Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Midwife Appointment
We went in to see our midwife and her OB today. First, we had to wait for over an hour! It was really crazy, and we thought more than once about just up and leaving, but honestly, because of how things have happened in the past, we didn’t want to cause more of an issue than there already is, fighting to be treated as normal. Not only did we have to wait, but they had the heat cranked up so high – we were all flushed!
So, we finally got into the sonogram room, and the nurse told me to strip from the waist down and put this sheet over me, and the doctor and Jane would be in – I told her I’d rather start by talking to the doctor clothed (you know – some dignity!!), and she seemed surprised by that, but went and got them both. We brought up not being able to afford the US, and somehow it ended up that I guess they aren’t charging for it, or something, because it ended up being that it wouldn’t have a financial impact on us (or at least, that’s the general gist I ended up with). We also asked if they could evaluate the other ways first, and the OB said that US was the only one he could do that would really tell us anything (I guess he hasn’t palpated for size in so long, that he can’t just do that ). So, we ended up consenting to the US, and they knew beforehand that regardless of what it said we planned on laboring.
The US measurements seemed to reassure the OB (and Jane, too), that this baby isn’t enormous – estimated weight is 8 lbs 3 oz, 64%ile, and the abdomen is actually much smaller (the head is a week ahead, the abdomen a week behind, the femur right on – the error in weeks is 2 to 3 for all measurements ). He also checked my pelvis and cervix and said I have an “adequate pelvis” that should have no problem birthing this baby, my cervix is soft, 20% effaced, and ½ cm dialated (he said this was a favorable cervix). Based on where he took the measurements, this baby is LOA/LOT (no longer posterior!!).
His “evaluation” is that I have 60% or greater chance of having this baby vaginally, and the reason it isn’t higher is that the baby is still quite high, not even in the pelvis yet (meaning not even –2). He felt that if I choose to go post-term (which he defined as my due date – so, Thursday), he wouldn’t go past 41 weeks, and if the baby hasn’t moved into the pelvis by term, and definitely by 41 weeks, then I should elect a repeat cesarean. Of course, I don’t necessarily agree with that last part (I need to do research). In summary, compared to last time, the only repeating “condition” as of now is that the baby hasn’t dropped into the pelvis yet.
------------------------------------------------