For everyone facing the threat of induction.....

[Mrs_CoffeeLa]

Did you read this article? Just noticed it this morning on the the mothering.com home page:

http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-b...inducing-labor

[Leewoss]

Thanks for posting - a lot of good info, I only wish the author had provided reassurance to those of us who may very well have a medical neccessity for inducing. I would never induce for social reasons, but if my baby was at risk, this article did not do much to reassure me about the medical induction techniques.

[Mrs_CoffeeLa]

In my area, everyone starts getting pressure to induce the second they get near their due date, and the "big baby' threat....and of course, the generally leads to a C-section. I think it is important for us all to understand that medical induction is not perfect and we have to really way the risks vs. benefits for each of our specific situations. It makes me wonder what truly are reasons to consider the use of pitocin for labor induction...I'm sure if I was at 42 weeks and my amniotic water levels were low, I'd be open to it.

[BeckyBird]

Thanks for posting that article. I found this part very interesting:

"In 1978, the FDA advisory committee removed its approval of Pitocin for the elective induction of labor. (The drug has never been approved by the FDA for the use of augmenting labor.) The current Physicians' Desk Reference clearly states that "Pitocin is not indicated for elective induction of labor."

For women who are being pressured into unnecessary inductions--could you use this as a good reason not to be induced, if you don't want to?

[mamatolevi]

That's a great article; I missed it.

There's also this article that might appeal to more mainstream parents who are facing the lure of induction (yeah I know, i've posted this before, but it's a good article!):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33483153...alth-pregnancy

I like how this article spells out several risks that many CPs just don’t talk about, or downplay, when it comes to inductions - including the increased risk of a c/s.

One issue that is not addressed in the article is when CPs make up medical reasons for inductions, or exaggerate a situation (like low fluid levels based on only one u/s, or one instance of high BP). It’s what happened to me (I was told I was “Pre-pre-eclamptic”) and I’ve come across a number of women on line to whom something along those lines has happened.

Here’s the related Obstetrics & Gynecology publication for the news article. http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal...Patient.7.aspx

If I understand the abstract correctly, it looks by simply enforcing stricter requirements for induction they reduced the c/s rate for first time mothers from over 30% to about 13%.

"…and the frequency of cesarean delivery among nulliparas undergoing elective induction dropped from 34.5% to 13.8%, a decrease of 60%. (P=.01)."