Baby #19 for the Duggars born!

[happygirl]

I don't have a link, but I remember her mentioning it on one of the shows. She was told that it would be unwise to have more children and her current doctor refused to deliver anymore Duggar children. She said that she had to make some calls until she could find a doctor who was willing to take her as a patient. I am also curious where you heard that Michelle went to college? I am certainly no Duggar expert, but I remember her talking about running some kind of car business with Jim Bob after they got married and getting her real estate license, but nothing about college.

I was under the impression that you had to go schooling to get your real estate license.

I don't rememeber her ever saying that a Dr told them not to have any more. In fact her current Dr said she is meant to have kids.

 

[luvmy3]

And many, if not most, Christians believe it was God who gave us the medical advances to make it possible for Josie to survive. And from what I remember from the show Michelle's OB/GYN said she was fine to keep having babies. She said some women are made to have babies and Michelle is one of those women. Of course to get readers reporters are going to find a source that says it is unwise for her to have so many pregnancies. But up until this point she has been healthy throughout her pregnancies. 42 is not too old to have a baby. My best friend in high school was one of 12. Her mother was well into her 40s when she had her last baby. All but one of hers lived to adulthood and the one that died it was a heart defect and not a premature birth. My friend's mother was another of those women who was made to have babies.

(Hey not trying to be rude or anything so don't ban me. Please!!!)

So why ignore the medical science/advances in you truly believe that you are doing God's will? There have been doctors who said she shouldn't continue and instead of taking that as God's will she chose to find different docs that would say it was okay. There is also a ton of evidence of the known risks involved in a woman over the age of 40 getting pregnant, the risks of having multiple pregnancies, the risk of having pregnancies close together. She chose to ignore all of those things even though God gave us all the medical tecnology to be able to have that knowledge? She is a hypocrit, and her using the excuse of her Christian beliefs makes it even more pathetic.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I was under the impression that you had to go schooling to get your real estate license.

I don't rememeber her ever saying that a Dr told them not to have any more. In fact her current Dr said she is meant to have kids.

Depends on the state.

In Florida--some folks opt to get a Real Estate Degree, while others just take the necessary (minimum) course work through various classes/seminars and then take the test for licensing.

A degree is not required--and at least in my state--college of any kind is not required.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So why ignore the medical science/advances in you truly believe that you are doing God's will? There have been doctors who said she shouldn't continue and instead of taking that as God's will she chose to find different docs that would say it was okay. There is also a ton of evidence of the known risks involved in a woman over the age of 40 getting pregnant, the risks of having multiple pregnancies, the risk of having pregnancies close together. She chose to ignore all of those things even though God gave us all the medical tecnology to be able to have that knowledge? She is a hypocrit, and her using the excuse of her Christian beliefs makes it even more pathetic.

With all due respect, there are many phsyicians who do not respect a person's individual freedoms or health history and will spout off medicine with little regard to their patient.

I doctor shop--all the time. I have certain issues related to my physique and shop for docs whose first impulse isn't to prescribe pain meds. I find docs who are friendly to non-medicinal therapies. ETA: this is for back pain--not me seeking permission to have babies )

Also--doctors are human. Their word is not gospel, I am sorry to say.

Anyone who makes a decision based on the advice on one doctor--is crazy. That's what 2nd and 3rd opinions are for.

Again--she was not doctor shopping for permission--she was doctor shopping for an OB open to a VBAC. She found that her Dr. Sarver--who would do it only with a team on backup to expedite a c-section if it became medically necessary.

Also--OB's will deny any woman (b/c they can) their services for whatever their philosophical reasons are. They will deny taking on a patient who...wants a VBAC, wants med-free, wants a doula. There are OB's out there who over-medical-ize (made up word ) pregnancy and will turn away patients who don't meet their criteria for an ideal birth (induced, medicated, push when I tell you!).

Also--having been on numerous pregnancy forums and on my 4th pregnancy...there are many woman who doctor shop looking for the experience they desire.

Women do not shop for permission and whomever feels that Michelle was shopping for permission to have a kid--is sorely mistaken.

Staying out of the religious discussion--would love to contribute, but y'all are walking on extremely thin ice and I don't want to get in trouble for it.

 

[luvmy3]

With all due respect, there are many phsyicians who do not respect a person's individual freedoms or health history and will spout off medicine with little regard to their patient.

I doctor shop--all the time. I have certain issues related to my physique and shop for docs whose first impulse isn't to prescribe pain meds. I find docs who are friendly to non-medicinal therapies. ETA: this is for back pain--not me seeking permission to have babies )

Also--doctors are human. Their word is not gospel, I am sorry to say.

Anyone who makes a decision based on the advice on one doctor--is crazy. That's what 2nd and 3rd opinions are for.

Again--she was not doctor shopping for permission--she was doctor shopping for an OB open to a VBAC. She found that her Dr. Sarver--who would do it only with a team on backup to expedite a c-section if it became medically necessary.

Also--OB's will deny any woman (b/c they can) their services for whatever their philosophical reasons are. They will deny taking on a patient who...wants a VBAC, wants med-free, wants a doula. There are OB's out there who over-medical-ize (made up word ) pregnancy and will turn away patients who don't meet their criteria for an ideal birth (induced, medicated, push when I tell you!).

Also--having been on numerous pregnancy forums and on my 4th pregnancy...there are many woman who doctor shop looking for the experience they desire.

Women do not shop for permission and whomever feels that Michelle was shopping for permission to have a kid--is sorely mistaken.

Staying out of the religious discussion--would love to contribute, but y'all are walking on extremely thin ice and I don't want to get in trouble for it.

ITA.

My point is that regardless if it was one doc out there who told her she shouldn't continue, there are documented known risks involved. The reason they are known is because of the advances in medical technology. You can doctor shop all you want, those risks do not change. If she is one of those Christians that believe God is responsible for man's ability to come up with this technology (I assume to better the world) then it is still hypocritical for her to ignore what that medical technology has proven to us, no matter what a couple of doctors say.

 

[sandramaac]

It occured to me---why don't they practice natural family planning? With the use of timing marital encounters, and the husband using a method of birth control on the questionable days of the month they can really control pregnancy. I remember them saying that the reason they stopped using bc pills as a method of birth control was that Michelle got pregnant on them and then subsequently lost the pregnancy most likey because she was on them. But practicing the natural family planning, they can really have a good bit of control.

 

[Ember]

So why ignore the medical science/advances in you truly believe that you are doing God's will? There have been doctors who said she shouldn't continue and instead of taking that as God's will she chose to find different docs that would say it was okay. There is also a ton of evidence of the known risks involved in a woman over the age of 40 getting pregnant, the risks of having multiple pregnancies, the risk of having pregnancies close together. She chose to ignore all of those things even though God gave us all the medical tecnology to be able to have that knowledge? She is a hypocrit, and her using the excuse of her Christian beliefs makes it even more pathetic.

I agree.

"Generally, doctors note that risks associated with pregnancy increase after age 35. These risks include genetic disorders, stillbirths, miscarriages, diabetes, high blood pressure, and others. Each year after age 35 the mother's risks for each of these risks increases even more.
​

* http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/543.html

A woman’s risk of having a baby with certain birth defects involving chromosomes (the structures in cells that contain genes) increases with age. Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal birth defect. Affected children have varying degrees of mental retardation and physical birth defects. A woman’s risk of having a baby with Down syndrome is (1):

* At age 25, 1 in 1,250
* At age 30, 1 in 1,000
* At age 35, 1 in 400
* At age 40, 1 in 100
* At 45, 1 in 30
* At 49, a 1 in 10

Women over age 35 are more likely than younger women to have a health condition that began before pregnancy. Some health conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and kidney and heart problems, can affect pregnancy. For example, poorly controlled diabetes can contribute to birth defects and miscarriage, and poorly controlled high blood pressure can slow fetal growth.

Some complications that are more common in women over 35 include:

* Gestational diabetes: This form of diabetes develops for the first time during pregnancy. Studies suggest that women over age 35 are about twice as likely as younger women to develop gestational diabetes (7, 8). Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to have a very large baby who is at risk of injuries during delivery and of newborn health problems (such as breathing problems).
* High blood pressure: As with diabetes, high blood pressure can develop for the first time during pregnancy. This is called pregnancy-induced high blood pressure or pregnancy-induced hypertension. In its more severe form, it is called preeclampsia. Some studies have found that pregnancy-induced high blood pressure is more common in women over age 35 (8, 9).
* Placental problems: The most common placental problem is placenta previa, in which the placenta covers part or all of the uterine opening (cervix). One study found that women in their late 30s were almost twice as likely, and women in their 40s nearly three times as likely, as younger women to have this complication (7). Placenta previa can cause severe bleeding during delivery, which can endanger mother and baby. A cesarean birth (also called c-section) often can prevent serious complications.
* Premature birth: Women ages 40 and older are more likely than women in their 20s and 30s to deliver prematurely (before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy). From 2003 to 2005, 16.6 percent of women ages 40 and older delivered prematurely, compared to 12.5 percent of women ages 30 to 39, and 11.9 percent of women ages 20 to 29 (10). Premature babies are at increased risk of health problems in the newborn period and of lasting disabilities. Some studies also suggest that women in their 40s may be at increased risk of having a low-birthweight baby (less than 5½ pounds) (7, 8). (Low birthweight can result from premature birth, poor growth before birth or both.)
* Stillbirth: Stillbirth is the death of the fetus after 20 weeks of pregnancy. A number of studies have found that women over age 40 are about two to three times as likely as women in their 20s to have a stillborn baby (7, 11). The causes of stillbirth in the over-40 age group are not known.

​

*http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp

And that's not even going into the fact the her plumbing is so abused that they were worried parts of her insides were going to fall out...

Edited to add: I'm not knocking normal moms here. I just wanted to make that clear. I know many women have children into their forties and they would have to be aware of the risks, too. But to dance with fate, and risk your health and the babies when you already have SO MANY babies to love, and that need you, is what I disagree with. I also think that while a child with special needs would indeed be loved by the Duggar's, you can't tell me it would get the attention it needs from its parents. The child would be handed off to a sibling to raise. As if raising your siblings wasn't enough, to raise a special needs sibling would be VERY unfair to the "buddy" it was partnered with.

The parents of children with needs that I've had the pleasure to work with are amazing people (for the most part), but their level of involvement in their kids astounds me. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the Duggar's could handle this level of commitment to a child. They just pop 'em out and hand 'em off.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

ITA.

My point is that regardless if it was one doc out there who told her she shouldn't continue, there are documented known risks involved. The reason they are known is because of the advances in medical technology. You can doctor shop all you want, those risks do not change. If she is one of those Christians that believe God is responsible for man's ability to come up with this technology (I assume to better the world) then it is still hypocritical for her to ignore what that medical technology has proven to us, no matter what a couple of doctors say.

While your opinion on risks is valid--that is not what she said nor what she was told. She was simply shopping for the opportunity to VBAC. She was able to do that successfully. All the c-sections she has received since her vbacs all had to do with health of baby (or in case of Josie, health of baby and mom). I think one was a breach and another was a heart d-cel issue. And of course with Josie, it was the prematurity and need to quickly remove the baby.

ETA: I also wanted to add--I do have a friend who has a heart condition and only had 1 child. They did want another and she had to be closely monitored. Together with her doc and her DH, they had a plan on how it could be done so safely and she did have a healthy baby boy. In her case--she has a higher chance of pregnancy being lethal than Michelle. Michelle has never stated that she was told that she was putting her life at risk to continue getting pregnant. I'm not sure she would have blatantly ignored that medical advice. Considering that the infertility industry is willfully assisting women in their 40s in getting pregnant..one could argue why would medical technology help them and it not be hypocritical, but for Michelle to do so without any infertility issues that it would be.


And as for VBAC risks--it is well known and published that the increase in risk over a regular V delivery with no prior C is only like a 1% increase in risk.

And doctors are letting that 1% control their blanket refusal.

In the end--she was fine for 19 babies and has delivered with Dr. Sarver--I think since baby 14 or 15. That is 3 or 4 babies who did not have an issue after she had to doctor shop.

I think it is a bit naive to say we should always trust doctors or trust medical technology and then call people hypocrites when they do not.

If I trusted "technology"--I'd be drugged up due to all of my back pain instead of mostly okay b/c we took a non-medicinal approach.

Michelle really ignored no technology, so I do not get the argument. Even with something as simple a as a Birth control pill, statistically there is a chance of complications or death using that. There is a chance of death with getting a hysterectomy.

I had a chance of death getting arthroscopic knee surgery. Pretty cool technology that I am thankful to have gotten, but I could have died b/c it required going under. Always a chance of that with any surgery.

We place too much credence in medicine sometimes to allow it to rule our lives.

And additionally-as with any technology, it can be abused. This is why there is a heavy problem with O/D on prescription meds, overuse of things such as cortizone shots, heavy P/T for athletes to compete when the average Joe would be told to stop. In fact, my surgery was done only with consent of the surgeon that I could still do the Disney Marathon and together with the PT, that was our goal when my surgery was done mid-training. Not the wisest move, but perfectly safe given my individual situation. Though--I was demoted to the half as they would not clear me.

But in the end, we have free will, we make our own choices and it is not hypocritical to use whatever that moves you to guide you to what you feel is the proper choice.

It occured to me---why don't they practice natural family planning?

I had wondered that as well. In initially researching the Quiver full movement, they consider that--well, in my understanding--that if they were to on purpose abstain so as to prevent a child...then they are still interfering with the process.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful to the movement, but essentially--they respond to the gift of their union when they are moved to do so. To ignore it would be interfering with the "plan" that their creator had in mind.

I believe if you google Quiverfull and read about it, they do mention NFP specifically and why even that is not okay. Of course, I do not share that belief.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I agree.

"Generally, doctors note that risks associated with pregnancy increase after age 35. These risks include genetic disorders, stillbirths, miscarriages, diabetes, high blood pressure, and others. Each year after age 35 the mother's risks for each of these risks increases even more.
​

* http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/543.html

A woman’s risk of having a baby with certain birth defects involving chromosomes (the structures in cells that contain genes) increases with age. Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal birth defect. Affected children have varying degrees of mental retardation and physical birth defects. A woman’s risk of having a baby with Down syndrome is (1):

* At age 25, 1 in 1,250
* At age 30, 1 in 1,000
* At age 35, 1 in 400
* At age 40, 1 in 100
* At 45, 1 in 30
* At 49, a 1 in 10

Women over age 35 are more likely than younger women to have a health condition that began before pregnancy. Some health conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and kidney and heart problems, can affect pregnancy. For example, poorly controlled diabetes can contribute to birth defects and miscarriage, and poorly controlled high blood pressure can slow fetal growth.

Some complications that are more common in women over 35 include:

* Gestational diabetes: This form of diabetes develops for the first time during pregnancy. Studies suggest that women over age 35 are about twice as likely as younger women to develop gestational diabetes (7, 8). Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to have a very large baby who is at risk of injuries during delivery and of newborn health problems (such as breathing problems).
* High blood pressure: As with diabetes, high blood pressure can develop for the first time during pregnancy. This is called pregnancy-induced high blood pressure or pregnancy-induced hypertension. In its more severe form, it is called preeclampsia. Some studies have found that pregnancy-induced high blood pressure is more common in women over age 35 (8, 9).
* Placental problems: The most common placental problem is placenta previa, in which the placenta covers part or all of the uterine opening (cervix). One study found that women in their late 30s were almost twice as likely, and women in their 40s nearly three times as likely, as younger women to have this complication (7). Placenta previa can cause severe bleeding during delivery, which can endanger mother and baby. A cesarean birth (also called c-section) often can prevent serious complications.
* Premature birth: Women ages 40 and older are more likely than women in their 20s and 30s to deliver prematurely (before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy). From 2003 to 2005, 16.6 percent of women ages 40 and older delivered prematurely, compared to 12.5 percent of women ages 30 to 39, and 11.9 percent of women ages 20 to 29 (10). Premature babies are at increased risk of health problems in the newborn period and of lasting disabilities. Some studies also suggest that women in their 40s may be at increased risk of having a low-birthweight baby (less than 5½ pounds) (7, 8). (Low birthweight can result from premature birth, poor growth before birth or both.)
* Stillbirth: Stillbirth is the death of the fetus after 20 weeks of pregnancy. A number of studies have found that women over age 40 are about two to three times as likely as women in their 20s to have a stillborn baby (7, 11). The causes of stillbirth in the over-40 age group are not known.

​

*http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1155.asp

And that's not even going into the fact the her plumbing is so abused that they were worried parts of her insides were going to fall out...

Yet as I just posted in an edit in my above post--

Women--utilizing medical technology via inferlity treatments, are DAILY being assisted by physicians to get pregnant. Many in their late 30s and in their 40s.

It is hypocritical to condemn Michelle and use this data against her when women are being assisted on a regular basis by the medical community to have children.

If medical technology is so grand--why are women using it to place themselves in such danger?

There is one answer I could provide--but again, against DIS board guidelines.

On the bolded portion--it has not been revealed that Michelle had any pre-existing conditions.

I don't have those pre-existing conditions and I fall within that age group.

 

[TinkPinkPoem]

And many, if not most, Christians believe it was God who gave us the medical advances to make it possible for Josie to survive. And from what I remember from the show Michelle's OB/GYN said she was fine to keep having babies. She said some women are made to have babies and Michelle is one of those women. Of course to get readers reporters are going to find a source that says it is unwise for her to have so many pregnancies. But up until this point she has been healthy throughout her pregnancies. 42 is not too old to have a baby. My best friend in high school was one of 12. Her mother was well into her 40s when she had her last baby. All but one of hers lived to adulthood and the one that died it was a heart defect and not a premature birth. My friend's mother was another of those women who was made to have babies.

(Hey not trying to be rude or anything so don't ban me. Please!!!)

I find that statement hurtful. What about all these women who are struggling with infertility? They weren't meant to have kids? Were they meant to spend massive amounts of time and money and to be put in emotional turmoil in order to procreate? Please. I think it was just the doctor trying to justify her choices.

Also, just because you can have babies, doesn't mean you have to keep having them indefinitely. I believe that nature has its limits and by adhering to that principle she sure keeps testing them.

 

[Wonderlandmom]

Here is some info from their site

I would say the greatest change that I have seen in the field of obstetrics, and I might add that it is very troubling to me, is the idea that once you’ve had a C-section you must have a C-section for any other pregnancy. It is much healthier for mom and baby to avoid major surgery and all the complications that go along with a C-section if possible. Granted, there are health situations that would warrant such, but for years obstetrics encouraged TOL (Trial Of Labor after previous C-section) with many successful healthy ******l births. It was quite alarming to be told that I could no longer have a ******l birth due to hospital or insurance companies regulations. It appears that what is best for the patient is not the priority with this decision. I feel our health care is being jeopardized by this unhealthy approach. Doctors are having to tell their patients that they no longer offer VBAC assistance due to hospital regulations and some might even state to the patient that they are not safe so as to avoid confrontation. Statistics prove much differently. For the many women that find themselves in this situation, ICAN is an organization that is very helpful in gaining more information on this topic. One of which I believe will be reversed in the near future as more women make a clear statement to health care providers and insurance companies as to how they would prefer to deliver there babies in a safer, healthier manner. (Now I will step off my soapbox!)


We are thankful our hospital allows trying a VBAC as long as they have an anesthesialogist on hand in case there is an emergency.

http://www.duggarfamily.com/faq.html

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I find that statement hurtful. What about all these women who are struggling with infertility? They weren't meant to have kids? Were they meant to spend massive amounts of time and money and to be put in emotional turmoil in order to procreate? Please. I think it was just the doctor trying to justify her choices.
Also, just because you can have babies, doesn't mean you have to keep having them indefinitely. I believe that nature has its limits and by adhering to that principle she sure keeps testing them.

She was talking about her own patient.

She has never had an issue until now and how exactly do you explain how it is her or anyone else's duty to control their fertility?

If nature has its limits as you state...then your statement would be considered hypocritical.

I'm sorry for your difficulty, but you are using it to justify your own opinion.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Here is some info from their site

http://www.duggarfamily.com/faq.html

I've seen that all over a pregnancy forum that I visit. Michelle is not the first nor the last to have such an opinion based on medical fact instead of an insurance industries wishes.

Here is a very recent story on a woman who has much less than 19 children and already had a VBAC free of complications when she was told that her new baby would not be delivered that way:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/17/birth.plan.tips/index.html?iref=allsearch


Here are the criteria and risks:

What is the criterion I must meet to be considered for VBAC?
No more than 2 low transverse cesarean deliveries.
No additional uterine scars, anomalies or previous ruptures.
Your health care provider should be prepared to monitor labor and perform or refer for a cesarean if necessary .
Your birth location should have personnel available on weekends and evenings in case a cesarean is necessary.
What other criteria would make me a good candidate for a VBAC?
If the original reason for a cesarean delivery is not repeated with this pregnancy
You have no major medical problems
The baby is a normal size
The baby is head-down
In what situations would VBAC not be recommended?
If you are pregnant with twins
If you have diabetes
If you have high-blood pressure
Comparing a Repeat Cesarean to a VBAC:
Repeat Cesarean
VBAC

Usual risks of a surgical procedure
Less than 1% chance of uterine rupture. If uterine rupture occurs you have risks of blood loss, hysterectomy, damage to bladder, infection, & blood clots

Hospital stay of approximately 4 days
Hospital stay of approximately 2 days

Development of an infection in the uterus, bladder, or skin incision
Risk of infection doubles if ******l delivery is attempted but results in cesarean

Injury to the bladder, bowel, or adjacent organs
Possibility of tearing or episiotomy

Development of blood clots in the legs or pelvis after the operation


On-going pain & discomfort around incision
Temporary pain and discomfort around ******

Small chance that the baby will have respiratory problems3
The baby’s lungs will clear as baby passes through birth canal

If you plan for many more children, take into account that the more surgeries a woman has had the greater the risk of surgical complications. A fourth or fifth cesarean has more risk than the first or second.

Michelle just had her 4th Caesarean...so of course her risk now increases.

But at the time she was "shopping" she had had only one or two.

And of course the alignment is all messed up, so here's the direct linked to the American Pregnancy Association.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/vbac.html

The woman in the original story who moved--the hospital banned them all together and even though she was a candidate within the guidelines, in their eyes it was irrelevant.

The technology of a c-section is now being abused.

 

[Wonderlandmom]

I've seen that all over a pregnancy forum that I visit. Michelle is not the first nor the last to have such an opinion based on medical fact instead of an insurance industries wishes.

I was just stating Mchelle's view since some were questioning the issues she had with Dr's.

 

[TinkPinkPoem]

She was talking about her own patient.

She has never had an issue until now and how exactly do you explain how it is her or anyone else's duty to control their fertility?

If nature has its limits as you state...then your statement would be considered hypocritical.

I'm sorry for your difficulty, but you are using it to justify your own opinion.

Yes, she was talking about her own patient while making a very broad statement about women. I have not nor will I try to have kids in the near future but I wouldn't like to hear that on TV- imagine how a woman going through infertility would feel hearing that.

Everyone must do as they feel. I would never tell her to control her fertility and she has chosen to not listen to the doctors who have told her to do so after that many pregnancies, too. So her choices are clear and respected as she is knowingly putting herself into this.

However, I do believe that one is testing her body's limits when going through that many pregnancies. It's been scientifically proven too, no? That's what I meant by "nature's limits''. Just like one can't have children indefinitely since there is menopause.

I stand by my view, even if may seem hypocritical to you.

 

[luvmy3]

While your opinion on risks is valid--that is not what she said nor what she was told. She was simply shopping for the opportunity to VBAC. She was able to do that successfully. All the c-sections she has received since her vbacs all had to do with health of baby (or in case of Josie, health of baby and mom). I think one was a breach and another was a heart d-cel issue. And of course with Josie, it was the prematurity and need to quickly remove the baby.

ETA: I also wanted to add--I do have a friend who has a heart condition and only had 1 child. They did want another and she had to be closely monitored. Together with her doc and her DH, they had a plan on how it could be done so safely and she did have a healthy baby boy. In her case--she has a higher chance of pregnancy being lethal than Michelle. Michelle has never stated that she was told that she was putting her life at risk to continue getting pregnant. I'm not sure she would have blatantly ignored that medical advice. Considering that the infertility industry is willfully assisting women in their 40s in getting pregnant..one could argue why would medical technology help them and it not be hypocritical, but for Michelle to do so without any infertility issues that it would be.


And as for VBAC risks--it is well known and published that the increase in risk over a regular V delivery with no prior C is only like a 1% increase in risk.

And doctors are letting that 1% control their blanket refusal.

In the end--she was fine for 19 babies and has delivered with Dr. Sarver--I think since baby 14 or 15. That is 3 or 4 babies who did not have an issue after she had to doctor shop.

I think it is a bit naive to say we should always trust doctors or trust medical technology and then call people hypocrites when they do not.

If I trusted "technology"--I'd be drugged up due to all of my back pain instead of mostly okay b/c we took a non-medicinal approach.

Michelle really ignored no technology, so I do not get the argument. Even with something as simple a as a Birth control pill, statistically there is a chance of complications or death using that. There is a chance of death with getting a hysterectomy.

I had a chance of death getting arthroscopic knee surgery. Pretty cool technology that I am thankful to have gotten, but I could have died b/c it required going under. Always a chance of that with any surgery.

We place too much credence in medicine sometimes to allow it to rule our lives.

And additionally-as with any technology, it can be abused. This is why there is a heavy problem with O/D on prescription meds, overuse of things such as cortizone shots, heavy P/T for athletes to compete when the average Joe would be told to stop. In fact, my surgery was done only with consent of the surgeon that I could still do the Disney Marathon and together with the PT, that was our goal when my surgery was done mid-training. Not the wisest move, but perfectly safe given my individual situation. Though--I was demoted to the half as they would not clear me.

But in the end, we have free will, we make our own choices and it is not hypocritical to use whatever that moves you to guide you to what you feel is the proper choice.



I had wondered that as well. In initially researching the Quiver full movement, they consider that--well, in my understanding--that if they were to on purpose abstain so as to prevent a child...then they are still interfering with the process.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful to the movement, but essentially--they respond to the gift of their union when they are moved to do so. To ignore it would be interfering with the "plan" that their creator had in mind.

I believe if you google Quiverfull and read about it, they do mention NFP specifically and why even that is not okay. Of course, I do not share that belief.

Okay, I see what you are saying but I see it differently. I believe that with every new pregnancy she is being selfish and irresponsible. She does not need to be told by a doctor of the risks, in todays world it is very easy to find that stuff out on your own. She is playing a game of odds at this point, which to mean means she is ignoring them and thats unfortunate for baby Josie. I believe that she continues to get pregnant for purely selfish reasons and she's using her religion as her excuse. I only hope that this was her last time.
Honestly I don't know what her feelings are about medical technology and God's place in all of it, so I shouldn't call her a hypocrit just for that reason. However, I do believe she is for other reasons and I'll leave it at that.

 

[TinkPinkPoem]

Okay, I see what you are saying but I see it differently. I believe that with every new pregnancy she is being selfish and irresponsible. She does not need to be told by a doctor of the risks, in todays world it is very easy to find that stuff out on your own. She is playing a game of odds at this point, which to mean means she is ignoring them and thats unfortunate for baby Josie. I believe that she continues to get pregnant for purely selfish reasons and she's using her religion as her excuse. I only hope that this was her last time.
Honestly I don't know what her feelings are about medical technology and God's place in all of it, so I shouldn't call her a hypocrit just for that reason. However, I do believe she is for other reasons and I'll leave it at that.

I agree but you articulated everything better than I did.

 

[JerseyJanice]

It occured to me---why don't they practice natural family planning? With the use of timing marital encounters, and the husband using a method of birth control on the questionable days of the month they can really control pregnancy. I remember them saying that the reason they stopped using bc pills as a method of birth control was that Michelle got pregnant on them and then subsequently lost the pregnancy most likey because she was on them. But practicing the natural family planning, they can really have a good bit of control.

ITA with this post! Since it happened this pregnancy, the possibility of developing preeclampsia has increased exponentially for this woman. These people could exercise a little self-control by abstaining from relations a few days a month. I mean, that's minimum amount of birth control they could practice.

 

[1957]

I'm no "ultra-Christian" - not by a long shot! The whole "modesty" thing, Jim Bob using hair spray for his never-changing hair style, Michelle and the girls using bad perms, Michelle FINALLY getting rid of the front bubble-do, scripted responses and the family only filmed when the younger kids were "calm", ad infinitum. I really liked this family best when they were filmed in their old house, before TLC funding It was very real back then! They own some rental properties and a used-car lot? How do they pay for health insurance? TLC now supports this family financially, and has for some time!

Having said this, the Duggar kids are very well-spoken and articulate.

Having said this, I think they've tossed their "Christian" values away for $$$$$$$$$$$$$ money. (What Christian established religion do they belong to, anyway?) I have a real problem with some of the self-imposed "Christian churches/pastors down here. Lot of baloney!"

Don't think for a minute they'll end up like J&K (very predictable demise), but I don't think the Duggars will be on TLC much longer. Too expensive! If TLC signs Octomom, it's on its last $$$ legs.

Just my thoughts. Religious hypocrisy just ain't my thing!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Having said this, I think they've tossed their "Christian" values away for $$$$$$$$$$$$$ money. (What Christian established religion do they belong to, anyway?) I have a real problem with some of the self-imposed "Christian churches/pastors down here. Lot of baloney!"

You know--I'm not sure their faith. I thought at one point it was mentioned that they may have ties to Southern Baptist. But I really don't know.