So if it came down to it, induction or c-section?

[JulesP]

The recent posts here about c-sections made me think about what I would do if I went seriously 'overdue' or if I was given a compelling reason why baby needed to be out right away. Up until now I have utterly dismissed any 'assistance' (or should that be hinderance ) in getting Shrimp out, but sometimes even the best made plans can fail.

The way I see it, C-sections are major surgery and baby misses out a hugely important part of the birth process, but induced labours (pit etc) seem to result in many complications for mum and baby, then often end up as C-sections anyway.

Having looked at quite a lot of stuff on MDC and various other websites I'm coming to the conclusion that if things were *really* bad enough that baby needed out ASAP I would prefer to go straight to a caesarian - and by really bad I mean life threatening, not "You're having a big baby!" or "You're 3 whole days overdue!"

What do others think?

[2Sweeties1Angel]

C-section. I've already had 2, and the first was the result of a botched induction. Granted, I didn't want to be induced and was sort of tricked into it when I went to the hospital for something completely different, but it still sucked. My recoveries were easy. Maybe I got lucky both times, I don't know, but I'd much rather be cut open than go through an induced labor only to be cut open again anyway.

[Peppamint]

I would choose induction because I seem to begin dialating early and have a lot of pre-labor so my body would likely be open to induction (my first was induced and only 8 hours from start of Pitocin IV... subsequent homebirth labors have been 4 and 2 hours). I hated induced labor but I am terrified of having surgery.

However, it would have a be a pretty d--- serious reason for me to birth in a hospital at all... so that might mean a c/s.

[Mama Poot]

I have horrible "titanic" type contractions even WITHOUT induction drugs, and I cannot imagine what they would be like if someone gave me Pit. I probably couldn't handle it. So if it "came down to it", just put me under the knife.

[alegna]

Induction- it's better for the baby long-term.

BUT it would have to be a major reason, not just you're 42 weeks.

-Angela

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by Mama Poot

I have horrible "titanic" type contractions even WITHOUT induction drugs, and I cannot imagine what they would be like if someone gave me Pit. I probably couldn't handle it. So if it "came down to it", just put me under the knife.

I haven't ever had contractions withOUT pit. They were monsters! That's why I had sections by choice for my last 2. I knew it was inevitable so why go through the hell?

[mamabadger]

It's a great question.
As much as it galls me to ever recommend a non-emergency C-section, I think it might be better than an induction in many cases. I've coached so many women who endured long, unproductive labours on Pit which ended up as sections anyway.
If the pregnant woman is about ready to start labour anyway, and the induction is likely to work effectively, it might be preferable. In the many cases where a woman is induced at 40 weeks or with no sign of being 'ripe', why put her *and* her baby through all that when they'll probably end up with surgery anyway? Not that either of those options is ideal, but sometimes that's the choice a woman is faced with.

[huggerwocky]

Induction with epidural. I want to be fit after having my baby. The epidural because unnatural contractions hurt unnaturally much and in a hospital setting I want to be mentally alert so no one can screw anything up.

[onlyboys]

If the baby needs to be "out right away" then I'd have a ceserean birth. I can't think of a single reason I would have an induction.....

Perhaps if I had infection + ROM. I might consider augmentation then.

[AllisonR]

I would go straight from natural hb to c-section if it was necessary. If I have a repeat of last time where haed postion is wrong, horrific back pain..... then I will try more productive measures first. Things medwives don't notice or do, like put me in the knees into chest with butt up position, use a rebozo.... to move the baby into better position. If it doesn't work, then go right to c-section. No need to AROM, then epi, then pit, only to shove her malpositioned head further down the canal, another day of exhaustion and trauma and end up with c-section anyway.

[FiveLittleDucks]

Well, I've had 5 inductions, and each went very smoothly and quickly (5-9 hrs total). Pit contractions are killer, though. I don't really think you can prepare yourself as to how painful they're going to be. I'm scared to death of major surgery, so I'd go for an induction any day.

[boscopup]

I'd say it depends on the circumstance. There are reasons to induce where baby doesn't need to be out right this minute, but needs to be out in the next few days (like pre-e, etc.). But if your body isn't ready, an induction is more likely to end in C-section. Now if my body were acting like it was getting ready, I'd probably opt for induction.

My best friend and her sister have both had pit-induced labors where they went pain-med-free and had fairly easy vaginal births. They were both quite happy with the outcome. One had been walking around at 4cm for a few weeks and was horribly uncomfortable, and the other was 40w2d and dealing with prodromal labor since 36 weeks. Both chose to be induced (actually, more like begged). While I don't think *I* would have chosen induction in those cases, they did both have good labors, so I wouldn't say that pit-induced labor is always horrible for the mom. Most pit-contractions are certainly more painful than regular contractions, but I guess different people react differently, plus the level of pit used could also affect things. These women were both dilated a bit and were pretty close to delivering naturally anyway, most likely. So I imagine the pit level needed to get things moving was pretty low.

[bobandjess99]

If the baby truly needed to come out RIGHT now i would do the C/S.
If the baby needed to come out SOON but not RIGHT NOW, I would maybe try the induction, but again, I can only fathom a very few reasons why i would consider either option.

[ice_chick]

No question about it, I would opt for induction hands down. Having been through a c/s & a scheduled one at that, I can say that there is no way I would put myself through all that pain, not to mention the effects on my future pregnancies & health of my future babies, until I had exhausted all other options. There is no way to tell for sure whether an induction will be successful or not. The options really come down to, do you want to try & have a vaginal birth & take the risk that it may end up in a c/s or go straight to a c/s & live with risks associated with a c/s for the rest of your life. You need to ask yourself, who benefits from trying the induction? The baby benefits because even a small amount of labor is helpful in preparing the baby for the world vs. just cutting them out with no notice. Who benefits from going straight to a c/s? The mother might think she benefits because she doesn't have to go through the "pain" of labor. Yes, pitocin induced contractions can hurt pretty bad, I've had them, but you could always go for an epidural, you would have one for a c/s anyway. It may not always be a good idea because it could stall labor, but it couldn't hurt to try. Why risk your future fertility by going straight to a c/s? Of course if the baby needed to come out "right away", I don't think you would really get a choice in the matter. There are circumstances where the baby needs to come out within the hr & then you would need to have a c/s. Even with Pre-e, there are warning signs & usually they opt for induction over a c/s (at least they do on all the birth shows on TLC!) Well, just my .02

[Storm Bride]

I've had three c-sections, and am not comfortable with induction with my uterus.

If it weren't for that...induction. It sounds absolutely grim, but I'd do it if it meant any chance of avoiding more cutting.

[MommytoTwo]

c-section. It did come down to that for me and I chose c-section (had had a previous one). I am convinced that pitocin has long term effects.

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by MommytoTwo

I am convinced that pitocin has long term effects.

Can you elaborate on that?

[MommytoTwo]

My DS had some developmental delays... I have no scientific proof to back it up.. just a gut feeling.

[rmzbm]

Originally Posted by MommytoTwo

My DS had some developmental delays... I have no scientific proof to back it up.. just a gut feeling.

Really?! My DS2 (the 4 day long pit. baby) has gross motor delay whereas my others were very advanced physically. I have thought about this alot, but like you said - no proof. It's comforting to hear someone else say it.

[erin_brycesmom]

Wow, I have to say that I'm shocked to see that so many here would go through the risks of an immediate c-sec without giving the baby trial of labor first. I can't agree after the research I have done on c-sec and the risks. I just couldn't put my baby up for those risks without giving a TOL first.

I don't see what could happen because of post dates that would be so dangerous as to warrant an immediate c-sec. I've done a ton of research on post dates as I have gone over 42 with both of my pregnancies.

I'd try castor oil or cohash first and if that didn't work I'd go for the Pit but seriously if I was that far past due I'm pretty sure the first would work.