What's in a DUE DATE?

My husband, a first born, was 30 days over due, something that would never be allowed today, and for many good reasons, but none the less late, very healthy, I think he's a genius, and asking around I've discovered that kind of lateness, 30 days, isn't that uncommon.   I, a second born, was one day early.

Today I am coming closer and closer to hitting the two weeks over mark with Baby Lunsford, and no, I am not going to tell that date/ date range.

So what's in a DUE DATE?

1. The estimated due date (EDD) was established by Dr Naegele, a German obstetrician in the early 1800s, 200 years ago.  He declared that a pregnancy “should last ten moon months, that is, ten months of four weeks each.” Calculated at forty weeks from the date of your last period, the due date is based on the assumption that you have a regular 28 day cycle, and conceived 14 days after the first day of your period.
2. Another theory for dating was to calculate from the known date of conception, but there's a potential for little boys to be conceived faster than little girls, due to male sperm dying out before female sperm that could remain in cervical fluid for longer and give a greater margin of error. 
3. A study of US. mothers showed the average pregnancy length for first-time white mothers was 274 days (41 weeks and one day) from ovulation. Black women, women younger than 19 and older than 34, women with previous births and women pregnant with boy babies all tend to have shorter pregnancies.

So "technically" according to the scientific assumption of modern medicine along with current studies of the length of uncomplicated human gestation, there are potentially three dues dates.

BUT... everyone knows, a baby is going to come when a baby comes, so what's the big deal?  

The big deal is there are two complicating factors- LEGALITY and FEAR.

LEGALITY

We love to make things clear and concise, to say this is the WAY. It is black or white.  Contracts, courts, and insurance companies are not interested in the gray.

If you've been reading my blog, you'll know I am a big fan of midwife Ina May Gaskin.  In Ina May’s Guide to Childbirth and manifesto, Birth Matters, induction of labor in the US has shown to have doubled during the 1990s from about 10% to about 20%, in large part because of the introduction of a new range of induction drugs.

Hospitals and Doctors are bound to enormous insurance pressures and 42 weeks has become considered "overdue enough" before greater risk should be taken.  

Birth Centers and Midwifery Clinics have laws imposed on them, by states, that should a mother go beyond 42 weeks, the mother is now required to give birth in a hospital.  Of course there's some wiggle room, but this over rides the natural principle of letting baby come when it wants to, and instead of being 14 days overdue, if one was to follow the modern study and law of averages mentioned above, mothers and midwives are only given 6 days to go overdue before being legally commanded to go to the hospital. 

Currently up to a third of pregnancies are induced, despite World Health Organization recommendations that “no geographic region should have rates of induced labor over 10%.”  When my husband was born the rate was 5%.  The current national averages are below in the following graph. 

Despite years of increasing, the rate of inductions HAS gone down (however slightly) in recent years, for some groups of gestational and maternal age as seen HERE and in the tables below.

FEAR

Notice the earlier sections in the first graph.  

The increase in inductions are among younger women.

The decrease in inductions grow the closer you get to full term in every age group.

The study doesn't go into it, but being a first time pregnant lady, I have a hunch.  FEAR.  

You're young, BIG, everyone is getting anxious, you've never squeezed anything "baby size" out of your lady parts, and the 3D technician just told you you're going to have a BIG Baby.

I have a hard time believing any first time mother would be excited for a C-section, though Brazil dictates otherwise.  And I don't have a hard time believing that every first time mother is at least a little scared.  We've never done this, most of us have never seen it, there's been very little popular/mainstream education about this topic, and a national pastime of America is to share horror stories.

So that's my hypothesis.  Women can and are being bullied by a complex host of fears into inductions and then they are being told there was no other way.  I know that can be the truth for some women, but I also truly believe that percentage of women is very low.

BUT... I don't believe those fears are nearly as strong as the fears I have about being induced.  Why?  Because I have an inquiring mind and wanted to know what those drugs would do to me for the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Women have been having babies for eons, so why do we need SO MUCH HELP now?

The myriad of medications and modern protocols can easily set you on a slippery slope towards complications for not only the mother but also the baby.  

 Did you know Maternal Death is on a RISE in the U.S. and there is little being done about?

Do the research.  It's more than I have time for in my blog, and you shouldn't just take my word.  But know there are particular concerns regarding maternal and infant death as well as developmental delays due to not allowing the natural hormones in a woman's body to take their time orchestrating the complex composition a mother's body is performing for her AND the baby.  I'm going to go back to BIRTH MATTERS now and encourage everyone who cares about the future of mothers in the U.S. to read it. 

AGAIN,  if you've read my blog, you'll know I'm not ANTI induction.  My husband is alive today because of the magical effect of Pitocin and a C-section.  It is amazing technology and has certainly saved lives, but where does one draw the line?  In Brazil that line has been crossed so far, there are couples coming to America not to have "US citizen births," but to have birth naturally.

So the Big Deal with my due date range now is that people are asking "what's wrong?"

I am healthy.  

I have had a very uncomplicated pregnancy.  

I have had a long slow early start to labor.  

I have a very active baby in my belly.  

I am resting, walking, eating, laughing, and hydrating.

I am anxious, but I am not going to rush this baby. 

There are no signs that anything is wrong, only signs that things have started and the orchestra that is my body is taking it's time warming up, tuning up, and preparing to await the Tiny Conductor's cue to begin.

"Tiny" just might be an irrelevant adjective by the time we meet her/him.

Young women, new mothers, and the general public need a good foundational understanding of birth AND a good understanding of modern and midwifery medical practices.  Here's a great TED Talk to start with.

Do no harm. A Tiny Test and my big decision to waive antibiotics at birth.

We're almost there!  Signs of arrival have begun, 

so I will be ducking out soon to lay in with our baby.

Today's topic: DO NO HARM.

In your 37/38th week of pregnancy, you do a little test, with a little swab to see if you have a little colony in your nether regions called Group B Strep.

What? Strep in your nether regions? Like Strep throat?

Kind of, but this is just one of the many kinds of bacteria that are down there.  Unfortunately, while it rarely causes problems for the mother, it could be cause for concern with the babe.

Those who give birth vaginally and test positive have for many years been given a round of antibiotics at or just before birth, and same goes for baby (they share a bloodstream).

Why?  Because the theory is that if you can kill all the bacteria down there then you can eliminate ANY chance of the GBS passing to the baby.  But is this accurate? Or is it more of a lets cover our bases approach?

Well, I tested positive.

I got the news, beat myself up a bit, cried, and then spent the rest of the day digging even deeper into the research I had already glanced at.

I already knew Ina May Gaskin's thoughts, (certain births and babies are more susceptible and antibiotics come with their own problems, plus they didn't prove to work as promised) but what were other midwives and Doctors saying?  What about other mothers?  Was there anything else that could be done to prevent my positive diagnosis from becoming a problem?

After searching around I thought Wellness Mama had the best and most simply understood approach to helping prevent GBB and minimizing/eliminating the colony so you test negative.  She's also great at pointing to the research in her article that helped her come to a decision on natural alternative and waiving the antibiotics.  One note: when going down the research tunnel, don't spend too much time in the comments sections. People are very passionate about this topic (as they should be) but sometimes it gets downright mean.

Am I anti-Modern Medicine?  NO.  When I got the influenza virus coming back from Sundance and only having 4 days before I had to get back on another plane to go to another conference, I know I wouldn't have made it with out Tamiflu!  

I also had a lot of Strep throat as a child and was given a lot of penicillin, until finally they removed my tonsils and the strep throat pretty much never came back.  Take that for what it's worth, but my point is NO I am not against antibiotics.

Am I against interfering with the earliest of digestive and nervous systems that I have been growing, protecting and taking very good care of for the last 9 months?  YES.

Here's the bottom line with GBS, from my POV.

• Even if you test negative, you could still be positive at the time of birth.
• This is a much more common bacteria than people realize.
• The incidence of babies contracting the bacteria and becoming severely ill is much lower than the blanket antibiotic treatment recommended by most Doctors.
• Babies who are preterm, underweight, and born long after the mothers' water breaks into dry environments have a greater chance of contracting the bacteria. 

Again, the above are just a few factors, but it was enough for me to waive the antibiotics.  I've been on a natural protocol to eliminate/minimize GBS and I will be vigilant after giving birth.  Signs of the blood infection occur early on and usually in the first three months and the signs are clear.  At the first sign of any of them my Pediatrician will be consulted.

For a WELL RESEARCHED ARTICLE with much more information read on here: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/treating-gbs-group-b-strep-are.html