The Parallel Paradox Part 3 - Dealing with Placenta Previa

Continued from parts one and two.

After getting off the phone, and calming down, I drove directly to my local natural parenting store, where I'd been going for cloth diapers, slings, and a home birth support group. Surely their abundant bookshelves would offer up some helpful and reassuring information, somewhere in all the books I'd been devouring for their information on natural/home birth and holistic pregnancy.

On the contrary. I looked in index after index after index. And each book in turn referred me to a page that mentioned the several universally-agreed-upon contraindications for a vaginal birth. I might as well be walking around with a pre-prolapsed cord. Some mentioned that placentas can migrate late in pregnancy, but offered no further information. All the crunchalicious books I had found so empowering were now shutting a door in my face, or so it felt.

One of the employees that I had become friendly with came over to offer some help, and I told her what was up. "I guess I'm just feeling pretty powerless right now," I said, fighting tears but still self-conscious that maybe I was blowing the whole thing out of proportion. She reiterated what the perinatologist had said about the likelihood of migration, and though she didn't know anyone who'd dealt with this personally, she had known of some women on a message board who had. I decided to check in on the message boards when I got home.

Before I logged on, though, I decided to browse through my own shelves and see if I found anything new. All of my own books produced the same result as the books at the store - "Previa, placenta, 176, contraindication to vaginal delivery"; "Placental abnormalities, 242, previa"; "Placenta previa, 52, reasons for cesarean"; "Previa, placenta, 67, abandon all hope" - except for one. One very unexpected resource.

When she got the news of her impending grandmahood, my birthmom ran right out and picked up what seemed to be THE book, the bible, even, for pregnant women, and was recommended as such by the bookstore employees: "What to Expect When You're Expecting". Now, as you'll gather from that snarky link of mine there, this is a book that, generally speaking, is not held in the highest regard by many naturally-minded people. Those on the spectrum of crunch tend to see it as very conventional, quite pro-intervention, and unnecessarily anxiety-provoking. Yet this book was the one place that went beyond listing placenta previa as a flashing red light, offered me some more information, and even managed to be reassuring.

It explained that previas are present at only 1 in every 200 births, that "A low-lying placenta is fairly common but as pregnancy progresses, the placenta usually moves upward and away from the cervix." It went on to say that nothing (nothing!) needed to be done about it - no mention of pelvic rest or limiting activity. "You don't even have to give your low-lying placenta a second thought." I wondered if I should have the authors call [insert Connecticut OB/CNM collaborative practice name here].

The book then mentioned a few risk factors for placenta previa, including smoking and previous uterine surgery. Though I had already quit, I did smoke for 15 years, and 'uterine surgery' does include D&C, which, as the perinatologist had so sensitively clarified in categorizing its non-spontaneous nature, was also true in my case. Enter guilt: because of mistakes and poor choices past, my baby was now at risk. Add that to my custom blend of fear and helplessness.

Yet despite feeling this guilt, I felt a little better about my odds, and a little more armed with information. I had a longer talk with Nancy, my midwife, about things I might be able to do for myself under the circumstances. "The worst part is that there's nothing that I can do about it!" I cried. "Oh, but there is," she said. No, she didn't know of any acupuncture or homeopathic treatments, as I had been wondering, but talked about visualization as a powerful tool, and explained how placentas tend to be attached to parts of the uterus with good, iron-rich blood supplies. I devised a regiment where I would take Floradix*, a natural and non-constipating liquid iron supplement, every day, and every night I would utilize my massage skills and use upward strokes on my belly to help me visualize my placenta migrating upwards. (This is not a medical treatment or even an official massage technique, simply a tactile aid to my own visualization and positive-thinking process.)

As the week wore on, I talked with others who offered comfort and support, and also valued the use of visualization. One of my wise massage therapy co-workers and mentors was especially adept at 'manifestation', and helped me fine-tune what I was going for. One important point was to work on visualizing and verbalizing things in the positive - in her view, the Universe doesn't respond to our negations of things in our statements, but to the things themselves. I know, I know, can I vague that up a little more? For example: in a birth plan, rather than asking for "no episiotomy", you would ask for and envision "an intact perineum." So, in my case, rather than asking for and focusing on "no placenta previa", I worked on manifesting "a clear and open cervix".

Does this all sound awfully "woo" to you? I know. It kind of is. I'm actually really not much of a woo person in general, but this was all I had. It helped me to think I was doing something for myself, being active in the process, and taking back some power in some small way, rather than sitting around feeling passive, powerless, and sorry for myself, victimized by a cruel combination of questionable past choices and lousy luck.

All this was prior to my next cervical check with the CNM practice. I had one more to go before they would give me the no-cerclage-necessary all-clear, and the perinatologist had sent them his recommendation to do all subsequent internal exams via transvaginal ultrasound. So I returned to the CNMs about a week after the Level II ultrasound that diagnosed the previa, a week that had started out as an emotional Space Mountain, but during which I had gradually found my way to feeling more stable and optimistic, however hesitantly. Assuming my cervix was still closed, I was planning on discontinuing the parallel care, but was a little uncertain now that my placenta had thrown a wild card into the mix.

I started with a trip to the ultrasound technician's room, where she confirmed the same placenta location, and also noted that my cervix was still long and closed - no sign of 'incompetency'. I then went into an exam room to wait for whoever the rotation assigned to me that day, feeling a little wary but fairly resolved, based on everything I had learned.

The CNM that entered the room was the one I had come to think of as Ms. Worst Case Scenario, the youngest one in the practice and also, in my experience, the most conservative. It had been she who raised the alarm about my cervix to begin with, and had exerted a substantial amount of pressure regarding prenatal testing. Now, she looked over my revised chart with its fresh new scarlet P, and reviewed all the precautions I needed to take, including pelvic rest and no strenuous exercise. I agreed to all of the precautions, and then started to explain what I was doing on my end, with visualization and positive thinking.

She cut me off with a shrug, saying, and I swear I quote this word for word, even after all this time, "Well, either it's going to move or it's not, and no amount of thinking you do is going to change that."

Long pause.

You know, you don't have to believe in what I was talking about. I had my own doubts. But my GOD, it was obvious that the whole placenta situation was really , really upsetting to me, and even more obvious that this was something that was helping me to feel better about it. Would it have &@#$!ing killed her to at least pretend to be - well, not supportive, because that was clearly beyond her, but to simply remain neutral? Sure, YOU might not think it would help, but there's also no way it would hurt, so what the hell was the problem? Even a noncommittal nod, a "Mmm-hmm . . ." and a change of subject would have been preferable to just dismissing me outright.

I shouldn't have let it affect me, but I was already on shaky ground. I tried to remind myself that, AGAIN, this was just the world that she came from, and she wished me no ill will; on the contrary, she was giving me the care that she believed in, and was trying to do what was best according to her belief system. A placenta previa WAS something to take seriously (none of my posts are intended to suggest that it isn't.). And again, in contrast with other major pregnancy complications, fetal OR maternal, things certainly could have been worse. I knew better. Already, I knew better, yet her words took the wind right out of my fragile fledgling sails.

Slowly, I was realizing how I had been swept along in a cascade of interventions, prenatally. Hospital tickets aren't only issued for the grand finale-ride of labor.

We went on to have a bit of an argument about whether or not it was okay for me to fly home for Christmas. I had mentioned my plans to visit family in Colorado, and she grimaced as though I was suggesting I take up jousting. Asking her to explain her concerns, as every book and website I visited stated that travel was fine at this point (it might be unpleasant when feeling nauseous in the 1st trimester, and that in the third, the concern was that IF one should happen to go into premature labor, one would be away from appropriate care - not that it caused premature labor), that 2nd trimester was the safest time of all. Did my previa make some kind of difference?

She said her concern was the possibility that an abrupt change in pressure, should there be an incident, could cause my water to break. I was learning to speak up, however hesitantly, and have fewer l'esprit d'escalier moments five minutes after leaving the office where I thought of all the things I wished I could have said in the moment, and I pointed out that this unlikely scenario could happen to ANY pregnant woman. So was she really suggesting that no pregnant woman should ever board a plane, period? She waffled a little, but essentially said yes. There was a risk, and if that risk came true, how would you live with yourself?

This is pretty much where I realized that East was East, West was West, and never the 'twain shall meet. I was trying to reconcile two very, very different worlds, and had fallen into a strange kind of mostly self-created trap as a result. The fact that I had been needing to decompress after every CNM visit had already demonstrated that there was a fundamental dissonance in mindsets. However unintentionally, I had bought the hospital ticket. I went into the situation thinking that parallel care would be "the best of both worlds", but it became ever clearer that it was not nearly as simple as that. The kind of care given (and sought) in pregnancy IS, in part, a manifestation of various sets of beliefs. I don't think it's remotely as black & white - or as polarizing - as "Trust Birth" vs. "Fear Birth", but there IS a spectrum between those two poles, and these particular CNMs** and I were clearly many, many miles apart.

I left that visit with a stamp of approval regarding my cervical competency, informed them that as a result of said competency, I was not planning to continue parallel care in general, but did need to return for a follow-up ultrasound at 28 weeks. The odds were totally with me. One more spin on the hospital ride, I hoped and prayed and visualized - to see if it had migrated.

Here I break with what would make the most sense in serial narrative form, and post a spoiler:

It hadn't.



*Note: I'm a fan of Floradix, but word to the wise, plan to have something in hand to 'chase' it with immediately. Great product, revolting taste. I always followed with orange juice.

**It bears reiterating that I am not at all trying to slam CNMs in general - this is, again, just my own experience.

A Paradigm Shift is Afoot: from "combination feeding" with formula to informed milk donation

There has been a rather seismic movement afoot (pun intended) in the online breastfeeding community, as it were, over the last few weeks. If you're not in the loop, the gist of the situation is that a breastfeeding advocate named Emma Kwasnica has galvanized a Facebook-centered milksharing network online: Eats on Feets. Such a thing isn't 100% new, as a site called MilkShare has been working at the same for a while now, and those in the know might be able to find donors on boards like Mothering.com (I've unloaded my freezer to several strangers on MDC myself). But this is taking flight like nothing has before, and I think it has everything to do with harnessing the power of Facebook and social networking in general, and how integral it has become to many of our lives.

Other bloggers have done a great job detailing the phenomenon that is Eats on Feets, such as The Motherwear Breastfeeding Blog and One of Those Women. There's much to discuss, including the (over)reaction of the Canadian government - and I won't try to reinvent the wheel here; check out their posts! But this awesome recent development ties into something I've been struggling to write about recently anyway, which is the matter of supplementation, which, in our current Western society, is set by default to formula.

Some refer to the choice to supplement (often electively, but sometimes out of necessity) as "combination feeding" or "mix feeding". It sounds innocuous enough, right? I've heard it referred to as "the best of both worlds", and despite the crystal-clear recommendation from both the AAP and the WHO to breastfeed exclusively for a minimum* of six months, the number of women who breastfeed at all are combination feeders. By a huge majority.

Initiation rates have gone up in most areas (though there's still room for improvement), and this is a positive thing. But after even a few weeks, the number of women exclusively breastfeeding drops dramatically. Check out the CDC's latest report card: By 3 months, the number of women exclusively breastfeeding is only 33%, and by 6 months . . . 13.3%. The numbers for continued non-exclusive breastfeeding are a little bit better, if only by comparison to those exclusively breastfeeding: by that same 6 month mark, 43% are breastfeeding in combination with formula.

Let's look again from the flipside: by 6 months, 86.7% of all American babies are consuming formula.

There has been a lot of great material written about why our numbers for breastfeeding are so low. Many advocates and authors of such pieces focus on the fact that real world support is still so deeply lacking. Our initiation rates are high - should be higher, again, but still, 75% is better than it used to be - and this tells us that the message that Breast is Best has definitely gotten out there. And then, when challenges arise, it is pretty much luck of the draw whether or not the support you get will be enough to allow you to continue. Were I living in a different area, and didn't have access to the excellent IBCLC that I did, I myself would not have been able to breastfeed. It's no hyperbole. I would have been another casualty of this booby-trapped system.

But as I said, wonderful articles and posts abound on this topic. I want to think more about combination feeding and why, and how, it is so acceptable, commonplace, and even encouraged - including encouragement by professionals, despite the unmistakable consensus of their own organizations on exclusive breastfeeding.

Here's my loose hypothesis: the prevalence of combination feeding is yet another result of the well-intentioned but deeply flawed "Breast is Best!" message backfiring. How so? It's tricky, but think about statements like "Every little bit counts - it's liquid gold, after all!" and "Any breast milk is better than none!" Such sentiments abound. Are they true? Well . . . yes. But I think there's a perception out there that breast milk is so powerful that even one feeding a day is enough to confer its benefits. Breastmilk, an omnipotent panacea of mythical, even supernatural proportions - surely it will cut through all the well-documented risks of commercial, artificial infant milk. Right?

IS some breast milk better than none? Well, I'd be hard-pressed to say no. Yes, it is. But saying "yes" is so far from saying that some breastfeeding is even close to the same as exclusive breastfeeding. The immunological benefits of breastmilk are some of its most powerful, the introduction of formula actually negates these very benefits. Look at this recent study from BMJ, examining the protective effect of exclusive breastfeeding on infections in infancy. It concluded that "Partial breastfeeding was not related to protective effect."

And here's another piece on a larger study released earlier this year:

"Significantly, the study showed no health benefits for infants who received formula along with breast milk, even when partial breastfeeding extended a full six months . . . . None of the antibodies found in breast milk are able to be duplicated in manufactured formula, resulting in a significant lack of protection for formula-fed babies against infectious diseases. Formula is unable to match the complexity of breast milk, the consistency of which adapts over the first few months of a baby's life, changing to fit the baby's needs as he or she grows."

Allow me to repeat that - I apologize for belaboring the point, but I want to make sure it's not missed: "The study showed no health benefits for infants who received formula along with breast milk, even when partial breastfeeding extended a full six months."

Pretty far from "Every little bit of liquid gold counts!", isn't it? Why is this? If breast milk is so powerful - and it IS; believe me, I'm not saying it isn't the very definition of a vital substance - then how can the introduction of a little formula negate it? Much of this has to do with the effect it has on our intestinal, or 'gut' bacteria. This IS where our immune system is centered, and what takes place when foreign proteins are introduced is significant. If you have never read The Case for the Virgin Gut, I implore you to do so**. From the piece:

"When babies are born, they have sterile gastrointestinal tracts. If babies are exclusively breastfed, they develop a natural healthy gut flora. (When I speak of the gut, I mean Baby's insides where the food goes until it hits the diaper.) This means that the major flora in breastfed babies has reduced numbers of bad types of bacteria and increased numbers of good bacteria. Formula-fed babies have increased numbers of bad bacteria, leaving them at more risk for illness.

Having knowledge of the importance of what is normal for newborns inside may help some mothers in making a decision about whether or not to supplement their babies for convenience in the early weeks. Very few mothers know how totally different babies are on the inside when artificial food is added to their diets. Some mothers add the formula in the hopes that their babies will sleep longer at night. Knowing that only one bottle a day can totally change the protective environment of their baby's gastrointestinal tract may give them pause to reconsider before instituting this practice.

The case for the virgin gut is a valid one. There is much research to support avoiding supplementation if at all possible. A huge increase in diarrheal diseases occurs in babies who do not have optimal "intestinal fortitude," which is only possible with guts that have never been exposed to infant formula."

Yet again, something touted as the best of both worlds is revealed to not be the best of either, something I've blogged on before - it's practically a series.

Where does this leave us? Despite the overbearing harpy cliche, I'm coming to feel that breastfeeding advocates, including lactivists and educators as well as some medical professionals, ARE extremely sensitive about pressuring new moms, and want so badly to be reassuring and accepting and above all, non-judgmental . . . so much so that they/we end up understating the risks of formula feeding. Do what you can. Of course some breast milk is better than none. It's okay. You do what you can.

It's a conundrum. We DO need to be supportive. We DO need to be inclusive. We DO need to be non-judgmental. But we also need to make sure that mothers have all the relevant information, all the facts, in order to make empowered choices. Choice, yes, but informed choice. We need to not undermine parents right out of the gate by telling them that (as I witnessed from a professional firsthand) The breastfeeding bag they give you at the hospital has a bottle of formula in it, and that's there to tell you that hey! it's okay to do both! You don't have to choose!

As anyone reading this blog is likely aware, in addition to the risks for the infant, supplementation not done carefully leads to diminishing supply, and if the mother is not aware of how this works, mom's assumption is that something is wrong with her, that she "just couldn't make enough milk", and the slippery slope to total cessation of nursing has already begun. There has to be a way of being compassionate and inclusive without saying things like, as I have also heard with my very own ears from a pro, "If you want to nurse for 6 weeks and then start using formula, that's okay! Whatever works for you! If you want your husband to give a bottle of formula overnight so you can sleep, that's okay! Whatever works for you!"

But there ARE cases, as we know, where supplementation IS necessary. There is no denying that. We want to reduce these cases, but there absolutely are times when it is needed, such as moms with hypoplasia/IGT, or with some BFAR moms, for instance. And here's where the paradigm shift comes in.

It's time that donor milk becomes a real possibility for mothers.

Despite formula companies spending millions to convince you that their product is the "next best thing" to human milk, the WHO designates formula as fourth best - dead last, in other words. The first choice is simply mother breastfeeding her own child, and then pumped milk from the same mother to her own child. Then, third best, is donor milk from another mother, not formula. Yet when supplementation proves to be necessary (either temporarily or long-term), the default in our society is to go directly to formula. Then begins a cycle of figuring out which formula is less difficult for the baby's system. Do we try the "gentle" variety? What if milk is the problem - do we do soy? If that's not working, on to the hydrolyzed and painfully expensive kinds. What if donor milk was a viable option? What if it wasn't just a vague possibility - difficult to pull off in the short term and even harder to do over any substantial length of time - what if donor milk was, instead, the default?

Now, milk banking has been around for a while, and while I think it's basically a good thing (as in HMBANA), to say that it's prohibitively expensive for most families is an understatement, and can be difficult to impossible to get unless your child is ill. Doctors can prescribe it and SOME insurance companies are starting to cover it - but we're a long ways from this being the standard. There's always talk of making banked milk more plentiful and accessible (as the Canadian government stated in response to the growth of Eats on Feets), but that time has definitely not yet arrived.

Doesn't milk sharing and direct donor milk (as opposed to the pasteurized kind one can gets from banks) carry some risk, though? Yes it does. There are diseases that are communicable via breastmilk, and it's absolutely wise to vet the donor in whatever way both parties feel comfortable, wether there's a formal or an informal process in place. I've given milk directly to moms who knew me and trusted me, and have done a little bit of wet nursing, but to one mother who found me via MDC, I submitted a medical record of my most recent blood workup, which I thought was totally fair and the other mom seemed satisfied by this. It still involves some trust, but the risks taken in accepting donor milk must be weight against the risks of infant formula. PhD in Parenting has already done a bang-up job of doing just that (though of course every parent has to make this comparison on their own, as she illustrates).

As someone who participated in a nursing support group where milksharing was common, and donated literally gallons of my own milk to several babies, I am so pleased that since mothers are frustrated with the admirable but glacial progress of milk bank accessibility, they are making their own informed choices, taking this into their own hands - and feets.




*This is something that gets lost in translation, telephone game style. I have heard and read more than one mother claiming that the recommendation is to breastfeed for six months, period. They literally interpret the recommendation -whether second or third or fourthhand through peers, or not explained well enough by professionals, or misread in a book - as endorsing breast feeding for six months and no longer.

** Another helpful link on the subject: Just One Bottle Won't Hurt - Or Will It?