The Interwebs have been a flurry over the babies born at 11:11 on 1/11/11. There was Tyler Ashton Marx in Idaho whose sister was born on 9/9/09. There was also Aiden Emanuel Guerrero Sanchez who was born via C-section in Indiana at the same time.
Kind of a unique and amazing thing, right? How many of us can claim such unique numbers as our birth dates?
None of the information on Marx says that he was planned that way and with his father looking on through the Web (he is stationed in Iraq) and his sister with three nines, it is pretty amazing, especially when one considers that 11:11 on 1/11/11 is nine 1's. I am no numerologist but a child with nine one's and another child with three nines does seem a little special.
Sanchez's birth time on the other hand may not be quite as special.
Having not been in the hospital when he entered the world, it is impossible to say whether the doctors planned it this way for publicity or whether it actually was a legitimate emergency. According to the South Bend Tribune article:
Sanchez planned to have a natural birth, but when Aiden's heart rate slowed down, doctors decided on the C-section.
"Doctors decided" it says and while, if I were the mother who was told my baby's heart rate were slowing, I would do anything to get that baby out, I do wonder if they might have pushed for it because it was 10:45. Just saying... It's a possibility.
We'd love to believe it is not true. We would love to believe that doctors would never do such a thing, but on such a special date (and time), this is a bit fishy. Considering how quick doctors can be to decide that a C-section is needed.
Was she given enough time? Was the heart rate really dipping?
This can be the danger of putting complete trust in the medical profession. Sometimes we have to, of course, but we also have to be our own birth advocates and a midwife will monitor a woman differently. Rather than constant monitoring, many midwives only use the doppler at certain intervals. Constant monitoring could increase your chances of a C-section by up to 40 percent.
According to the Midwife Next Door:
A major problem remains in that providers themselves often disagree, when reviewing fetal monitor strips, on which babies were truly showing signs of distress. On many occasions, a “distressed” baby is delivered by emergency c-section, only to find out the baby is perfectly fine. Another possible reason why we’ve seen an increase in c-sections, but not an improvement in outcomes, is that babies have periods of time where the heart rate may give an appearance of distress, or be non-reactive, yet an hour later, that same baby’s heart rate looks wonderful.
For obvious reasons, most mothers are not going to fight a doctor on a C-section and in the end, a healthy baby is the goal. Still, the idea that this doctor could have jumped into a C-section faster because of the time on the clock is a bit disconcerting. I'd like to give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt, but it is a little too "perfect," no?
Do you think this was planned by the doctor?
Image via Facebook