So if it came down to it, induction or c-section? - Page 3

[AllyRae]

C-section. I have it in my medical records that I will never consent to receive a drop of pitocin again during labor under any circumstances--it threw Ryland into distress almost instantly due to cord compression and oxygen deprivation and we lost him. It threw Brandon in distress during my labor with him as well (and although that God he survived, he now has SID, a corrected expressive language regression, social & behavioral delays, and is being tested for autism.).

That drug is evil and it will never come near me again. It's definately not the "safe" drug every doctor claims it is and I can't believe it's routine to use it. In the event that a medical condition warrants an augmented or induced delivery, it will be via c-section.

[grumpyshoegirl]

If the baby REALLY needed out, a c/s. For starters, I've already had a c/s and induction is a big no-no in terms of raising the rupture risk. Second, I've been burned. My first c/s was after two days of prodromal labor followed by two useless days on pit. The IV, the being chained to the monitor, the night before on the cervidil, the pit contractions-- pure hell, and all for nothing, since I ended up being cut anyway.

If I absolutely HAD to choose one or the other, at least with a scheduled c/s there wouldn't be the sham of "trying" labor. And I'd get to have more control over more aspects of what I view as the inevitable surgery, such as insisting that my husband be allowed while the anesthesia is administered, having a mirror, delaying neonatal routines so I could hold the baby, things like that.

And more importantly, if the baby REALLY needed out ostensibly there would be no time for an induction. If it wasn't enough of an issue for a c/s, then it could wait until I went into labor spontaneously.

[Peppamint]

Ally- I've seen a couple of moms mention that when their kids have been tested for such delays that they have been asked what drugs were used in labor. I had Pitocin and Nubain during my first labor and I'm wondering if Ellie has some delays... nothing easily pinpointed of course.

[AllyRae]

Originally Posted by busybusymomma

Ally- I've seen a couple of moms mention that when their kids have been tested for such delays that they have been asked what drugs were used in labor. I had Pitocin and Nubain during my first labor and I'm wondering if Ellie has some delays... nothing easily pinpointed of course.

Not only drugs, but also forceps and vacuums... I just got done filling out the 50 page questionnaire to get Brandon on the waiting list for an autism eval. and one page asked about labor/delivery, the types of drugs used, and whether they required forceps/vacuum extractions.

[wonderwahine]

I would go for an induction ....(but research the drug they use first, since my ds's lab or was induced with cervadil...and i nearly had a uterine rupture because of it). I would much rather have an induction since i've been through one, than have a c/s.

[erin_brycesmom]

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?

because "putting" them through that is actually better for them than a c-section is. Also I think not having signs of being "ripe" is a crock. I had a post dates induction where I was not dilated or effaced at all and it was successful. Sure chances are lower if the bishop score is low but still very possible. I'll never never understand the whole "why go through an induction when you might have to get a c-sec anyway". Why not just extend that farther...why go throught the last 2 weeks of pregnancy?? Having a c-section after TOL is better for the baby.

[MamaTaraX]

Interesting. I don't think I've read very much about drugs in labor and increased risk of autism, etc. In fact, of the three the people i know closely with children having autism or SID, two of them were completely drug-free births. The third one did have some drugs involved but the child is not confirmed to have either autism or SID, its just suspected. Hmm... Interesting correlation. I learned something today

Namaste, Tara

[stellimamo]

Induction. I've had both in one birth and I would choose an induction any day to going under the knife w/o a trial of labor.

[eleven]

Originally Posted by huggerwocky

No cyotec for me, only approved drugs...I'm not crazy!

Oooh good point. Are there any drugs that have been approved specifically for labor induction?

[cappuccinosmom]

Well, I was faced with this question last pregnancy, threatened with c-section if I didn't let the doctor induce (because of "big baby" and "going over due" and "possible problems of going overdue"). I refused both, and ds was just fine a few days after the 42 week mark.

Now, if there were a situation where my baby was in serious, dire trouble, and needed to be out yesterday!! I would go for the c-section. I wouldn't take the decision lightly, but if the baby were so fragile that every moment counted, I can't imagine putting the poor thing through pit labor and the hieghtened stress from it's mama. However, if the doctor gave me a choice, I'd choose neither, because that would mean he thought the baby and I could cope with labor. In which case, I'd let nature take it's course.

[DocsNemesis]

I would do an induction. I would try not to get the epidural either, if you can. I have gone through two induced labors without pain meds, it is possible Granted it sucks, but it is possible.
The reason I would do the induction, even if I didnt think it would work, is because it is better for the baby to go through labor. Cesarean babies that have been through a trial of labor do better than those who havent. Now, for me, I am 99% sure that the induction would work anyway (again, I have had two inductions and two babies after that too, so I am sure it would work well for me) but even if I didnt think it would work, I would still do it for my baby's sake. It would have to be a REALLY good reason though.