Apgars

I just got back from a birth where the bub had pretty low initial apgars (but was fine - great VBAC) but what I found was interesting is that there is a campaign to rid the whole APGAR thing because they don't find it to be really relevant to the situation - the baby had low apgars but was fine. The paed who assessed the baby (who was really lovely!) was apparently the one leading the campaign, and believes all it serves to do is freak mothers out when they hear the apgars! So there you go... learn something new everyday!

TBH Kelly, I can't say I am that surprised. Jack and Tom had the same apgars at both 1 and 5 mins, ( 9 and 9), yet Tom was 3 1/2 weeks early and briefly needed oxygen. To me there was quite a difference in them at birth, yet not according to "the numbers".

I was surprised at Patrick's birth they didn't tell me the scores. The last time I gave birth was 13 years ago so maybe things are changing.

I agree and disagree! :-) I think they have their place. At DS birth his were around 6-7 (induced 4 wks early due to PE, no suck reflex, jaundice) He has now been diagnoised with ASD. As a diagnostic tool it is handly to have in hindsight

My dd had apgars of 9-10 she was amazingly alert. While this doesn't mean she won't share traits with her brother, nor might it mean that if her scores were low at birth that she too would have autism but it is interesting to note the difference.

How interesting! I've sort of wondered about this since DS was born. He was five weeks early, and although he didn't need oxygen, or any assistance really, he was very sleepy, not at all alert, and his apgars were 9 and 10. I mean, he was five weeks early! What 35 weeker has apgars that good?! It never really made sense to me :rolleyes:

Wow.
Similar experience to Melanie here - DD was nearly 4 weeks early, came out with a distinctly "blue" tint, and needed ressuc to get going.

DS was screaming before he was even fully out (nothing much has changed) and was pink and active immediately.

Both got apgars of 9,9 which seems insane to me.

I guess though because it's a test based alot on observations it is very subjective...so different people would give different results to the same baby.