Posted by My OB said WHAT?!?.
Feb
13
Posted by My OB said WHAT?!?.
“Your Feet Are Just Too Small For You To Have A Vaginal Delivery.”
“Your feet are just too small for you to have a vaginal delivery.” – OB to mother wanting to have a VBAC.
There are 64 comments to this post.
Actually, docs believe that the smaller the feet, the smaller the pelvis. Which, as many women on this site have illustrated, is ridiculous.
And I have a question. With each baby my feet got 1/4 or 1/2 size smaller. So is my pelvis shrinking? (My skirts say no. ) 
[Reply]
Sarah Dorrance-Minch Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 4:57 pm (Quote)
My five foot two, size five ladies’ shoe ex-girlfriend gave birth to triplets about ten years ago. Vaginally.
Even if shoe size did indicate pelvis size and shape, these doctors have apparently never heard of the hormone called “relaxin.”
BTW, my feet are very small for my height, proportionally speaking.
[Reply]
The dumbness is spreading. 
[Reply]
Sarah Dorrance-Minch Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 5:00 pm (Quote)
The relaxin may be affecting more than just bones and joints. Maybe when our gravid bodies are full of relaxin, in readiness for giving birth, we emit some kind of hormone that relaxes the neural connexions in obstetric brains.
[Reply]
That’s ok, I wasn’t planning to give birth through my feet. O_o
Someone needs an anatomy refresher.
[Reply]
Sarah Dorrance-Minch Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 5:02 pm (Quote)
OTOH, if I were to use my feet to help get a baby out of my birth canal, I think I’d want small feet. The smaller and daintier, the better…
[Reply]
Marissa Reply:
February 15th, 2011 at 10:00 am (Quote)
“So, doc, does that mean you won’t be shoving things up there to help facilitate delivery that are clearly too big for my pelvic area? You know, like a vacuum extractor or forceps? If those are my choices, I choose my teeny feet. I’ll have a pedicure before I go into labor too, so my nails aren’t sharp.” I wish I had known my feet could facilitate delivery of a baby! 
[Reply]
susan Peterson had this to say,
Feb 13, 2011 @ 1:34 pm (Quote)
There could be some connections anatomically between bone structure in one part of the body and in another. But where’s the evidence? And in any case, if it were evidence it would only be a very broad average which wouldn’t tell you anything very significant about a particular individual.
The old obstetrics books used to say “The best pelvimeter is the baby’s head.” All doctors should remember this!
Susan Peterson
[Reply]
You people are idiots. Bone structure CAN correlate with pelvic size, so could the fact that the lady already needed a c-section. Some people really do require c-sections or they would die, or their babies would die. Some times I think that all these natural birth radicals forget that.
[Reply]
Marissa Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 2:16 pm (Quote)
http://www.bellybelly.com.au/articles/birth/small-pelvis-big-baby-cpd
Barring a broken pelvis, malnutrition or a disease like ricketts, it’s extremely rare. Even with the a high prevalence of those problems, like in Nigeria, the incidence is like 2.3%. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12047302
The pelvis can stretch an enormous amount, thanks to relaxin. Bone structure almost NEVER has anything to do with the ability to birth a large baby. Pigmies are known to give birth to babies 1/10 of their pre-pregnant weight. http://birthbliss.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/giving-birth-like-primal-peoples-pygmy-birth/
This notion is about as archaic as section 2 article 1 of the constitution regarding “free persons” and “all other persons.”
[Reply]
Laura Grace Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 2:18 pm (Quote)
At the risk of feeding the trolls:
1. Thanks for the swell opening line. Insulting people IS, after all, the best way to get them to believe your science.
2. Of course bone structure can correlate with pelvic size. Duh. But it can also NOT correlate with pelvic size. So… either way.
3. We don’t know why this woman had a previous c-section. You don’t, either. It could have been a thousand reasons, legitimate or otherwise. But most c-sections have nothing to do with mom’s size, especially not her *foot* size. Most women just don’t make a baby too big for them to birth vaginally. Of course there are exceptions, but that’s a pretty good rule of thumb.
4. Sure, some people really do require c-sections. According to the WHO, it’s around 10% of women. Did you see ANYONE suggesting otherwise? How about responding to content, not to what you THINK we think?
5. Why is it radical to assume that the vast majority of women are able use their own vaginas to birth their own babies? Why is it radical to say that foot size is a bullsh*t reason to deny someone the right have a vaginal delivery?
Oh, and please don’t come back with the “what about the health of the baby ZOMG” stuff. It’s so painfully obvious that a woman should have a c-section if the life or long-term health of her baby is at stake. And you know what? I don’t see a single person here suggesting otherwise — again, respond to what’s actually being said, not to what you think we think.
I think that all these pro-medicalized birth, whatever-doctor-says people forget that we “natural birth radicals” are simply asking for the right to make informed decisions that are based on actual medical evidence, not “we’ve always done it this way” or “it’s hospital protocol” or CYA or doctor’s convenience, or, in this case, on a shady old wives’ tale.
Peace out.
[Reply]
Laura Grace Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 2:20 pm (Quote)
And you know what? Not even “asking for the right.” We HAVE the right to make informed decisions based on evidence. Some doctors just act like we don’t.
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 2:27 pm (Quote)
While I disagree with most of Nancy’s post, I do need to point out that the OP *did* have a prior C/S since the post said she was going for a VBAC. (And OP: I hope you got it if you were able!)
[Reply]
Laura Grace Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 2:29 pm (Quote)
“We don’t know why this woman had a previous c-section”
^^ Yep, that’s what I said!
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 3:03 pm (Quote)
Sorry about that. Somewhere in my sleep deprived brain that was read as “We don’t know that this woman had a previous c-section” I even scrolled up to the post to make sure I remembered it right! What was that advice about sleeping when the baby sleeps? LOL
[Reply]
Laura Grace Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 4:06 pm (Quote)
I actually went back and double-checked that I hadn’t typed “we don’t know THAT this woman…”
And I don’t even have the excuse of a new baby!! LOL
[Reply]
Rebecca Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 2:25 pm (Quote)
Nancy- of course some women require c-sections, and there may even be a link saying that women of whatever size might need to be monitored more closely. However, I think the OPs point was this doctor seemed to have some arbitrary rule that if you wore a certain size shoe or smaller, you would never be able to have a vaginal birth.
If the doctor’s concern was the OP’s prior c-section he could have had said “For (list of reasons) I don’t feel you’re a good candidate for a VBAC” or even “I’m not comfortable with attending VBACs”
If it really was her size another way to put it is “Due to your small stature, I’m concerned about your ability to have a vaginal birth. I know its what you want, so I’d like to keep an eye on the baby’s size as you get closer to term”
Its not what the doctor was saying without saying (which seems to be “You’re going to need a c-section”) but his justification for it that is angering so many of us.
[Reply]
adrienne Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 4:03 pm (Quote)
I’m an idiot for thinking I birthed a 11 1/2 pound baby through a pelvis which, according to my shoe size, could only handle 8 1/2 lb? Wow, all this time I thought that really happened!
[Reply]
Alyson Miers Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 6:27 am (Quote)
What’s that? C-sections are sometimes necessary to save lives?
Wow, that is TOTALLY NEW INFORMATION! No one’s ever told us that before!
You’re one point away from a BINGO, Nancy! Why don’t you come back and insult us again?!
[Reply]
Sarah Dorrance-Minch Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 5:06 pm (Quote)
Look at the writing style – I think she already has a BINGO from previous posts, written under the moniker of “Dr Amy Tuteur.”
As such, she can be safely ignored.
Or ridiculed and insulted, if that’s more fun. I thing starving her of the attention she craves is the wisest course of action, personally.
[Reply]
Wow, I didn’t know the shoe size rule extended to women as well. What’s YOUR shoe size doc?? Maybe we’ll have to use some medical instruments on YOU to make you capable of doing what mother nature intended for you to do on your own because you’re body is incompetent as well… Doesn’t sound so nice when I talk about your genitals and reproductive organs/functions like you talk about mine does it….
[Reply]
In girls, the pelvis and feet grow at about the same time during puberty. Sometimes, poor nutrition can affect that growth, so small feet MAY be an indicator of a restricted pelvis. BUT, pelvis bones spread during pregnancy due to relaxin and progesterone and they will spread even more during labor. Plus, the baby’s head will mould to fit through mommy if at all possible. yes, some women do have a restrcted pelvis that will not allow a vaginal delivery. But it is extrememly rare, and the only way to actually know for sure is to allow a woman to labor. Then, if baby doesn’t descend or mould with good strong contractions, then we can discuss the need for a section. According to OB books, CPD is a retroactive diagnosis. You can’t judge beforehand. He’s just twisting information to bully a mom into doing what he wants.
[Reply]
I found some studies on this.
http://www.bmj.com/content/297/6647/515.abstract
^”There was a significantly increased caesarean section rate in women of short stature but no association between mode of delivery and shoe size.” “Shoe size is not a useful clinical predictor for the probability of cephalopelvic disproportion, and, although maternal height is a better clinical guide to pelvic adequacy in labour, 80% of mothers less than 160 cm tall delivered vaginally.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4084467?dopt=Abstract
^”Of the 57 women with a shoe size less than 4 1/2, 21% were delivered by caesarean section compared with 10% of the group with shoe size between 4 1/2 and 6 and only 1% of the group with shoe size greater than or equal to 6 1/2. Similar relations with height were not generally found.”
The findings of these two studies contradict each other. If the first is right, shoe size doesn’t matter at all. If the second one is right, shoe size might make some difference, BUT not for the majority of women, since in that study, even a woman with feet as small as size 4 would have a 79% chance of delivering vaginally!
By the way, 21%, 10% and 1%?? The cesarean rate must have been much lower back then.
[Reply]
Dina Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 9:12 pm (Quote)
For that second study, correlation does not imply causation. Being delivered by c-section does not mean that vaginal birth was impossible. It means it didn’t happen (maybe they weren’t given a chance?)
[Reply]
Debra Reply:
February 13th, 2011 at 9:25 pm (Quote)
If OBs believe small women or women with small feet can’t deliver vaginally, they’re more likely to push for a C/S without even letting her try labor. That could be part of the explanation why small women are more likely to have C/S.
[Reply]
Marissa Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 7:04 am (Quote)
They also might push for an induction before her body starts preparing for labor, and as we all know, induction increases the rate of cesarean for women who don’t already have a ripe cervix. Hell, it probably increases the rate of cesarean delivery, even if they do already have a ripe cervix.
[Reply]
BeckyMomma had this to say,
Feb 13, 2011 @ 9:22 pm (Quote)
I believe it was Da Vinci to first point out body correlations like twice around the wrist is the length of the forearm and twice your forearm is something else (going back to grade 6 here, don’t mind my fuzzy brain). So the idea that one part of the body correlates to another part is actually a REALLY old field of study. Which makes it all the more amazing no actual supporting data exists for shoe size as pelvicometer.
[Reply]
devil is in the details had this to say,
Feb 14, 2011 @ 4:42 am (Quote)
Well, I was going to skip this one, but while my shoes size is small, I do wear a wide width. That has to count for something.
2) If that is all they taught you in med school/ residency, I think you need to go back for more training. In other words, you do not know who can delivery vaginally until you let them try, and interfering in the process doesn’t make you right.
3) I come from a long line of short women some of whom had have more than 10 children.
4) Stick it!
[Reply]
Alyson Miers had this to say,
Feb 14, 2011 @ 6:31 am (Quote)
It’s another round of the Magic 8-Ball of C-Section Excuses! Tell us, Dr. Stabby-Hands, how did the genes for those tiny feet ever get passed down? Where did we come from?
[Reply]
Mama Mirage Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 1:19 pm (Quote)
That’s what I was wondering. If people with small feet/short people can’t birth babies, then how did small /small-footed people survive before c-sections? And how are they not “extinct?”
[Reply]
Alyson Miers Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 1:40 pm (Quote)
I’m sure Dr. Stabby-Hands would give us some nonsense about how modern women aren’t like our ancestors and they don’t make us like they used to…*retch*
[Reply]
My mother, who is an experienced RN (but not in the OB field) is also 100% convinced I have a 50/50 chance of a vaginal delivery at best, because my hands are small. I cannot CONVINCE her that my small hands have nothing to do with the size of my pelvis. Even my point that the rest of my frame isn’t danty (I’m on the shorter side, but my wrists, feet, and ankles are NOT those of a small-framed person) goes utterly ignored. I went and did my research on this (I’d never heard it before) and only ran across OBs and midwives DISPUTING this old wive’s tale, as well as small-framed women declaring they delivered their babies vaginally despite being told they couldn’t! I understand there are situations where C-section is necessary, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to go into my labor with the EXPECTATION that I’ll have a C-section.
Oh, she also REFUSES to let me ride in the back of a car when she sees me, now that I’m pregnant (13 weeks). She says the suspension is less effective in the back of a car and “it could separate the placenta!”
[Reply]
Brie B. Reply:
February 14th, 2011 at 4:28 pm (Quote)
I facepalmed when I read your last paragraph. My mom is an RN as well, and while she’s not as bad as yours, she kept telling me during my pregnancy, “You need to keep an eye on how big that baby gets — you’re a small girl!” No, mom, I’m not. I’m 5’3″, sure, but my bone structure is pretty damn sturdy. Although the baby was only 6 and a quarter pounds, anyway, so it was kind of a moot point.
[Reply]
I’ll be sure to post when I have my baby and let you all know if a woman with a size 3 sneaker can give birth vaginally.
I find it funny… for all of the accusations of witchcraft, being New Age and hippie-dippy, and even the phrase “Old Wives Tales,” I’ve encountered more ignorant and superstitious OBs than I have midwives.
OBs are HUGE fans of Magical Thinking. Midwives tend to go with Medical Thinking. The irony of that hurts my brain.
[Reply]
Annie Beth had this to say,
Feb 15, 2011 @ 5:15 am (Quote)
Does this doctor chose his sexual partners based on shoe size or something?
[Reply]
And once again… Size 5 shoe, 4’9, THREE normal, unmedicated vaginal births, only mild tearing with two of them, none at all with middle child. WHATEVER. As far as I know not one woman in my ancestry has ever had a c-section and we are ALL short short short.
[Reply]
Trackback/Pingbacks to this post.
Add Your Comment.
Previous Post
« “You Just Need To Man Up With This Pain…” Next Post
“Well, Obviously You Have Not Researched This…” »
« “You Just Need To Man Up With This Pain…” Next Post
“Well, Obviously You Have Not Researched This…” »
What? How does shoe size relate to the birth canal, babies size or the mother’s natural ability to deliver a child?
[Reply]