Posted by My OB said WHAT?!?.
Nov
29
Posted by My OB said WHAT?!?.
“…There’s No Way Someone Your Size Could Have Even One Child Vaginally.”
“But you’re a big woman – I mean, *BIG*. There’s no way someone your size could have had even *ONE* child vaginally!” – OB to mother who was pregnant with her third child.
There are 34 comments to this post.
Hmm… read Alexander McCall Smith’s _No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency_ series. If that book is accurate (and the author did live in Africa for part of his career), those ladies are called “traditionally built,” and they have children just fine.
[Reply]
This was said to me when I was expecting my third child (which ended up being twins that I later lost); the OB was new and hadn’t looked at ANY of my charts or information. I had previously had two boys, both vaginally, both over 8 lbs (#2 was over 9). I am morbidly obese but carry my weight well and have, IMO, pretty nice hips for carrying kids.
[Reply]
Jane Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 3:04 am (Quote)
Did you call the doctor out on his stereotyping and discrimination? Or did the doctor defend the assumption by saying it was medical malpractice for your previous doctors to have “allowed” you to “try” to birth vaginally?
I’m sorry for your losses. 
[Reply]
Weight/size ≠ ability to birth vaginally.
Doctor + size of scalpel = c/s.
As a formerly morbidly obese mama who had my first via c/s and then 7 more all VAGINALLY and 6 of which were unassisted home births; I can attest to the fact that if I had continued to birth with OB’s I would have had more c/s than needed. Especially for my 6th baby who was 10lbs 9oz. I am sure I would have been told she was “too big” to birth vaginally/VBAC and had a repeat. Instead I birthed her at home with a 45min L&D. Quickest birth I had ever had and without tears.
[Reply]
Another Big Mama had this to say,
Nov 29, 2011 @ 8:02 pm (Quote)
Crazy. I was over 250 lbs. when I had my last baby. Completely natural, and he came so fast that nobody but the nurse was in the room (and it was a fluke she was even in there — my transition was literally two contractions and the baby was out 30 seconds later . . . I’d barely been in active labor before that). So, this doctor is saying that I’m too fat to birth babies vaginally? ‘Cause my babies would seem to disagree. 
[Reply]
wasn’t there a woman in russia just last week who was 240kg and had a 19lb baby? I’ll see if I can find a link.
[Reply]
VW Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 3:16 am (Quote)
Germany and 13lbs. As someone on FB pointed out, given her size, a c-section probably would have been pretty risky for her.
http://www.dailygossip.org/woman-in-germany-gives-birth-to-13-pound-baby-1906
[Reply]
I must be an anomaly. I’m a “traditionally built” woman (love that phrase, by the way!) and I have never been told that fat = c-section. What is the reasoning?
[Reply]
How big is too big here? I mean, I’d like to know the number at which my uterus stops functioning properly so that I can starve myself and my baby in order to maintain my weight below that arbitrary number. But then, my BMI is 39, so I’m probably already too big to have vaginally birthed the two babied I’ve already vaginally birthed.
Also, I’m detecting a bit of disbelief here of actual reality. “But there’s no way someone your size could have vaginally birthed even one baby!” Right after the mother said something like, “What do you mean a schedule a repeat c/s? I’ve never had a c/s in my life. I’ve had two babies, both vaginally, and they were perfectly fine.”
[Reply]
What gets me is mom is *right there* with her and/or the records telling him she *has* done this before. (From the wording I’m assuming mom isn’t going for a VBAC after two C-sections… I could be wrong.)
Does he really want to go so far as to say there is *no way* she (and possibly her records) could be telling the truth about the births of her first two children? I mean I know we all get mommy-brain from time to time but I doubt he thinks she has *forgotten* how they were born. He’s calling her a liar!
[Reply]
Sheva Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 5:20 am (Quote)
I agree with you – it seems as if he’s either ignoring the chart and telling her she’s a liar.
Besides, the amount of adipose tissue that a woman carries (or doesn’t carry) does not affect pelvic structure (or uterine function, I think). It does, however, make cesareans more dangerous, sometimes significantly so, which begs the question, why push cesareans on larger women? It doesn’t make sense.
[Reply]
jaed Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 9:40 am (Quote)
Women’s bodies, as we all know, are broken.
Fat bodies are broken. (Even bodies in the statistically healthiest range, “overweight”, are broken.)
A fat female body? Extra-broken. Thus, mandatory caesarean.
[Reply]
C.Pratt Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 1:17 pm (Quote)
“(Even bodies in the statistically healthiest range, “overweight”, are broken.)”
I’ve never heard that overweight is the statistically healthiest range. Can you give me some sources to peruse? Thanks
[Reply]
jaed Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 7:25 pm (Quote)
Oh crap, let me see…
Here’s the original paper.
Here’s an NYT article from a couple of years later (paper is here) with some followup info along with much spin (cautions that a BMI of over 25 may cause “difficulty moving about” [eyeroll], etc.).
[Reply]
KAS Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 10:04 am (Quote)
I have no idea what the rationale was behind this comment. This wasn’t the only thing le moron said, either – there were plenty of nasty, derogatory comments made while I was in search of someone ELSE. He walked in, looked right at me, and said, “Well, you’re on the bigger side of my patients, so your c-section is going to be at 37 weeks, all right?” I just kind of stared at him and told him that he must think he’s with someone else because I’ve never had a c-section and don’t intend on having one unless it’s to save my baby or myself, and that my other children were born vaginally. Then he popped the gem above.
[Reply]
Jen @Plus Size Birth had this to say,
Nov 29, 2011 @ 10:39 pm (Quote)
The ignorance of some care providers! Plus size doesn’t equal high risk. All pregnant women should be supported with compassion and dignity no matter their size.
[Reply]
I don’t get the doctor’s reasoning here. I was figuring the mama had tiny hips based on the portion that showed up on FB (which is still not an accurate judgement but makes more sense logistically!). Why wouldn’t a big mama be able to birth vaginally? As a midwife I have never seen it be an issue. (And as for small hips, non-pregnant I am a 00 pant size and had zero difficulty birthing my term baby at home. A lot of people assumed I would need a c-section because I am tiny. Luckily my midwife knows better.)
[Reply]
223# on a 5’6″ frame and a vaginally birthed my 9 lb, 12 oz baby just fine…
[Reply]
Jenny Islander Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 9:48 am (Quote)
I’m an inch taller and could have given you forty pounds BEFORE I got pregnant. My smallest baby was over 8 pounds and the largest was an ounce lighter than your baby. But we can’t possibly have well-structured pelvises or strong uteri. Nope. Our nethers are full of fat deposits–you know, like a Thanksgiving turkey.
FAT FAT FAT OOGA BOOGA FAAAAAAT!
[Reply]
Can comeboy explain this whole “vagina fat” thing to me? Because I saw it on another post here but honestly have never heard it before, and I am pretty well-versed in medical terms and medical stupidity.
Is this an actual, scientific concept? Or some sort of “Old OBs’ tale”?
[Reply]
jaed Reply:
December 1st, 2011 at 10:26 pm (Quote)
More an old OB’s tale than anything else, although it’s actually fairly recent vintage. The buzzword is “soft tissue dystocia” and the concept is apparently that subcutaneous fat invades the vagina and blocks it somehow, even though subcutaneous fat mysteriously doesn’t block any other orifice of the body.
The idea may have gained currency because during a pelvic exam, with the woman on her back, if there’s a lot of subcutaneous abdominal fat, it may press down noticeably on the vaginal walls, and doctors are confusing this with fat deposits actually *in* the vagina. In practice it is used to convince larger women that they’re broken and cannot deliver normally, e.g. “There is fat blocking the vagina and the baby will get stuck and die! Let’s schedule the section for 37 weeks because otherwise the baby will be too big!”
WellRoundedMama has had several articles about it.
[Reply]
Add Your Comment.
Wouldn’t that mean she had good “birthing hips”?
Women who are too small can’t do it, but neither can women who are too big? Who the hell can?
[Reply]
Jessica Reply:
November 29th, 2011 at 7:18 pm Jessica(Quote)
NO ONE! Too risky! C-sections for everyone! *sarcasm*
[Reply]
adrienne Reply:
November 29th, 2011 at 7:22 pm adrienne(Quote)
large-framed women who are not fat.
(please don’t flame me, this is only what I’ve deduced from reading this site.)
[Reply]
Jessers Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 1:38 am Jessers(Quote)
Sure, large-framed women may have easier births (but that’s certainly not a given, hormones play the bigger part!), but the fat proportion is certainly no indication against a vaginal birth. What is even the reasoning?
A higher BMI is linked to more health problems during pregnancy, not during birth. Technically a higher BMI would be a higher risk for surgery (e.g. c-section), not for a physiological bodily function.
[Reply]
adrienne Reply:
November 30th, 2011 at 10:50 am adrienne(Quote)
there was a post here not too long ago where the OB was trying to say that fat women have fat vaginas that babies can’t fit through, or something like that. ridiculous.
[Reply]