Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Celebrity Gossip!
The BUST Lounge > Forums > Media Whores
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83
pollystyrene
Apparently he died in the Bahamas, in the hospital where Anna Nicole had given birth. He was visiting her and there's no sign of drugs or alcohol. The headline on Fark read "Anna Nicole's son dies of terminal shame". (Stifled chuckle)
jemisoutrageous
That's terrible. That really upset me. poor kid.
yuefie
Oh god, that is terrible. No matter how you think of someone, to give birth to one child and lose another whithin days is just heartbreaking. Poor kid, indeed.
faerietails
Re: Anna Nicole's son

Apparently it was a massive heart attack. They're still doing an autopsy, though.
ginger_kitty
How sad to have to deal with the birth and death of a child like that.
pinkpoodle
Seriously, how are you supposed to deal with that? You can't exactly be filled with joy after giving birth when another one of your kids dies. That's fucked up. I had no idea she was pregnant. Who is the father of this baby?
pollystyrene
She's never said- it doesn't sound like anyone knows who the father of her son was, either. How crazy to have a heart attack that young- I wonder if he had a known heart condition or not.

ETA: Correction- her son's father was her ex-husband, Billy Smith. The original article quoted a spokesperson as saying she didn't know who he was, but this later article says that spokesperson was just someone from Trimspa, not her publicist or something.
cecilia
She never said who her daughter's father is. Her son's father is her first husband, Billy Smith, whom she married when she was 16. The whole situation is tragic. I don't know how anyone gets over that.


On a lighter note, did anyone see the Larry King's interview with the woman who interviewed Tom and Katie and their families for the Vanity Fair article? It was weird. Either they brainwashed her too, or told her she would never work again if she dare said anything critical about them. She just kept gushing about how wonderful and perfect they are. And how hurt they are by all the speculation. It came off so fake.
anoushh
Larry King is pretty much guaranteed to churn out/be a party to stuff like that.

I cannot stand him.
chachaheels
Doesn't that make Larry Kind the equivalent of Oprah Winfrey now?

Tacky.
auralpoison
Larry King should be off playing teeball with Baba Wawa.

I always thought Anna had something going on with Howard the attorney. I think it's his baby girl. If Kimmie had a cock, I'm sure she'd have impregnated Anna. I just hope Sugarpie/Johnny Trendy weren't involved.

I feel bad for the kid. If D/A weren't involved then he must have had some kind of defect. Fate is a bitch. Poor Anna, too. He was asleep in a chair next to her bed & she couldn't wake him. The child isn't supposed to go before the parent. It happens, but it's still a shame.
sassypants
Has anyone seen pics of Carmen Electra's hair at the Imitation of Christ fashion show (can be found at www.thesuperficial.com). What.....? Why......? How......? I really don't understand her thought process there. And I know its Carmen Electra so "thought process" is a bit of a stretch, but seriously.

Did she just watch "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" and think to herself that Helen Hunt's coif was a thing of beauty? Goodness. huh.gif

ETA: Ok, its part of the fashion show, she didn't just wake up and do that to herself. Sorry Carmen.
funjules
Dear god, help us all:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14735154/

The thing I find the saddest about this? That MSNBC is using the National Enquirer as a legitimate source for news.
anoushh
That and the fact that she had another cesarean for no good reason.

bunnyb
I was under the impression that once you had one Caesarean, you couldn't give birth naturally from then on? Is that an old wives' tale?
mouse
definitely a wives tale, bunny. it may come with more complications, but none dire enough to make you need to schedule a c section. seriously, unless you have medical complications......that's gross. it just seems so disgustingly removed from the world to me, like watering your plastic flowers and pretending that's normal.
butterfly
"like watering your plastic flowers, and pretending that's normal" I love that, mouse.
(eta I mean I love your expression, not that I love pretending that's normal!)
amilita
After a C-section, there are some dire-enough complications that should prevent a vaginal delivery...mostly if you have an up-and-down scar on your uterus as opposed to the usual low, side-to-side one. But people don't usually get those kind anymore unless they had an emergency operation...like really, really serious emergency. The reason is that your uterus can abrupt (come apart) and this can be life-threatening.

Other risks do go up after a C-section, like the placenta adhering to the uterine wall, and uterine abruption, even if you have the side-to-side scar. Also if the reason you had a C-section is that your pelvic opening is small or something, some women don't even want to attempt a vaginal delivery...imagine if you were swollen and maybe even torn down below and then ended up delivering surgically! You may just want to opt for a scheduled section next time, cuz honey, that's gotta be rough. My heart goes out to women who had that experience!

If you've had many C-sections, it isn't a good idea to try a vag. delivery, either...I'll never forget this woman who had had 8 (eight!) C-sections but wanted to deliver vaginally! Like any practitioner would take that on! She left the hospital against medical advice, even though her baby was postdates and did not have a good heart rate tracing. I wonder about her sometimes.

After one C-section, you usually can try to do a vaginal delivery, though. That seemed to be trending up, but now C-sections are at such a high! Blech.
quietmadness
Sassypants:

Doesn't she look JUST LIKE "Cruella Deville" from the 101 Dalmations cartoon?

I swar!

laugh.gif
amilita
Oh, now they are saying that Anna Nicole's son's death was not natural...but no cause until autopsy and toxicology are complete. Still sad.
moxiegirl
I can't believe I'm defending Brit...but, I went through 4 days of hard labor, ended up with a c-section. While it may not be Necessary to have a c-section for medical reasons if I ever have another kid, its not gross or obscence or blech or anything else of the sort to not want to go through that experience again. Many women I know (most of the women in my family, in fact) opted for a second c-section after an emergency first one.

Especially those of you who I know are CBC...this just isn't something you can speak wisely on, and despite the overt gossipyness of this thread (which is its fun!), coming down on any woman for her child delivery choice seems really, really harsh.
amilita
I'm childfree by choice, but I'm also a labor and delivery nurse. And I do think the trend of elective C-sections is blech...it is more expensive and has higher risks overall.

I think I'm pretty sympathetic to women who had very rough first trials of labor who decide to opt for a repeat C-section...but part of that whole problem is rampant elective inductions! It's sort of a medical-intervention domino effect. I'm looking at things at a statistical level, for the most part.
mandolyn
i can't stop thinking about anna nicole's son. i can't imagine how heartbroken she is, and with a newborn. poor thing. gah.
anoushh
Amilita, you made my point very well.

Moxie, I'm not talking about your situation at all. I'm talking about thngs like the fact that our local hospital has a 30% and rising cesarean rate. That's no good. And it's getting harder and harder for women who want to try VBAC to get the medical support they need. I don't think women are encouraged or supported to be fully educated to make choices around childbirth so often (the medical profession has a hell of a lot of investment in a lot of intervention.)

There are all kinds of good reasons for having a cesarean (and i know--no one needs my seal of approval one way or another) but I doubt Brit has any of them. No reason she'd start making good decisions with that one. And if what they are saying is true--she wanted the kids ot have the same birth date--that's fucked up.

Mandolyn--me too.
doodlebug
I'm not defending Brit or trying to diss anyone, or come off like some kind of pompous "expert" (like I fear I sometimes do when I talk about my job)....but I've met a number of sexual assault and child sexual abuse survivors who, despite recovering from their experiences, become completely traumatized by their pregnancies and the looming prospect of giving birth. I've known a few women who have chosen elective C-sections as a coping mechanism. I consider it a fairly healthy decision, when faced with the alternative of being further traumatized and triggered into re-living the sexual abuse/assault experience during childbirth, which could set a woman back in her recovery, and could also have long-term repercusions on her relationship with her child and her partner. Although I'm sure this isn't the reason behind every elective C-section (and I'm not saying it's what's behind Brit's - how could I even know?), I don't think every C-section that's not considered "medically necessary" is wrong - it's not always possible to know what private history a woman might have.
punkerplus
I'll step up and defend Brit. In my eyes this is just another part of "my body my choice". She wanted a c-section, fine. That has nothing to do with me. It'd also have nothing to do with me if she gave birth vaginally. Who are we to judge what she chooses to do with her body?

Not to mention the fact that none of us know whether it is medically necessary for her or not. My mum had to have a c-section for medical reasons which weren't emergency but looking at her (or reading about her in the paper or whatever) you'd never know.
ambercherry
a friend of mine was delivered by c-section for medical reasons, i'm sure. that would have been back about 30 years ago. it was a planned c-section, and her mom picked her birthday to be the same as hers because she could, and why not? my friend was due around that time, anyway.

sorry, back on topic...
sybarite
I think it's the rising numbers of elective C-sections for non-medical reasons that is the problem. There has been a trend amongst celebrities (described as 'too posh to push') of deliberately choosing a c-section ahead of time, leading to other women doing the same.

The problem is that c-sections are, generally, harder on the body and take much longer to heal. Making them a trendy option also makes it more difficult for women who need them for medical or post-traumatic reasons as it increases the overall volume of c-sections done in a hospital, putting more strain on their resources. It is disturbing when a celebrity chooses to have a c-section as a lifestyle choice, IMO.

I don't know that Britney has done that; I believe other celebs like Madonna and Victoria Beckham have, though.

/two cents
bunnyb
When I think of elective C-sections I think of Victoria Beckham (Posh Spice) who is criticised for electing it to be trendy (syb, that "too posh to push" possibly originated with her?) but looking at her tiny frame I think it is for medical reasons -she's suffering fertility problems because of her tiny-ness.

I think more women are electing a c-section birth because celebrities are doing so but I agree with punkerplus, I think it's a woman's choice - just like it's her choice to have a home birth or a natural one without any drugs. It doesn't make her a bad mother from the outset. I think, though, that to try to manipulate it so your second child is born on the birthday of your first child is a little extreme but, again, her child, her choice (although presumably baby thought differently).

/little miss diplomatic
sybarite
Maybe the biggest problem is that celebrity endorsement of c-sections is leading to women choosing them for the wrong reasons, without informing themselves first.

Another reason celebs are evil and must be destroyed! smile.gif
punkerplus
Exactly syb, I was just about to post about the fact c-sections are generally tougher on the body, and say that yes I think it is terrible if woman are not fully informed about this and are only doing it because their favourite celebs are, but if they are fully informed of the risks etc and decide to do it because their fave celeb has then its still their informed decision.

And I always think that about VB bunnyb. Although according to trusty wikipedia she has claimed to have polycystic ovary syndrome which apparently caused her dramatic weight loss. Now I don't know much about PCOS but I didn't realise severe weight loss was a symptom. Shoot me down if I'm wrong though. Now my post has gone off on a tangent....
roseviolet
Ummm ... why are people assuming that she chose to have the C-section? I mean, it sounds like Britney wanted this baby to have the same birthday as her first child. So that means that she should have had the baby on Thursday. But instead, the baby was born on a Tuesday. Isn't that proof that this wasn't planned? Am I missing something here?
vesicapisces
QUOTE(punkerplus @ Sep 13 2006, 08:18 AM) *

...according to trusty wikipedia she has claimed to have polycystic ovary syndrome which apparently caused her dramatic weight loss.


I do know plenty about PCOS, and weight *loss* is not a symptom that I've ever heard of - rather emphatically to the contrary, as (to oversimplify) the underlying cause is insulin resistance, which causes your body to hoard fat.
amilita
Rose, it's possible that Britney had a scheduled C-section for Thursday, but her water broke or she went into labor so they just did the procedure Tuesday night instead. That is still planned, essentially. But you're right that we do not know what her indications for a repeat section may be...I think I'd be willing to bet money that it's elective, however. I think my odds would be good.

I agree that it's the woman's choice, etc., but rising C-sections do have an impact on others...for example, cost. Surgical deliveries cost astronomically more than vaginal ones, and you have a longer hospital stay. That is almost certianly being paid for by an insurance company or by Medicaid, and that effects others through premiums and through what resources are available.

Also, more complications with C-sections is real! This may not have effected your mother or you or your friend, but believe me, I've seen women hospitalized for infections and other complications directly attributable to a surgical procedure. This is inconvienient, scary, expensive, etc.

I ask every woman I admit "What is the reason for your C-section?" and I can't even tell you about all the women who say, "Well I wanted the baby before my Dr. went out of town." or "I don't want to have contractions." Also, we nurses know which Dr.s have astronomically high C-section rates, and we know when his patients (oh, because it's almost always a 'he' who has those really astronomical rates) say things like, "My Dr. thinks the baby is too big." or something...he is just maybe slightly concerned about the size but really it's just easier for him to do a scheduled section than anything else. Don't underestimate the doctor's convienience as a factor that elevates sections!

And almost inevitably, those babies who had the Dr. so concerned about the size are within the low-normal birthweight. And the women who tried to avoid pain find out that a surgical incision through every layer of your abdomen is quite painful!

Also, bunny, just by looking at a woman, you cannot tell what her pelvic openings are like. A tiny, 4'11" Asian woman may be able to birth a baby no problem, while a 6'0" Amazonian-looking woman would have trouble. It's a funny thing.

I'm writing so much about this in the gossip thread, but it's a subject I've thought a lot about and is important to me. Doodle, you have some really good points about psychological and situational circumstances that may make a surgical delivery a better option. Point taken.

I guess my main point is that while we are stading up for a woman's right to choose how she delivers her baby, it's important to remember what the climate is around her and how that's effecting her choices. Birth has been medicalized, we all know that. Women often trust their doctors, and we must consider what information they are giving their patients. Also, what the effect of living in a litigious society does to the Dr.'s preferences, or what information they will spread. Hmm...I suppose that sometimes...not always!, but way too often...I don't feel anger or anything to women who choose elective surgical delivery but I just feel like it's a pity. And costly.
faith
Any word on Anna Nicole's son? I always felt so bad for him as a hit-and-run victim of that horrendous wreck of a TV show. I think she had some substance abuse problems at that time, and I hope hope hope that that isn't what killed her son! Not that the heart problem is better (I have a friend whose brother died in his sleep at age 17 from a heart problem, totally undiagnosed or expected) but it least it might feel less preventable? I don't know, I just think it's sad.

As for C sections -- my hats off to anyone who's give birth or helped others give birth -- it all sounds unbelievably painful and crazy to me, and while I hope to have kids someday (by birth or adoption and yes I am thirty so I realize this shouldn't be such a far off fantasy) I am in firm denial about how the babies get out of the body and into the world smile.gif

I wonder if celebrities are given to wanting to control birth, because when they're out of control people exploit them? Just a thought. I feel so badly for Brit - I can't think of someone who seems less in control. She I think has gone on record as saying it was an accident to get pregnant this time? Sigh.
pollystyrene
Now they're saying his death wasn't natural- could have been a heart attack, but something caused it, possiblty an overdose. Some nurse witnessed him throwing up violently shortly before it happened. Of course, this is all coming from not-the-most-reliable sources, so until there's a final official word, I'm not really believing any of it.

vesicapisces- *losing* weight due to PCOS?!?! Don't I wish! I love wikipedia, but sometimes you have to take that site with a grain of salt- the author obviously has the mixed up!
CharliNye
QUOTE(amilita @ Sep 13 2006, 08:57 AM) *

Rose, it's possible that Britney had a scheduled C-section for Thursday, but her water broke or she went into labor so they just did the procedure Tuesday night instead. That is still planned, essentially. But you're right that we do not know what her indications for a repeat section may be...I think I'd be willing to bet money that it's elective, however. I think my odds would be good.

I agree that it's the woman's choice, etc., but rising C-sections do have an impact on others...for example, cost. Surgical deliveries cost astronomically more than vaginal ones, and you have a longer hospital stay. That is almost certianly being paid for by an insurance company or by Medicaid, and that effects others through premiums and through what resources are available.

Also, more complications with C-sections is real! This may not have effected your mother or you or your friend, but believe me, I've seen women hospitalized for infections and other complications directly attributable to a surgical procedure. This is inconvienient, scary, expensive, etc.


Also, bunny, just by looking at a woman, you cannot tell what her pelvic openings are like. A tiny, 4'11" Asian woman may be able to birth a baby no problem, while a 6'0" Amazonian-looking woman would have trouble. It's a funny thing.

I'm writing so much about this in the gossip thread, but it's a subject I've thought a lot about and is important to me. Doodle, you have some really good points about psychological and situational circumstances that may make a surgical delivery a better option. Point taken.

.



I've had two C sections due to that above small pelvic opening. My doc didn't figure it out with my first child til the end of my pregnancy when they finally get around to doing the internal exams( I always think these should be done periodically throughout pregnancy rather then the last few weeks). At that time(9 yrs ago) my dr had to legally try to deliver natural, my son was over a week late so she had to at least TRY to induce labor though she KNEW I had to have a C section. My recovery was ok but it was harder then my second because of the fact that for six hours I was being induced for no reason other then to cover someone's medical ass.

With my daughter this summer I knew straightaway that I was going to be going by C section. So technically it was planned. But only because my doc knew it may be dangerous for me to even try to deliver naturally. Yes I still have the small pelvic canal but I also have MS and if they tried to let me even try to deliver natural I could have pushed my health over the edge.

The recovery with this C was a lot quicker and less painful, but that's also because I'm older and know more about them.

Would I have another? No. I'm done. I can't push myself through another surgery.

As for Britney, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she may have needed one rather then elected to have one.

But I don't judge any woman who elects to have one. I know women who are TERRIFIED of natural birth. And would rather go through the surgery. That's their business and no one else's.

maddy29
re: anna nicole's son-it's weird how bad i feel about this-don't know the kid. but still just so sad. the throwing up violently part reminds me of my old therapist, who puked her guts up before passing out and having a huge stroke, almost died. . .

moxie- 4 DAYS of hard labor? DAYS????!!! good lord, woman!
faerietails
QUOTE(CharliNye @ Sep 13 2006, 11:06 AM) *

But I don't judge any woman who elects to have one. I know women who are TERRIFIED of natural birth. And would rather go through the surgery. That's their business and no one else's.


I agree. I'm adamant about remaining childfree forever, but IF I were to ever get pregnant and IF I decided to go ahead with the pregnancy, I know I'd be one of those women who request a C-section. The whole concept of giving birth vaginally scares the shit out of me. It's fascinating and I would love to be there to witness someone give birth, but to do it personally? Hell no.

This summer I was bitten by a dog, and it wasn't even that bad, but I had to go to the emergency room to have it cleaned out and stuff. They had to inject my hand in like 8 different places. By the 4th or 5th shots I couldn't really feel it so sharply anymore, but I could still feel that the needle was going in, and I could feel they were digging into the wound with gauze, even though I couldn't really feel the pain. But I was soooo traumatized at the concept of it all. Seriously, give me 10 more dog bites over that any day! And before they even touched me I knew the cleaning was coming, and I was trembling violently just at the thought of it, even though my hand wasn't hurting anymore. The doctor and the nurses were just like, "What the hell is wrong with you?" I tried to be rational and stop, but it was uncontrollable. So the thought of giving birth vaginally would probably make me pass out, I swear!

Long story short, I can't really judge women who want c-sections!
mouse
oh, jeeze.

i didn't mean to come across as insensitive or anything when i made that comment. but, let's see. where to start. i believe it was common knowledge that brit planned her first c-section? so i guess we are assuming that the same was planned for her second?

honestly....i agree with the my body my choice thing. and if you really are so traumatized that you don't want to give birth vaginally, okay. but i feel like that fits into the category of "medical complications", be they physical or neurological or emotional. i think the thing with celebrity c-sections is that they are done to preserve "the figure" or to continue the absolute removal from the real world that is far too present for me, and i'm going to stand by what i said about that, to me, feeling gross. i feel like it's like paris hilton's animal cruelty stance, how you can follow putting up a fuss about one cow getting killed for meat, then turn around and do a burger commercial. like--where do you think that burger comes from? there is a connection, and i don't think they get it.

my coworker just came back from maternity leave. the woman in our front office is about to leave for maternity leave, and my other coworker is baby crazy. the day coworker 1 came back, all three were crowded next to my cubicle talking about babies and pregnancy, and the running theme was "oh my god you're so skinny! no i'm not, i'm still ten pounds heavier than before i was pregnant! oh my god, why didn't you get a c section? oh my god, i wanna have a baby so much but i don't wanna be fat! i don't think i can have a baby cos then i'll get fat!" and i feel like that is the attitude that these celebrity women who schedule c-sections have. and that, i think is wrong and gross.

i lurk in the childfree thread, even though i think i may have children someday. i'm really bothered by the way many women treat having children, especially in the face of such overpopulation. i strongly believe in living one's life in a CONSCIOUS way. ie, knowing the chain of things--if you eat meat, realize that it comes from a living animal--and knowing the repercussions. and i feel like these women who choose to have c-sections for the above reasons are displaying an utter disregard for their own bodies; even though they are so conscious about being skinny. and not only a disregard, but i feel like it's also a disgust issue. like natural childbirth is gross. and again, i think that attitude is gross. i do not mean to offend anyone but i've always found this board as somewhere we could say what we believe.
anoushh
I guess one of the things that bothers me the most is that when a woman says "I'm terrified of natural birth' the medical profession just goes "ok--we'll do a c-section then." What about supporting women to see if they can work through some of the fears? What about educating them and giving them real choices? Yes, some women will still choose the surgery, but having options is a very, very different experience than being backed into a corner through fear.

(The comments here about fear of pain just bolster that feeling in me. I know plenty of women who say that they would rather give birth again 10 times than have a tooth filled at the dentist. It's a very different pain, they all say, and it's not hte result of injury or other bad stuff, but rather a process to get the baby out, which is a huge difference.) No, not everyone says that, but do you hear about this other side? Hardly ever. And it's out there.)

And as Amilita says, c-sections are often portrayed as the "easy" option, when that's just bullshit. It's riskier for mom and baby. Recovery can be much harder. I've heard many who've had both kinds of birth say that the surgery recovery was much worse in terms of pain than vaginal birth. It still might be the right choice for some people, and I don't think people should be given horror stories, but we deserve the facts and the truth. (Like size estimates late in pregnancy are notoriously unreliable and the whole "pelvis is too small" judgement based on visual inspection is as well.)

It also seems that there's still a hell of a lot of "don't you worry your pretty little head--let the doctor decide" attitude out there.

And as Amilita again rightly says--never underestimate the convenience factor for the doctor. It's unconscionable, but it's true.

The issue of people with trauma histories, etc, is never far from my mind. I'm a therapist and my last job (which I loved) had a client group who probably had about an 80% or more incidence of sexual abuse.

But one of hte things that really came out of that work for me was that there are a hell of a lot of parents out there who always, always, always put their own needs first, and not the child's. Of course we all have to do that at times--if mom is falling apart the kid will suffer, if nothing else. But as Mouse pointed out that doesn't seem to be the case in a lot of these situations we read about. Of course an elective c-section doesn't make someone a bad parent from the start. I can, though, give me pause when it's a part of what feels like a fucked up attitude toward parenting, such as "I only do what I feel like and what's convenient for me, and if that's not what the kid needs, tough."

I don't think that's the majority, or even a large number of people who choose elective surgery but it certainly seems to be in play in the celebrity mindset very often.
pollystyrene
It just keeps getting weirder: More news on Daniel Smith's death
anoushh
On the celeb front, I know he isn't well known in the US, but he was the head writer on the Muppet Show amongst other thngs. I have been a big fan of Chris Langham and this really upsets me (for lots of reasons):

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1871617,00.html
moxiegirl
yeah, 4 days. I had a host of "minor" medical problems with the pregnancy (Gestational Diabetes, low thyroid, and the topperm very low aminotic fluid the last week). So, the short story- my OB's practce has the lowest C-sec rate at the hosp. (15%vs average 30 for other). My OB's quote: "Yeah, some doc's like to make golf times. I'm here to deliver babies." With that context, it was decided to induce me a week early (8% aminotic fluid level...low). I asked the dr. what would happen if the induction didn't work- his reply- "We give you 2 days. Not working, you go home." Well, that was thursday and friday. I progressed all of 1 CM dialation over 20 total hours of contractions. No pain meds. Weekend spent at home. Monday, back at dr., who at first reccomended we just wait it out, which was fine by me. Then, the Ultrasound showed 4% fluid- Dangerously low. I went straight back to hosp. Tues and Wed, more induction, no go. By 5pm wednesday, we "called it" for lack of a better phrase. We had to get the baby out, and my body wasn't responding at all to the drugs. So, C-section.

Not all dr.'s are rushy, rushy!

I suppose we'll see (if) with the next one...but after the labor experience i had, i really think electing for the surgury will be a better fit for my family. But, its a descsion we'll make as a team when the time comes.

So, back to the topic at hand...no more news on Anna's boy, huh? Am I the only one who suspects serious foul play?
pollystyrene
Check my link, moxie (you probably cross-posted)!

My SIL was in a similar situation- she had fully planned to deliver naturally, with an epidural, but vaginally. The last week or so she had low amniotic fluid but not quite dangerous. They waited a few days and then tried to induce her. She didn't dilate. Not a centimeter. So, they decided to do a c-section, which she really wasn't happy about, but it got to a point where there weren't really any other options. She was at this private hospital that was more like a country club, and there's not a OB on the premises all the time. She she had to wait around for the guy to come back and put her out for the c-section. Finally they did it, but they gave her twice as much anesthesia as they should of, when if they had waited a little longer for the first dose to kick in, they wouldn't have needed to give her the second one. She spent the 12-14 hours after the baby was born completely knocked out, waking up only to throw up....it was bad. She felt so guilty afterwards for missing her son's first 12 hours. I think she's over it now, but she's the classic "first-time mother"- won't buy a single baby product unless it's in this book of the safest (and generally most expensive) baby products. It's kind of ridiculous. But she did learn her lesson about the hospital- next time she's going to the big teaching hospital with an excellent reputation, rather than the swanky private one that offers a steak dinner after you give birth. You're having a baby, not going on a cruise! A good hospital shouldn't have to have "perks".
butterfly
/I have a little piece of celebrity gossip, but it's kind of off the topic ya'll are discussing- Sorry!

"Eddie Izzard is set for cross-atlantic fame after landing a major new drama on American TV"

/back to your regular scheduling!
pollystyrene
Oooo! Any details on the show, butterfly? (Or anyone?)
butterfly
well.....

It's going to be called The Riches, on the FXchannel(?), and he'll play a con artist. Minnie Driver's going to be in it too.
It's a 13part series for the summer 2007 season

The bit that caught my eye was:
"Eddie said of the series, 'It's the part I've been waiting for all my life.'"
roseviolet
Whitney Houston has filed for divorce!
jezabelle
QUOTE(roseviolet @ Sep 13 2006, 08:02 PM) *

It's about bloody time, now maybe she can TRY and get her life somewhat straightened out?!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.