Dr. Onyeije’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine Blog

Doctor accused of trying to prevent homosexuality before birth

TAGS: None

An American doctor has been accused of attempting to prevent homosexuality with the use of an experimental prenatal treatment. As reported by HealthDay News, pediatric endocrinologist and researcher Dr. Maria New of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University, is at the center of the accusations by medical ethicists who assert her endorsement of the use of dexamethasone for the prevention of the development of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) may be motivated by a hidden agenda. CAH may cause females to be born with indistinct genitalia.

Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine is quoted in the report as stating of New, “Her main goal has been to prevent ambiguous genitalia and all the things that come with it, including what she calls ‘behavioral masculinization.” New reportedly denies the accusations.

Several medical societies are now reportedly drafting guidelines regarding the use of dexamethasone for CAH set to be published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in September.

Source

Gulf Oil Spill Information for Pregnant Women

TAGS: None

I'm pregnant. Can the oil harm me or my unborn baby?

Although the oil may contain some chemicals that could cause harm to an unborn baby under some conditions, the CDC has reviewed sampling data from the EPA and feels that the levels of these chemicals are well below the level that could generally cause harm to pregnant women or their unborn babies. The effects that chemicals might have on a pregnant woman and her unborn baby would depend on many things: how the mother came into contact with the oil, how long she was in contact with it, how often she came into contact with it, and the overall health of the mother and her baby.

People, including pregnant women, can be exposed to these chemicals by breathing them (air), by swallowing them (water, food), or by touching them (skin). If possible, everyone, including pregnant women, should avoid the oil and spill-affected areas. Generally, a pregnant woman will see or smell the chemicals in oil before those chemicals can hurt her or the baby.

What can I do to protect myself and my unborn baby?

  • If you live along the coast, avoid areas where there are reports of oil reaching the shore.
  • If the smell bothers you or you see smoke, stay indoors, set your air conditioner to reuse indoor air, and avoid physical activities that put extra demand on your lungs and heart.
  • If you find any oil, avoid touching it, as well as oil spill-affected water and sand.
  • If some of the oil gets on your skin, wash it off as soon as you can with soap and water.
  • If you begin to feel sick after coming into contact with the oil or spill-affected areas, contact your doctor or other health professional.
  • Follow local and state public health guidelines and warnings related to the oil spill .

Can the air make me sick?

Although the oil vapors may contain some things that could be harmful to pregnant women, the CDC has reviewed sampling data from the EPA and feels that the levels of these chemicals are well below the level that could generally cause harm to pregnant women or their unborn babies.

Smell

Pregnant women may be affected by the strong smell. It can give you a headache or upset stomach, so you may want to stay indoors, set your air conditioner to reuse indoor air, and avoid physical activities that put extra demand on your lungs and heart. If your symptoms do not improve after moving indoors, contact your health care professional, especially if you have asthma or other lung problems.

If you have to be outside, a N95 respirator with an odor control feature may provide some relief from the smell. Based on what we know now, you do not need to use a N95 respirator for your safety, but using one may make you more comfortable. Most hardware stores stock respirators (you should check the label to make sure the mask is a NIOSH certified N95 respirator with odor control or a charcoal layer). Follow the manufacturer's instructions carefully to be sure you are using the mask properly.

Burning oil

Burning the oil in the Gulf of Mexico is one method being used to ensure that no oil make it to shore and/or to potentially harm people, animals or the environment. As responders burn some of the oil, some “Particulate Matter” (PM) may be created. PM is a mix of very small particles and liquid droplets found in the air. PM varies in size and the smallest PM can get deep into your lungs. PM should not reach the shore because the fires are far offshore. When crews burn the spilled oil they carefully watch the weather, wind, and water conditions and monitor the air. They stop the burn right away if there is any problem.

If you smell or see smoke you can take the following steps to protect yourself:

  • Leave the area if you are at greater risk from breathing smoke. If you have a chronic respiratory condition such as asthma or cardiovascular disease, you may be at greater risk. Talk to your doctor about ways to avoid this risk.
  • Limit your exposure to smoke: stay inside and use your air conditioner set to a recirculation mode. If you do not have an air conditioner you may wish to leave the area until the smoke is completely gone.
  • Avoid activities that put extra demands on your lungs and heart. These include exercising or physical chores, both outdoors and indoors.
  • Dust masks, bandanas, or other cloths (even if wet) will not protect you from smoke.

Is the water safe?

Drinking water is not expected to be affected by the spill. If you have any concerns about your water, contact your water utility company.

Swimming in water affected by the oil spill will be unpleasant and could cause harm. For now, pregnant women should avoid zones where there are reports of oil reaching the shore. It is important to stay away from any oil that reaches the shore because coming into close contact with the oil for long periods of time could cause harm. Avoid touching any of the oil you find, as well as oil-stained water and sand. If some of the oil gets on your skin, wash it off as soon as you can with soap and water. If you notice rashes or dark sticky spots on your skin even after you’ve washed the area of skin that came in contact with the oil, consult your doctor or other health care professional.

CDC recommends that people follow local and state public health guidelines and warnings related to the use of beaches and coastal water for recreational activities and fishing.

Is it safe for me to eat fish or seafood from the Gulf of Mexico?

As a precaution, fishing areas affected by the spill are closed to fishing and oyster collection, for both personal and commercial use. Any seafood available in stores comes from non-closed waters. Seafood that is unsafe will not be allowed in stores.

What are oil dispersants and are they harmful to me?

Oil spill dispersants are applied to break an oil slick into small droplets and prevent the oil from coming back together. It is unlikely that coastal residents will come into contact with undiluted dispersants, which are used out in the Gulf. It is possible that diluted dispersants could reach the coast in the air or the water. EPA is monitoring the air and water along the shore for dispersants and has not detected any at levels that could be a threat to you or your child.

Some of the chemicals in the dispersants can cause harm to people under some conditions, which is why the use of dispersants is carefully controlled and monitored. Pregnant women should avoid contact with dispersants or any other potentially harmful chemical, if possible. For most people, brief contact with a small amount of oil spill dispersants will do no harm. However, longer contact can cause a rash, dry skin, and eye irritation. In the unlikely event of breathing them in or swallowing them, other health effects, such as nausea, vomiting, and throat and lung irritation are possible. If you are concerned that you have been exposed to oil spill dispersants, contact your doctor or other health care professional.

Source

New York City Women No Longer Allowed to Give Birth at Home With a Midwife

TAGS: None

As residents of the world's consumer capital, New Yorkers can have anything delivered to their door at any time. They can have their hair cut in the living room, have champagne and caviar rushed to them on a whim, enjoy a shiatsu massage in their own bed or invite a clairvoyant to predict their future from Tarot cards laid out on the kitchen table.

But there is one thing that is currently unavailable for delivery to those who live in this most can-do of metropolises. Women can not legally give birth at home in the presence of a trained and experienced midwife.

This city of more than 8 million people, with its reputation for being at the cutting-edge of modern urban living, now lacks a single midwife legally permitted to help women have a baby in their own homes. "It's pretty shocking that in a city where you can get anything any hour of the day a person cannot give birth at home with a trained practitioner," said Elan McAllister, president of the New York-based Choices in Childbirth.

The collapse of New York's legal home birth midwifery services has come as a result of the closure two weeks ago of one of the most progressive hospitals in the city, St Vincent's in Manhattan. When the bankrupt hospital shut its doors on April 30th, the midwives suddenly found themselves without any backing or support.

There are 13 midwives who practice home births in New York, and under a system introduced in 1992 they are all obliged under state law to be approved by a hospital or obstetrician, on top of their professional training.

St Vincent's was prepared to underwrite their services, but most other doctors and institutions are not, and they now find themselves without the paperwork they need to work lawfully.

Miriam Schwarzschild, one of the 13, is now in the invidious position of either abandoning her clients or operating illegally. "Apparently by taking a woman's blood pressure I am committing an illegal act," she said. She has no doubts about what she will do: she will stand by the six to eight women she helps in labor every month, law be damned. She said she intends to "fly under the radar", but is anxious about what would happen should she be reported to the state authorities. "At any time a nurse or doctor could report me, and once that happens they could go after my license and shut me down."

Jitters are spreading among the tiny community of home birth midwives. The rumor has circulated that one of them has already been shopped to the authorities by an obstetrician at a hospital where she transferred one of her clients in need of medical attention.

The crisis of home birth in New York city is an extreme example of a pattern found across America. Fewer than 1% of babies are born at home in the US, and in New York that figure is as low as 0.48% — about 600 babies every year out of 125,000. That compares with a rate of about 30% in the Netherlands.

In much of Europe, midwives play the lead role in assisting most low-risk and healthy women to give birth, handing over to a specialist doctor or surgeon only when conditions demand. In the US, that relationship is reversed.

Obstetricians, who are trained to focus on interventionist methods and often have never even witnessed a natural birth, are in charge of about 92% of all cases. As a body, they are fiercely resistant both to midwives – who under the private medical system in America are their competitors – and to women choosing to remain at home.

In 2008 the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists put out a statement effectively instructing its members to have nothing to do with the "trendy" fashion towards home births. Yet despite Acog's stance, and despite the fact that the US spends more money on pregnancy and childbirth-related hospital costs than any other type of hospital care ($86bn a year), the country has the unfortunate distinction of having one of the highest rates of maternal mortality in the industrialized world. Its rate stands at 16.7 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with 7.6 in the Netherlands and 3.9 in Italy. Britain's rate is 8.2.

On top of that, about one in three pregnancies in the US end in a cesarean section — a product, critics say, of the highly interventionist approach that includes frequent induced labors and epidurals. Amnesty International recently dubbed the US record on childbirth as a whole a "human rights crisis".

Knowledge of these statistics, and of what is now happening to New York midwives, makes Julie Jacobowitz-Kelly see red. She is one of Schwarzschild's clients and is preparing to give birth to her first child, a boy she and her partner have already named Benjamin, whose due date fell today.

She said the current illegal status of the home birth midwives was "a travesty, it's absolutely ridiculous. It angers me that experienced midwives like Miriam are in jeopardy."

That is a view shared by some senior New York politicians, including Scott Stringer, Manhattan borough president. "There are 600 women who are going to give birth in the next year who want midwives with them at home, and to take away their rights and choices is so backwards it's embarrassing," he said.

Midwifery organizations are scrambling to persuade other hospitals to take over St Vincent's role by signing the so-called "written practice agreements" the midwives need to be legal. So far 75 hospitals have been approached; not one has replied.

Meanwhile, a bill is sitting before the New York state assembly that would scrap the system of practice agreements and allow the midwives to offer their services free of the control of obstetricians. But the bill may not be put to a vote at all this year.

Source

Top 10 Baby Names of 2009

TAGS: None

Just what you've been looking for - the top 10 baby names of 2009! Check out which names were added this year and if your favorites from 2008 held on or were dropped off the list.

Need some fresh name ideas for your baby? Be sure to check out our Baby Naming Tips or our lists of Shakespearean Baby Names and Celebrity Baby Names. Or do a quick search of our interactive Baby Name Finder to find the perfect baby name!





Top Girls' Names of 2009:

  1. Isabella
  2. Emma
  3. Olivia...

Top Boys' Names of 2009:

  1. Jacob
  2. Ethan
  3. Michael...

Read more here.

Recalls of children’s medicines spark worries

TAGS: None

Parents may be worried by this weekend's recall of dozens of versions of Children's Tylenol and several other infants' and children's medications made by Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Consumer Healthcare division.

Parents voiced fears to pediatricians and pharmacists, and asked questions about the affected products - two dozen formulations of Tylenol, known generically as acetaminophen, along with liquid formulations of Motrin (ibuprofen), Benadryl (diphenhydramine), and Zyrtec (cetirizine).

So far, the advice for parents, at least, is clear: McNeil says they should stop using any of the affected products - essentially, any liquid formulation of those medications made by McNeil, which is based in Fort Washington.

Doctors and pharmacists recommend that parents replace the medications with generics of the same drugs or other brand-name versions, none of which are affected by the recall. Consumers can obtain refunds directly from McNeil or from at least some pharmacies.

What went wrong? Little is known. McNeil, in announcing the voluntary recall late Friday "in consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration," says some of the products "may not meet required quality standards."

McNeil says the children's products may have "a higher concentration of active ingredients than is specified." They may also have contaminants that spokesman Marc Boston describes as "solidified product ingredients or manufacturing residue, such as tiny metal specks." He declined to say what metal or metals had been found.

Nor is it clear if McNeil is responding with an abundance of caution or faces greater concerns.

"They've had a lot of problems," says Don Mays, senior director of product safety for Consumer Reports. "It seems like they need better quality control and process control in the manufacture of these products."

This is the second major recall of children's Tylenol products in the last year. In September, more than 20 versions were recalled because of possible bacterial contamination.

Was there a danger to my child? It's impossible to say for sure, but McNeil is suggesting not.

"We have received consumer inquiries," Boston says. "But I can confirm that the recall is not being undertaken on the basis of adverse medical events" reported to the company.

Nor has the FDA so far suggested otherwise.

"While the potential for serious health problems is remote, Americans deserve medications that are safe, effective, and of the highest quality," FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg said in a statement Saturday. "We are investigating the products and facilities associated with this recall and will provide updates as we learn more."

By contrast, when McNeil voluntarily recalled some related products in January because of a contaminant it said caused "an unusual moldy, musty, or mildew-like odor," the company acknowledged "a small number of cases" of reactions such as nausea, stomach pain, vomiting, or diarrhea.

What if I'm worried? David Pollack, a Children's Hospital pediatrician and senior physician at the hospital's Care Network in Delaware County, says parents should report any concerns to their pediatrician, who will then notify the FDA and McNeil.

Based on the information available, Pollack said, "I could certainly believe that there's been no adverse effects on kids."

Can you substitute an adult version? Pollack and McNeil both warn against doing this, even with older children who can swallow pills, because of the danger of incorrect dosages.

"Every day we're faced with a misdosage when a mother is trying to convert an adult dosage to her kids," Pollack says. "If it's not really designed for children, we would tell them not to use it."

So what are the alternatives? Doctors and pharmacists say generic versions are widely available and considerably less expensive.

For more information on the recall or how to obtain a refund, go to www.mcneilproductrecall.com. You can also call 1-888-222-6036, but the company says it has been overwhelmed with calls and may not be able to answer.

Source

USDA Cracks Down on Synthetic Fatty Acids in Organic Milk

TAGS: None

The Obama administration, continuing its crackdown on the $25 billion organic food industry, is moving to eliminate two synthetic additives widely found in organic baby formula and organic milk.

Most U.S. manufacturers of conventional and organic baby formula have supplemented their products with the fatty acids DHA and ARA for several years in order to make them more closely mimic breast milk. Some studies suggest the omega 3-fatty acid DHA and the omega-6 fatty acid ARA promote cognition and eyesight in babies.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which isn't challenging the safety of the additives, is responding to complaints from activists that the Bush administration ignored proper procedures when it decided to include synthetic versions of the fatty acids on a list of nonorganic ingredients that are nonetheless allowed into products that carry the USDA's organic seal.

Kathleen Merrigan, an organics expert and second-most powerful person in the Agriculture Department, said in an interview Monday that organic regulators in 2006 misinterpreted the federal guidelines and erred by not seeking public comment on the 2006 move.

The USDA plans to issue a draft guidance later this year that would give food makers a grace period to reformulate their lines. The public will have 60 days to comment, after which the USDA will issue a final decision.

"We don't want an industry that acted in good faith to be harmed," said Dr. Merrigan, who is the USDA's deputy secretary. "On the other hand, we have a rule to uphold," she added.

The largest supplier of these ingredients is Martek Biosciences Corp., Columbia, Md., which extracts DHA and ARA from microorganisms using the chemical hexane, a solvent long used to make cooking oils. Martek's process sparked a food fad about eight years ago by giving manufacturers an alternative to using fish-oil-derived fatty acids.

Martek spokeswoman Cassie France-Kelly said Monday the company's synthetic fatty acids are used in organic products offered by Abbott Laboratories' Similac infant formula brand, the Earth's Best brand owned by Hain Celestial Group, and Dean Foods' Horizon milk brand.

Ms. France-Kelly said banning synthetic fatty acids from organic products wouldn't have a material impact on the financial results of Martek, which gets most of its business from conventional brands. But she warned that such a move would make it difficult for organic brands to offer the essential fatty acids.

Dr. Merrigan is leading a push by the USDA to both promote and more closely supervise the organic industry. Among other things, the USDA is making plans to spot-check products for residues of banned materials.

Source

Designer baby with ‘three parents’ and no hereditary diseases ready in three years

TAGS: None

Dozens of human embryos with three parents have been created by British scientists, ushering in an era of designer babies.

The embryos - which effectively have two mothers and one father - have been genetically engineered to be free from incurable muscle, brain, heart and digestive illnesses, some of which kill within hours of being born.

The Newcastle University researchers say that within as little as three years, it could allow women whose families are blighted by disease the chance of bringing a healthy child into the world.

But critics say the breakthrough is a step on the slippery slope towards human cloning and erodes the sanctity of human life.

The cutting-edge research centers around mitochondria - sausage-shaped powerhouses inside cells which turn food into energy to be used by the brain and body.

Each mitochondrion has is own DNA which gives instructions on how to build and operate the powerpack, or battery, and is passed down from mother to child.

Serious defects in this DNA affect one in 6,500 babies and cause around 50 genetic diseases, some of which kill in infancy.

With no cure for the conditions, which include some forms of diabetes, blindness and heart problems, women carrying diseased mitochondria often face the heartbreaking choice of whether it would be kinder to remain childless.

The scientists have found a way of swapping the diseased DNA with healthy genetic material, creating embryos free of mitochondrial disease.

The 'transplant' technique, which is described in the prestigious journal Nature, begins by using IVF techniques to fertilize an egg from a healthy donor.

When the resulting embryo is just a few hours old, the 'pronuclei', or nuclear DNA from the sperm and egg are removed, leaving the healthy mitochondria behind.

The would-be mother's egg is then fertilized with her partner's sperm and the pronuclei removed and popped into the donor egg.

This creates an egg where the genetic material comes overwhelmingly from the prospective parents and the mitochondria are healthy.

If the method is successful, the disease should be eradicated from future generations of the family.

Professor Alison Murdoch, head of the Newcastle Fertility Centre, whose patients donated eggs for the study, said: 'It would be hype to say we are going to get rid of mitochondrial disease but I think it's realistic to say you could get rid of it in an individual family.'

Eighty embryos were created in the Newcastle labs, each effectively with three parents - two mothers and a father.

A fourth parent - the man whose sperm was used to fertilize the donor egg - was involved, but none of his DNA was passed on.

Some of the embryos lived for six days, before they were destroyed to comply with fertility laws, which also forbid such embryos from being implanted in a woman.

But updated fertility laws which came into effect last year leave the door open for the legislation to be amended, allowing the technique women to give birth to disease-free babies.

Lead researcher Professor Doug Turnbull said that if this happened, the first babies could be born in as little as three years.

Source

Designer baby with ‘three parents’ and no hereditary diseases ready in three years

TAGS: None

Dozens of human embryos with three parents have been created by British scientists, ushering in an era of designer babies.

The embryos - which effectively have two mothers and one father - have been genetically engineered to be free from incurable muscle, brain, heart and digestive illnesses, some of which kill within hours of being born.

The Newcastle University researchers say that within as little as three years, it could allow women whose families are blighted by disease the chance of bringing a healthy child into the world.

But critics say the breakthrough is a step on the slippery slope towards human cloning and erodes the sanctity of human life.

The cutting-edge research centers around mitochondria - sausage-shaped powerhouses inside cells which turn food into energy to be used by the brain and body.

Each mitochondrion has is own DNA which gives instructions on how to build and operate the powerpack, or battery, and is passed down from mother to child.

Serious defects in this DNA affect one in 6,500 babies and cause around 50 genetic diseases, some of which kill in infancy.

With no cure for the conditions, which include some forms of diabetes, blindness and heart problems, women carrying diseased mitochondria often face the heartbreaking choice of whether it would be kinder to remain childless.

The scientists have found a way of swapping the diseased DNA with healthy genetic material, creating embryos free of mitochondrial disease.

The 'transplant' technique, which is described in the prestigious journal Nature, begins by using IVF techniques to fertilize an egg from a healthy donor.

When the resulting embryo is just a few hours old, the 'pronuclei', or nuclear DNA from the sperm and egg are removed, leaving the healthy mitochondria behind.

The would-be mother's egg is then fertilized with her partner's sperm and the pronuclei removed and popped into the donor egg.

This creates an egg where the genetic material comes overwhelmingly from the prospective parents and the mitochondria are healthy.

If the method is successful, the disease should be eradicated from future generations of the family.

Professor Alison Murdoch, head of the Newcastle Fertility Centre, whose patients donated eggs for the study, said: 'It would be hype to say we are going to get rid of mitochondrial disease but I think it's realistic to say you could get rid of it in an individual family.'

Eighty embryos were created in the Newcastle labs, each effectively with three parents - two mothers and a father.

A fourth parent - the man whose sperm was used to fertilize the donor egg - was involved, but none of his DNA was passed on.

Some of the embryos lived for six days, before they were destroyed to comply with fertility laws, which also forbid such embryos from being implanted in a woman.

But updated fertility laws which came into effect last year leave the door open for the legislation to be amended, allowing the technique women to give birth to disease-free babies.

Lead researcher Professor Doug Turnbull said that if this happened, the first babies could be born in as little as three years.

Source

Feds Reveal Birth Defects Caused by Company in California Town

TAGS: None

Citizens of Kettleman City have long suspected that the largest waste treatment plant west of the Mississippi that shares their zipcode is the cause of the surge of birth defects and infant deaths in their town. Finally, the truth has been revealed:

A federal investigation has found that a hazardous waste facility at the center of a birth defects controversy improperly disposed of a chemical known to cause cancer and reproductive problems.

Officials with the Environmental Protection Agency sent a notice of violation Thursday to Chemical Waste Management in Kettleman City. The company runs the largest hazardous waste dump in the West.

At issue is the facility's handling of PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, a banned transformer fluid.

Nearby residents have blamed the facility for at least 11 birth defects since 2007. Company officials have said there's no evidence linking the dump to the birth defects.

Company officials did not immediately return calls for comment Thursday.

Source

Why Are Moms Dying In Labor?

TAGS: None

Over the past decade, the U.S. maternal mortality rate has nearly doubled, with about 500 women dying of pregnancy-related complications each year. That's a tiny percentage of the 4 million American women who give birth annually. But what's shocking is that among industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks an abysmal 41st on the World Health Organization's list of maternal death rates, behind South Korea and Bosnia-yet we spend more money on maternity care than any other nation.

Amnesty International has designated the U.S. maternal mortality rate a human-rights concern. This month, the organization called on President Barack Obama to address the crisis, noting that two to three women die of pregnancy-related complications in this country every day, as we move further away from the government’s goal of 3.3 deaths per 100,000 live births. The health-care reform bill signed into law by Obama Tuesday could help, as it requires insurance companies, for the first time, to cover prenatal care and some childbirth costs.

Skeptics attribute the rise in the maternal mortality rate to better reporting of maternal deaths—and it’s true that over the past decade, states have revised death certificates to better flag pregnancy-related mortalities. Yet review committees estimate that better reporting only accounts for about 30 to 40 percent of the rise.

More likely, the maternal death rate is going up due to a complex cocktail of factors—causes that reflect a changing population, disparities in poor women’s access to health care, and even Americans’ reliance on cutting-edge medicine. Here are seven explanations for the unsettling rise:

  1. A Skyrocketing Caesarean Rate

    Before C-sections became as safe and standard as they are today, pregnant women had few options if they found themselves in an emergency situation; aside from metal forceps, doctors lacked tools to get babies out quickly, which often led to tragedy.

    Yet as lifesaving as C-sections can be, an astounding one in three American women now give birth surgically, up from one in five a decade ago. Healthy women who give birth surgically are 80 percent more likely to be re-hospitalized than healthy women who give birth vaginally; they’re also four times more likely to die. Hemorrhage, infection, and pulmonary embolism are all more common following a surgical birth.

  2. More Obese Moms

    As the obesity epidemic swept the country, more overweight women have gotten pregnant and given birth, despite serious risks. One in five women in the U.S. are now obese at the beginning of their pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Obese women are more likely to develop hypertension, high blood pressure, and diabetes during pregnancy, which can lead to preeclampsia and other fatal conditions. Preeclampsia is responsible for about 18 percent of maternal deaths in the U.S., and over the past decade, the incidence of the condition rose by 40 percent.

    Labor can also be more difficult for obese women, as soft tissue can impede delivery. Obese women are also at greater risk for delivering bigger babies, needing C-sections, and developing postpartum infections and heart problems.

  3. Disparities in Access to Care

    As economic disparities in the U.S. health-care system grew wider over the past several decades, fewer women got the family planning, prenatal, and postpartum care they needed. Currently, one in five women of childbearing age are uninsured, Amnesty International reports. In most states, poor women do qualify for Medicaid once they become pregnant; the problem is, six weeks after giving birth, most of these women are dropped.

    From there, a dangerous cycle can begin: If a woman has risk factors going into her first pregnancy—say, diabetes or hypertension—the conditions often get worse through the process. She can’t afford the medical care to treat her conditions. Nor can she afford contraceptives, so she often ends up getting pregnant again, this time facing even greater risks. By the time she’s back on Medicaid for her next pregnancy, she’s in big trouble.

    The good news is that the new health-care reform legislation will expand access to Medicaid for about 15 million people, and will include prenatal and maternal care in the basic package of services private insurers must cover.

  4. Unnecessary Medical Interventions

    Like C-sections, medical innovations such as drugs to induce labor and devices to monitor fetal heart rates can be lifesaving, but they can also lead to complications in healthy women. When an intervention is unnecessary—performed out of convenience or protocol—the harms can outweigh the benefits.

    In many developed countries, induction is used as a last resort, but in the U.S., hospitals induce or accelerate roughly 40 percent of labors. These drugs, in turn, can create more aggressive contractions, which increase the risk of uterine rupture. A woman who is induced is also more likely to end up needing a C-section.

  5. Older Moms

    As the rate of childbearing women over 40 has risen, so has the maternal mortality rate. Moms over 35 are more likely to develop gestational diabetes and other complications; they’re also more likely to have twins or other multiples, thanks both to biology and the wonders of fertility treatment—and multiple births are far riskier than single births, for both mother and babies.

    But Elliott Main, a San Francisco-based OB/GYN and principal investigator of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, says that most American women who die in childbirth are in their twenties or thirties.

  6. Poor Birth Education

    Maternity-care advocates stress that as birth has become increasingly medicalized, American women have become surprisingly uneducated on the topic.

    In particular, low-income women with limited access to health care may not be aware of the risks of taking certain medications or engaging in certain behaviors during pregnancy. Similarly, advocates point out that with C-sections and interventions on the rise, women feel less empowered to take control of their birth experience—they don’t always know their options or trust their instincts. They must rely completely on hospital staff, who are often overworked, exhausted, and juggling many births at once.

  7. Complacency

    Despite the rising maternal mortality rate, pregnancy-related deaths in this country are still rare. Most doctors and nurses will go their entire career without encountering one. Yet as a result, many hospitals have become complacent that mothers just don’t die anymore. Hospitals need to act proactively, paying closer attention to changes in women’s vital signs.

Source

© 2009 Dr. Onyeije’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine Blog. All Rights Reserved.

This blog is powered by Wordpress and Magatheme by Bryan Helmig.