NationStates Jolt Archive

My sister-in-law's baby is now officially 2 weeks over due. She was in the hospital on what my mother called a "mild drug for inducement" Monday and Tuesday. I just got word that her doc started her on pitocin. Looking that up, it doesn't look to be very nice. :( :( :(

Anyone have firsthand experience with it?

My sister-in-law's baby is now officially 2 weeks over due. She was in the hospital on what my mother called a "mild drug for inducement" Monday and Tuesday. I just got word that her doc started her on pitocin. Looking that up, it doesn't look to be very nice. :( :( :(

Anyone have firsthand experience with it?
I'm an ob/gyn from Moscow, Russia. Pitocin is a name for oxytocin, IIRC. Feel free to TG me.

No firsthand experience, but I know that the widespread use of oxytocin to electively induce labour is not recommended: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/26/1728_58677.htm

Does she have any other problems apart from the pregnancy being prolonged that would warrant this treatment? Has her physician discussed benefits vs. risks with her? It's really hard to for anyone to say anything about what is right for your sister-in-law without actually having her medical history and knowing details we cannot know because we haven't seen her.

I'm an ob/gyn from Moscow, Russia. Pitocin is a name for oxytocin, IIRC. Feel free to TG me.

That's what the various pages on it I've read say. It sounds pretty dangerous - the wikipedia entry says "decreased placental bloodflow ... could deprive the baby of oxygen" and lists "cervical lacerations, rupture of the uterus, postbirth hemorrhaging in the mother, and other problems" as side effects. How dangerous is it really?

Okay, I'm far from an authority. But my mother worked as an ob/gyn for several years and also did a large amount of classes for pregnant women.

As far as I remember, Pitocin is, in essence, an injection of Oxytocin, the hormone that caused lactation and also would cause contractions. This is all fuzzy, however.

I'd advise you talk to Olantia. Someone actually working as an ob/gyn would be much more helpful than the son of one. Ad also, I'd advise you trust your doctor. They know what they're doing more often than not.

And Pitocin has its risks. But if the baby is overdue, something needs to be done.

That's what the various pages on it I've read say. It sounds pretty dangerous - the wikipedia entry says "decreased placental bloodflow ... could deprive the baby of oxygen" and lists "cervical lacerations, rupture of the uterus, postbirth hemorrhaging in the mother, and other problems" as side effects. How dangerous is it really?

I can't say how dangerous it is with any certainty, but not inducing childbirth could be much more dangerous.

Sorry if this a double post...

No firsthand experience, but I know that the widespread use of oxytocin to electively induce labour is not recommended: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/26/1728_58677.htm

Does she have any other problems apart from the pregnancy being prolonged that would warrant this treatment? Has her physician discussed benefits vs. risks with her? It's really hard to for anyone to say anything about what is right for your sister-in-law without actually having her medical history and knowing details we cannot know because we haven't seen her.

And that's part of the problem - I'm here in Japan and she's in Iowa. I'm getting the email version of events without such details (both her and my brother are smart cookies, so I'm assuming they've sorted out the details properly - I do know the doc wanted to try the pitocin on Monday, but they said no).

Plus it's 3 am here and everyone else I can rely on is asleep. All this is adding up to a fair bit stress on this end (and that's at least part of why I posted this...)

That's what the various pages on it I've read say. It sounds pretty dangerous - the wikipedia entry says "decreased placental bloodflow ... could deprive the baby of oxygen" and lists "cervical lacerations, rupture of the uterus, postbirth hemorrhaging in the mother, and other problems" as side effects. How dangerous is it really?
Isn't oxytocin just the lactating hormone? I doubt that it can be that hazardous to the fetus because it's produced in enough quantities during regular childbirth...

That's what the various pages on it I've read say. It sounds pretty dangerous - the wikipedia entry says "decreased placental bloodflow ... could deprive the baby of oxygen" and lists "cervical lacerations, rupture of the uterus, postbirth hemorrhaging in the mother, and other problems" as side effects. How dangerous is it really?
It is a synthetic analogue of natural hormone which induces uterine contractions. An unpleasant thing, we don't use it often. Usually its rather painful for a woman, unfortunately. Yes, the side effects which you've enumerated happen. BTW, is the epidural planned?

Was your sister's "mild drug for inducement" some kind of prostaglandin (I don't know your commercial names for it, but I think they should have 'prost' somewhere in them :-))?

I can't say how dangerous it is with any certainty, but not inducing childbirth could be much more dangerous.

Sorry if this a double post...

Relevant study: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11035351&query_hl=14)

Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Oct;183(4):986-94.
Dublin S, Lydon-Rochelle M, Kaplan RC, Watts DH, Critchlow CW
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to examine associations between induction of labor and maternal and neonatal outcomes among women without an identified indication for induction.

Study Design: This was a population-based cohort study of 2886 women with induced labor and 9648 women with spontaneous labor who were delivered at 37 to 41 weeks' gestation, all without identified medical and obstetric indications for induction.

RESULTS: Among nulliparous women 19% of women with induced labor versus 10% of those with spontaneous labor underwent cesarean delivery (adjusted relative risk, 1.77 ; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-2.08). No association was seen in multiparous women (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.39). Among all women induction was associated with modest increases in instrumental delivery (19% vs 15%; relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.32) and shoulder dystocia (3.0% vs 1.7%; relative risk, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.69).

CONCLUSION: Among women who lacked an identified indication for induction of labor, induction was associated with increased likelihood of cesarean delivery for nulliparous but not multiparous women and with modest increases in the risk of instrumental delivery and shoulder dystocia for all women.

PMID: 11035351

So, while induction does have its risks, there is no need to be alarmist. The risks are still relatively low, and lower still if this is not her first child.

I can't say how dangerous it is with any certainty, but not inducing childbirth could be much more dangerous.

Sorry if this a double post...

Yep. That's part of the whole worry - she's 2 weeks overdue.

It is a synthetic analogue of natural hormone which induces uterine contractions. An unpleasant thing, we don't use it often. Usually its rather painful for a woman, unfortunately. Yes, the side effects which you've enumerated happen. BTW, is the epidural planned?

Was your sister's "mild drug for inducement" some kind of prostaglandin (I don't know your commercial names for it, but I think they should have 'prost' somewhere in them :-))?

No idea and no idea. That's all the info I've recieved. She and my brother are busy, and it's my mother who's keeping me up to date - with once daily mails.

...

No idea and no idea. That's all the info I've recieved. She and my brother are busy, and it's my mother who's keeping me up to date - with once daily mails.
I see. Well, there's no need to worry too much. If the doctors see that the inducement doesn't work, they perform a caesarean section--sometimes it is the best choice, indeed.

So, while induction does have its risks, there is no need to be alarmist. The risks are still relatively low, and lower still if this is not her first child.

That's what I need to hear. Thanks. :)

As the thread title indicates, this is far out of my realm of experience, and it involves family. A bit of a freak out is to be expected?

My sister-in-law's baby is now officially 2 weeks over due. She was in the hospital on what my mother called a "mild drug for inducement" Monday and Tuesday. I just got word that her doc started her on pitocin. Looking that up, it doesn't look to be very nice. :( :( :(

Anyone have firsthand experience with it?
Not firsthand, but I was present for a couple of women who were induced this way. It stinks and both times it didn't end up working and c-sections were required. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel better. Sorry.

I see. Well, there's no need to worry too much. If the doctors see that the inducement doesn't work, they perform a caesarean section--sometimes it is the best choice, indeed.

And many thanks to you as well.

Keeping my fingers crossed, and hopefully I'll have a weight and length to post soon... :)

My sister-in-law's baby is now officially 2 weeks over due. She was in the hospital on what my mother called a "mild drug for inducement" Monday and Tuesday. I just got word that her doc started her on pitocin. Looking that up, it doesn't look to be very nice. :( :( :(

Anyone have firsthand experience with it?
Yup. I was a scant two weeks overdue with my second, and I was induced, not because it was medically necessary for myself, or the baby, but because my doctor was going to be in another community for a couple weeks, leaving me with no one to deliver me. First they tried a prostoglandin[sp?] cream to try to 'kick start' the process, and then when that didn't work, they put me on the drip. I was told it is very rare that this does not induce labour. (and really, two weeks over a date that is hazy at best, is not a big deal) I found that my contractions were much stronger and more painful, with shorter intervals in between (1 minute as opposed to three the first time round). The labour lasted 14 hours (just like the first, natural time), but the baby came much quicker (in 5 minutes instead of half an hour).

It's a safe process. If there are any complications, as with all births, they are ready to perform a C-section. I don't think I would choose to be induced again, simply because it seemed much harder on my body than the first birth, but in my case, there was little choice.

That's what I need to hear. Thanks. :)

You're welcome. I needed to practice my literature searching techniques, anyway. ;)

As the thread title indicates, this is far out of my realm of experience, and it involves family. A bit of a freak out is to be expected?

Of course. My sister is coming close to her due date, so I know exactly how scary these things can be.

Yup. I was a scant two weeks overdue with my second, and I was induced, not because it was medically necessary for myself, or the baby, but because my doctor was going to be in another community for a couple weeks, leaving me with no one to deliver me. First they tried a prostoglandin[sp?] cream to try to 'kick start' the process, and then when that didn't work, they put me on the drip. I was told it is very rare that this does not induce labour. (and really, two weeks over a date that is hazy at best, is not a big deal) I found that my contractions were much stronger and more painful, with shorter intervals in between (1 minute as opposed to three the first time round). The labour lasted 14 hours (just like the first, natural time), but the baby came much quicker (in 5 minutes instead of half an hour).

It's a safe process. If there are any complications, as with all births, they are ready to perform a C-section. I don't think I would choose to be induced again, simply because it seemed much harder on my body than the first birth, but in my case, there was little choice.


My wife went through the same thing.

Labour was 23 hours but in the end everything was fine.

My wife had an induced labor six months ago, and was given pitocin. Over the course of 24 hours she had 750 ml pumped into her, an extraordinarily high dose, with little effect. Eventually she had a c-section.

The good news was that the pitocin had no adverse effect on either mother or child. My son was (and remains) in extraordinarily good health, and my wife suffered more from the side effects of the anaesthetic than from the pitocin. (I won't go into details, except to say that, if any of you ever have a c-section, take the stool softener that they give you afterwards. My wife missed one dose, and regretted it.)

Thanks all. I'm crashing out now, as it's nearly 4 am here and I've been up for almost 20 hours straight. :) (Thank goodness my summer holidays started at 9:35 pm!)

i don't know much about it except that i was overdue and my mum had to be induced with oxytocin and both of us were perfectly healthy afterwards, good luck!!

To be honest, I wish that doctors would go to c-sections in situations like this. A planned cesearian (sp?) is much safer for both mother and child than a vaginal birth even without the drugs.

To be honest, I wish that doctors would go to c-sections in situations like this. A planned cesearian (sp?) is much safer for both mother and child than a vaginal birth even without the drugs.

I really want to say "BS" on what you just said. What do you mean by "much safer"? The estimated risk of an otherwise healthy woman dying after a cesarean birth is less than one in 2,500, while the risk of death after a vaginal birth is less than one in 10,000.

Lets keep in mind also how the due date is established.
Its not exactly the most precise estimation.

The baby may be right on time. Were there ultrasounds to measure the skull and long bones that determined this?

Or was it the usual calculation, based on the last menstrual cycle? these things cant be etched in stone.

Of course its prudent to have close professional attention, but no reason for alarm or anxiety at this point.

I really want to say "BS" on what you just said. What do you mean by "much safer"? The estimated risk of an otherwise healthy woman dying after a cesarean birth is less than one in 2,500, while the risk of death after a vaginal birth is less than one in 10,000.
Death is not the only risk involved in childbirth.

I really want to say "BS" on what you just said. What do you mean by "much safer"? The estimated risk of an otherwise healthy woman dying after a cesarean birth is less than one in 2,500, while the risk of death after a vaginal birth is less than one in 10,000.

You're startring to encroach on territory where opinions reach an almost religious fervor. I'm not disagreeing with you (in fact, I agree with you), but having recently been through childbirth prep classes, I've been inundated with propaganda on vaginal birth vs. c-section, natural childbirth vs. epidural, and Lamaze vs. Bradley method. Like in a religious debate, everyone is convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

So if this thread degenerates into a bunch of dogmatic posturing and name-calling - well, I guess it will just be like any other thread in General.

To be honest, I wish that doctors would go to c-sections in situations like this. A planned cesearian (sp?) is much safer for both mother and child than a vaginal birth even without the drugs.
Are you nuts?

As it is, unecessary C-sections, done for 'convenience' (and the bigger payout) are rampant. Women are pressured into them, made to feel as though they can't have the child naturally. That's utter crap. Our bodies are made for giving birth! IF there is medical necessity, fine. I'm all for C-sections then. But not for no damn reason. And safer? What a crock! You're comparing a surgery to a natural process as being safer?

Lets keep in mind also how the due date is established.
Its not exactly the most precise estimation.

The baby may be right on time. Were there ultrasounds to measure the skull and long bones that determined this?

Or was it the usual calculation, based on the last menstrual cycle? these things cant be etched in stone.

Of course its prudent to have close professional attention, but no reason for alarm or anxiety at this point.
Exactly. The due date is a guesstimate unless the ultrasounds Carn mentions have been done...AND EVEN THEN the measurements are based on averages. They said my second daughter was overdue...but I think a two week margin of error should be assumed. My first daughter was two weeks 'early'. But she was fully formed, and met all the criteria of a full term baby. I don't think she was early. I think she was right on time.

Are you nuts?

As it is, unecessary C-sections, done for 'convenience' (and the bigger payout) are rampant. Women are pressured into them, made to feel as though they can't have the child naturally. That's utter crap. Our bodies are made for giving birth! IF there is medical necessity, fine. I'm all for C-sections then. But not for no damn reason. And safer? What a crock! You're comparing a surgery to a natural process as being safer?

I've been right there for three C-sections- they are pretty involved-its a more serious procedure than I think most people know. You here people saying-"Oh yeah-she had a c-section" like its no big deal.
Well- it is a big deal. I watched first hand at the layers that needed to be cut through-and then stitched and stapled afterward. It may be one of the larger incisions a person would need, short of open heart surgery.
And I am willing to bet many are done to make life easier for doctors and staff.

Exactly. The due date is a guesstimate unless the ultrasounds Carn mentions have been done...AND EVEN THEN the measurements are based on averages. They said my second daughter was overdue...but I think a two week margin of error should be assumed. My first daughter was two weeks 'early'. But she was fully formed, and met all the criteria of a full term baby. I don't think she was early. I think she was right on time.


They claimed my first son was late and I had fantastic insurance then. We had ultrasounds (ins covered) three times in ONE WEEK!!
At one point, they determined his birth weight at 8 lbs, with a 10% margin of error.
He was delivered via c-section the next day, at 10lbs 12 ounces.

I forgot to mention that the other thing that kind of scared me when I was induced was that I lost a lot more blood because my uterus didn't start contracting as fast as it should have once my daughter was born. It was serious enough that I was put on a drip with something to cause contractions, and this sent me into shock (which women often go into anyway after a birth) because my body thought it was going to have to undergo another birth.

It didn't help that my friend had had a terrible dream about me bleeding to death in childbirth. I'm not terribly superstitious, but I wasn't exactly thinking clearly right after (though I was on my feet in scant hours) and I was kind of scared I was going to die. (Obviously I didn't, and it really ended up not being that much blood lost)

And women...let yourself rip naturally. It heals so much faster...I had an episiotomy the first time and it took weeks to heal. I couldn't sit comfortably all that time. When I tore naturally, there was discomfort, but I was able to walk and sit normally right away.

You're startring to encroach on territory where opinions reach an almost religious fervor. I'm not disagreeing with you (in fact, I agree with you), but having recently been through childbirth prep classes, I've been inundated with propaganda on vaginal birth vs. c-section, natural childbirth vs. epidural, and Lamaze vs. Bradley method. Like in a religious debate, everyone is convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

So if this thread degenerates into a bunch of dogmatic posturing and name-calling - well, I guess it will just be like any other thread in General.
Oh come on. What possibly justification can there be to promote C-sections over natural births when there are no medical reasons behind the decision?

My sister-in-law had C-sections scheduled so that she would give birth before he doctor went on holidays. What medical reason is that? Unlike me, she lived in an area with many Ob-Gyns.

And women...let yourself rip naturally. It heals so much faster...I had an epidural the first time and it took weeks to heal. I couldn't sit comfortably all that time. When I tore naturally, there was discomfort, but I was able to walk and sit normally right away.


You mean an "episiotomy".

Epidural is the spinal line for pain

Death is not the only risk involved in childbirth.
No, we also mentioned a healthy baby.

What, exactly, is prompting you to make this particular suggestion?

You're startring to encroach on territory where opinions reach an almost religious fervor. I'm not disagreeing with you (in fact, I agree with you), but having recently been through childbirth prep classes, I've been inundated with propaganda on vaginal birth vs. c-section, natural childbirth vs. epidural, and Lamaze vs. Bradley method. Like in a religious debate, everyone is convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

By the way, unlike religious debates, the C-section versus vaginal delivery debate is well supported with actual facts (on both sides). So don't bother comparing them. One can actually make an informed decision, if one actually looks at the evidence. Just going with what is trendy is ignorant.

And women...let yourself rip naturally. It heals so much faster...I had an epidural the first time and it took weeks to heal. I couldn't sit comfortably all that time. When I tore naturally, there was discomfort, but I was able to walk and sit normally right away.


One thing that gives me chills is the thought of my taint ripping or being cut.

i guess it would be worse for me as my taint is likely a few inches larger than yours.

They claimed my first son was late and I had fantastic insurance then. We had ultrasounds (ins covered) three times in ONE WEEK!!
At one point, they determined his birth weight at 8 lbs, with a 10% margin of error.
He was delivered via c-section the next day, at 10lbs 12 ounces.
You need to worry only when the baby's or the mother's vital signs start showing strain in cases where the child is overdue. Or when the baby is too big to deliver vaginally. A couple of weeks is not a big deal, unless, as I said, the baby or mother is in trouble. But after 9 months, it feels like you've been pregnant forever, and there is definitely a need to just deliver the damn thing!:) It's fairly rare that a woman would not go into labour naturally EVENTUALLY...but sometimes it's dangerous to wait, and sometimes it isn't.

Death is not the only risk involved in childbirth.

It is the most serious one, and there is no denying that the risk of death is greater with c-section than with vaginal births in the otherwise healthy woman.

You mean an "episiotomy".

Epidural is the spinal line for pain
Puta. You're right. Changed:).

One thing that gives me chills is the thought of my taint ripping or being cut.

i guess it would be worse for me as my taint is likely a few inches larger than yours.
Taint?

I didn't even notice her making the cut. You get numb to pain at a certain point. I'm queasy about wounds though, and I couldn't look at the area (well, I'd have to use a mirror, but I didn't). The second time, I could feel myself tearing, and I was pushing so damn hard I actually thought I was going to break something, (my mother ruptured veins in her eyes delivering me...ewww!), but it didn't actually hurt. There is just this overwhelming need to get the baby out, and after the painful contractions, the pushing is actually a cessation of pain. After I was stitched up, it hurt no more than any sort of cut.

Taint?



Yeah-its what they cut or what rips. Its that puckered dark area that 'taint your asshole and 'taint your balls. Or in your case, "man in the canoe".

both of us were perfectly healthy afterwards,

Are you talking physically or mentally? :p

Wow this topic has really strayed but I have had one natural birth and two c sections so I know how both go but I seriously disagree on having convenient sections..those should be illegal and that doctor is doing nobody any favors. Malpractice if you ask me. My first section was an emergency cord prolapse and on my section my son would not come down and I had been put on pitocin so yes it hurts like hell but it would have anyway if it had been naturally occurring. I tend to have long prolonged labors. C sections are MAJOR surgery and shouldnt be treated so lightly..oh we want to go on vacation and dump the baby on granny can you operate on such and such... Egotistic crap! Childbirth should be allowed to occur as naturally as possible , if possible. Only a valid medical reason should be given.

Yeah-its what they cut or what rips. Its that puckered dark area that 'taint your asshole and 'taint your balls. Or in your case, "man in the canoe".
I knew the answer was going to be silly:)

I knew the answer was going to be silly:)
Isn't that the peristalis?[sp?]

No, it's called the perineum (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=perineum).

Peristalsis (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=peristalsis) is something completely different.

Childbirth should be allowed to occur as naturally as possible , if possible. Only a valid medical reason should be given.
Again, to show I really appreciate C-sections as medical interventions, I'll share a little story about my mother in law. She carried two children to full term, but could not manage to deliver on her own. One child was seriously hurt by the use of forceps, and died hours later. The other one was finally delivered, but died three days later. C-sections were not available in Chile at that time. My husband was delivered by C-section years later, and though the procedure was somewhat botched (she ruptured, a very rare occurrence, despite any scare propaganda...this was the year before the coup and resources were stretched, the doctor screwed up the stitching) and so were both his sisters. None of them would've survived a natural birth.

HOWEVER. My mother had us in a time when C-sections were first very popular, and being pushed on women. She wasn't even given a chance to try with any of us. Two minutes of pushing, and 'oh, it's going too slow, let's operate!'. I was always afraid that I would have to have a C-section because six of my aunts, and my mother all had them each birth. I thought something was wrong with us, that we couldn't deliver naturally. But I had a great doctor who gave me tonnes of information. One prenatal visit, he was away, and I saw another doctor. He took one look at me, said I was too big and would have to have a C-section. I broke into tears. When my doctor returned, he said, "let me guess, Dr. Asshole (my word) said you'd need a C-section, right?" Apparently this doctor's patients almost ALL have C-sections. That's a problem with the doctor, not the patients. Especially among aboriginal women, cripes, we have big, big babies, and rarely need surgery.

The point is...don't go in uniformed. Understand the process of labour. Ask questions about pain management, about what is supposed to happen, about the dangers involved, about what may have to be done in an emergency. Don't ask for an epidural at the last minute (like I did) and then be told it's too late:). And have confidence. Yes, you really can do this. If there is an emergency, steps will be taken to ensure the safety of you and your child.

No, it's called the perineum (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=perineum).

Peristalsis (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=peristalsis) is something completely different.
Thanks. Normally I make sure I'm using the right word, but today I'm all gibbled. Fricking words...I only needed to know them twice, but still...sheesh!

I knew the answer was going to be silly:)
Isn't that the peristalis?[sp?]


You need a weekend with me to brush up on your jargon.

"peristalysis" is the action of your digestive tract to move food along during digestion.

Were you giving out handies in the boy's bathroom during biology?

You need a weekend with me to brush up on your jargon.

"peristalysis" is the action of your digestive tract to move food along during digestion.

Were you giving out handies in the boy's bathroom during biology?


Sin,I'm sure at this point, it will be easier for you to remember "taint". All your friends will understand you better too.

You need a weekend with me to brush up on your jargon.

"peristalysis" is the action of your digestive tract to move food along during digestion.

Were you giving out handies in the boy's bathroom during biology?
It's been 10 fricking years! And I was high most of the time. But I do remember now that peristalysis also involves swallowing, and bowel movements...not two functions I like to put in the same sentence, but hey!

It's been 10 fricking years! And I was high most of the time. But I do remember now that peristalysis also involves swallowing, and bowel movements...not two functions I like to put in the same sentence, but hey!


Heh-for me its been just over 20.

You have them in the right order. If the process reverses itself, you're in a lot of trouble.
And all the breath mints in the world wont help you then.

Heh-for me its been just over 20.

You have them in the right order. If the process reverses itself, you're in a lot of trouble.
And all the breath mints in the world wont help you then.
:D

As a veteran of two homebirths, I am strongly against C-sections that are not medically necessary. Even the idea that the baby might be too big is overplayed. True cephalopelvic distortion is extremely rare. A woman in my birth class gave birth at home, unmedicated after a 24 hour labor to a 10 lb 12 oz boy. And she didn't require an episiotomy and she didn't tear. There's something to be said for giving birth in a tub in a squatting position instead of flat on your back.
Here is some food for thought as well; C-sections can cost upward of $30,000. My homebirths both cost $2000 of which my insurance paid all. The only thing we paid for was the birth tub rental and our homebirth kit.

C-Sections are covered by medicare in Canada, but I firmly believe the push for them is financial, not medical. It's a surgery, and surgeries pay out more than regular births. Big money to be made in convincing a woman to do it!

Here is some food for thought as well; C-sections can cost upward of $30,000. My homebirths both cost $2000 of which my insurance paid all. The only thing we paid for was the birth tub rental and our homebirth kit.


How about the cleaning of that birth tub? Huh? Who paid for that?

probably the local chinese restaurant.

"Ah yes-Special today- Egg Foo Young"

Are you talking physically or mentally? :p
I'll let you decide.....

How about the cleaning of that birth tub? Huh? Who paid for that?

probably the local chinese restaurant.

"Ah yes-Special today- Egg Foo Young"

Actually my husband and the labor assistant cleaned the tub. I was laying in bed with Ada and her older brother was watching with much interest while she nursed. :p

As a veteran of two homebirths, I am strongly against C-sections that are not medically necessary. Even the idea that the baby might be too big is overplayed. True cephalopelvic distortion is extremely rare. A woman in my birth class gave birth at home, unmedicated after a 24 hour labor to a 10 lb 12 oz boy. And she didn't require an episiotomy and she didn't tear. There's something to be said for giving birth in a tub in a squatting position instead of flat on your back.
Here is some food for thought as well; C-sections can cost upward of $30,000. My homebirths both cost $2000 of which my insurance paid all. The only thing we paid for was the birth tub rental and our homebirth kit.

My mom has delivered about 40000+ babies in her career. She will tell you they have their use.

Sorry but there isn't a conspiracy to use them. The medical profession would rather not if they can.

--edit--

Well is should say the docs where my mom works and where my kid was born. Can't speak for all places or countries.....

My mom has delivered about 40000+ babies in her career. She will tell you they have their use.

Sorry but there isn't a conspiracy to use them. The medical profession would rather not if they can.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for them, I'm saying they are performed way too often. When your doctor wants to schedule a C-section because he's going to be out of town the day you are due, that's unnecessary. That's what I'm talking about. The C-section rate in the US has now nudged itself over 25%. Don't you think that's too many?

Sorry but there isn't a conspiracy to use them. The medical profession would rather not if they can.
No one is saying they aren't useful. But they absolutely are being pushed by certain doctors. Not the profession as a whole. And too many women are asking and being granted them, despite there not being a real medical need.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for them, I'm saying they are performed way too often. When your doctor wants to schedule a C-section because he's going to be out of town the day you are due, that's unnecessary. That's what I'm talking about. The C-section rate in the US has now nudged itself over 50%. Don't you think that's too many?

You answered before my edit. ;)

In some cases, that is actually the women asking for them. Mom said she has more then one that didn't want to deal with a long delivery. :eek:

But as your doc example, yes that is a questionable practice. My wifes Doc was out of town and she asked an associate to cover for her. No mention of a C section till we started the enducement. The nurse said they won't consider a C section unless the baby is threatened. As she said "some just grab on and don't want to come out!" :D

Like I said in my edit. The two hospitols I mention try to avoid them.

You answered before my edit. ;)

In some cases, that is actually the women asking for them. Mom said she has more then one that didn't want to deal with a long delivery. :eek:

But as your doc example, yes that is a questionable practice. My wifes Doc was out of town and she asked an associate to cover for her. No mention of a C section till we started the enducement. The nurse said they won't consider a C section unless the baby is threatened. As she said "some just grab on and don't want to come out!" :D

Like I said in my edit. The two hospitols I mention try to avoid them.


You must be living in a good place for babies to be born. Where I live it's a war zone, hence my attitude. :)

Here and induction will more than likely lead to a section. Doctors here do not allow women to labor naturally at all, but hook you up to all kinds of monitors, IV's and make you lay flat on your back. It's ridiculous the things they do to women who are having a healthy pregnancy with no complications.

I think a lot of women do not get educated enough about the birth process and end up thinking that a C-section is the answer to their problems. A lot of hospital classes about birth are three hours long. That is not enough. Mine was three hours a week for 12 weeks and it was well worth it. My husband learned enough to catch the baby himself in case the midwife didn't show up in time!

You must be living in a good place for babies to be born. Where I live it's a war zone, hence my attitude. :)

Here and induction will more than likely lead to a section. Doctors here do not allow women to labor naturally at all, but hook you up to all kinds of monitors, IV's and make you lay flat on your back. It's ridiculous the things they do to women who are having a healthy pregnancy with no complications.

I think a lot of women do not get educated enough about the birth process and end up thinking that a C-section is the answer to their problems. A lot of hospital classes about birth are three hours long. That is not enough. Mine was three hours a week for 12 weeks and it was well worth it. My husband learned enough to catch the baby himself in case the midwife didn't show up in time!

Damn. Sometimes I forget that just because you are lucky, you can't assume everybody else is lucky. Both hospitols specialise in labor and delivery. Though I just spoke to mom and she said hers is starting to go down hill. Seems people think they need to run it like a business thus they need to do the "big ticket" practices more. She also said she is starting to get into trouble more because she won't follow the make money principle. She has this silly idea that you take care of the patient vs the hospitals income.

You are right that about birthing knowledge. Moms says some scary ideas come in all the time. She has one book that almost makes her scream when she sees women come in with it. "What to expect when you are expecting." My wife got it as a gift and put it down. As a joke she asked me to read a section that was for men to read and laughed when I said "Who the hell wrote this crap?!?!"

Yet sometimes knowledge is a bad thing as well. I have heard more then one parent lament that their kid was not up to speed on some growth issue.

Ahh well.

Damn. Sometimes I forget that just because you are lucky, you can't assume everybody else is lucky. Both hospitols specialise in labor and delivery. Though I just spoke to mom and she said hers is starting to go down hill. Seems people think they need to run it like a business thus they need to do the "big ticket" practices more. She also said she is starting to get into trouble more because she won't follow the make money principle. She has this silly idea that you take care of the patient vs the hospitals income.

You are right that about birthing knowledge. Moms says some scary ideas come in all the time. She has one book that almost makes her scream when she sees women come in with it. "What to expect when you are expecting." My wife got it as a gift and put it down. As a joke she asked me to read a section that was for men to read and laughed when I said "Who the hell wrote this crap?!?!"

Yet sometimes knowledge is a bad thing as well. I have heard more then one parent lament that their kid was not up to speed on some growth issue.

Ahh well.


Your mom sounds cool. Where does she work? I'm in the US and most delivery practices here are pretty scary, hence the homebirths.

That book is horrible! I hate it! It is full of advice, but none of it ever seemed to apply to me, and while being full of information, still didn't seem to answer the questions I wanted answered. The best book I've read so far has got to be Natural Childbirth the Bradley Way. It has numerous chapters on how labor and delivery can go, and their anatomical drawings of the baby going through the pelvis are some of the best that I've seen. It's also good because it not only caters to homebirths, but discusses hospital births as well.

I hear you about the growth issues. But all kids tend to even out by the time they are six or so, that's what I tell all the new moms I know that are worried.

I really want to say "BS" on what you just said. What do you mean by "much safer"? The estimated risk of an otherwise healthy woman dying after a cesarean birth is less than one in 2,500, while the risk of death after a vaginal birth is less than one in 10,000.
Note the word "planned". Emergency c-sections are much more hurried affairs, especially as there is already a complication in the childbirth that might end up killing the mother anyway and come with a raised risk factor. I think it's still a slightly higher risk for a cautious c-section than natural childbirth, but not 4 times as risky.

Well the thing to remember is that a C-section is major surgery. There are several layers that need to be cut through just to get to the uterus. There are many complications with major abdominal surgery that you just to not get with a normal, vaginal birth. Here is a snippet of a report I found:

Maternal death: An analysis in Great Britain revealed that women were 5.5 times more likely to die of an elective cesarean, than a vaginal birth (9 versus 2 per 100,000) (25). A Dutch study found that c-sections caused seven times more deaths than vaginal births (28 versus 4 per 100,000) (50). Obviously some factors that lead to c-section also threaten the mother’s life. However, the British study used elective cesarean to minimize that possibility and the Dutch study investigated the exact cause of death. The numbers in the British study may also be low. Data culled from vital statistics undercount cesarean death rates by 40 to 50 percent (43, 46).

LOL! I love this place! Somebody always manages to find a debate in everything. :D