1) Rubbing progesterone cream on your inner thighs.
2) Applying to jobs to make it a very inconvenient time to get pregnant.
3) Looking at your pregnancy test strips under a full-spectrum lightbulb, to ensure that you don't miss any hint of the color pink.
4) An HSG.
5) Developing the ability to smell dog vomit that no one else can smell.
6) Moping.
7) Failing to carry pads/Instead/other blood-catching technology with you.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
CD25, 5DPO musings: would you choose IVF if it were cheap?
Something that's bubbling around in my head, and about which I'd welcome discussion: would you choose IVF if money weren't a factor? I've been idly toying with the idea ever since I got the letter from my insurance company that said that they'd pay for up to 3 cycles of IVF per live birth, with a $100K lifetime max.
For:
- At my age, a good bet. Success percentages probably range in the 40s. Our current method, IVI (intravaginal insemination), is probably only around 10-15%. Washing the sperm and having it put directly into the uterus (IUI) boosts it somewhat, but probably only by about 5%.
- Likely the shortest route to having a baby, short of a fast-track Ethiopian adoption. This is important because if we want more than one, the age at which I try to have the next one will be a factor.
- As long as I keep this job, it's covered. That blows my mind, and will likely not be true in my next employment situation. Even the 20% copay we'd be liable for could be paid for out of flexible spending. When else might I have the chance?
Against:
- Overkill. I've had exactly one monitored cycle. I'd feel sheepish telling people.
- FOMG they stick a NEEDLE through the WALL of your VAGINA ow ow ow owwwwww.
- Medicalization blah blah wimmin-power blah blah collaborating with the patriarchy. I think I can handle this one. I'm the first to admit that it's pretty damned unnatural, two women making a baby, so no surprise that we might need a sh*tload of technology to do it. I've never seen the connection between "unnatural" and "bad". Antibiotics, dentistry, I love our artificial world.
- Lacks the smug satisfaction of knowing that we made the baby at home on our bed with a (figurative) turkey baster.
So, anyone, thoughts? Is it crazy to even contemplate IVF as anything but the last best hope formankind peace a baby?
For:
- At my age, a good bet. Success percentages probably range in the 40s. Our current method, IVI (intravaginal insemination), is probably only around 10-15%. Washing the sperm and having it put directly into the uterus (IUI) boosts it somewhat, but probably only by about 5%.
- Likely the shortest route to having a baby, short of a fast-track Ethiopian adoption. This is important because if we want more than one, the age at which I try to have the next one will be a factor.
- As long as I keep this job, it's covered. That blows my mind, and will likely not be true in my next employment situation. Even the 20% copay we'd be liable for could be paid for out of flexible spending. When else might I have the chance?
Against:
- Overkill. I've had exactly one monitored cycle. I'd feel sheepish telling people.
- FOMG they stick a NEEDLE through the WALL of your VAGINA ow ow ow owwwwww.
- Medicalization blah blah wimmin-power blah blah collaborating with the patriarchy. I think I can handle this one. I'm the first to admit that it's pretty damned unnatural, two women making a baby, so no surprise that we might need a sh*tload of technology to do it. I've never seen the connection between "unnatural" and "bad". Antibiotics, dentistry, I love our artificial world.
- Lacks the smug satisfaction of knowing that we made the baby at home on our bed with a (figurative) turkey baster.
So, anyone, thoughts? Is it crazy to even contemplate IVF as anything but the last best hope for
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
CD22: The drama, it never stops!
All is well. Second set of bloodwork came back:
E2 - 79 (Monday: 216)
Pg - 2.36 (Monday: .61)
LH - 7.5 (Monday: 35.2)
This indicates that I have ovulated. Until I hear otherwise I'm going on the theory that I ovulated, like, right before the appointment at 11, and the levels hadn't had time to change much before I went for my bloodwork at noon. The only other explanation is that I hadn't ovulated at the time of bloodwork, which would indicate an extremely sneaky follicle that did not show up on the ultrasound. Since there were three of us peering intently at the screen, I think that's unlikely. He also moved it around a bunch (urp) and looked twice. No, I think the barn door was still swingin' when we took a look-see.
Am surprised that my estradiol is outside the reference range I found yesterday. So's the progesterone for the luteal phase, but it was so soon after ovulation, I ain't gonna worry about it.
Anyway, am pleased to be able to confirm that today = 2DPO.
E2 - 79 (Monday: 216)
Pg - 2.36 (Monday: .61)
LH - 7.5 (Monday: 35.2)
This indicates that I have ovulated. Until I hear otherwise I'm going on the theory that I ovulated, like, right before the appointment at 11, and the levels hadn't had time to change much before I went for my bloodwork at noon. The only other explanation is that I hadn't ovulated at the time of bloodwork, which would indicate an extremely sneaky follicle that did not show up on the ultrasound. Since there were three of us peering intently at the screen, I think that's unlikely. He also moved it around a bunch (urp) and looked twice. No, I think the barn door was still swingin' when we took a look-see.
Am surprised that my estradiol is outside the reference range I found yesterday. So's the progesterone for the luteal phase, but it was so soon after ovulation, I ain't gonna worry about it.
Anyway, am pleased to be able to confirm that today = 2DPO.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
CD21: GAH GAH GAH
Bloodwork came back. Estrogen 216, progesterone .61. That means I likely DIDN'T ovulate. I don't know what else that means because I'm waiting for a call back from my doctor, and Dr. Google is failing me.
If I did not ovulate, whyfore the empty follicle? Whyfore the excellent grade-A picture-book cervical mucus? (btw: don't complain, this journal is in the no-such-thing as TMI zone). I don't understand.
Unless the follicle popped just like a few minutes before the ultrasound? Is that even possible? How long does it take the progesterone to hit the bloodstream, anyway?
*stares at phone*
eta: reference ranges, for my own record:
Follicular -- estradiol 143–694 pmol/l; progesterone 0.6–2.6 nmol/l; LH 1–26 IU/l; FSH 2.5–10.2 IU/l.
Luteal -- estradiol 176–1134 pmol/l; progesterone 13.2–75.2 nmol/l; LH 1–27 IU/l; FSH 1.5–9.1 IU/l.
eta2: just got off the phone with doc. we're repeating the bloodwork. i'm off to get vampirized.
If I did not ovulate, whyfore the empty follicle? Whyfore the excellent grade-A picture-book cervical mucus? (btw: don't complain, this journal is in the no-such-thing as TMI zone). I don't understand.
Unless the follicle popped just like a few minutes before the ultrasound? Is that even possible? How long does it take the progesterone to hit the bloodstream, anyway?
*stares at phone*
eta: reference ranges, for my own record:
Follicular -- estradiol 143–694 pmol/l; progesterone 0.6–2.6 nmol/l; LH 1–26 IU/l; FSH 2.5–10.2 IU/l.
Luteal -- estradiol 176–1134 pmol/l; progesterone 13.2–75.2 nmol/l; LH 1–27 IU/l; FSH 1.5–9.1 IU/l.
eta2: just got off the phone with doc. we're repeating the bloodwork. i'm off to get vampirized.
Monday, June 4, 2007
CD20: Well, huh.
1) FedEx has completely lost sperm shipment number two. Srsly, they have no clue where it is. It is wand'ring minstrel spunk. But that's okay, because
2) The egg, she has dropped. We had an ultrasound this morning, and there was nothing but an empty follicle flapping in the breeze. I think (for no reason in particular) that it went this morning.
So, yesterday's insem was it. Next month I think we'll probably also insem when the OPKs are darkening, not just when I get positive.
2) The egg, she has dropped. We had an ultrasound this morning, and there was nothing but an empty follicle flapping in the breeze. I think (for no reason in particular) that it went this morning.
So, yesterday's insem was it. Next month I think we'll probably also insem when the OPKs are darkening, not just when I get positive.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
CD19: the opening salvo has been fired!
What we did this weekend
Picked up a spunk-o-gram on Saturday. We'd actually asked on Wednesday for KD to ship us one Thursday, but for some reason he didn't get the email until Thursday night, so shipped Friday for Saturday. It turned out to be a good thing, since on Thursday we learned that my wee tiny follicle was nowhere near ready to pop. I seem to be repeatedly suffering from what someone I know on one of the boards calls "lesbian premature ejaculation". I'm just so darn afraid of missing it.
Anyway, picked up The Junk on Saturday, went home to pee on some more sticks. Nothing nothing nothing. Okay, teeny little line. I sat and stared at the box and tried to ovulate.
Received wisdom is that chilled sperm should all be used immediately, on the theory that there is nowhere it will survive as well as in a nice warm reproductive tract. Well, I'm not sure I believe that. For one, the wrong kind of mucus can kill them dead. For two, the clock ticks more slowly while they're on ice. These are the sensible things that B repeated to me every time I lunged towards the package with a box-knife.
We managed to hold our fire until Sunday when lo! a positive OPK! singing of heavenly hosts! We insemmed with gay abandon. Another package is coming on Monday; it, too will be a 48-hrs in transit package, but we already know that doesn't mean unusable. We'll probably do a frozen vial on Tuesday, too.
All in all, feeling pretty good about this cycle. Despite the fact that, excepting the OPKs, all of my ovulation prediction devices were bloody useless.
The CBFM gave me a peak on CD15. Ah, ultrasound says no. I saw the follicle un-popped, with me own eyes. Actually, I saw a lot of meaningless grey blobs, but B saw them, and I trust her scientific eye.
The OvaCue (never good at predicting) tells me I ovulated on CD14. Ah, no.
The Ov-Watch tells me that I ovulated yesterday or today, CD 18 or 19. Mmm, no, but at least vaguely in the ballpark, unlike the other two. It'll be tomorrow or the next day.
Winner: Ov-Watch, but with a weak performance.
You know, last cycle I ovulated on what can only be described as "Ov 4" -- two days past Ov 2. THe month before that it was on Ov 2. The month before that it was "Ov 5", three days past Ov 2.
I think that maybe I can trust it to give me the beginning of the range. It's not what it advertises, but maybe my body is just weird and works that way, maybe I happen to get my sodium chloride surge two or three days earlier than most women do, statistically speaking.
Warning: long meaderings below
Ramblings on the Ov-Watch's accuracy and customer service
So the Ov-Watch has been off by two days, zero days, three days, two days. The first month I called Ov-Watch and the person I spoke to was nice enough, but insulting in her ignorance. She assured me that OPKs are "twenty year old technology" and what was I going to trust, those old things or this shiny new watch of the future?
Well, huh. I have only the barest grasp of reproductive endocrinology, but I know that you can't ovulate without an LH surge, no matter what your watch says. And when the watch and the OPKs disagree, the OPKs are correct (assuming no factors that throw off OPKs, like PCOS). Ov-Watch's FDA 510 clearance says, and I quote,
"Data from the clinical study showed that [Ov-Watch] predicted ovulation better than basal body temperature... and almost as well as LH levels in urine" (emphasis mine).
I know this, but somehow the person on the other end of the phone did not, just acted like she'd never heard of such an occurrence, and that my OPKs must be wrong.
Thanks, lady.
To be fair, I did interface with their customer service one other time, about a defective sensor. They sent out a new one at lightning speed, which I appreciated very much. In conclusion, their customer service appears to be speedy and pleasant, but not well informed.
So I think I'll just have to make my own way with the Ov-Watch, adding a few days onto its last "Ov". It doesn't suck entirely, it's just not as accurate as I wish it were. It's probably pointless to wish for greater predictive power. Bodies are handmade, after all, and natural irregularities and slubs in the weave should maybe not be considered flaws.
I wouldn't want to be the customer service person who had to explain that to customers, either.
Picked up a spunk-o-gram on Saturday. We'd actually asked on Wednesday for KD to ship us one Thursday, but for some reason he didn't get the email until Thursday night, so shipped Friday for Saturday. It turned out to be a good thing, since on Thursday we learned that my wee tiny follicle was nowhere near ready to pop. I seem to be repeatedly suffering from what someone I know on one of the boards calls "lesbian premature ejaculation". I'm just so darn afraid of missing it.
Anyway, picked up The Junk on Saturday, went home to pee on some more sticks. Nothing nothing nothing. Okay, teeny little line. I sat and stared at the box and tried to ovulate.
Received wisdom is that chilled sperm should all be used immediately, on the theory that there is nowhere it will survive as well as in a nice warm reproductive tract. Well, I'm not sure I believe that. For one, the wrong kind of mucus can kill them dead. For two, the clock ticks more slowly while they're on ice. These are the sensible things that B repeated to me every time I lunged towards the package with a box-knife.
We managed to hold our fire until Sunday when lo! a positive OPK! singing of heavenly hosts! We insemmed with gay abandon. Another package is coming on Monday; it, too will be a 48-hrs in transit package, but we already know that doesn't mean unusable. We'll probably do a frozen vial on Tuesday, too.
All in all, feeling pretty good about this cycle. Despite the fact that, excepting the OPKs, all of my ovulation prediction devices were bloody useless.
The CBFM gave me a peak on CD15. Ah, ultrasound says no. I saw the follicle un-popped, with me own eyes. Actually, I saw a lot of meaningless grey blobs, but B saw them, and I trust her scientific eye.
The OvaCue (never good at predicting) tells me I ovulated on CD14. Ah, no.
The Ov-Watch tells me that I ovulated yesterday or today, CD 18 or 19. Mmm, no, but at least vaguely in the ballpark, unlike the other two. It'll be tomorrow or the next day.
Winner: Ov-Watch, but with a weak performance.
You know, last cycle I ovulated on what can only be described as "Ov 4" -- two days past Ov 2. THe month before that it was on Ov 2. The month before that it was "Ov 5", three days past Ov 2.
I think that maybe I can trust it to give me the beginning of the range. It's not what it advertises, but maybe my body is just weird and works that way, maybe I happen to get my sodium chloride surge two or three days earlier than most women do, statistically speaking.
Warning: long meaderings below
Ramblings on the Ov-Watch's accuracy and customer service
So the Ov-Watch has been off by two days, zero days, three days, two days. The first month I called Ov-Watch and the person I spoke to was nice enough, but insulting in her ignorance. She assured me that OPKs are "twenty year old technology" and what was I going to trust, those old things or this shiny new watch of the future?
Well, huh. I have only the barest grasp of reproductive endocrinology, but I know that you can't ovulate without an LH surge, no matter what your watch says. And when the watch and the OPKs disagree, the OPKs are correct (assuming no factors that throw off OPKs, like PCOS). Ov-Watch's FDA 510 clearance says, and I quote,
"Data from the clinical study showed that [Ov-Watch] predicted ovulation better than basal body temperature... and almost as well as LH levels in urine" (emphasis mine).
I know this, but somehow the person on the other end of the phone did not, just acted like she'd never heard of such an occurrence, and that my OPKs must be wrong.
Thanks, lady.
To be fair, I did interface with their customer service one other time, about a defective sensor. They sent out a new one at lightning speed, which I appreciated very much. In conclusion, their customer service appears to be speedy and pleasant, but not well informed.
So I think I'll just have to make my own way with the Ov-Watch, adding a few days onto its last "Ov". It doesn't suck entirely, it's just not as accurate as I wish it were. It's probably pointless to wish for greater predictive power. Bodies are handmade, after all, and natural irregularities and slubs in the weave should maybe not be considered flaws.
I wouldn't want to be the customer service person who had to explain that to customers, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)