Acetaminophen (the generic brand of Tylenol) is one of the most prescribed drugs for pregnant women around the globe to treat fevers and mild pain. It was thought to be safe but now researchers in Denmark have just disrupted the obstetrical community by suggesting that there is an association between taking acetaminophen during pregnancy and hyperactive children who are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
This is a profound disappointment to most prenatal care providers whose options are limited in what they can prescribe to pregnant women, especially for a fever. It appears that acetaminophen breaks up hormones and according to the researchers, “abnormal hormonal exposures in pregnancy may influence fetal brain development.”
Although the study reports investigating over 62,000 children, a word of caution must be exercised before making the assumption that acetaminophen is not safe for pregnant women. Remember that in this study:
• There was a stronger association between ADHD and acetaminophen if the mother took it for more than one trimester
• The researchers do not know exactly how many pills the pregnant mothers took
• The risks were greater for pregnant women who took large amounts of acetaminophen throughout their pregnancy
• They do not know if pain is associated with an increased risk of developing ADHD
According to the director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine program at the Cleveland Clinic, it is important to remember that an association of acetaminophen and ADHD is not the same thing as saying acetaminophen causes ADHD and for that reason, he will continue to provide acetaminophen to his pregnant patients advising them to take it in the manner in which it is prescribed.
The take-home message is that most physicians are not going to change their prescribing patterns based on this study. Please consult with your physician or midwife before taking acetaminophen and only take them as prescribed.
Remember, a healthy pregnancy doesn’t just happen; it takes a smart mother who knows what to do. If you like what you read, please like me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/SmartMothersGuide or Twitter, firstname.lastname@example.org
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and The Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (aka high-risk obstetricians) have issued a new recommendation that is a game-changer in the manner that obstetrics is practiced: allow low-risk first-time pregnant moms more time in labor. This is assuming that the fetal tracing is normal and the mother does not have a fever, high blood pressure or a condition that could compromise her life or the life of her unborn baby. This recommendation is based on new evidence that demonstrates contradicts the old school Friedman Curve theory that active labor begins at 4 centimeters. It actually begins at 6 centimeters. This would be especially helpful to first-time teenage moms who might be forced to have future cesarean sections based on hospital rules and physician opinions if their first delivery was a cesarean section. The “once a C-section, always a C-Section” culture hits this particular group the hardest.
According to the new recommendations:
• Women should be allowed to push for at least two hours if they’ve given birth before, three hours if they are first-time mothers, and even longer in certain cases, such as when an epidural is used for pain relief.
• Vaginal delivery is the preferred option whenever possible and doctors should use techniques — forceps, for example — to assist with natural birth.
• Women should be advised to avoid excessive weight gain during pregnancy.
A word of caution should be offered about these recommendations: forceps deliveries are becoming a lost art and can cause more damage than good in the hands of an inexperienced provider and the “avoid excessive weight gain during pregnancy” is easier said than done for most women.
That being said, these new recommendations gives first-time pregnant women the right to step on the proverbial brakes, the next time someone wants to rush their delivery via a C-section.
If you like what you’re reading, please let me know via Twitter (Yourobgyn@Twitter.com) or Facebook (Smartmothersguide@facebook.com)
It’s your first pregnancy and very exciting. While doing your first ultrasound, the technician frowns as she scans your cervix with a vaginal probe. You ask what’s wrong and she mutters something about the cervix being too short but that your provider will explain more. What’s going on? You could possibly have a short cervix which means you’re at risk for having the baby too soon.
One out of eight babies born in the United States is premature which accounts for over one-half million babies each year. Premature birth is the leading cause of infant death, brain damage, blindness and other complications that costs $26 billion dollars a year in health care.
Women who have had a previous premature baby are at significant risk for having another one and should be seen immediately by a maternal fetal medicine specialist (a high risk pregnancy specialist). Does this also apply to women who are pregnant for the first time? The answer is yes. All pregnant women should receive an ultrasound for dating and documenting normal fetal anatomy no later than the middle of the second trimester and if the cervical length is less than 2.5 centimeters, the mother is at risk for a premature birth even if she is not complaining of cramping or bleeding. If the cervix is less than 25 mm or 2.5 cm,
·A repeat ultrasound should be done ASAP to document the short cervix
·Vaginal progesterone tablets should be prescribed as soon as possible and before 24 weeks. Why? Because they reduce premature births by 44%
This information is especially important for first-time pregnant women who have no documented history of previous preterm births. Several years ago, first-time pregnant moms with a short cervix were not treated but recent medical studies have proven that these women should be treated. Therefore, a short cervix should not be ignored.
Remember, a healthy pregnancy doesn’t just happen. It takes a smart mother or knows what to do.
The contradictions of life can be maddening. On one hand, we have the case of Jahi McMath, a 13-yearold girl who is brain dead on a mechanical ventilator that her family fought to maintain and on the other hand, there is Marlise Munoz, a 33 year-old mother of a 15 month old son, who collapsed on her kitchen floor from what appeared to be a blood clot to the lungs back in November. Munoz, according to her husband and family, never wanted to be on life support but the state of Texas ordered it when they discovered that she was 14-weeks pregnant. Should state law override the wishes of a patient because of her pregnancy?
The family of Munoz is concerned and angry about the state of Texas’s decision for a number of reasons. Munoz was without oxygen for over an hour before her husband found her on the floor which meant that the fetus was without oxygen as well. Medical experts believe this could cause serious problems for the unborn baby. Munoz’s father describes his daughter has having “rubbery arms that feel like a mannequin” which makes it difficult for him to visit her in the hospital. Munoz was very early in her second trimester (14 weeks), remote from delivering a baby, yet forced to be, as her father states, “a host for the fetus.” Who will have the ultimate responsibility of raising the child once the physicians intervene and deliver it via C. Section?
When John Peter Smith Hospital was confronted regarding their decision, they emphatically state that they are merely following the rule of law; however some medical ethics experts disagree and state that the hospital is misinterpreting the law. According to the New York Times, at least 31 states have adopted restrictive laws prohibiting physicians for ending life support for “terminally-ill pregnant women regardless of the patient’s wishes or her family’s.”
Should a brain dead pregnant woman lose her rights under the United States Constitution in order for the benefit of her unborn baby? I’d love to know what you think.
Tiona Rodriguez, a 17 year old teen mom was arrested in a New York City Victoria Secrets store on suspicion of shoplifting and accompanied by 17 year-old Francis Estevez, who was also arrested. The security guard looked in the shopping bag and found a foul-smelling dead fetus wrapped in a black plastic bag along with underwear and clothes. Rodriguez informed him that she was 6 months pregnant, had a miscarriage and didn’t know what to do with the baby. She was then taken to Bellevue Hospital, most likely for a psychiatric evaluation. The dead baby was taken to the morgue where it was reported that he weighed 8 ½ pounds and died from suffocation. It is alleged that Rodriguez gave birth at Estevez’s house and from a recent picture on Facebook® where she is wearing camouflage pants and a tee-shirt; it is quite possible that she was concealing the pregnancy. She was allegedly excited about an upcoming interview at a popular restaurant.
There will be those who despise Rodriguez and others who will sympathize with her. Could this tragedy have been prevented? Absolutely and here’s how:
• Rodriguez should have received a long-acting birth control method before leaving the hospital after having her first baby 2 years ago
• All pregnant teens should have at least one home visit during their pregnancy by The Healthy Start Program or the Pregnant Home Visit Program
• Messages about the Safe Haven Infant Protection Law should be plastered in doctors’ offices, prenatal clinics, billboards, text-messages, buses, subways and even on MTV to let families know that they can anonymously leave their baby at a hospital, fire and police departments for three days without getting in trouble
• Adoption IS an option. There are loving parents desperately waiting to adopt newborns and give them a decent home.
A newborn baby took his first breath and then ended up dead in a shopping bag. Who ever thought we’d see this in the 21st century?
I will never forget the patient or the day it happened. Assigned to my residency team, we had watched her vigilantly because she was 39 years old and pregnant with her first baby. Although she spoke no English the love that she had for the miracle growing inside of her could be understood in any language.
She had begun to have premature contractions at 33 weeks and we were trying to prolong her pregnancy for just a little bit longer to allow the lungs to develop. For approximately one week, we monitored her blood, her temperature and fetal movement. One of her tests ultimately indicated that she was developing an infection so we decided to induce her. We would then transfer the baby to the special care nursery where, under the watchful eyes of the neonatologists, he would continue to grow. My team was not on call that night although, in retrospect, I wished the heck that we were. We signed out the patient to the on-call team before we left. We gave them explicit instructions on how often to monitor the patient and discussed her complicated history. She was having, what we, in obstetrics called, a “precious baby” meaning that an older woman was having her first child. When we went home that evening, the baby was alive. When we returned the next morning, it was dead.
“What happened?” I asked as a volcano of anger started to mount. I received a litany of excuses, none of which made sense. Essentially, they missed an opportunity to intervene at the proper time and perform an emergency cesarean. By the time they got their act together, the baby was dead. There was a heated exchange of words between the male chief resident and myself. Another resident had to jump in between the two of us because at that moment, I was ready to swing.
Later that afternoon, the patient demanded to see her baby. We retrieved his body from the morgue in the basement, dressed him in a beautiful blanket and the social worker attempted to console her in her native language. I knew that I could never bring her baby back alive but from that moment on, I vowed to never allow a tragedy of that magnitude happen again.
While political extremists continue to have a meltdown and hold our country hostage, there is a recent court decision that illustrates just how far a woman’s rights are protected under the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare.”
On March 23, 2010, breastfeeding mothers were given the privilege of receiving time to express breast milk at work, “other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public.” On October 8, 2013, Kent Gordon, a 45 year-old technologist specialist in Portland, Oregon, received a jail sentence of 10 days for secretly using a surveillance camera in the form of a pen, to video tape a co-worker pumping breast milk behind closed doors in the privacy of her office.
The co-worker was about to resign from her position to become a stay-at-home mom so Gordon entered her office under the guise of collecting information regarding software licensure. After he left, the co-worker discovered the pen on her desk that was attached to a USB drive and alerted her managers via email. According to an article in the Seattle Times “Gordon went back to the woman’s office that evening but realized the pen was not there. He sent an email to the woman and two other female co-workers whose offices he had entered that day, asking if they had seen his pen in hopes that someone had just picked it up.” The next day, he discovered that the email had been forwarded to his managers. When confronted by his superiors, he resigned from his position but was arrested a few days later.
Gordon alleged that he was trying to his company’s intellectual property by the presiding judge didn’t believe him. In addition to spending 10 days in jail, Gordon must dedicate 160 hours of community service and undergo psychiatric counseling.
In the midst of all of the political hoopla and hysteria, we forget that the name of the health law passed in 2010 included the words “Patient Protection.” A nursing mother has a right to expect that she can pump milk for her baby and not have her privacy invaded by a peeping Tom. Did the court go far enough in Gordon’s sentence to prevent him from future offenses? You tell me.