Pages

▼

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Laila Ali update

Five weeks ago Laila Ali had her baby boy. In the announcement there was a vague mention of "surprises" and a "change of plans" about her home birth. I was curious to know what had happened--breech presentation? complications during labor? I just read more about the birth today. She was induced at 39 weeks for suspected growth restriction (although with her baby weighing 6.8 pounds, it doesn't seem that serious). Fortunately all ended well. She had a 15-hour labor, a vaginal birth, and a healthy baby. And isn't the new family beautiful?
at

9 comments:

  1. Mama to Monkeys10/1/08, 8:51 PM

    If only we all took so well to Vitamin P....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kelly10/2/08, 2:12 AM

    Thanks for posting - she had been so vocal about homebirth that I was worried when they said her birth plan had "changed".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michelle10/2/08, 11:39 AM

    They look like a beautiful family.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Housefairy10/2/08, 12:30 PM

    If the "Abdomen might be smaller" is the reason she got induced, that is pretty sad. Am I reading this wrong? Any primips or in-shape Mamas out there who had smallish abdomens out there can attest---

    Maybe I read it wrong. Glad she didnt have a c section, wonder when these celebs will go all the way and get real midwives or go UC? I am happy they are seeming to bring homebirth into the tabloids, but wonder about the doctors--who are they? Does anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  5. jakesask10/2/08, 1:31 PM

    Housefairy -- I think "the abdomen" they were referring to was the baby's . . . I guess there were ultrasounds happening. I think in the context of the sentence "the abdomen will be smaller because the organs aren't really needed yet, but the head and legs will keep growing" that makes the most sense. The baby's organs aren't needed yet so the baby's abdomen isn't growing, but his head and legs are. It's a bad line and it confused me too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rixa10/2/08, 1:44 PM

    Joy--I think she means the baby's abdomen in relation to its head size, not the mother's fundal height. I am pretty sure she talked about having midwives elsewhere, so I think she probably had co-care with a physician.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Susana10/3/08, 1:37 AM

    Hey Rixa,

    I read the news in a google alert the other day and wanted to write about it, but you beat me to it!

    If you're interested in my thoughts on the matter here's the link:

    http://spiritledbirth.blogspot.com/2008/10/laila-s-hubby-catches-his-son.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Housefairy10/3/08, 2:31 PM

    LOL
    ok...same as back in school, I read too fast and dont think before I type!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yehudit10/10/08, 4:09 PM

    IUGR is not just about how big your baby is on the centile chart (after all, a baby can simply be constitutionally small). Generally we are more concerned about a baby if it stops growing or the growth slows dramatically (i.e. we are interested in the pattern of fetal growth rather than absolute size/EFW at any one point). IUGR can be defined as the fetus not meeting its growth potential - clearly that's a complicated issue, because how do you know what that fetus 'ought' to weigh? But the implication is that there is an element of fetal compromise involved. A diagnosis of IUGR should also include umbilical artery doppler.

    In any case, just because a baby is born a 'good weight' doesn't mean that there wasn't IUGR (i.e. it was smaller than it 'should' have been, perhaps due to some compromise in placental-fetal circulation) just as a small baby doesn't necessarily mean IUGR, it could just be constitutionally small. So, there is no need for eye-rolling on grounds that the baby was 6lbs+

    ReplyDelete