(no subject)

[charlottezweb]

So, I've been on the GD diet for a week and have done pretty well. Had two fasting readings that were a little high (102 and 97) but know exactly why--one night I tried to have bread with dinner and another night a muffin (I counted the carbs, but bread products are just a no-no for me, which now I know, thanks to trying them).

I go back to the hospital today for a "follow-up diabetes appt" which I was told was so they could check my sugar level chart from the last week. The nurse tests my urine, which is fine, and my weight, also fine, and then looks at my numbers, which she says are high, and I explain that this was my first week and that I know what the triggers were on those days. So then she tells me to come down the hall for monitoring--um, what? Evidently, I'm supposed to have an NST and a sonogram every week, which neither my midwife nor the diabetes counselor last week explained to me.

The nurse sees that I'm upset and takes some time to explain all the procedures and the "reasons" behind them, and waits to see if I'm going to refuse, but I agree to them this week. After the monitoring, a doctor comes in to sign the strip and starts telling me how bad my glucose numbers are and that diet doesn't seem to be working--I stop her to say that it was my first week and that I've been figuring out what my triggers are--so she kindly agrees to give me another week before she puts me on insulin!!!!

She also wants to go ahead and do the growth U/S today, which I had already agreed to do next Fri, so I had that done--totally normal. Good fluid levels, perfect size, measuring abt a week ahead, which is what he measured at my 21 week U/S. She wants me to have another growth U/S not in 4 weeks, which I was already planning on refusing, but in 3.

So to recap: nothing in my urine, normal weight gain, normal NST, perfect growth and fluid levels. How does that justify threatening insulin plus weekly NSTs and sonograms and thrice-weekly U/Ss? Things are fine!

I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do now--I don't mind some monitoring since they seem so upset about everything, but not as often as it's currently scheduled. Grrrr.

Comments

[selki.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do now--I don't mind some monitoring since they seem so upset about everything, but not as often as it's currently scheduled.

Probably liability protection on their part.

So to recap: nothing in my urine, normal weight gain, normal NST, perfect growth and fluid levels. How does that justify threatening insulin plus weekly NSTs and sonograms and thrice-weekly U/Ss? Things are fine!

I certainly think controlling the numbers through diet and exercise would be preferable to insulin, and it sounds like you're on the right track for that (learning and avoiding spike triggers). I'd throw in finger-sticking after every meal (and even some spot-checks after eating known ingredients, since body reactions can change, especially w' GD, I would think) if that's what it took to avoid insulin. What are NSTs and U/Ss?

I think weightlifting/strength/resistance training is really good for pumping up the metabolism (even more so than cardio-type stuff, which of course is good for cardio), which helps with blood sugar levels.

[charlottezweb.livejournal.com]

Yep, we discussed liability fear in birthing class last week-definitely a motivator, but frustrating to deal with. They want to make everything "as safe as possible" but when the research doesn't show that this type of monitoring makes any difference to my health or the baby's, it's really irritating to be stuck with it.

NSTs are non-stress-tests, which involve me being strapped to a table for 30 min while a machine records the baby's heartrate and any contractions. I have no objection to them when there's some fear that something might be wrong--had one last Mon because I was having contractions, jsut to make sure that they'd tapered off and I didn't have to stay in bed.

U/Ss are ultrasounds, in which the baby is bombarded with waves to get a picture--again, no problem with one long one (called a Level 2 or growth U/S) to check the baby's parts, and little ones as needed to make sure the baby's ok (had one abt 28 weeks because I hadn't felt the baby in a few days), but excessive U/Ss have an unknown health risk and I'm not comfortable with them.

Currently, I test my blood at least four times a day--fasting and then two hours after each meal, and my midwife and the diabetes doctor each get a copy of my log for the week. I also keep a food diary, so I can track what's a problem for me.

Only 7 more weeks though. :)

[firecat]

Had two fasting readings that were a little high (102 and 97)

Gaah! Normal blood glucose readings (for non-pregnant people) are between 80 and 100. They expect pregnant women to maintain fasting readings below 95? I wonder why, and whether it's really necessary.

[1ginko.livejournal.com]

My thoughts were similar to yours. Walgreens and other drug stores carry an inexpensive blood sugar monitoring kit. If you do not have one, get one and keep record.

Take care of you!!! Just a few more weeks. Hang in there!

*hug*

[charlottezweb.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, I have the Walgreen's one. :) Blood monitoring is a requirement for this--I test four times a day, at least, fasting and then two hours after each meal. Then I give a copy of my log to my midwife and the diabetes doctor. I also keep a food diary so I can see what's not good to eat.

Bleah. But, you're right--less than two months left. :)

[charlottezweb.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of controversy over gestational diabetes--mostly because many of the treatments don't seem to affect the outcome for the mother or the child, and also because many providers overreact to the diagnosis--for instance, I can't birth in the birthing center now because I'm "high risk" even if my sugars are completely controlled from now until the birth.

[firecat]

I'm "high risk" even if my sugars are completely controlled from now until the birth.

[grumble] tell me about it. i was diagnosed with type 2 a couple of months before I was planning to start trying to get pregnant. it wasn't the only factor, but it was a factor in my deciding to cancel the whole baby project. they are even more paranoid about women who already have diabetes before getting pregnant, and i wasn't willing to walk into a guaranteed c-section.

i hope they start being more reasonable.

[hkbear.livejournal.com]

Yay, things are fine!!!!!!
Boo, no bread!

Hurry up and have this baby so I can come see y'all already! Damn.

[charlottezweb.livejournal.com]

Man, I'm trying. He's getting ready to come out, but needs to stay in for another four weeks, darn it. At least that'll give me time to finish unpacking, although probably not paint.

Who's pregnant them or you?

[pfunque.livejournal.com]

I think it is really terrible that the medical establishment thinks it can and should bully you about your own health. I'm sure that it's to protect them from liability but you are an intelligent woman who can make decisions about your own health. Besides, in what universe is one week a sufficient trial. It takes longer to decide if you like a shade of lipstick for pete's sake!!!!!!!!!!!! The good thing is baby is fine and soon you won't be gestating. Maybe the doctors will be more rational then.

Re: Who's pregnant them or you?

[charlottezweb.livejournal.com]

Thank goodness once the baby's born, I won't be diabetic anymore. But yeah, it's pretty annoying. I hate having to refuse treatment--and this is the hospital where I'll be birthing, so I don't want to get a rep as difficult beforehand.