I can’t believe some people are DEFENDING this.

Fifteen out of 105 of ob-gyns the Sentinel surveyed have set weight limits for patients, which usually start around 200 pounds or are based on BMI levels.

Most of the doctors said that their equipment and examining tables couldn’t hold larger woman (which smells oddly like bullshit), but some said that obesity comes with more complications that the doctors would rather avoid.

“People don’t realize the risk we’re taking by taking care of these patients,” Dr. Albert Triana, who practices in South Miami, tells the paper. “There’s more risk of something going wrong and more risk of getting sued. Everything is more complicated with an obese patient in GYN surgeries and in [pregnancies].”

Unsurprisingly, many of the doctors who have enacted the weight cut-off also have a history of being sued for malpractice or cover high malpractice insurance premiums.

While doctors can not turn down patients based on race, gender, or sexual orientation they are free to turn away patients based on weight. Though not everyone agrees with the policy.

“This completely goes against the principles of being a doctor,” James Zervios, a spokesman for the Obesity Action Commission said to the paper. “Health care professionals are there to help individuals improve their quality of health, not stigmatize them according to their weight.”
Source: Miami New Times Blog


I weighed about 280 when I conceived. I am having absolutely NO complications. I’m expected to have a perfectly healthy pregnancy and birth. To have turned me away simply due to weight would be discrimination, plain and simple, because weight has nothing to do with health or possible complications. Not all thin people are healthy and not all fat people are lazy diseased slobs.

I argued this point on my facebook earlier. You know what I was met with? A MAN I don’t know defending the article saying, and I quote, “if you care so much about your baby, why are you not in the healthiest condition you could be?”

My response?

“ideally I would have weighed less when I conceived, but it was unplanned. Seeing as losing 150 pounds overnight by sheer will and love for my child is impossible, suggesting I don’t care about my baby by not being “at my healthiest” (which actually, I am in spite of me weight) is remarkably fucked up and ignorant. My two cents.”

I saw the article earlier and was already pissed off, so to see a couple of MEN argue that fat women don’t love their kids simply because they’re fat kind of REALLY set me off. WTF do men know about being a woman, about being pregnant, about losing or gaining weight as a woman (because men and woman metabolize differently, in case I needed to point that out)? Answer: NOTHING.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if the topic is over your head and is something you could never and will never understand, you will only sound ignorant and/or like an asshole by sharing your opinion. Not to mention that owning up to discrimination of any type isn’t exactly an attractive quality.

 I’ve always been considered overweight, obese, or even morbidly obese. I’ve NEVER had a problem with BP, cholesterol, etc whereas several of my thinner friends who don’t take care of themselves have had such problems. I’m not saying I’m the picture of health despite my weight, but I AM of the very strong opinion that simply LOOKING at me shouldn’t be enough to decide I’m not healthy. ssumptions are dangerous, regardless of what they’re based on. Turning someone away based simply on weight is no different then turning them away simply because they’re black, catholic, or gay. NONE of these things mean anything definitely about someone’s health, even if statistics might suggest differently. 

The point I am maki ng is that obesity in and of itself should NOT be reason enough to turn anyone away for treatment. And in this particular case, the insurance companies are applying pressure to doctors that based on their own histories of malpractice, are high-risk doctors, not necessarily because they deal with high-risk patients. 

 I’m willing to repeat my stance til my fingers fall off. Living an unhealthy lifestyle and being overweight are not synonymous. I haven’t had a problem with a doctor, thankyouverymuch but I don’t think anyone else in my position should.  


:EDIT: I juts want to add that just today, I went to the endocrinologist, a specialist that I am supposed to see every 6 weeks throughout my pregnancy simply due to my weight and nothing else…he looked over my blood work and was impressed with how good everything looked. “Beyond perfection!”, he said. He also told me he wished he could give me some suggestions or pointers, but, and I quote “You can’t argue with success!”

So there. 





NOTE: This post was originally dated May 17, 2011...this is the post from my pregnancy blog that lead to the NBC feature on Sizism in OB/GYN offices in Miami. I thought it'd be fun to post it here to show what my perspective on fat-shaming and being a plus size preggo was while I was actually pregnant ;)

Food for thought on vaccinating...

Disclaimer: the following is simply meant to get parents to consider all their choices and alternatives before choosing whether or not to vaccinate. To each their own and like I always say, as long as a choice is informed and it sits well with a parent as what's best for their family after considering all the alternatives, then that parent is doing their best and nothing more can be asked of them. -MF

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312

To provide a counterpoint: all the "epidemics" they're talking about here happened to both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They're blaming it on the unvaccinated children spreading it but if the vaccine worked to begin with, half of the cases (the vaccinated children) shouldn't have caught it. So all that proves is that wherever the start of the epidemic came from, the vaccine didn't provide the protection it was supposed to for the kids that WERE vaccinated. 

And as far as the abroad studies, you can't compare the general medical care and environment here to the Middle East slums. Vaccinated or not, children over there are bound to be less healthy and THATS going to make them susceptible to disease, not whether or not they have their shots.

I usually ignore stuff like this because it's something that's a touchy subject, but that headline is so aggressive (and the article has so many holes in it) that I wanted to speak up, if only to urge whoever is reading this to do their OWN research and not just rely on tradition to make their choice on vaccinating. You can always do it later or at least do it more slowly and spaced out rather than bombarding teeny kids with all those chemicals at once, which most doctors don't let you know that you have that choice and it is your choice to make! :)

Vaccinations...

Something to consider...there's "on schedule", "delayed schedule" and "non vax" parents, but everyone has to do their research and follow their instincts when it comes to vaccinating their children.

It's a hot topic, which is way I try (and I mean try, though I think it's usually obvious where I lean personally) to encourage parents to really research ingredients, possible side effects, etc before taking a course of action. The most important thing though is of you're not 100% certain where you stand, WAIT. You can always start vaccinating later but you can't take it back if you do it and then decide its not the best choice for your family.

I leave you with this graphic from the Facebook group "Educate before you Vaccinate"...believe it or don't, but hopefully it at least piques your curiosity enough to look into it for yourself :)

Some of the responses to WIO/CIO...

"I think it's about paying attention to what your kid needs that day/night. Like there are nights when my kid is sick and I'll do whatever it takes to get them to sleep...even if that means holding them up on my chest all night. Or if my son is feeling especially anxious or scared about something I will let him sleep in our bed. But there are times when absolutely nothing is wrong and all their needs have been met and maybe they're just overstimulated and need to be alone in their crib/bed and they will probably cry until they fall asleep. And that's actually what they need in that moment. And we mustn't neglect the needs of the mom and dad. Sometimes a parent desperately needs sleep so they can function properly and that might mean they have their kid CIO/sleep train. Or maybe a couple really needs their alone time so that means no co-sleeping. There's no way you can know every single family's needs/dynamic. People can't judge parents who CIO or cosleep or whatever they choose because you don't know what that family's needs are. And every mom knows their own baby best not some stranger or "sleep expert."' -KA

"I'm definitely against CIO. Babies and children need nurturing and by crying, they are showing that they are in need...Studies show that babies who have more physical touch with caretakers and who have not been left to CIO are more stable as they grow. Society today is in too much of a rush to push their children out of the nest so to say. And more 4 month old breastfed son does sleep through the night so a child's sleep pattern should be natural, not forced upon him by making him feel alone and helpless. However, parents who dont believe in crying it out, if at all for any reason they feel as if they might snap or get violent that then they should put the child down then. CIO is better than physically harming a child." - MVC

"We did CIO with our daughter at 6 mo. Well she would cry for like a minute and just fall asleep and now at 3 she sleeps perfect and there's nothing wrong with her. and my son is 18 mo and we didn't have to do it. We just let him sleep in her room and he must have took notes from her." -CG



What are your opinions on Waiting It Out (WIO) versus Crying It Out (CIO)? It's a controversial topic that divides a lot of parents, and even a lot of households, but I am curious to get a RESPECTFUL dialogue going about sleep training/teaching/coaching your child or waiting for them to settle into their own rhythm...

Ugh...

A bit of a vent...as most of you know by now, I'm in a part of the country where VBACs are incredibly difficult to achieve because of different policies and laws in place against it. There's only a handful of OBs that will even ALLOW TOLAC, in only a handful of hospitals (this is in the entire metropolis of over a million people), AND you have to pay the OBs a $1500 retainer for showing up at your TOLAC, whether it ends in VBAC or CBAC.

Well, I just found out one of those handful of doctors was pregnant herself, and with all the OBs she knows, with her knowledge of the best hospitals, with the professional courtesy she would have received... guess what she did for her TOLAC?

She had a home birth...with a midwife.

Goes to show the state of the birth community/industry here.

::feeling discouraged::

Circumcision: opinions, facts, and a rebuttal.

I just ran across this article today, and I have to say it really fired me up. Every person is entitled to their opinion and every parent of a son has a choice to make regarding their foreskin. I firmly believe that like religion and all sorts of other things, there are certain choices that should be my son's and his alone, and I would be doing him a disservice by taking such choices away from him.

That being said, I feel that because a lot of controversy swirls around circumcision, so do a lot of misconceptions. So I wanted to break down the reasoning the author uses in her article FOR circumcision, and offer some alternative views. The original authors views are in italics.

"First and foremost, we knew we wanted it done for hygiene reasons. It's so much harder to keep that area clean if the procedure isn't performed -- and we believed it would leave him more prone to infection if he was not circumcised."

"In babies, the foreskin is completely fused to the head of the penis. The infant foreskin is perfectly designed to protect the head of the penis and keep feces out.  All you have to do is wipe the outside of the penis like a finger.  It is harder to keep circumcised baby's penis clean because you have to carefully clean around the wound, make sure no feces got into the wound, and apply ointment." - Psychology Today.

The foreskin retracts on its own throughout childhood, at which point the child should be taught to pull the skin back and wash like any other part of his body with water and mild soap.


"Second, and I really don't care how stupid or cliche this sounds, we didn't want him to get teased in the high school locker room because he was the only boy who hadn't been circumcised.......And there was no way I was going to let my kid be the dude with the weird looking penis."

 I think this is the part of the article that most burned me. Firstly, you're putting your child through a potentially dangerous procedure for the sake of fitting in. Secondly, at the rate circumcision is dropping in the country, it's a possibility that a circumcised male may be in the minority by the time the authors son is in high school. Lastly, and I feel most importantly, the last sentence in the paragraph is the kind of thinking that leads to bullying. The fact that she's even throwing out there that someone may have a "weird looking penis" and that it's reason to be potentially made fun of only teaches that "we should make fun of whoever looks different to us". Not the parenting style I personally adhere to.


"Lastly, we worried about how being uncircumcised might affect his sex life down the road......I know I'd want to hop out of bed and run if I saw all that extra skin staring back at me."

Once again, she closes the paragraph with a really judgmental-based-on-looks sentiment that really irks me and only perpetuates stigmatizing intact genitalia. Also, here's something to consider about your circumcised son's future sex life: a study in Belgium found that there is less sexual satisfaction and sensation in circumcised penises (so intact men have better sex, according to the study).  Yet another study shows, quote "circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life".  And lastly, here's a big one: "Researchers surveyed 300 men and found that circumcised fellas had a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from ED than noncircumcised guys." That's Erectile Dysfunction, if you weren't sure.



So, again, every parent has to make their own choice regarding the topic of circumcision, but in case any of these misconceptions were your "deal breaker", maybe it's time to do some more researching and soul searching before committing to something permanent and irreversible for your child. I can see how it may not be an easy choice and there's definitely a lot to consider. I just couldn't believe the stuff the original author was throwing out as fact, so I felt like I NEEDED to do something showing that actually, all the reasons she used to make her choice were misconceptions at best, and that if any of those three things are something that weigh on your choice, that there's actually evidence to the contrary. Some people may still choose to do it for religious purposes, or so baby looks like Daddy, etc. I say as long as you really research extensively and you can come to a decision that sits well in your heart, then you've done your best as a parent and no one can ask more of you than that.

Thoughts on why you did or didn't choose to circumcise your son(s)?