From: lisa@watson.ibm.com (Lisa Leutenegger)
Subject: Re: Use of drugs during labor - and electronic monitoring
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:42:15 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1683284B2.M16585@mwvm.mitre.org> M16585@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>Definitely--keep your options open--most health professionals understand what
>you're going through & they try to help as best they can

I'm not sure why people think that we are not keeping our options open - but
thank you for the advice - we have always planned to do just that.

>>> A woman who is electronically monitored is more likely to have a
>>> cesarean or a forceps delivery than one who is not.  The problem
>>> is that doctors simply don't have a clear idea on how to interpret
>>> the data they get from these machines.
>>>
> 
>Really? I had never heard that before--where did you get your data?
>Anyone Else heard this?

I don't have all the articles with me - but from memory:

One article was a summary of the results of a study commissioned by the
National Center for Health Services Research (or something like that).
The study summarized about 600 articles and books on written on the
subject of EFM.  I recall the authors of the study estimated that EFM
was responsible for 1/2 of the increase in c-sects during the 10 year
period they were looking at (I believe late 70's early 80's).

There were numerous articles in ObGyn News about this.

Consumer Reports did an article about this a year or 2 ago.

I have read numerous articles in newpapers about this.


>>> As a final note - EFM uses ultrasound technology - which in itself is
>>> possibly harmful to the fetus.  I for one do not want to expose my fetus
>>> to hours of a technology that has not been proven safe and from the
>>> 1 or 2 articles I have read it is quite possibly unsafe.
>>
>Stefan had no problems, and is still very healthy. I hadn't heard anything
>about possible harmful effects or I probably wouldn't have kept it on for
>so long.

I didn't look into this issue very closely as it was not my biggest concern.
But the 1 article I did read [Fetal Effects of Ultrasound: A growing
controversy - by Doris Haire in the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery - vol 29,
no 4 july/august 1984] did not paint a pretty picture.  One of the main 
points of the article was the fact that most women are never informed of
the potential risks of ultrasound.  The FDA & NIH are well aware of the
potential problems yet they do no require doctors to inform their patients
of these problems.

One of the more frightening (to me at least) potential risks of ultrasound
are from a study [referenced in the article I read] that showed a link
between premature ovulation and ovarian ultrasonography.  As the article
says "If ultrasound can affect the adult ovary, what, then, is the effect
of ultrasound on the ova of the female fetus?"  The answer is we don't know
but I don't really want my daughter to be the one that has to find out,
can you say DES?

The article also mentioned studies that showed possible links between ultrasound
and luekemia, cellular growth & mobility, lower birth weight and, higher derived
dyslexia scores.   Animal studies were mentioned that supposedly revealed
delayed neuromuscular developement, altered emotional behavior, EEG changes,
anomalies, and decreased survival as a result of ultrasound exposure.

We never tracked down any newer infomation on this subject - or looked into
any of the references in the article.  So I'm not sure how reliable the
information is.  This article is not what we are basing our choice to 
refuse EFM for 20 minutes upon arrival at the hospital - but it is certainly
something to think about.  


As long as I seem to be causing a lot of contorversy [all I asked was if
other people had refused EFM - I didn't say I wanted to give birth out 
in a meadow with only my husband and cats in attendance and that medical 
intervention is completely unnecessary] anyway an interesting data point 
in the discussion of induction due to premature ruputuring of membranes 
(PROM).  Our midwives do not have an arbitrary time limit for how long a
woman can go in the event of PROM.  As long as I am not taking baths, having 
sex, or putting anything up my vagina (including their fingers - heck if you 
are at risk for infection why let your health care provider be the one to 
cause the infection) and my temperature remains normal I will not be induced - 
they will let labor start naturally even if it takes weeks.  Heck anything
that reduces the number of internal exams sounds like a good deal to me :-)


---lisa leutenegger
   lleut@watson.ibm.com 

Newsgroups: misc.kids