Just wondering what the DIS boards vibe is on this...

[DizBelle]

If you have significant health issues yourself, would you consider getting and purposely get pregnant?

I'm not talking about "accidental" pregnancies where your birth control failed. You were trying to NOT get pregnant if you used a bc method.

I'm referring to health issues which could risk your pregnancy and/or the health of the baby. Or health issues that could risk your own health further if you do get pregnant.

 

[autumnpalm]

Personally, no I would not purposely get pregnant.

 

[Arielle22]

I would not try to get pregnant. It seems like a losing situation for everyone involved.

 

[Tinker'n'Fun]

Definetely a no from me.

 

[kwelch10377]

I would lean towards no, however it would totally depend on all the risks.

 

[KiKi Mouse]

Depends on the issue.

I have MS.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Do you mean things like bedrest, preterm labor, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, miscarriages, kids born with problems, etc?

Are you saying that you have to be 100% healthy without any risk complications to have a baby?

I was on bedrest with my first and second. I had preterm labor and my kids were born 5 weeks early. My oldest was born with a heart defect. My second dd was SGA, which is small for gestational age. Both kids are fine today.

Not sure what you mean by your poll. I guess I have to vote YES if you consider my situation "not perfect".

 

[Tinker'n'Fun]

Do you mean things like bedrest, preterm labor, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, etc?

Are you saying that you have to be 100% healthy without any risk complications to have a baby?

I was on bedrest with my first and second. I had preterm labor and my kids were born 5 weeks early.

Not sure what you mean by your poll. I guess I have to vote YES if you consider my situation "not perfect".

Hopefully the OP will respond but I read it as you have had major health issues yourself, not those caused by pregnancy, for example, a stroke or heart attack. And or you possess the genes to increase your risk to almost 100% to have a child with a severe genetic disorder that would take the quality of their life away.

I don't think she meant bed rest, etc. I was prone to early labor and I don't consider that a "major" risk, just one that needed to be monitored more closely.

And while I didn't know that I had major health issues when I had my children, I would definetely had re-considered my pregnancies knowing what I know now. I pray that my health issues are not genetic for the sake of my children.

 

[DWGal210]

I would say no - and personally would probably consider adoption, surrogacy, etc if I had health problems.

 

[daughtersrus]

I voted no. I don't have any health risks myself but after we found out that our youngest DD has a very rare genetic disease, we decided not to have any more children. The disease is recessive so there's a 75% that the baby wouldn't have it and only 25% that's still too high.

The disease is horrible and progressive so we would never risk that again. Our older girls are unaffected but we don't know if they are carriers or not. If they are, the geneticist assured us that because the disease is so rare, it's unlikely that their partner would also be a carrier. Then again, DH and I are both carriers.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I couldn't answer yes or no. It would depend on the risk (what the odds were) and what kind of harm we're talking about.

 

[robinb]

It's a big N-O from me. I would not intentionally get pregnant if I knew that (1) doing so put me at risk of death or permanent disability, (2) or if it would likely to pass on an illness that I have to my baby or (3) a previous child had a serious genetic disorder that could be repeated with subsequent children.

 

[DizBelle]

Yeah, I know that it all depends on risk. So, I'll make up some risk probabilities for the purposes of this poll. I will not make up conditions though.

Let's say there is a better than 25% chance that the mother will not survive the pregnancy.

OR

There is a better than 25% chance that the baby will not survive.

OR

There is a better than 50% chance that the baby will be born with one or medical conditions that will greatly affect their quality of life (something that will always require the intervention of someone else that is not their doctor - i.e. they need a caretaker to a certain degree).

 

[NHdisneylover]

Yeah, I know that it all depends on risk. So, I'll make up some risk probabilities for the purposes of this poll. I will not make up conditions though.

Let's say there is a better than 25% chance that the mother will not survive the pregnancy.

OR

There is a better than 25% chance that the baby will not survive.

OR

There is a better than 50% chance that the baby will be born with one or medical conditions that will greatly affect their quality of life (something that will always require the intervention of someone else that is not their doctor - i.e. they need a caretaker to a certain degree).

In any of these situations-no i would not (now nor would I had before I had the children I have now). I would have probably tried to adopt children.

You may want to edit your OP and post this so people who just read te OP and answer the poll know more of what you are going for.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Yeah, I know that it all depends on risk. So, I'll make up some risk probabilities for the purposes of this poll. I will not make up conditions though.

Let's say there is a better than 25% chance that the mother will not survive the pregnancy.

OR

There is a better than 25% chance that the baby will not survive.

OR

There is a better than 50% chance that the baby will be born with one or medical conditions that will greatly affect their quality of life (something that will always require the intervention of someone else that is not their doctor - i.e. they need a caretaker to a certain degree).

Then, no, I would not.

 

[KiKi Mouse]

Given the odds, no I would not. I would move full steam on adoption.

 

[tlbwriter]

There is a better than 25% chance that the baby will not survive.

Depends. Do you mean the baby will be born but will have a condition that is incompatible with life? Or that she will miscarry? There's a blogger I read whose husband has a genetic mutation called balanced translocation, and it basically means there's a certain chance (50%? 25%? Don't remember) that any pregnancy will end in miscarriage. Unaffected children are healthy. Affected children are miscarried. She kept trying, and after 13 pregnancies, she has three children. I'd probably do that. But if the issue was that the baby would be born, but would then die, then I'd have to say no.

 

[LuvOrlando]

No, I wouldn't and the reason I only have 2 kids and not 6 is precisely for this reason... nothing else but the well being of my children could have deterred me from having an enormous family.

There is still a chance that we might adopt to bring more love into our home.

 

[golfgal]

I had a friend that has 3 children. With her first pregnancy she was put on bedrest at 4 months pregnant and ended up in the hospital on total confinement at 6 months (couldn't even get up to shower or use the bathroom) because of her heart condition. The baby was born 4 weeks early but after a couple weeks in ICU was fine. Her dr warned her that another pregnancy could kill her. She got pregnant again, ended up in a medically induced coma for 2 months, baby born a month early. Dr told her if she got pregnant again he would not take her on as a patient. She really wanted another baby and got pregnant-ended up in a medically induced coma again, again, baby born early but all three kids are ok.

There is NO WAY I would do this-the chances of dying were WAY too high and then your kids are left without a mom. To me it was very selfish. It all worked out in the end. I have since lost contact with her so I don't know if she is still alive or what the story is now.

 

[SingingMUA]

Well... I'm kind of in this position now...

I have Lupus, and that increases my risk for miscarriage. Additionally, as a result of Lupus, I have anticardiolipin antibodies... which means that my blood is prone to clotting (I was diagnosed with Lupus after a battery of tests that stemmed from me having been admitted to the hospital with a DVT and a PE). I will take blood thinners for the rest of my life.

If I were to ever get pregnant, from the moment of confirmed pregnancy until after the baby was born, I would have to switch from taking Coumadin (pill form of a blood thinner) to Heparin (injectable form of blood thinner) twice a day, as Coumadin is not safe during pregnancy. There is also an slightly increased risk of disease activity flare during pregnancy.

All that said... I hope to TTC next year. I'm in the process of losing weight and making sure I am in the absolute best shape (mentally, physically, physiologically) I can be in. I am doing everything I possibly can to help my disease activity and labs to stay in the normal range. Though all pregnant women with Lupus are classified as "high risk", from what I understand, most women have successful, uneventful pregnancies.

Years ago, women with Lupus were told they couldn't have children, and if they got pregnant, they were told to terminate. These days, they are no longer saying that, but they DO say that a woman with Lupus should have at least a 6 month remission of Lupus symptoms before getting pregnant.

Having Lupus gives me about 20% chance of miscarriage, and about a 25% of delivering prematurely.

Again, all that said... I plan to TTC next year.

I only plan to go forward with TTC after getting the greenlight from all of my doctors (rheumatologist, primary care, hematologist, GYN). I know I can't completely take away the risk of something happening, but I can do everything I can to make that risk as low as possible for me.