KathyM
-
Posts
1,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Downloads
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by KathyM
-
-
My sister's only just had the spina bifida test and she's 16 weeks gone. She went private for Nuchal Transparency (sp?) and other tests for Down's as she couldn't wait for the regular amnio, that was all prior to 12 weeks, but it cost her £400-odd.
Thanks.
Yeah I had the nuchal transluscency as part of a trial, and that was part of my 12 or 13 week scan if I remember rightly but like I said it was a trial so I didn't know if that was the "norm". When I had Connie the amniocentesis or the other test I can't remember the name of, was done at 20 weeks because of the risk of miscarriage (I assume it's safer the later on you are, but dunno). -
I don't know if things have changed since I had Connie, but aren't some of the important tests only available after a certain gestation? I thought the amnios were done at about 20 weeks, but it might have changed.
-
Not having a go Kathy, but that statement is untrue. Babies born at 24 weeks are more likely to survive than not.
24 weeks is the point at which a foetus becomes "viable" as I said. Being more likely to survive than not is saying that a baby has a better than 50:50 chance of survival, that's not a "good" chance in my books. My son was born at 36 weeks and 5 days, that's 3 months after the above "viable" stage, and was classed as "premature", had a collapsed lung, hole in the heart (very common in prems) and RDS and was in special care for some time. He also had to have light therapy for jaundice, and another 2 weeks in hospital for premature related illness soon after he came home when he nearly died. He couldn't even suck and had to be tubefed. He has had long term blood sugar disorder that has nearly killed him on numerous occasions. He is dyslexic and under observation/assessment for ADSs, most likely the professionals believe because of oxygen starvation at birth.
I don't think anyone can say that just because a baby is possibly able to survive at 24 weeks means that it has a good chance. It has a good chance of brain trauma from lack of oxygen, liver failure, stroke and just about every other ailment linked to being premature, and then as an older child, a high chance of autistic spectrum disorders, ADHD, dyslexia, etc etc etc.
Yes a baby born at 24 weeks are likely to survive physically. And then they're likely to go on to suffer long term physical and educational problems.
I know that noone's saying these baies would be born at 24 weeks - they'd most likely and certainly nearly all go on to full term and be born "normally" with few complications.
But if the guidelines are going to go on how young a foetus can survive, then surely all this plays a part in that decision? It's certainly not natural for babies to survive that are born at that "cut off" point.
God I've waffled! sorry
-
I think that the majority of people would agree that 24 weeks is far far far to late to terminate a pregnancy unless there are exceptional circumstances ( what ever there views on terminations in general )
I go against the majority, because I think 24 weeks is okay. It's always going to be something that gets argued over, but 24 weeks is the generally accepted "line" between a baby making it or not making it (I know there are exceptions, but at 24 weeks a baby is still unlikely to survive, but is at that point labelled "viable").
To be fair, I didn't know I was pregnant with Connie until I was 12 or 13 weeks. If I'd had doubts over a termination, I would've needed time to make a decision. Lowering the stage of pregnancy at which terminations are carried out only limits choice and forces women to carry unwanted children.
Edited because I need to drink coffee before I post in future. I don't mean to sound disrespectful to anyone's views
Edited again to say I'm not ignoring you Kazz
-
Completely and utterly pro choice under all circumstances
-
Thats exactly what they're like Jules, only not fun
It's a small plastic and metal whatsername that sits up your flue and makes it twitch. I've got one and it really does make your pelvic muscles contract [you have different settings and work up to the highest over a period of months] but I was wondering if they actually do any good long term or of they only appear to be working at the time cos your fannys is throbbing 
They're not painful but not exactly pleasant either [and you can't sit down properly while it's in] 
I started to use mine then got bored. If they work I really need to start it up again or face a lifetime of tena lady.
Oh my God, are they like TENS machines then? Because I used a TENS in labour and I would imagine that would seriously ow me chuff. Especially if you didn't think to check the setting before insertion. Flippin' heck.
Now I'm disappointed you said they weren't fun. I imagine a twitchy flue would be quite a lot of fun, but not now I'm mentally linking it with TENS machines.
-
Awww Mel
<won't hug you tooo hard LOL>.Maybe we should have a club?
-
They have two sizes, one larger for slack faj mothers like me (said tongue in cheek!!)
But I think this would be more appropriate, as apparently the Mooncup relies on your vaginal muscles holding it in place (my pelvic floor can't hold in my water never mind a bucket)
Edit: Of course I was stitched like a virgin after my three, honest guv.
-
I've found a better method. Depo provera. No monthlies for 3 years now
<Disclaimer: please be aware that although KathyM is the funtain of knowledge, she is not however a general practitionner or medical surgeon or gynaecologicalist. Please consult the Oracle (Dr Hilary) before trying potentially dangerous medications.>
Is this one?
-
I'm so sorry, I've only just read this
All our thoughts are with you, run free Meggie Moo
-
For Ruby's arthritis we had her on cod liver oil and glucosamine. I have to say the CLO worked miles more than the glucosamine.
How's his weight? That can play a part in it too, although I know it's hard to keep them lean when they're in so much discomfort they can't exercise
-
Sometimes tummy/gut/other internal (kidney, liver?) problems can manifest in a similar way to joint problems - stiff arched appearance, reluctance to exercise/move. It would tie in with sleepiness and lack of appetite too. I ould have his bloods checked
-
Haggis (mwahahaha)
-
-
-
There's a lot of horror stories about Rimadyl, but you'll find that most are down to guidelines not being followed. Rimdayl is a fantastic drug when used properly, even long term (with regular checks). I've had two very oldies have an extra 18 months of pain free and happy life due to long term Rimadyl use. I'm surprised that people have this misguided idea that Metacam is safer as one of the possible side effects listed by the people that make it on the actual packaging is "death" (not sure if the UK bottles have that listed on them but they do in the US). Both are very safe drugs when administered properly to the right candidates. Both should always be taken with or after food to avoid side effects.
I actually read somewhere that Rimadyl wasn't taken off the human market for safety reasons - it was moved over to the veterinary market because that's where the real money is for the manufacturer.
Abortion
in Non Animal Chat
Posted
You know, I didn't even notice until you just posted!
