Childbirth & delivery

...now browsing by category

 

In came Beyoncé and the security guards. Out went the hospital’s common sense—and common decency.

Friday, January 13th, 2012

As an OB-GYN who has delivered thousands of babies—including several with rich and famous parents—I’m scratching my head over the insanity at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City surrounding the birth of Beyoncé’s baby.

Here’s a sampling of what went on, according to The New York Times:

The familiar area outside the neonatal unit had been transformed: partitions had been put up, the maternity ward windows were completely covered, and even the hospitals’ security cameras had been taped over with paper. Guards with Secret Service-style earpieces roamed the floor.

“We were told we could walk no further,” Ms. Nash-Coulon said Monday. And when she and her husband, Neil, demanded an explanation, she added, the guard claimed, unconvincingly, “ ‘Well, they’re handling hazardous materials,’ ” even as a large group of people screened from view were passing through the main hallway he had declared off-limits.

Let me make this perfectly clear: The hospital had no right to bar other patients from having free access to their babies.  Worse, from a safety perspective, doctors were prevented from visiting their own patients on rounds, because of this so-called “security.”

Someone in the hospital decided that the celebrity of a hip-hop artist was sufficient to ignore medical necessity and common decency. Not a good message to send to sick people.

Beyond that, I’m alarmed to learn that the baby was born by Cesarean, as so many celebrity babies are today. I could be mistaken, but I doubt that Beyoncé’s OB-GYN warned her of the risks before treating little Blue Ivy’s birth like just another item on the to-do list. The risks are real: a dramatic increase in maternal deaths due to hemorrhage and infection; more babies ending up in the neonatal intensive care units after Cesarean births because of respiratory distress.

If she’d been my patient, I’d have told her what I tell other mothers-to-be: if God wanted women to have Cesareans, he would have put a zipper in the pubic area.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Learning Your Baby’s Gender at Seven Weeks –Test is Mixed Blessing

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

For parents-to-be, impatient to know whether to paint the nursery blue or pink, a simple test can provide answers as early as seven weeks into the pregnancy.  These tests have been available for some time but weren’t widely used in the U.S., because their accuracy wasn’t known. Now, The New York Times reports, a new study in The Journal of the American Medical Association, has “found that carefully conducted tests could determine sex with accuracy of 95 percent at 7 weeks to 99 percent at 20 weeks.”

But is it really necessary to know your baby’s sex that early? For some parents, it can be.  The Times reports that European doctors routinely use such tests to:

… help expectant parents whose offspring are at risk for rare gender-linked disorders determine whether they need invasive and costly genetic testing. For example, Duchenne muscular dystrophy affects boys, but if the fetus is not the at-risk sex, such tests are unnecessary.

But the big downside, and one that concerns me greatly as a doctor and a mother, is that some cultures have such a bias against baby girls that the wide availability of such testing will result in ever more otherwise healthy female fetuses being aborted.

Several companies do not sell tests in China or India, where boys are prized over girls and fetuses found to be female have been aborted. While sex selection is not considered a widespread objective in the United States, companies say that occasionally customers expressed that interest, and have been denied the test. A recent study of third pregnancies in the journal Prenatal Diagnosis found that in some Asian-American groups, more boys than girls are born in ratios that are “strongly suggesting prenatal sex selection,” the authors said.
At least one company, Consumer Genetics, which sells the Pink or Blue test, requires customers to sign a waiver saying they are not using the test for that purpose. “We don’t want this technology to be used as a method of gender selection,” said the company’s executive vice president, Terry Carmichael.

Cultural preferences won’t be deterred by a signature on a form, but at least, it’s a start. At some point, all cultures will learn to value both genders equally. Until then, a test that holds promise for some, can be a terrible incentive for the ultimate act of bias against females in others.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Drug Maker Attempted to Capitalize on the Lives of Infants

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

There is a synthetic form of progestin called hydroxyprogesterone caproate, or 17P, that is used to prevent mothers-to-be from delivering prematurely. Treating a mother at risk of having a preemie with hydroxyprogesterone caproate was found, in tax-payer funded studies by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, to reduce the incidence of pre-term births, which naturally means that babies suffer fewer of the complications that plague preeemies. The studies also found that giving this drug to mothers-to-be at risk of premature delivery could save the health care system at least $2billion per year.

Until recently, the drug had been available only through “compounding pharmacies” (pharmacies that formulate drugs that aren’t commercially available), at a cost of about $10 to $20 per dose. But the FDA recently licensed one manufacturer, KV Pharmaceuticals, to manufacture the drug commercially, and exclusively, for the next seven years.

What usually happens at the point where a manufacturer is given exclusive rights to market a drug is that compounding pharmacies are told that they may no longer produce the drug.

And that would have happened this time – if KV Pharmaceuticals hadn’t done something that has caused a huge uproar in the maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics community. It raised the price of the drug from the $10 to $20 per dose that compounding pharmacies had been charging to (are you sitting down?) $1,500 per dose.

No, that’s not a typo.

They raised the price by an average of 100 times what it had been.

Remember, it was tax-payer dollars that funded much of the research, so the raise in price could not be attributed simply to recouping research costs. And driving the price that high would put it out of reach of most women (and babies) who needed it. A full course of the drug, given between the 16th and 36th weeks of pregnancy, had previously cost about $400. The price increase would push that cost to $30,000!

This story, at least, has a happy ending. Although, according to this article in the Seattle Times, KV Pharmaceuticals agreed  to drop the price to $690 per dose (still outrageously high, in the opinion of most in the obstetrics community), the FDA decided to allow compounding pharmacies to continue to formulate the drug when presented with a prescription.

But just imagine all the mothers and babies who would have suffered had the FDA allowed KV to put profits ahead of all else, and ordered compounding pharmacies to cease formulating the prescription.

As a maternal-fetal specialist and a mother, it sends shivers up my spine.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Time to Deliver? Mother Nature Knows Best

Thursday, December 30th, 2010

For years, I’ve been sounding the alarm about Cesarean delivery on-demand, and have persuaded my patients that childbirth isn’t something you can simply pencil into your schedule when convenient. It’s not just that a baby needs all the time nature gives her within the womb to develop, and that delivering just a few days early can mean that lung development and other functions may be potentially compromised. Cesareans are major surgery, which brings inherent danger to both mom and newborn. Necessary Cesareans are often life-savers. Unnecessary Cesareans can be just the opposite.

And now, at last, the word is spreading.

The San Jose Mercury News reports:


Babies born early through induction or C-section without a medical reason are nearly twice as likely to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit, researchers say. They also are more likely to contract infections and need breathing machines, according to a 2009 study in the New England Journal of Medicine and a number of other reports.


“We are finding out that the last weeks of pregnancy really do count,” said Leslie Kowalewski, an associate state director for the March of Dimes.


“At 35 weeks, the brain is only two-thirds of what it will weigh at 40 weeks.” Many organizations are responding with programs designed to eliminate early elective deliveries. Most significantly, chapters of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have begun to notify doctors about the serious consequences of performing early elective births.

With luck, as information about potential consequences spreads, expectant mothers and their doctors will decide to let nature take her course, for the sake of the mom’s health and her baby’s.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Ready to Deliver and Morbidly Obese: One of My Most Challenging Cases

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

A recent article in The New York Times talked about how the obesity epidemic is affecting pregnant women and their babies:

About one in five women are obese when they become pregnant, meaning they have a body mass index of at least 30, as would a 5-foot-5 woman weighing 180 pounds, according to researchers with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And medical evidence suggests that obesity might be contributing to record-high rates of Caesarean sections and leading to more birth defects and deaths for mothers and babies.

New York City’s health department reported last Friday that half of the 161 women who died because of a problem with their pregnancy between 2001 and 2005 were obese. Black women were hit hardest, with a mortality rate seven times that of white women. While deaths are extremely rare in pregnancy, the city’s rate of 23.1 per every 100,000 births is twice the national average.

My new book, SOMETHING TO PROVE, is a personal memoir first, but because I’m a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and a surgeon, it also details a number of gripping moments in the operating room.

One of my most challenging cases involved a pregnant patient transferred to my care. When I walked into my new patient’s hospital room, I discovered she weighed more than 500 pounds and her baby was showing signs of distress on the fetal monitor.  The patient needed to be delivered. Let me give you a sense of the challenge with a brief excerpt:

…Many surgeons would begin their cut above her navel in an attempt to avoid that enormous layer of fat, while trying to find the uterus to get the baby out. …The area above the pubis, even in a morbidly obese woman, is usually flat and firm. Instead of a vertical incision from the navel down, I’d lift up the apron of fat and do a horizontal incision just above the pubis. That would allow me to get into the uterus and get the baby out. …We taped her massive belly to her chest, swabbed her with an antiseptic solution, and I went in. I was able to perform the cesarean quickly, without incident or excessive bleeding, and delivered the baby in only a few minutes.

The surgeon who handled the case recounted in The New York Times decided to cut through all the mother’s layers of fat, rather than using my technique of retracting and taping the massive layers of fat, which a colleague dubbed the “Thornton suspenders.” While there might have been excellent reasons for the physician’s decision, I hope more obstetricians learn to use the “Thornton suspenders” for such difficult deliveries in obese moms. Because, as the Times article explains:

… where every minute counted, it took four or five minutes, rather than the usual one or two, to pull out a 1-pound 11-ounce baby boy.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Why is the Maternal Mortality Rate in the U.S. So High?

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

In the richest nation on earth, with an advanced health care system, and the technology available to monitor and treat mothers and their babies, you’d expect the United States to have among the lowest rates of maternal mortality. So it’s distressing to learn that, although it’s still relatively rare for mothers to die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth, it happens here more often than it should. The U.S. is ranked 41st in maternal deaths among 171 nations analyzed by U.N. experts. That’s a worse record than virtually any other developed country — even worse than a good number of under-developed countries. What’s even more distressing: the death rate is rising.

The question is why? Why is pregnancy so risky in such a rich nation?

Often, the reason is a pre-existing disorder that complicates pregnancy, such as obesity, high blood pressure, or diabetes. The lack of access to good quality care among the uninsured also puts women at risk, leaving them without diagnosis and treatment for conditions that can cause problems until the condition gives rise to a full-blown emergency.

But there’s one contributor to maternal death that might surprise you. Our wealth, itself, could be contributing to the risk, because it encourages the prevalence of Cesarean-on-demand.

According to the CDC, in 2007, 31.8 percent of births were by Cesarean section. The rates of births by C-section have risen every year for at least eleven years.

While C-sections can be, and often are, life-saving, it’s difficult to justify that high a rate. The World Health Organization estimates that the U.S. rate is twice what would be medically necessary.

Cesarean births are now treated as routine, but major surgery is never routine. Major surgery comes with the risk of complications, including hemorrhage. And the C-section, as common as it has become, is still major surgery.

Childbirth is usually very safe, but it could be safer. Giving all women access to pre-natal care and preventive medicine is an important start. But it’s also important to remember that a woman’s body was designed to deliver babies the old-fashioned way. And choosing unnecessary surgery instead could be inviting trouble.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

When New Moms – or New Dads – Get the Pregnancy Blues

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Most women are familiar with the term post-partum depression.  Start with all the stresses of adding a new member to the family – not just the financial burden, but the schedule upheaval, the sleep deprivation, and the demands of a tiny person who can only make his or her needs known by wailing. Add the wild surge of hormones flooding a woman’s body, and is it any wonder that she might not be the picture of serenity and assurance? Estimates vary on the prevalence but as many as 25 percent of new moms may experience some level of depression either before or after delivery.

That’s bad enough, but now a study suggests that new fathers, just like new mothers, can find themselves overwhelmed when baby makes three (or more).

“The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., found that 10.4% of men experienced serious depression at some point between his partner’s first trimester and one year after childbirth, more than double the depression rate for men in general. American men were more likely to experience prenatal or postpartum depression compared with men in other countries, 14.1% in the U.S. compared with 8.2% internationally.”

What can you do when the guy you depend upon to keep you sane is going through his own blue period?

Your most important step –the one you should take if either you or your partner starts to feel sadness, agitation or hopelessness – is to talk to your doctor. Don’t try to tough it out. Reach out for help at the first signs that something isn’t quite right. It’s possible that all you need to get back to your cheery old selves is a good night’s sleep, but sometimes, you need more. The good news is that help is available. But first, you have to be aware of the signs of depression.

Post-partum depression can be debilitating if you let it go, so take steps immediately to get yourself and your new family back into the swing of enjoying things together again.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Babies I’ve delivered, all grown up

Friday, April 30th, 2010

Other doctors deal mostly with unhappy occasions, from a sniffle to serious illness, but obstetricians are there for the happiest times – the birth of a child – which is why I always say I have the best job ever.

I was reminded of just how wonderful my specialty has been to me by an e-mail from a patient transferred to my care 16 years ago, who eventually had to undergo a complicated cesarean delivery. As a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, I was called in by her obstetrician for difficult cases like hers.

She was carrying twins and had been in the hospital for a week. The night before the delivery, she’d had a very rough time. To help get through it, she’d watched “The Sound of Music” on TV.

The next day, in the delivery room, I delivered her babies by cesarean, fraternal twins, one boy, one girl. As I sent the babies off to the nursery, I noticed that her ovaries were very large and purple and asked if she’d been on fertility drugs. She hadn’t been but I called in two more specialists to consult and chatted with her as we reviewed the situation. Despite their enormous size and color, the ovaries did not pose a threat to her health and I decided to leave them where they were and just watch the situation.

We got to know each other better as I visited each day. When she mentioned the movie she’d seen the night before the delivery, I told her that it was one of my favorites and that I’d copied Maria’s wedding veil for my own wedding. After she and her babies went home, we stayed in touch and I sent her a copy of my first memoir, THE DITCHDIGGER’S DAUGHTERS.

Just last week, those twin babies turned 16 and my patient sent me some photographs of them looking all grown up.  It brightened up my day to see them, and to know that I had a hand in bringing them into the world. She also spoke of how she loved my book. So I can’t wait until my new memoir, SOMETHING TO PROVE, is published this fall. She’s going to be one of the first people I send a copy to.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

How late can you wait to have a baby?

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

Today, many women are delaying starting families, most likely due to career and  economic concerns. Pregnancy rates are down in all age groups except for those 40 to 44 years of age, says the CDC, where pregnancy rates are up by 4 percent.

With all those over-40 women having babies, does this mean you can wait indefinitely if you hope to get pregnant? Not really.  A woman’s peak of fertility is about 25 years of age.  After that, “it’s all downhill.”  The likelihood of becoming pregnant drops dramatically well before you reach menopause, which is what many women think of as the end of their fertile years. A great number of those after-40 pregnancies are the results of medical interventions such as in vitro fertilization and donor eggs from 25 year olds.  Unlike our male counterparts who keep producing new sperm every 74 days, women are given their complement of eggs way before they are even born and there are no more new eggs to be produced.   Therefore, at 36 years of age, a woman’s eggs are 36+ years old with all the attendant risks that accompany any aging process.  According to the March of Dimes:

“At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 40, the risk increases to 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, the risk  of carrying a child with a chromosomal anomaly such as Down syndrome, continues to rise to 1-in-30 chance.”

The advent of artificial reproductive technologies virtually transforms a woman’s “biological clock” into a perpetual calendar, but not without risks.  In studies, babies born via in vitro fertilization have been shown to have a higher risk of birth defects.

If an older woman doesn’t mind having a baby who carries none of her DNA, she may opt for a donor egg from a younger woman, which is then fertilized by her husband and the embryo transferred into her uterus.  Many of the older celebrities have chosen this route for their family planning.

Medical interventions, while they seem miraculous when they work, aren’t guaranteed to be successful. Just as in getting pregnant the old-fashioned way, your chances of success drop the older you are.  In vitro fertilization will result in a live birth among women past 40 only 6 to 10 percent of the time versus a 30 to 35 percent success rate among women younger than 35.

Nature’s message is clear, and unfortunately, it doesn’t offer any leeway in difficult economic times or while you are working your way up the corporate ladder: if you want to start a family, you’re more likely to be successful if you begin well before you turn 40.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH

Pregnant or new mom and feeling depressed? Get help now.

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Pregnancy and childbirth alter the hormonal balance, which may explain why depression is so common at this stage of women’s lives. Up to 23 percent of pregnant women experience symptoms of depression and that figure rises to up to 25 percent among new mothers.

Many women decide to simply suffer through it without seeking help, but that could be a big mistake. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

“… untreated maternal depression negatively affects an infant’s cognitive, neurologic, and motor skill development. A mother’s untreated depression can also negatively impact older children’s mental health and behavior.”

Everyone feels sad some of the time. It’s normal to have a bad day. But if your bad day stretches into weeks, for your own sake and the sake of your baby, you need to get help. If you don’t have a therapist, ask your ob-gyn for a referral if you experience feelings of hopelessness, sadness or despair. Don’t suffer needlessly. Help is available.

- Yvonne S. Thornton, MD, MPH