From Flu Wiki 2

Forum: Birth Control During Pandemic

31 December 2005

tjclaw1 – at 14:38

Just a reminder to those still in the child-bearing years not to forget about birth control during a pandemic. Someone pointed out on an earlier thread that a lot of babies are born approximately 9 months after some disaster. While all babies are blessings, it will be extremely dangerous to risk pregnancy/childbirth during a pandemic. Not only may adequate prenatal and emergency medical care not be available, if an expectant mother contracts the BF during pregnancy, a high fever and dehydration in mother can cause brain damage to the fetus.

Anybody who is currently pregnant should be thinking about contingency plans in case the pandemic breaks out before you deliver. You may not want to risk exposing yourself and your infant to BF by delivering in a hospital. Maybe have a midwife set up as a backup?

crfullmoon – at 14:40

I hope men will take precautions to not start unwanted pregnancies (nor spread STD’s), pandemic or no.

Ron – at 15:13

Well, cfullmoon, last time I looked it took two to tango. How about calling for a mutual responsiblity to protect everyone from unwanted consequences of our actions.

crfullmoon – at 15:45

Tried Googling “men condom use” in the News lately?

 http://tinyurl.com/dhfuo

I still think they need a separate talking to.

Also, in too many countries women do not have enough legal rights in these reproductive/family planning matters, so the problem starts with the men. It is easier to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to get access to a morning-after pill, for instance. No one needs STD’s during a lack of access to medical care, either, of reproductive age or not, and many forms of female birth control do not protect against STDs.

tjclaw1 was making a helpful reminder, sorry, tj.

DemFromCTat 15:49

Actually, there’s a medical reminder here. See Flu wiki discussion. It is underappreciated that pregnant women are at higher risk for flu complications. i was unaware of this until I was researching this swcction of the wiki.

crfullmoon – at 16:21

I remember CanadaSue had her story try and put the pregnant women into protective hospital isolation from their families during pandemic, to try and keep them healthy/safe. (Not sure that would be tried.)

Some seasonal flu clinics won’t even vaccinate pregnant women out of the 1st trimester who have a note from their Dr. because of liability fears. Other people are afraid the shot would hurt their fetus, even though getting the shot is less risky than getting seasonal flu while pregnant.

Also saw this:…”The risk of schizophrenia was increased threefold when influenza occurred during the first half of pregnancy”… http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803100609.htm

FOCUS – at 16:29

HAH!……FINALLY…..Something I don`t have to worry about…Too old for whoopie!

M Fox – at 17:04

The only pitter patter of little feet at our house will be from the kitties, who have all been fixed. People with pets should be aware of their fertility - vets might be closed, or even called to help assist at the hospital. Couldn’t a veternarian give shots and basic care to humans? Especially during a national crisis?

Ron – at 17:18

He might be too busy. Cats get bird flu too.

M Fox – at 18:06

I know, I’m really worried for the cats. They can’t tell us when they’re sick or not feeling well, so that makes it more difficult to treat them (and to keep from contracting the flu from them, or vic versa). Best to keep cats inside, or outside with supervision.

03 May 2006

ricewiki – at 21:51

don’t forget to check expiry dates on condoms, for example!

anonymous – at 22:17

depo-provera every 90 days, no messy periods, either

RuralMDat 22:20

Alas, in some women, Depo-Provera causes a lot of spotting… no periods, exactly, but spotting allthe time…

I’m-workin’-on-it – at 22:44

CanadaSue wrote her story in my online Y2k group several years ago — it was so fun to follow her daily writings of each chapter & we all enjoyed her sense of humor in the group and her sense of responsibility to paint a reasonable scenerio of what could happen. If you’ve not read her story, take time to check the wiki index & read it.

EmilyHat 23:45

Well, since I’m bugging in by myself, I don’t think that’s going to be a problem. ;)

04 May 2006

anon for now – at 10:34

You know, I was thinking about this — and I’m going anon for this post out of shyness……but was wanting to have another kiddo and I hesitate given the fears of flu. I expect to have a 2nd C section……so I just think it might not be worth the risk. Am I crazy?

Mathematician – at 10:47

Not crazy, no. Overreacting a bit? Maybe; depends exactly what the situation is and what you’re worried about. I can see two aspects that someone might worry about:

1) the “is it right to bring a child into the world faced by the thread of pandemic” aspect;

2) the “what if I need a C section and can’t get it because the hospitals aren’t functioning” aspect.

From the wording of your post it sounds as though your concern is mostly 2)? Then I’d say first that the chances of you needing a c/s *exactly* when the hospitals are not functioning enough to do them surely have to be very small - other than in a “civilisation busting” pandemic, which is possible but very unlikely, we’re going to be talking in any given place about a few weeks, a few times, when hospitals might not be functioning. Second, it depends *why* you expect to need a second c/s. There *are* some cases in which it’s genuinely dangerous to attempt vaginal birth, and if you’re in that situation I can certainly see that you’d want to think hard about the probabilities before getting pregnant again, but they’re very, very rare. Most cases of repeat c/s are IMNSHO scandalous - people are told that because they’ve had one c/s it’s too dangerous for them not to have another, which is just not true, in general. There is a small risk of the c/s scar breaking down, but it’s much smaller than you’d get the impression of from the scaremongering that goes on (about 1% ? I’d have to check to be sure), *and* in most cases, it isn’t catastrophic even if it does. Of course even small risks need to be thought about - but it’s easy to imagine situations where it would be more dangerous to go to a hospital during a pandemic, risking infection, than it would be to stay at home and have an HBAC (homebirth after caesarean - enough of them go on that it has its own acronym :-), risking scar rupture.

NJ. Preppie – at 11:07

Actually the risk of VAC (natural delivery after c-section) mortality complications is lower then the C-section mortality complications. So why do they prefer to schedule C-sections? So that there is an anesthesiologist, surgery room and crew available. If something goes wrong during a VAC, they will have more medically liability, not being able to take action fast enough. If you die from C-section complications, that’s not their fault. My mother had 3 VACs (homebirths) after a first Cesarean. I also had a VAC with second birth after a Cesarean. You can do that part, but avoiding the flu if it happens while pregnant is the bigger risk. That’s a separate issue than no C-section. I don’t think everyone should be “not having babies” because of a possible pandemic. You can’t hold off indefinitly on having your family.

anon for now – at 11:43

Mathematician and NJ Preppie —

Thank you for your thoughts. I haven’t been told that I *must* have a repeat C section — but my 1st baby was a transverse breech and those, alas, run in the family, so I wonder if we will have another of those. Mathematician, your assessment is correct in that I worry more directly about scenario 2, though I have thought about scenario 1 — and wondered if, since I am the key prepper, if I need to put myself in a position where I can’t prep and give care should the flu hit. I didn’t know about the higher C-section mortality risks, but then again, I didn’t have any options when the baby wasn’t moving any other way. I really do appreciate your thoughts very much and am going to do some HBAC/VAC research. Any other ideas greatly appreciated as well.

Janet – at 15:21

I feel alot of us are making decisions based on what we think the risk is that the future holds - from pregnancy, job changes, investments, relationships, buying houses - you name it. I recently turned down the opportunity of a job change because I knew I would not be able to telecommute at the new job. I can where I currently work and I have more job security here.

Some might say that we have to live for the moment as if the pandemic is not going to hit, but I really was not comfortable with the decision to make a job change. I am beyond the child bearing years, but I agree with others that, if I were, I might think about it and plan it for afterwards. It is scary to think that I put myself or my baby at risk from the flu or at risk in not being able to secure proper care and delivery of the baby. This would apply after the baby is born too - a newborn baby needs lots of shots and regular doctor visits. I would not want to have my newborn in a doctor’s office at any time during a pandemic.

We all probably need to sit and wait to see where this very real threat leads to. I think it’s direction will be clearer within the next 6 months.

boneman – at 15:40

I think everyone should practice abstinence. :)

Poppy – at 15:57

For those men who feel they have finished their families this might be a good time to get those vasectomies, OR ladies if you’re delivering that last child soon you may want to consider having those tubes tied. That way there won’t be any risk of an unplanned pregnancy during a pandemic.

boneman - I agree abstinence is a great idea in theory, it just often fails in practice. Better to plan for either a permanent solution or for several methods of birth control.

Cinda – at 15:58

Hubby has been considering “the big snip” for about a year now. My daughter was 12 when we met and we decided to stay with 1 child. She’s 22 now- No way I’m having any more children and if not on the pill-I concieve if you look at me cross-eyed. Unfortunately I only carried the one to term. But miscarriages can be deadly if there is a hemorage so I don’t want to take any chances. I am now 45 and still on the pill. That’s OK for now, I am healthy, not overweight, don’t smoke and am entering the change. My Doc said staying on the pill would help with some of the ‘change’ issues. But I can’t stay on it forever, and if this pandemic happens, might not have access to my meds. Yes - we know there are other ways, but we have found that we’re not very good at remembering them when the time comes - so the pill it is - for now. So, in light of the possible situation ahead of us, hubby made an appt to talk to the Snip-doc next week and I think he’ll probably schedule the proceedure for as soon as possible. It takes another 6 weeks to make sure all the tadpoles are gone from the pond and since we can’t know if/when this thing might start- best to be safe than sorry.

anonymous – at 16:09

We just had baby 2, and plan on at least one more in about a year. I am glad I had my 2 without meds (though with a midwife in a hospital) so I know what to expect (more or less!) if I have to have a baby without medical help.

I think it’s OK for us to continue having kids because though we are prepping, you can’t let it completely rule your life . . . on the other hand, there was a thread here where a single mom talked about the preps she had done for her young son (a CD with family history and photos packed in a backpack with some snacks) just in case something happens to her. Thinking about my kids being alone, trying to fend for themselves, is the worst part of this whole thing. With 2 kids under 2 it’s a possibility. But I’m not going to let it overshadow us having the life we want. I have to have faith that it will all turn out OK, ye still keep stockpiling.

Mathematician – at 16:44

Anon for now: yeah, a baby who’s transverse breech when labour starts does need a c/s, so those running in the family is tough. Did anyone try external cephalic version (moving the baby round by pressure from the outside, before labour starts)? Doesn’t always work, but often does. Ideally a skilled job, but maybe worth reading up on when you get pregnant just in case. You might also want to look into “optimal foetal positioning”, using positions and movements to encourage the baby into a good position, as promoted by Jean Sutton. As I understand it there’s no research on her ideas, but quite a bit of anecdotal evidence for it, and it falls into the “unlikely to do any harm” category for me at least. The other thing to remember, if the worst comes to the worst, is that many babies will move into a good position when they’re ready, even very late, or in early labour, but the tendency is to schedule a c/s when a baby’s in a suboptimal position in late pregnancy, partly for convenience (and admittedly, partly because depending on the position there can be a risk that things go wrong fast if labour starts with waters breaking and the baby in a suboptimal position). So even if you did end up in late pregnancy with a transverse breech baby and no chance of a c/s, the baby might still know what to do :-) Good luck with the research - btw I think VBAC is a commoner abbreviation than VAC which might help the searching.

Janet - babies here at least don’t get any shots till 2/3 months, and in any case, they’re to protect them against infections, to which they aren’t going to be exposed if they’re with a self-isolating family, so I think that’s less of a concern than it might be. And the trouble with planning to have your babies “afterwards” is that we have no upper bound on when the next pandemic will be! It might be this year, next year, in ten years, in twenty years… and even if we have one, we then won’t know when the next will be. I don’t think it makes any sense to wait, honestly.

Tall in MS – at 17:05

Cinda – at 15:58

I have a 22 year old…vasesctomy. Done on Friday, back at heavy labor on Monday. Piece of cake! 100% insurance covered. A great innvestment! There seems to be less chance of health complications than with most other methods.

anonymous – at 17:49

This is amazing to me that people are even thinking about birth control during a pandemic. I mean won’t people have more on their minds than all that?

Cinda – at 20:40

anonymous – at 17:49

Birth control may seem an inconsequential issue to you, but to a 45 year old couple who’ve raised their child or children,(like us) or parents of maybe a 2 year old and an infant, or maybe parents of some 10, 12, & 14 year olds, the thought of winding up pregnant is not one we want to have to deal with on top of everything else that would be going on. figuring out birth control ahead of time -while we have time to think- is just another part of the planning/preparations. It takes very little time to deal with it once you’ve decided, could be a vascetomy, could be condoms, could be other methods. IMHO, trading thoughts and opinions on what is the best method for “us”, for keeping unplanned pregnancy from happening at such a difficult time, is worthy discussion.

anonymous – at 21:05

I’m saying that sex would be just about the last thing on my mind, but whatever. I guess other people are different.

05 May 2006

Poppy – at 07:15

anonymous - Of course if there is illness in the family having sex probably would be the last thing on anyone’s mind but if the family is simply in self quarantine then they would probably be living their lives as normally as possible, including having sex. So with that in mind thinking about preventing pregnancy during a time when it could be deadly for both mother and baby is a prudent measure.

anonymous – at 17:37

I guess I’ve just been hanging out with way too many bitter divorced women (like me) who still hate men. I just cannot relate to this thread at all! But I’ll trust you that someone somewhere needs to stock up birth control. :-)

crfullmoon – at 19:29

When people are confronted with their own mortality, or see too much death, some react in ways that may result in unplanned pregnancy. Some pregnant women did not do very well in 1918.

Stocking up would be wise; maybe someone else will need it, even if you don’t, and you could give it to them.

Boonct – at 19:40

Wasn’t there a song: ‘when the lights went out in New York city’: nine months later there was a baby boom!

06 May 2006

crfullmoon – at 14:36

“Being hit with a disaster increases the number of marriages, births

and divorces

in a given population in the year following the event, a Penn State-led study has shown and suggests that assistance with family functioning,

as well as individual mental health counseling, may be warranted as part of relief efforts”… http://www.psu.edu/ur/2002/disastereffects.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12259173/ …”The San Francisco 1906 Earthquake Project found that marriage rates almost doubled in the months after the disaster.”…

And sometimes, the baby boom isn’t really one. After the Western power failures of August 2003, commentators predicted there would an explosion of births nine months later, because that’s what happened in New York City after the famous 1965 blackout.

In fact, they were wrong. As J. Richard Udry demonstrated in the August 1970 edition of the journal Demographics, there was no statistically significant difference in the birth rate in New York hospitals nine months after the (August 2003) blackout from the same period in the five previous years.”

(Maybe they had more birth control by then? ~cr)

ricewiki – at 18:53

Cinda – at 20:40

I agree!

17 June 2006

Closed - BroncoBillat 01:21

Old thread - Closed to increase Forum speed.

Retrieved from http://www.fluwikie2.com/index.php?n=Forum.BirthControlDuringPandemic
Page last modified on June 17, 2006, at 01:21 AM