[tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- From: Wendi <wendijo24@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: tri-med@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:39:46 -0800 (PST)
Karen,
Thanks for the info. I guess I'm just frustrated because everything looks
great up until the m/c and two of the three made it to 12 weeks and the most
recent made it to 10. I don't seem to follow a typical pattern for anything.
I wasn't interested in contacting Dr. Carey about the m/c. I wanted to talk
with him about trisomy weight gain issues and the methods that my current GI
clinic is using. I don't feel that they take J's trisomy into account when
developing expectations for his weight gain and feeding. Maybe we'll be able
to make it to SLC and I can talk to him in person.
Thanks again,
Wendi
Karen <karens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendi"
>I was 33 with my first loss, 34 with J, 36 with #3, and 37 with this one.
>I can see the last two being considered "older" eggs, but the first two I
>was "young".
Wendi,
I think Michelle pretty much covered how I would respond to this by saying
that unfortunately miscarriages are fairly common for all of us. Personally
I had a miscarriage, baby, baby, miscarriage, miscarriage and then another
baby.
Given that my main child bearing days were over 20 years ago when pregnancy
testing wasn't done until at least a week after the first missed period and
even then it wasn't all that reliable, I probably had more that were just
late or heavy periods.
None of my miscarriages were tested though so I have no idea why, Back then
it was just considered par for the course. It's hypothesised from those that
are tested that chromosomal anomalies are responsible for most miscarriages.
Its guesswork though because most of the time they don't test miscarriages.
If you ask any of the women that you know I am sure most will tell you that
they have had at least one miscarriage, probably more. The figures that your
doctor gave you - the 80% - are on having a healthy baby at birth. The
miscarriage rate is a lot higher - for all of us. Because you are using in
vitro you are more aware that you may be pregnant and therefore sensitive to
the fact that you have miscarried.
There was a study done in 1999 that estimated that 24% of all pregnancies
resulted in a miscarriage by 6 weeks. If the pregnancy makes it to 8 weeks
the loss rate drops to about 8% Personally I think the loss rate is probably
higher. I know from years of listening to mums on the internet that most
report as many miscarriages as babies borne to term. That is for every baby
that they have had they have at least one miscarriage. (I have 3 children
and I have had three miscarriages, Mandy has three children and had 2
miscarriages, etc etc - and thats what we can confirm.)
Just for the sake of trivia gathering - a miscarriage before 6 weeks is not
actually termed a miscarriage, its an "early pregnancy loss", after 8 weeks
its called a miscarriage. Why I have no idea - scientists like to name
everything.
It really doesn't sound like they are related to an inherited chromosomal
problem as the chromosome issues are all so different. However for peace of
mind if you want to be retested you should be able to force your insurance
company to pay the costs based on the cost effectiveness of the $500 test
over what they are already paying.
You mentioned in vitro though. I am not up to date with in vitro issues at
the moment but 5 or 6 years ago there was a lot of questioning about whether
in vitro methods were contributing to higher than normal numbers of
chromosomal anomalies in babies conceived this way. I remember doing the
research for a couple of mums here in Australia a few years ago when they
noticed the high number of babies with chromosomal anomalies amongst the
babies of mums in their in vitro support group. They were considering
litigation because they weren't warned that doctors suspected this. Not sure
how it went though.
The thought back then was that the handling of such fragile cells, the
freezing etc was making the chromosomes even more fragile than they already
were. ICSI (direct fertilisation of the egg) was implicated as causing
problems more than any other IVF method. Another thought was that the high
doses of hormones taken for in vitro was causing mums not to lose babies
that they would have in other circumstances.
Incidentally single cell testing for anomolies before implantation was
considered to be a big part of the problem, so much so that use of this was
stopped here in Australia for a while.
Your fertility doctors should be providing counselling and answering your
questions given your concerns. Are you a part of an invitro support group?
They may well have been asked these questions before.
I would talk to your fertility doctors etc before approaching Dr Carey. Its
certainly possible to speak to him but I am not sure that he would be able
to help much because I really don't think that the miscarriages are related
and he can be difficult to pin down because he is so busy.
Sorry that I can't offer more answers for you - I do however feel for you. I
remember my miscarriages very well and still shed a tear now and again. It
hurts to lose a child at any stage, more so when its so wanted and you don't
understand why. Sending you cyber hugs and prayers for success - soon!!!
Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well.
-- Josh Billings
Keep Looking For Rainbows!!
_--_|\
/Karen \
\ _.--._ /
v Karen, Mum to Alex (12 years, T-18 Mosaic)
http://members.optushome.com.au/karens
Building ___ooOOoo__ Rainbows
www.trisomyonline.org
Families Helping Families On-line
---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
Building ___ooOOoo__ Rainbows
www.trisomyonline.org
Families Helping Families On-line
- References:
- [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- From: Karen
Other related posts:
- » [tri-med] More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- » [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- [tri-med] Re: More wonderful news...
- From: Karen