[ozmidwifery] Misoprostol aka Cytotec
Hi, A little while ago someone posted on one of the birth lists about using misoprostol. I can't find the post, but I think it is important to bring to light the dangers of this drug which, seemingly, is becoming more popular in Oz. http://stopcytotec.com/WECAN_STOP_CYTOTEC.php During labor, before the baby is born, Cytotec can cause contractions that are too strong for the baby . . . they can squeeze the placenta so tight for so long that there's not enough oxygen getting through to the baby; this can cause severe fetal distress. Or, if the baby is not fitting into the pelvis (obstructed labor), the very strong contractions caused by Cytotec can actually cause a tear in the birthing woman's uterine muscle, which is called a uterine rupture. ~ taken from www.gentlebirth.org Manufacturer warns against Cytotec (misoprostol) use... August 23, 2000 IMPORTANT DRUG WARNING CONCERNING UNAPPROVED USE OF INTRAVAGINAL OR ORAL MISOPROSTOL IN PREGNANT WOMEN FOR INDUCTION OF LABOR OR ABORTION Dear Health Care Provider: The purpose of this letter is to remind you that Cytotec administration by any route is contraindicated in women who are pregnant because it can cause abortion. Cytotec is not approved for the induction of labor or abortion. Cytotec is indicated for the prevention of NSAID (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including aspirin)-induced gastric ulcers in patients at high risk of complications from gastric ulcer, e.g., the elderly and patients with concomitant debilitating disease, as well as patients at high risk of developing gastric ulceration, such as patients with a history of ulcer. The uterotonic effect of Cytotec is an inherent property of prostaglandin E1(PGE1), of which Cytotec is stable, orally active, synthetic analog. Searle has become aware of some instances where Cytotec, outside of its approved indication, was used as a cervical ripening agent prior to termination of pregnancy, or for induction of labor, in spite of the specific contraindications to its use during pregnancy. Serious adverse events reported following off-label use of Cytotec in pregnant women include maternal or fetal death; uterine hyperstimulation, rupture or perforation requiring uterine surgical repair, hysterectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy; amniotic fluid embolism; severe vaginal bleeding, retained placenta, shock, fetal bradycardia and pelvic pain. Searle has not conducted research concerning the use of Cytotec for cervical ripening prior to termination of pregnancy or for induction of labor, nor does Searle intend to study or support these uses. Therefore, Searle is unable to provide complete risk information for Cytotec when it is used for such purposes. In addition to the known and unknown acute risks to the mother and fetus, the effect of Cytotec on the later growth, development and functional maturation of the child when Cytotec is used for induction of labor or cervical ripening has not been established Searle promotes the use of Cytotec only for its approved indication. Further information may be obtained by calling 1-800-323-4204. Michael Cullen, MD Medical Director, U.S. Searle ~ taken from www.birthlove.com http://www.birthlove.com/pages/health/molly_cytotec.html If you search for the dangers of cytotec on google heaps should come up. I think we should all be aware of complications that can arise for mums and bubs. Love Abby -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
[ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years
Breastfeeding evolution in Britain - WHO changes guidelines... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.html Mothers got wrong advice for 40 yearsSarah-Kate Templeton, Medical Correspondent BREAST-FEEDING mothers have been given potentially harmful advice on infant nutrition for the past 40 years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has admitted. Charts used in Britain for decades to advise mothers on a baby's optimum size have been based on the growth rates of infants fed on formula milk. The organisation now says the advice given to millions of breast-feeding mothers was distorted because babies fed on formula milk put on weight far faster. These breast-feeding mothers were wrongly told that their babies were underweight and were advised, or felt pressured, to fatten them up by giving them formula milk or extra solids. Health experts believe the growth charts may have contributed to childhood obesity and associated problems such as diabetes and heart disease in later life. A government study has found that more than a quarter of children in English secondary schools are clinically obese, almost double the proportion a decade ago. This week, the WHO will publish new growth standards based on a study of more than 8,000 breast-fed babies from six countries around the world. They will say the optimum size is that of a breast-fed baby. The move will put pressure on British doctors to replace charts which, for the last four decades, have taken into account the growth patterns of bottle-fed babies. Professor Tim Cole, of the Institute of Child Health at University College London, said: We should change to a growth chart based on breast-fed babies. During their first year they do not put on as much weight as those fed on formula milk. Breast-fed babies are less likely to be fat later in life and to develop complications such as diabetes and heart disease. Six years ago, Cole developed an alternative chart based on breast-fed babies but it has never been endorsed by the British medical establishment. The Child Growth Foundation, a UK charity, campaigns for the adoption of Cole's chart. The foundation claims breast-fed babies are, on average, at 22lb at 12 months, about 1lb lighter than those fed solely on formula milk. It is thought that breast-fed babies grow more slowly in the first year because they control the rate at which they feed, rather than being tied to their parents' notion of meal times. Mercedes de Onis, who co-ordinates WHO child growth standards, said: Breast-fed babies appear to self-regulate their energy intake to lower levels. Breast-fed babies have different metabolic rates and different sleeping patterns. Formula-fed babies seem to have higher intakes of energy and, as a result, are heavier. The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that being overweight as a baby is a key early risk factor for heart disease and diabetes. The babies who were the models for the new WHO standards were selected for good health. They were all breast-fed, their mothers did not smoke and they received good health care. The WHO says babies should be fed solely on breast milk for up to six months. In Britain, fewer than 10% of babies are getting only breast milk by this age. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is to meet this summer to discuss the new WHO standards. The Department of Health said: Once WHO publishes the new growth charts we will assess the need for revisions to the UK growth charts. Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood BellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support
[ozmidwifery] Options for twins
I've passedon the information to the mum-to-be. Thanks to all as it has broadened her options. Lesley
[ozmidwifery] Mastitis question
Title: Mastitis question Can a mother pass on her infecton to her breastfeeding child when she has mastitis? Its just that I had what to me was obvious mastitis on Sat, quite a decent case of it, very sore breast, redness, fever, vomiting, quite ill. Still recovering on Monday when my breastfeeding 22 mth old developed a fever and vomiting. This morning he is quite recovered but no doubt will need a very quiet day still. So, is this a coincidence, or can the child become infected too? We were both rundown form a busy few weeks, so the rest was well needed, just wanted it without the misery. Thanks in advance Megan
[ozmidwifery] Article FYI new vaccination
Title: Article FYI new vaccination Is this really the best thing we could be doing for our precious little babies when they are first born? This is more than a pro/anti vaccination debate. Anything that interferes with early bonding, breatfeeding etc has to be questioned. Research could save newborns From: http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/ By Clare Masters April 25, 2006 NEWBORN babies could soon be vaccinated at birth against bacterial diseases after scientists discovered how to boost a baby's immune system, guarding them against possible fatal infections. Dr John Smythe, a neo-natologist at the Royal Hospital for Women at Randwick, Sydney, yesterday hailed the finding, which would close the current two-month window before a baby is immunised against the infections. Babies are already immunised against hepatitis B at birth and given a vitamin K shot but the new findings will allow newborns to be protected against a host of other infections. It's exciting because their bodies don't take up immunisations for tetanus, as an example, at that age, he said. Most adults and children can repel contagious bugs with a group of receptors called TLRs that sit on the surface of white-blood cells the body's defence system. These recognise bacteria and viruses and trigger immune cells to attack them. But newborns' immune systems have not developed this network, making them vulnerable to conditions like tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough. By studying white blood cells from the newborns' cord blood, scientists from the Children's Hospital Boston found a way to boost a particular TLR and strengthen the infant's immune system. The researchers believe their findings could be used for a vaccination given at birth, closing off the current two-month window. From a global health perspective, if you can give a vaccine at birth, a much higher percentage of the population can be covered, researcher Ofer Levy said. He said this particular vaccination could also be given to babies as treatment for infections or as a preventive measure against a disease or bio-terrorist threat. Dr Smythe said newborns, particularly premature babies, were vulnerable to bacteria and viruses. Their immune system isn't as efficient when they encounter an infection, he told The Daily Telegraph. There isn't a huge amount at the moment that we can do. The period before they are vaccinated is a vulnerable one and this is quite a breakthrough. He said a newborn's entire system was immature and unable to cope with some bugs such as meningitis and whooping cough.
RE: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question
Title: Mastitis question 'They' say it can't, but common sense infers that it is possible. We do encourage mums to keep on with the b/f, hopefully someone will have the answer. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Megan LarrySent: Tuesday, 25 April 2006 10:34 AMTo: ozmidwiferySubject: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question Can a mother pass on her infecton to her breastfeeding child when she has mastitis? Its just that I had what to me was obvious mastitis on Sat, quite a decent case of it, very sore breast, redness, fever, vomiting, quite ill. Still recovering on Monday when my breastfeeding 22 mth old developed a fever and vomiting. This morning he is quite recovered but no doubt will need a very quiet day still. So, is this a coincidence, or can the child become infected too? We were both rundown form a busy few weeks, so the rest was well needed, just wanted it without the misery. Thanks in advance Megan
[ozmidwifery] BF videos
Can anyone recommend a really good BF video..?? I have only seen Follow Me Mum which I liked very much (altho the bub was not newborn?). Are there any other good ones to chase up? Thanks -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question
Title: Mastitis question where i work we encourage women to express on the side that they are infected and continue feeding on the other side until the infection clears, the infection should be treated by antibiotics and if severe admission to hospital for iv antibugs. if the breastmilk has blood in it we discourage any breastfeeding whatsoever and get the mother to express all feeds until the infection passes she then can resume b/feeding when she feels better but ensure that the breast is always empty after feeding. regards sharon - Original Message - From: Megan Larry To: ozmidwifery Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question Can a mother pass on her infecton to her breastfeeding child when she has mastitis? Its just that I had what to me was obvious mastitis on Sat, quite a decent case of it, very sore breast, redness, fever, vomiting, quite ill. Still recovering on Monday when my breastfeeding 22 mth old developed a fever and vomiting. This morning he is quite recovered but no doubt will need a very quiet day still. So, is this a coincidence, or can the child become infected too? We were both rundown form a busy few weeks, so the rest was well needed, just wanted it without the misery. Thanks in advance Megan
RE: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question
Title: Mastitis question Hi, Normally you should breastfeed from both breasts with mastitis. The only exception, and I may stand corrected, is strep infection. The breast is very red, not your typical mastitis. It is verypainful and you feel quite ill. I have not seen mastitis at 22 months. It might be precipitated by something else, as usually the feeding would be fairly trouble free at that stage, I would imagine.When a woman has mastitis the milk needs to be kept moving. Babies are best for that! Expressing is really just the tip of the ice berg. A little blood does not hurt. If the baby vomits a little blood there is no harm done. Obviously if there is a lot it would be best to discontinue for 24 hours or so. The breast must be emptied though, or you run the risk of abscess formation. Sometimes the antibiotics taken by mum will upset the babies stomach. However, I suppose they are also protecting them to some extent. Regards,Nicole. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of sharonSent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:24 PMTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question where i work we encourage women to express on the side that they are infected and continue feeding on the other side until the infection clears, the infection should be treated by antibiotics and if severe admission to hospital for iv antibugs. if the breastmilk has blood in it we discourage any breastfeeding whatsoever and get the mother to express all feeds until the infection passes she then can resume b/feeding when she feels better but ensure that the breast is always empty after feeding. regards sharon - Original Message - From: Megan Larry To: ozmidwifery Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question Can a mother pass on her infecton to her breastfeeding child when she has mastitis? Its just that I had what to me was obvious mastitis on Sat, quite a decent case of it, very sore breast, redness, fever, vomiting, quite ill. Still recovering on Monday when my breastfeeding 22 mth old developed a fever and vomiting. This morning he is quite recovered but no doubt will need a very quiet day still. So, is this a coincidence, or can the child become infected too? We were both rundown form a busy few weeks, so the rest was well needed, just wanted it without the misery. Thanks in advance Megan
Re: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years
This is interesting Kelly and about time these wretched charts were consigned to the bin. I did a lactation course a few years ago and the facilitator asked us to all bring in our ownbabies health records, some of which were very old! It was obvious that all of us who had breast fed produced babies with very different growth patterns to that specified on the chart. She explained about the growth being based on formula feeding, which was something most of us were unaware of. Regards, Sue "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"Edmund Burke - Original Message - From: Kelly @ BellyBelly To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:13 AM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years Breastfeeding evolution in Britain - WHO changes guidelines...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.html Mothers got wrong advice for 40 yearsSarah-Kate Templeton, Medical CorrespondentBREAST-FEEDING mothers have been given potentially harmful advice on infant nutrition for the past 40 years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has admitted.Charts used in Britain for decades to advise mothers on a baby's optimum size have been based on the growth rates of infants fed on formula milk. The organisation now says the advice given to millions of breast-feeding mothers was distorted because babies fed on formula milk put on weight far faster.These breast-feeding mothers were wrongly told that their babies were underweight and were advised, or felt pressured, to fatten them up by giving them formula milk or extra solids.Health experts believe the growth charts may have contributed to childhood obesity and associated problems such as diabetes and heart disease in later life. A government study has found that more than a quarter of children in English secondary schools are clinically obese, almost double the proportion a decade ago.This week, the WHO will publish new growth standards based on a study of more than 8,000 breast-fed babies from six countries around the world. They will say the optimum size is that of a breast-fed baby.The move will put pressure on British doctors to replace charts which, for the last four decades, have taken into account the growth patterns of bottle-fed babies.Professor Tim Cole, of the Institute of Child Health at University College London, said: "We should change to a growth chart based on breast-fed babies. During their first year they do not put on as much weight as those fed on formula milk. Breast-fed babies are less likely to be fat later in life and to develop complications such as diabetes and heart disease."Six years ago, Cole developed an alternative chart based on breast-fed babies but it has never been endorsed by the British medical establishment. The Child Growth Foundation, a UK charity, campaigns for the adoption of Cole's chart.The foundation claims breast-fed babies are, on average, at 22lb at 12 months, about 1lb lighter than those fed solely on formula milk. It is thought that breast-fed babies grow more slowly in the first year because they control the rate at which they feed, rather than being tied to their parents' notion of meal times.Mercedes de Onis, who co-ordinates WHO child growth standards, said: "Breast-fed babies appear to self-regulate their energy intake to lowerlevels. Breast-fed babies have different metabolic rates and different sleeping patterns. Formula-fed babies seem to have higher intakes of energy and, as a result, are heavier."The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that being overweight as a baby is a key early risk factor for heart disease and diabetes.The babies who were the models for the new WHO standards were selected for good health. They were all breast-fed, their mothers did not smoke and they received good health care.The WHO says babies should be fed solely on breast milk for up to six months. In Britain, fewer than 10% of babies are getting only breast milk by this age.The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is to meet this summer to discuss the new WHO standards.The Department of Health said: "Once WHO publishes the new growth charts we will assess the need for revisions to the UK growth charts." Best Regards,Kelly ZanteyCreator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to ParenthoodBellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/323 - Release Date: 24/04/2006
Re: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years
The thing that surprises me is that most of my friends have exclusively breastfed and produced babies with rolls on their rolls and crevices so deep you can't find the bottom of them... My own daughter was off the chart at 6 months (she was exclusively breastfed until somewhere around 16 months). They did generally seem to look different to chubby formula babies though, sort of softer looking fat. At 10:42 AM +0800 25/4/06, Susan Cudlipp wrote: This is interesting Kelly and about time these wretched charts were consigned to the bin. I did a lactation course a few years ago and the facilitator asked us to all bring in our own babies health records, some of which were very old! It was obvious that all of us who had breast fed produced babies with very different growth patterns to that specified on the chart. She explained about the growth being based on formula feeding, which was something most of us were unaware of. Regards, Sue The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing Edmund Burke - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Kelly @ BellyBelly To: mailto:ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:13 AM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Breastfeeding Mothers Given Wrong Advice for 40 Years Breastfeeding evolution in Britain - WHO changes guidelines... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.htmlhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2147863,00.html Mothers got wrong advice for 40 yearsSarah-Kate Templeton, Medical Correspondent BREAST-FEEDING mothers have been given potentially harmful advice on infant nutrition for the past 40 years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has admitted. Charts used in Britain for decades to advise mothers on a baby's optimum size have been based on the growth rates of infants fed on formula milk. The organisation now says the advice given to millions of breast-feeding mothers was distorted because babies fed on formula milk put on weight far faster. These breast-feeding mothers were wrongly told that their babies were underweight and were advised, or felt pressured, to fatten them up by giving them formula milk or extra solids. Health experts believe the growth charts may have contributed to childhood obesity and associated problems such as diabetes and heart disease in later life. A government study has found that more than a quarter of children in English secondary schools are clinically obese, almost double the proportion a decade ago. This week, the WHO will publish new growth standards based on a study of more than 8,000 breast-fed babies from six countries around the world. They will say the optimum size is that of a breast-fed baby. The move will put pressure on British doctors to replace charts which, for the last four decades, have taken into account the growth patterns of bottle-fed babies. Professor Tim Cole, of the Institute of Child Health at University College London, said: We should change to a growth chart based on breast-fed babies. During their first year they do not put on as much weight as those fed on formula milk. Breast-fed babies are less likely to be fat later in life and to develop complications such as diabetes and heart disease. Six years ago, Cole developed an alternative chart based on breast-fed babies but it has never been endorsed by the British medical establishment. The Child Growth Foundation, a UK charity, campaigns for the adoption of Cole's chart. The foundation claims breast-fed babies are, on average, at 22lb at 12 months, about 1lb lighter than those fed solely on formula milk. It is thought that breast-fed babies grow more slowly in the first year because they control the rate at which they feed, rather than being tied to their parents' notion of meal times. Mercedes de Onis, who co-ordinates WHO child growth standards, said: Breast-fed babies appear to self-regulate their energy intake to lower levels. Breast-fed babies have different metabolic rates and different sleeping patterns. Formula-fed babies seem to have higher intakes of energy and, as a result, are heavier. The American Academy of Pediatrics has warned that being overweight as a baby is a key early risk factor for heart disease and diabetes. The babies who were the models for the new WHO standards were selected for good health. They were all breast-fed, their mothers did not smoke and they received good health care. The WHO says babies should be fed solely on breast milk for up to six months. In Britain, fewer than 10% of babies are getting only breast milk by this age. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is to meet this summer to discuss the new WHO standards. The Department of Health said: Once WHO publishes the new growth charts we will assess the need for revisions to the UK growth charts. Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, http://www.bellybelly.com.au/BellyBelly.com.au
RE: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question
My episodes of mastitis got less frequent after the first 3 months but I probably averaged at least one mastitis every 6 months for the entire time I was feeding (2.5yrs). Though my later mastitis were generally breast injury induced rather than infection and easily treated with homeopathics. At 12:36 PM +1000 25/4/06, Nicole Carver wrote: Hi, Normally you should breastfeed from both breasts with mastitis. The only exception, and I may stand corrected, is strep infection. The breast is very red, not your typical mastitis. It is very painful and you feel quite ill. I have not seen mastitis at 22 months. It might be precipitated by something else, as usually the feeding would be fairly trouble free at that stage, I would imagine. When a woman has mastitis the milk needs to be kept moving. Babies are best for that! Expressing is really just the tip of the ice berg. A little blood does not hurt. If the baby vomits a little blood there is no harm done. Obviously if there is a lot it would be best to discontinue for 24 hours or so. The breast must be emptied though, or you run the risk of abscess formation. Sometimes the antibiotics taken by mum will upset the babies stomach. However, I suppose they are also protecting them to some extent. Regards, Nicole. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of sharon Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:24 PM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question where i work we encourage women to express on the side that they are infected and continue feeding on the other side until the infection clears, the infection should be treated by antibiotics and if severe admission to hospital for iv antibugs. if the breastmilk has blood in it we discourage any breastfeeding whatsoever and get the mother to express all feeds until the infection passes she then can resume b/feeding when she feels better but ensure that the breast is always empty after feeding. regards sharon - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Megan Larry To: mailto:ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auozmidwifery Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question Can a mother pass on her infecton to her breastfeeding child when she has mastitis? Its just that I had what to me was obvious mastitis on Sat, quite a decent case of it, very sore breast, redness, fever, vomiting, quite ill. Still recovering on Monday when my breastfeeding 22 mth old developed a fever and vomiting. This morning he is quite recovered but no doubt will need a very quiet day still. So, is this a coincidence, or can the child become infected too? We were both rundown form a busy few weeks, so the rest was well needed, just wanted it without the misery. Thanks in advance Megan -- Jo Bourne Virtual Artists Pty Ltd -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
RE: [ozmidwifery] group B strep
Did you get a reply for this? Maybe I missed it. The website for RCOG in the UK has the policy for Strep B which is very rational and balanced; The Centre for Disease Control in the USA, where Australia takes its lead is very extensive and requires close reading; Just google Strep b etc and you will be inundated, but read the UK policy for balance. MM From: owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au [mailto:owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au] On Behalf Of Kristin Beckedahl Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2006 7:45 PM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: [ozmidwifery] group B strep Can anyone offer some recent stats/links/articles on Group B Strep and the effectiveness of antibiotics for it during labour...many thanks... -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.
RE: [ozmidwifery] group B strep
I gorgot to say that going to the original research papers is very enlightening. The devil is in the detail.MM From: owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au [mailto:owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au] On Behalf Of Kristin Beckedahl Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2006 7:45 PM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: [ozmidwifery] group B strep Can anyone offer some recent stats/links/articles on Group B Strep and the effectiveness of antibiotics for it during labour...many thanks... -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: [ozmidwifery] BF videos
I don't know what it's called, but the one where the freshly newborn baby crawls up the mother's abdomen and attaches itself to the breast without any help is awesome. Made me cry!Hopefully someone else knows the name of it?JoOn 25/04/2006, at 9:59 AM, Kristin Beckedahl wrote:Can anyone recommend a really good BF video..?? I have only seen Follow Me Mum which I liked very much (altho the bub was not newborn?). Are there any other good ones to chase up? Thanks -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.
RE: [ozmidwifery] BF videos
Jo, how long does it take the baby to find the breast and begin feeding? MM I don't know what it's called, but the one where the freshly newborn baby crawls up the mother's abdomen and attaches itself to the breast without any help is awesome. Made me cry!
Re: [ozmidwifery] BF videos
I like "Mother and Baby the 1st week" (Sue cox/ABA) I use it a lot even if it's not the first week. The baby is newborn. Barb - Original Message - From: Jo Watson To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] BF videos I don't know what it's called, but the one where the freshly newborn baby crawls up the mother's abdomen and attaches itself to the breast without any help is awesome. Made me cry! Hopefully someone else knows the name of it? Jo On 25/04/2006, at 9:59 AM, Kristin Beckedahl wrote: Can anyone recommend a really good BF video..?? I have only seen Follow Me Mum which I liked very much (altho the bub was not newborn?). Are there any other good ones to chase up? Thanks-- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.
RE: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question
Could it be that you came down with both mastitis and some other infection, which your son caught? www.kellymom.com is a great site on breastfeeding, if you want to research further. Vedrana -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jo Bourne Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 4:57 AM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question My episodes of mastitis got less frequent after the first 3 months but I probably averaged at least one mastitis every 6 months for the entire time I was feeding (2.5yrs). Though my later mastitis were generally breast injury induced rather than infection and easily treated with homeopathics. At 12:36 PM +1000 25/4/06, Nicole Carver wrote: Hi, Normally you should breastfeed from both breasts with mastitis. The only exception, and I may stand corrected, is strep infection. The breast is very red, not your typical mastitis. It is very painful and you feel quite ill. I have not seen mastitis at 22 months. It might be precipitated by something else, as usually the feeding would be fairly trouble free at that stage, I would imagine. When a woman has mastitis the milk needs to be kept moving. Babies are best for that! Expressing is really just the tip of the ice berg. A little blood does not hurt. If the baby vomits a little blood there is no harm done. Obviously if there is a lot it would be best to discontinue for 24 hours or so. The breast must be emptied though, or you run the risk of abscess formation. Sometimes the antibiotics taken by mum will upset the babies stomach. However, I suppose they are also protecting them to some extent. Regards, Nicole. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of sharon Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:24 PM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question where i work we encourage women to express on the side that they are infected and continue feeding on the other side until the infection clears, the infection should be treated by antibiotics and if severe admission to hospital for iv antibugs. if the breastmilk has blood in it we discourage any breastfeeding whatsoever and get the mother to express all feeds until the infection passes she then can resume b/feeding when she feels better but ensure that the breast is always empty after feeding. regards sharon - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Megan Larry To: mailto:ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auozmidwifery Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Mastitis question Can a mother pass on her infecton to her breastfeeding child when she has mastitis? Its just that I had what to me was obvious mastitis on Sat, quite a decent case of it, very sore breast, redness, fever, vomiting, quite ill. Still recovering on Monday when my breastfeeding 22 mth old developed a fever and vomiting. This morning he is quite recovered but no doubt will need a very quiet day still. So, is this a coincidence, or can the child become infected too? We were both rundown form a busy few weeks, so the rest was well needed, just wanted it without the misery. Thanks in advance Megan -- Jo Bourne Virtual Artists Pty Ltd -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
