or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › So if it came down to it, induction or c-section?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

So if it came down to it, induction or c-section? - Page 2

post #21 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm
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?

Yeah, that's the problem. I had pit with both my labors, and I figured I would do it as long as I could handle it. I was able to take pit labor for about 3 hours each time. And each time the pit didn't do a damn bit of good and I didn't dialate at all during those 3 hours. The first time I then had an epidural and labored on the pit for another 4 hours or so ( with still absolutely no progress and the baby in distress )before having a section. The second time I decided that if I had to have an epidural I was just going right to the section in order to keep the epidural drugs the baby was subjected to to a minimum. So, when they checked me after 3 hours of pit and I had made no progress at all I decided epidural and section. My second baby was definiately more alert and awake than the first one and I really think it had to do with not having all those drugs in his system. It was only about 20 minutes from the administration of the epidural til he was out.

Of course I will always wonder though, if I had gotten the epidural and let things work with my second birth, would I eventually have dialated and had my vaginal birth?? The world will never know.

ETA- Both of my labors started on their own though, the pit was to augment, not to induce.
post #22 of 51
Induction

Because most inductions DO go relatively OK, if they're handled well. Labour is good for babies.

C-section is c-section.

To me it's like cutting an episiotomy - you're guaranteed surgery and no good bugs, no squeezing, no labour stress, and if you're unlucky you get other complications as well (like an episiotomy gives you 2nd degree cut, with 4th if you're unlucky, as opposed to maybe not even tearing)
post #23 of 51
Induction. That at least gives you a CHANCE to have a vaginal birth.

With my twins, I was given cervidil at 34w3d with the "plan" to start pitocin 12 hours later. My kids must have heard the word pitocin and decided they wanted OUT because the cervidil sent me straight into fast labor and I had them vaginally about 8 hours after it was inserted. I can vaguely remember someone saying, "Did we take the cervidil out?!?!?!"

One doc suggested that I have a scheduled c-s at 33w because one of the baby had a brief heart decel during a NST while I was laying flat on my back. I refused.
post #24 of 51
Physically it may be better for the baby to have some TOL, even if it is with induction, as opposed to being "ripped out with no warning." However, all these extra drugs, over a long period of time, my physically do more damage to babe than a direct c-section would have.

After 42 hours back-to-back labor, 6 on MAX pit.... DS born with such stress he only slept 3 min at a time for days, had convulsions (so did I for 8 hours), refused to open his eyes for 3 days, and he had odd motor skills. He slept with arms straight up in the air and woke instantly in a screaming fight-or-flight mode.... Straight c-section would have limited the amount of time on the drugs, ad I think would have been a better outcome.
post #25 of 51
Something no one has mentioned is the psychological cost of induction versus section. I think this is a personal, and subjective issue, but is vitally important for each woman to address beforehand. If you have what people consider a "physically successful birth", but you end up so traumatised by the experience that you can not function for days, weeks or months, then how successful was the birth?

Being emotionally able to care for your new babe afterwards is extremely important. Come November, if I have a repeat of the hopelessly long, painful labor, negligent and distant medical staff, AROM, epi, pit, cesarean.... then I will not want to live. PTSD, been there, done that. Yes, I have to consider the physical. But I must consider the emotional as well. For me that means hb, with absolutely no intervention. But if I get into trouble again, instead of going the same route as last time, take me in, cut me open immediately, and give me my child. Maybe this time I will able to LOVE my child afterwards. Or even like, or want her. Wow, wouldn't that be something? This is important for me.

Each woman has to look at her own situation, know her limits, and make the best, most well-rounded choice for herself. It isn't just what happens between the navel and thighs that matters, but also what is above your neck, and what is in your heart.

Allison
post #26 of 51
I was induced and the reason that I did that is because I am living in a 3rd world country and I didnt want them cutting me ewwww. Anyways I went thru 19 hours of hard labor from being induced with no pain meds first kid hoping second will be easier but I still wouldnt be cut even if I was back in the states.
post #27 of 51
AllisonR - seriously though, you are talking about one anecdotal experience. I think there are some c-sec outcomes for baby that are far worse than what you described. Were you induced for being severely post dates? There is a greater likelihood of your body being ready at that point. Either way, anecdote doesn't mean something is more likely to happen with one procedure over another. I understand that for you it may be what you need and I respect that, but I'm just posting for the sake of others reading.

I'm glad you bring up the emotional aspect. I had an awful Pit induced labor with my first that left me emotionally scarred and am thankful for the wonderful NCB I had on my own the second time that has pretty much made up for it. But I will say that most of the PTSD stories I hear about birth involve unwanted c-sec. I can't tell you how many stories I have read about how awful women felt to be straped to a table and cut open. And c-sec recovery is usually much worse for the mother.

Also what about the fact that c-sec increases your chance of miscarriage, stilbirth and etopic pregnancy in future pregnancies? We just discussed this on my childbirth choices board how so many c-sec moms had to suffer though so many losses afterwards and having to choose to end your pregnancy because your baby is growing in your tube. What is the psychological cost of that? What about how c-sec may reduce the amount of children you can safely have? What about the risk of Placenta Accreta/Percreta that is directly caused by c-sec and the women who are being told it isn't safe to ever have another child? For me there is just no way I could go right for the c-sec without at least trying a TOL first. Maybe if my body didn't respond to lower doses of Pit then I could consider the c-sec. But like I said I think that far along castor oil or something would be much more likely to work. I think people are confusing the situation described with other situations involving pit.
post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllisonR
Physically it may be better for the baby to have some TOL, even if it is with induction, as opposed to being "ripped out with no warning." However, all these extra drugs, over a long period of time, my physically do more damage to babe than a direct c-section would have.
Very true!
post #29 of 51
Assuming there was good medical reason for me to have a baby before it decides to come on its own, I'd choose an induction. I too am very terrified of major surgery and less terrified of cervidil or pitocin. I have had fairly straightforward births and if my cervix were favourable, would probably respond well to induction techniques (both natural and medical). But thats my personal case...
post #30 of 51
Would the method of induction also be something to consider? I understand Cytotec is still used in some parts of the U.S., and I think it's much riskier than Pitocin.
post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger
Would the method of induction also be something to consider? I understand Cytotec is still used in some parts of the U.S., and I think it's much riskier than Pitocin.
No cyotec for me, only approved drugs...I'm not crazy!
post #32 of 51
Much less risk with induction than C-section in my opinion, the greatest being infection. Of course, there are a myriad of problems associated with both, and anyone concerned with them should read Ina May Gaskin's Guide to Childbirth to find these out.
post #33 of 51
Inductions have unseen consequences on mother and baby, and they should not be recommended routinely, though---let's keep that in mind. Mom's oxytocin is good for babies, not oxytocin from horses and goats, super-concentrated and compressing baby from all sides, effectively preventing him/her from getting much needed oxygen and impeding normal contractions, which work like a wave from the top of the uterus and move gradually to the bottom. Other potential risks include increase of autism in some babies and brain damage, to include hemorrhaging of the baby's body.
C-sections have more problems than induction, including massive infection, intra-abdominal tumors from scar tissue (formed later in life), and the list goes on. The consequences of our choices go far beyond the delivery room, ladies---they extend to our lives and our babies' lives.
Send me a private message if any of you gals want more info on the risks of these procedures, or simply read Ina May Gaskin's Guide to Childbirth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabe
Induction

Because most inductions DO go relatively OK, if they're handled well. Labour is good for babies.

C-section is c-section.

To me it's like cutting an episiotomy - you're guaranteed surgery and no good bugs, no squeezing, no labour stress, and if you're unlucky you get other complications as well (like an episiotomy gives you 2nd degree cut, with 4th if you're unlucky, as opposed to maybe not even tearing)
post #34 of 51

Acapuncture for Inductions

Funny that no one has mentioned acapuncture for inductions. Dh is a family doc who does acapuncture, and it's worked every time he's done it. The even funnier thing is that he is not a huge "natural" person. He is very much into scientific, evidence-based medicine. He mainly uses acapuncture for pain control, but has tried it a few times when the patient really didn't want Pit. He's still not convinced that it would work in every situation, but so far it has. My doctor, who works with dh is much more natural than he is, and she was very excited when I told her that if I had to be induced I wanted a trial of acapuncture first. And, if I would go to 40 weeks even if I didn't really "need" it, I think I will be begging him to bring the needles home LOL!
post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Ju,

I'm in the middle of and of what Angela mamabadger said to you above.
post #36 of 51
i'd chose induction. i am deathly afraid of surgery.
post #37 of 51
Induction any day. Labor and vaginal birth are better for the baby and the mom.
post #38 of 51
Unless I or my baby was dying, there is no way in hell I would ever opt for a c section. Ever.
post #39 of 51
As October16mom (is that a due date or a birthdate, btw?) said, I'd try an aggressive combination of reflexology/acupuncture and herbs combined with AROM.
I had, however, always said that in a true crisis I'd go for caesarean rather than induction and I think that still holds true. If I've actually made the decision that baby needs out now (which is a pretty drastic decision for me to make) it's likely to be very very drastic.
post #40 of 51
Obviously, if the baby needed to be out immediately, I'd get a c-section.

If the baby needed to be out soon, I'd rather induce than go straight to a c-section. I highly value vaginal birth as being emotionally/psychologically/etc. best for mom and baby, I think it's much safer physically, and I value the baby being put to the breast immediately after birth and maintaining constant contact(which, at least around here, I have yet to hear of as being allowed).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › So if it came down to it, induction or c-section?