointment for removal and it just feels so official and scary- "It Is Time".
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
BadSamaritan posted:If I've been on birth control basically nonstop for the past 10 years, a Mirena for the past 2, about how long should I expect my body to take to ramp up to fertile levels after removal? I hear such conflicting stuff, ranging from immediately to 6+ mos. I get that every uterus is a special flower, but it would be nice to know an average for planning purposes. It's so weird with an IUD because I have to make a whole appointment for removal and it just feels so official and scary- "It Is Time". Before baby #1, I was on combined hormonal pills for 5ish years prior to conceiving. My cycles went back to normal right away and I got pregnant the third month after being off the pill. I was on progesterone-only pills for a year and a half and have been off them for 4 months (trying to conceive #2) and my cycles are still wonky lengths. Some people get pregnant right away, some take up to a year or longer. It is a complete crapshoot it seems! I have been using ovulation strips this time which I like because at least I can estimate when ovulation is happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
BadSamaritan posted:I get that every uterus is a special flower, but it would be nice to know an average for planning purposes. For planning purposes it's best to just assume that you'll be fertile pretty much immediately. If you stop taking contraception before it's actually a good time to have a kid, you run the risk of some really bad timing knocked-up-wise. I spent our long planned, awesome, expensive and three week long honeymoon basically feeling badly hung over all the time and not being able to eat or drink anything fun in any of the wonderful places we visited, because all the advice I got on when to begin trying, said that "oh, it'll be ages before your system adjusts, especially after a long time of taking hormonal contraceptives!". So I'm here to tell you that you can be on the pill for 14 years and get pregnant immediately after quitting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I was on Mirena for 6.5 years prior to our first baby (and other forms of hormonal birth control most of the time for years prior to that). I got a pretty much normal period 2 days after it came out and ovulated on the first cycle. Got pregnant on the second cycle, miscarried, waited out one cycle and got pregnant again the following cycle with my daughter. This time around I'd had a Mirena for a bit over a year. Got it out and had a period two days later, ovulated and had pretty much normal cycles (give or take 2 days) for every cycle afterwards. I got pregnant on the 5th cycle but it was a chemical pregnancy. Pregnant again the very next cycle and I'm now 35 weeks with that one. So I would say years of hormonal birth control had minimal, if any, effect on my fertility. I actually think the fact that my body was still adjusting to not breastfeeding anymore when we started trying for #2 had more effect than the hormonal birth control did. It can certainly go the other way, as I have known women who didn't start having regular periods again for months after stopping the pill or Mirena, but better to plan for a quick return to fertility. But don't be shocked if there are bumps in the road.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Went off pill after 10+ years, waited until I got my period (about 5-6 weeks), started trying, got pregnant next cycle. In theory, had I not wanted to wait until after one period so I knew how far along I'd be when we conceived, I could have gotten pregnant 4 weeks after stopping the pill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
I just got my Skyla out 3 weeks ago and I've apparently already ovulated, if that helps you at all. I had a Mirena for 5 years and a Skyla for 1.5. The first week or so after getting it out was pretty weird so I imagine it'll take some time to get lucky. My hormones seem a little crazy, like things are a bit mis-timed. Just so you're prepared, you might end up with some weird headaches, nausea, heartburn, vision/coordination changes, and irritability right after getting it out. Week 1 I was bleeding and spotting like crazy and just felt awful. Week 2 I had terrible heart burn, headaches, tender breasts and a really sensitive nose. Now, as week 3 draws to a close my heartburn is less awful and I've discovered the weird fun of mucus and ovulation. It's become a little science project for me! I wish I'd known about the headaches and heartburn (which I've never had before) ahead of time. I might have waited until I finished a stressful project at work to get it out. The appointment to get it removed is nothing to worry about though- it took just a second and was totally painless. Good luck!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Hey guys, my wife is 34 weeks pregnant and just had a urine test come back showing Group B Strep (GBS? OH NO!) We have been suspecting for a while that she had a UTI so we got her checked. We have been planning a home birth with a midwife (we live in BC, Canada) but are reading that this infection will require IV antibiotic treatment during labor. Does anyone know if this will prevent us from having a home birth? e: any good recommendations for probiotics to use in this situation? Turpitude fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Don't have a home birth. Jesus Christ, just don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
As far as I know, strep B HAS to be treated in the hospital because she will receive the antibiotics as she's in labor. Treating it too early would be a waste of time because it could return. GBS isn't something to mess around with - a newborn that is exposed to it can develop bacterial meningitis. This happened recently to a woman I know. Thankfully the baby was able to leave the NICU after a few weeks and the one seizure she had doesn't seem to have caused any lasting brain damage but it could have been much, much worse. As far as probiotics go, the only info I can find on it suggests it might be helpful in preventing a strep B infection but will not be able to treat it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Wife just entered third trimester with our twin boys. Everything seems to be going so well that the doctors told us we didn't need to go to the high-risk appointments anymore. Babies have both turned head down, and are training each other for MMA, to the discomfort of my poor lady. Retaining water below her knees occasionally, but doc says it is normal. Something odd that has recently been happening is she will drink some water and then she feels like it just doesn't go down all the way, like she's going to throw up, and she can't lie down for a while and gets very uncomfortable. Does this last thing sound familiar to anyone?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
It's GERD. Try tums and nexium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:It's GERD. Try tums and nexium. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Turpitude posted:Hey guys, my wife is 34 weeks pregnant and just had a urine test come back showing Group B Strep (GBS? OH NO!) Did your midwife discuss the Hibiclens protocol with you? In the US one of the options for a GBS positive homebirth is to use a topical antiseptic like Hibiclens to wash the vaginal area. And if we're sharing anecdata, I know a mom who had a GBS positive homebirth and everyone was healthy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
From the CDC: Case fatality rates between 2-3% for current diagnoses of GBS related neonatal sepsis. Those are fatalities, not including other complications with serious lifelong morbidities. And attempting a home birth without antibiotics would tick that number even higher. In addition, with a home birth you run the risk of introducing serious delays in care should you run into any other complications such as shoulder dystocia, placental abruption, chorioamnionitis, postpartum hemorrhage, amniotic fluid embolism. These are all things that can be life threatening or leave women and their babies with severe long term sequelae. These are complications whose risks can be effectively mitigated with timely intervention in a hospital setting. There is no good way to predict in advance which women will and will not have these complications. Ask yourself if your family can live with that decision knowing these are uncommon but not necessarily rare complications. As an alternative, can your midwife deliver you in a hospital setting or a birthing center adjacent to a hospital? In my medical training I have worked with many competent and compassionate midwives and find them more than qualified to manage low risk deliveries. Some further reading regarding a bad outcome of a home birth from a mother's perspective: http://www.popsugar.com/moms/What-Home-Birth-Like-36487613 El_Elegante fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Turpitude posted:Hey guys, my wife is 34 weeks pregnant and just had a urine test come back showing Group B Strep (GBS? OH NO!) If your intention is to have a home birth, please work with your midwife and your wife to get more information. As a father who went though this process recently, it can be overwhelming very quickly. The best way to alleviate fear and anxiety is to have access to resources that you can trust. My family worked hard to have a strong support network who informed us and encouraged us to make an appropriate decision through a roller coaster of experiences. It's a very personal thing to decide how to birth your child. The only piece of advice I can give is do some reading, and if it gets confusing, talk to your local professionals on all sides of the issue. There are very few absolutes in life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Charmmi posted:Did your midwife discuss the Hibiclens protocol with you? In the US one of the options for a GBS positive homebirth is to use a topical antiseptic like Hibiclens to wash the vaginal area. And if we're sharing anecdata, I know a mom who had a GBS positive homebirth and everyone was healthy. Hibiclens protocol has so far been demonstrated to be ineffective in randomized studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15266490). Furthermore, colonization of the urine indicates a high load of GBS and even if she were to test negative for GBS later in the pregnancy she would STILL be recommended to have antibiotics during labor for the safety of the baby. This is not about anecdata. This is about a 1-2% chance of an extremely serious illness for the child. Yes, that means that you'll have 98-99 good stories to share for every one bad one we can share but that's an absurd way to evaluate the right thing to do in this case. Turpitude, I'm not sure of whether Canadian midwives are able to administer antibiotics for GBS at home or not, but I suspect not. The good news is that you've found out early enough to have a lot of time to process the change in plans. It's a good early lesson in how labor goes. Please do not try to "beat" the GBS in order to get a homebirth. It is not worth the potential cost. There is no evidence for the effectiveness of probiotics in this situation, nor any reason to expect them to be effective for it. There is negative evidence for the effectiveness of Hibiclens. The only evidence based approach at this time is antibiotics during labor. There's hope for different strategies in the future but that's the best science has to offer right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Ceridwen posted:Please do not try to "beat" the GBS in order to get a homebirth. It is not worth the potential cost. There is no evidence for the effectiveness of probiotics in this situation, nor any reason to expect them to be effective for it. There is negative evidence for the effectiveness of Hibiclens. The only evidence based approach at this time is antibiotics during labor. There's hope for different strategies in the future but that's the best science has to offer right now. I'd never heard of someone using probiotics to eliminate a bacterial infection and when I googled it there was link after link of recommendations for ways to beat the GBS test and avoid taking antibiotics while in labor. It's terrifying that there are people that would willingly risk their child's health like that. I could understand hesitating if the treatment was dangerous or exceedingly painful but it's literally an IV of penicillin. I second the recommendation of looking into birthing centers. The one my midwife works at doesn't do any medical interventions but I don't know if that includes IV antibiotics. At the very least it's worth asking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for your experiences! I'll just assume imminent pregnancy, it's just funny because I don't even know if I have regular cycles naturally. As a person who works in the medical field home birth terrifies me. Things can go bad quickly for both the mother and the baby, and sometimes you need people like me to hand out 10 bags of blood in the course of minutes. This is not common, but it's not a good risk to take for the sake of a comfortable and holistic experience. Also GBS isn't a joke- there's a reason that every woman is screened- and it can have lifelong consequences for the baby. Maybe look into birthing centers or even the local hospital. Many hospitals have become much more sensitive to birth plans and alternative birthing positions, and it is worth it to have trained professionals and resources nearby. Edit: El_Elegante makes a good point- I forgot that freestanding birthing centers exist. Yeah those are pretty useless if they aren't next to a hospital. Also, a lot of hospitals let midwives attend births if they have the right certifications/affiliations (although I don't know about Canada). If your midwife can't attend a birth at a hospital they probably shouldn't be your midwife. BadSamaritan fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
When I mentioned birthing centers-I made a point of specifically birthing centers adjacent to or within a hospital. Anything that's going to require minutes to load from a bed to a stretcher, stretcher to ambulance, then balance to a hospital is exactly the kind of delay that makes a home birth too risky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Thanks for all the information everyone! GBS update: we saw the midwife today and have been very reassured that the infection does not require hospitalization during delivery. She did another pee test to find out whether the GBS is a UTI which requires oral antibiotics, and we will also *definitely* do IV antibiotics during labor. The probiotics question was more about how to prevent my wife's gut bacteria, as well as the baby's, from being annihilated by the antibiotics, and we were assured that the penicillin-related antibiotics are narrow spectrum. Regarding home birth, it's a choice we have made in conjunction with our midwives and because the pregnancy has been completely average. We have no risk factors indicating a need for hospitalization, and my wife will be much more comfortable at home. Should we require hospital transfer (at our midwife's discretion), we will follow her advice and not be too upset about it. Midwives are allowed in hospital here. There is no birthing centre in our city, sadly. We have already toured the hospital and discovered it was decidedly not for us for a number of reasons. If anyone wants to know what those reasons are I can elaborate, but it was kind of beyond the realm of what I was asking re: GBS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
I wish you the best of luck, but I believe you are making a very bad decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:I wish you the best of luck, but I believe you are making a very bad decision. Thank you, but is there a reason I should respect your opinion more than that of our midwives and the various books we have read? Does the fact that our local hospital has a 35% cesarean rate factor in to your opinion? I don't think you know much about us or our situation, so I am not sure why you feel so strongly. If you have statistics to post, please do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
A home birth with an actual trained midwife is a very safe option for low risk pregnancies. Mind you, an actual licensed midwife. There are a lot of 'midwives' in the US that don't have much, if any, training. There are lots of countries outside the US that have midwives deliver babies in almost all low risk pregnancies. I guess what I'm saying is,home births can be perfectly safe if you have a properly trained and credentialed person attending. I don't think I'd do it, especially with a first delivery, but they aren't all the baby death traps people think they are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Turpitude posted:Thank you, but is there a reason I should respect your opinion more than that of our midwives and the various books we have read? Does the fact that our local hospital has a 35% cesarean rate factor in to your opinion? I don't think you know much about us or our situation, so I am not sure why you feel so strongly. If you have statistics to post, please do. Because I have delivered more dead babies than you have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Midwives should be able to deliver in a hospital, right? I remember for our 2nd kid, we had lined up a midwife to deliver at our favorite hospital and it was no problem. Well, except for the midwife being on vacation that week that the baby was born.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
sheri posted:A home birth with an actual trained midwife is a very safe option for low risk pregnancies. Yes, this is what we have read and been told by midwives also. Midwives are very strictly licensed here and our pregnancy is low risk. We see no reason to be concerned now that we know they can do IV antibiotics for the GBS. El_Elegante posted:Because I have delivered more dead babies than you have. That... doesn't exactly speak to your favor. I sort of get what you were trying to say, but I'm not sure you are accomplishing what you are trying to by being rude. I'm totally up for having a dialogue with you about your opinions and why you have them, and maybe you could ask why we are choosing to have a home birth instead of being rude. But really I didn't come here to ask opinions about having a home birth, we have already done tons of research and it looks like it will be very safe for us. If you have some sort of constructive information to offer, such as statistics, please go ahead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Turpitude posted:Yes, this is what we have read and been told by midwives also. Midwives are very strictly licensed here and our pregnancy is low risk. We see no reason to be concerned now that we know they can do IV antibiotics for the GBS. Yeah, rear end in a top hat. Thinking I'm stuck delivering dead babies to sobbing moms because I'm incompetent and not because they willingly chose to labor at home when it was a horrible idea? gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:Yeah, rear end in a top hat. Thinking I'm stuck delivering dead babies to sobbing moms because I'm incompetent and not because they willingly chose to labor at home when it was a horrible idea? gently caress off. Not sure how that applies to our situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
The ACOG even has this to say: http://m.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/Planned-Home-Birth?IsMobileSet=true Which indicates home birth is slightly more risky, but also says they can't do a completely randomized study on this so that may skew the data set.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Turpitude posted:Not sure how that applies to our situation. Yes I'm not sure how my desire to spare others the pain caused by an attempted home birth applies to your situation. After all, you've read all the books!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
But Turpitude, why are you going home birth? I wanted to avoid a c-section if not medically necessary. My hospital had a ~32% section rate. I made my wishes clear (and brought a doula) and had a wonderful birth experience in a hospital.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
This home birth discussion reminds me of something else I'd been meaning to ask about. Despite being otherwise nice people my wife's mother and sister are both anti vaccine. Any tips or resources on dealing with this without being confrontational about it? When we met with our pediatrician, she was very helpful, but I'd like to be able to counteract the in laws when they're visiting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
The Fool posted:This home birth discussion reminds me of something else I'd been meaning to ask about. Despite being otherwise nice people my wife's mother and sister are both anti vaccine. Any tips or resources on dealing with this without being confrontational about it? When we met with our pediatrician, she was very helpful, but I'd like to be able to counteract the in laws when they're visiting. It's been found that with people that have completely illogically held beliefs, they will actually dig in harder when presented with further evidence. The only thing that helps is to literally show them children who've died from vaccinatable diseases. The story of Roald Dahls daughter dying in less than 24hr is a pretty good one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7930637/Roald-Dahls-secret-notebook-reveals-heartbreak-over-daughters-death.html At this point in time there is still no medical treatment that will save someone from measles encephilitus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
If they're decidedly anti-vaccine, then they're not likely to listen to reason. You could try to have a debate, but it will make your head spin. Probably best to avoid the topic or, should it come up, firmly state that you believe this is the best decision for your child and that's it (even though it's the best reason for nearly every child).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
jemsy posted:If they're decidedly anti-vaccine, then they're not likely to listen to reason. You could try to have a debate, but it will make your head spin. Probably best to avoid the topic or, should it come up, firmly state that you believe this is the best decision for your child and that's it (even though it's the best reason for nearly every child). I'm not worried about convincing them, just the fud from influencing my wife too much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
We told our families 'hey, pertussis is a scary thing for babies, get your dtap if you want to see him before he gets his first couple rounds of shots' And if they didn't, (which my husband's dad and his dad's wife did not) we held our ground. They eventually came around. It sucked though-- we have a rule though that decisions like that we are a united front, but he deals with his family's crazy and I deal with mine. Edit: if your wife doesn't believe in science you can always take the baby to the doctor and get shots. You are the dad after all. Probably should have talked about something like this before making a baby though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
sheri posted:But Turpitude, why are you going home birth? I'm glad you had your wishes met at the hospital! If complications arise that require hospital intervention then we will have no problem going for it, but seeing as we are low-risk and our midwives are happy about it, we will be laboring for as long as we safely can in our comfy home. Reasons we chose to go with home birth: -We both have ICU induced PTSD from our hellish experiences around my second double lung transplant. My wife and I both lived in hospital for more than 8 months, almost entirely in the ICU while I was on life support. Even two years later the lights, sounds, smells, and a myriad of other subconscious factors caused us deep unease when visiting the birthing unit at our local hospital. The birthing unit was very unimpressive and cramped to us; my wife wants to be able to be active during the early stages of labor without being constantly bothered by strangers. -The medicalization of our pregnancy. Since I have Cystic Fibrosis, our child was conceived through ICSI which was very hard on my wife both emotionally and physically. My wife has thankfully had a very low-risk, average pregnancy since then and would like to keep her birth as free from unnecessary medical interventions as possible. We have made this clear in our birthing plan and will carry it on into hospital if we have to. -The skill and training of our midwives. They are heavily regulated here and have a ton of experience with vaginal births. -The high mortality rates of women and infants in the US and Canada. This seems to be related to an overuse of C-sections which in turn appears to be related to epidurals and pitocin use, as well as elective C sections which I personally have a problem with re: Hippocratic oath. Obviously if we need a c-section we will get one, but in a low-risk pregnancy there doesn't appear to be a reason for one. -Tying in to that, the 35% C-section rate at our local hospital is deplorable when it is 5% in Europe, making me question the ethics and training of our local OBGYNs and their nurses. -Birth Matters by Ina May Gaskin http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8599176-birth-matters The success/ease of a birth being so tied in to a woman's comfort and stress level has led us to conclude that a home birth would be more comfortable than a hospital birth for us under our circumstances. The last thing we want is doctors, nurses, and students we have never met stepping in to the room to check on my wife constantly, causing her to tense up and her cervix to tighten. We are planning a small birthing team of my wife, my self, our two midwives, and a female friend as a doula. That seems optimal to us and considering our low-risk pregnancy and my wife's fitness and emotional strength, I think we will have a really nice birthing experience!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
sheri posted:The ACOG even has this to say: That is the Wax Paper which has pretty questionable methodology, right? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/magazine/ina-may-gaskin-and-the-battle-for-at-home-births.html posted:"In 2011, ACOG acknowledged that “the absolute risk of planned home births is low” but cited a meta-analysis of 12 home- and hospital-birth studies, called the Wax Paper, which reported a two-to-three-times-higher risk of neonatal death in home births than in hospital births. But critics have raised questions about the Wax Paper’s methodology; the study included unplanned accidental home births, for instance. Natural-birth advocates point to studies in countries where home birth and midwifery are part of mainstream medical care — in the Netherlands, 30 percent of births take place at home — which show home birth to be equally safe for the baby." Including 'unplanned accidental home births' doesn't apply in our situation where we have are aiming for a planned, managed birth with midwives attending.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 04:36
|
|