This relates to my older post about Preterm babies and my inquiry as to why they weren’t talking about sections.  ”There are increases across the board,” she (CDC epidemiologist Joyce A. Martin) said — in all age groups, for most race and ethnic groups and in all states. Overall, the rate of preterm births increased from 6.8 to 8.1 percent, according to the report. The percentage of induced late preterm births more than doubled between 1990 and 2006, from 7.5 to 17.3 percent, according to the report. The percentage of late preterm births delivered by cesarean rose by 46 percent, from 23.5 to 34.3 percent.

The report goes on to highlight the problems with preterm births, including the higher instance of respiratory problems and long-term neurological problems.  They mention how advances in monitoring and subsequent identification of ‘problems’ with babies (distress) are leading to these higher rates, but also the fact that technological advances have made health care providers more ‘comfortable’ with delivering preterm babies.

I guess doctors feel it’s better to avoid the lawsuit involved with knowingly letting a premature ‘distressed’ baby keep going through labor than to potentially deal with the consequences of the long term effects of premature birth. (Most likely they won’t be held accountable there, after all, they can prove that they did everything to get that baby out.) No studies that I know of are addressing the issue of premature induction-which is causing most of these c-sections.

If a baby is not full term, and the mother is induced, could it be possible that the baby will experienced undo stress simply because they are not ready to come out?  Even if a mother is supposedly full term, and an induction of labor results in fetal stress, should we not attempt to stop the labor and wait another week or so (providing that the baby is not showing signs of distress in absence of contractions).  Could it be possible that the dates are wrong?  In other words, could babies experience stress during labor simply because they are not full term?

In many other aspects of our lives, we all know that ‘staying the course’ is not the best practice when evidence shows that there is a better way to achieve the goal.  Why is it that doctors feel the need to keep going-seeing their only option as c-section?  Why not stop the induction and wait?  We have the technology to do that.

Women who get chronic UTI’s typically have medicine on hand should an inflammation arise.  Although sulfa drugs are contraindicated in pregnancy, do pregnant women who self-medicate know this?  Probably not.

It is imperative that practitioners specifically question their pregnant clients about their history with UTI’s.  We all know that these infections and inflammations can and do occur more frequently in pregnancy.  We need to make sure that pregnant women are informed and given viable alternatives that work.

As the article points out, this does not mean that women should avoid taking all antibiotics during pregnancy. Infections need to be treated to avoid severe consequences like preterm labor or maternal sepsis.  Just avoid the sulfa.

Some common natural alternatives to try for treating UTI’s are:

Cranberry tablets-cranberry contains something called proanthocyanins that prevent bacteria from adhering to the walls of the urinary tract. This is thought to allow urine to wash away the bacteria.

Baking Soda-A mixture of 1/2 tsp baking soda in eight ounce glass of water can be very helpful on the first signs of urinary tract infection. The presence of baking soda in your system raises the acid-base balance of the acidic urine.