or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Reasons to refuse a hep-lock?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reasons to refuse a hep-lock? - Page 2

post #21 of 66
You absolutely don't need a hep lock in a normal, healthy labor with no reason to suspect that something could possibly go wrong.

I would say this: "I don't want a hep lock in my arm/hand". If they ask you why, just say you refuse to submit to their pathologization of birth, that your birth is going to be just absolutely normal, thank you very much.

One of my favorite sayings is:

Normal birth is not a retroactive diagnosis.
post #22 of 66
We had a co-pay based on a percentage of the fees.

It was much easier to dispute a whole heckuva lotta "IV therapy" fees on the itemized bill when my husband informed Billing that I'd not had so much as a single saline lock placed. Several hundred dollars came right off the bill after they did their investigation into my records.

The hospital where I delivered did not push the IV issue--it was never brought up. (Kinda surprising given that it was an automatic charge.) Had it been, I'd have refused. My body reacts to saline locks with redness, pain, swelling, burning, itching. I've been told it's due to high IgE or histamine or something. I didn't want the distraction, nor the easy-entry pathway toward more intervention.
post #23 of 66
I kind of wish I had gotten a hep lock. I birthed at a birth Center, but ended up throwing up for 12 of my 18 hours of labor. The midwifes don't do them which is great but by 17 hours of labour I need one. I was allowed to eat and drink what I wanted but I couldn't hold anything down. As a doula I don't encourager them and I also tell my clients to tell their OB 's that they rae terrified of needles and they do not want to even hear mention of one. It usually works.
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabanana View Post
DH reminded me of an anekdot we read, but we can't remember where, so maybe someone here knows the source. it basically went like this.

a paramedic husband and his pregnant wife were touring their hospital, and the issue of a mandatory hep lock / IV came up. their reason was--"in case of an emergency it is already in place".

the husband said: "i can insert an IV at night, under pouring rain, under an overturned vehicle, into a severely injured patient. you are telling me you won't be able to insert an IV into my healthy wife in this brightly lit room? this worries me."
My DH said something similar to this to the nurses when I didn't want an IV with the labor/delivery of DS#2 - that if they couldn't get the IV quickly in an emergency, he surely could. He also was very easy to convince into a homebirth for #3 despite his interventionist type of mentality as a medic
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipmummy View Post
I kind of wish I had gotten a hep lock. I birthed at a birth Center, but ended up throwing up for 12 of my 18 hours of labor. The midwifes don't do them which is great but by 17 hours of labour I need one. I was allowed to eat and drink what I wanted but I couldn't hold anything down. As a doula I don't encourager them and I also tell my clients to tell their OB 's that they rae terrified of needles and they do not want to even hear mention of one. It usually works.
But this isn't an emergency. If you were severely dehydrated, you could have had an IV placed. This isn't the idea behind routine heparin locks.
post #26 of 66
I would refuse it because I despise needles, especially IVs, and it definitely makes me not want to move that arm. If you have it in the back of your hand it's even worse. They're just foul things. Have you had an IV before?

If you have to have one, make them use a local fisrt and put it in your wrist, not your hand. They're still nasty creepy things, though.
post #27 of 66
Personally I wouldn't mind JUST having a hep-lock. Of course, with my last two I had full IV's, so a hep-lock would be a bonus compared to that!
post #28 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bugs View Post
To me it's all part of that mentality that sees you as a "pre-surgical" patient the minute you walk into the hospital in labor. They want you to have IV access and refuse you food and liquids "in case" you have to have a c-section. Why start out with the attitude that this might end in surgery? It puts the laboring woman at a disadvantage from the start, IMO.
Jen
That is exactly how I feel about it. Though I am another who would never again birth in a hospital, barring an emergency.
post #29 of 66
You know, I just had a totally different experience delivering this time around. The other times I delivered I had a heplock in the entire time I was in the hosp, but this time, even though I had a csection, I was completely needle free by the night.
post #30 of 66
Just remember that ANY needle poke is an opportunity for hospital germs to get in there, and hospitals are dirty and gross and full of germs. Women have gotten staph, bacterial meningitis, even lost limbs and died from hospital infections.

The theory behind hep-locks are "just in case." However, by that standard we should ALL have hep-locks 24/7 "just in case" I get plowed down while walking to the mail box.
post #31 of 66
I had one in my last labour (home birth) because I had a pph with my first and was concerned about a repeat. It sucked, and I will never do it again.
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabanana View Post
"i can insert an IV at night, under pouring rain, under an overturned vehicle, into a severely injured patient. you are telling me you won't be able to insert an IV into my healthy wife in this brightly lit room? this worries me."
post #33 of 66
I would refuse.

You've gotten lots of good perspectives on this already, many of which I agree with whole-heartedly. All of my kids have been born in hospital. I had a hep lock for the first only. After that, I decided the pain in my wrist was not worth the suspicious "just in case".

Yes: pain in my wrist. Even today (6.5-years-later) I very much remember how much the tip of that huge needle hurt inside my wrist (well, nevermind, I could feel the whole length of it and it was painful). I know some are thinking: Huh? She's in advanced labour in an fairly-unmedicated childbirth and the pain she's talking about is from the needle in her wrist?!" But yes, surely!

I was fairly crushing my husband's hand and twisting his wrist in mine (learned to relax properly in later births, but that's another story). The hep-loc was extremely aggravating throughout this. Not only did this pain last throughout transition and pushing, but it was sore for about 4-5 days after the needle was removed and it felt like I had a callous on the inside of my wrist where the needle tip had been.
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLittleWarrior View Post
All of this is kind of where I'm coming from. I guess I'm having more trouble convincing DH that it's important not to get a hep-lock. His thoughts are that it would be less stressfull to just let them place it, and then know that they would have to get past a 230lb football player of a DH to attach anything to it. He's all for the "no IV, non medicated, leave me the heck alone and let me have my baby" approach, but doesn't see the need to fight every battle tooth and nail. Again, he will support me with what ever I decide, but I want to make sure I'm picking the battles that are truely important.
This is EXACTLY where I am (even the football-style DH, but my DH has a few lbs on yours, and he never played football for medical reasons). DH and I had a huge "discussion" yesterday about picking battles and putting on the birth plan ONLY what is MOST important. My struggle is that it is ALL important, because everything is linked to everything else. E.g., birth position is linked to episiotomy. He thinks I should leave birth position off the list...
I have already cut down the list A LOT.

A saline lock is something I gave in on. I refuse to have an iv infusion of fluids, but I will do a saline lock. My birth plan stipulates that it is to be used only if I become dehydrated.
post #35 of 66
I would refuse too. A skilled nurse or other practitioner can insert an IV very quickly. As far as I know, very few emergencies during labor & delivery happen without any lead-up/advanced warning. So they can always insert an IV if it looks like things are going badly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nan'sMom View Post
since it makes it easier for them to give you drugs quickly and without your consent.
I think getting a drug without your consent is an unlikely occurrence in a hospital. And if anyone ever does, you can sue them within an inch of their lives.
post #36 of 66
Doctors and nurses do things all the time without getting informed consent. Most of the time it's just standard routine for them. Refusing the hep-lock at least puts you in a position of stopping some of that intervention before it begins.

Even a 230 lb football player is going to be a puddle of mush when the nurse declares "you're wife is dehydrated, we need to get fluids in her now or the baby will be in distress."

Without the heplock, you could insist on them bringing in some juice or water. But with the heplock already in place you've already lost some ground and the argument becomes more difficult.

So the saline starts, and then mom is now attatched to a machine. Her movements are further restricted. She becomes even more uncomfortable. The nurses make a big deal about her walking around with the drip going and then the monitoring belts come out to "check on baby and make sure that everything is still fine."

IMO, it's not worth it.
post #37 of 66
Also, don't forget that if you go in, in the middle of the night, everyone is tired, and if your DH may fall asleep while you are stillin early labor...guess what, how is he going to intervene and prevent something you both don't want.

It happened to me....while we are 3/4 asleep, they came in and broke my water....they didn't even bother to wake either of us really.

Hence, I would not consent to a hep lock. Having that plastic tube/needle in your wrist/hand hurts like heck, and sometimes makes it difficult to move your hand or wrist because it can hit into the bone and cause pain.

Melissa S.
post #38 of 66
With my last baby, I had the hep lock and didn't really have any problems until after I birthed my baby. She and I were cuddling and very happy and I didn't notice that the nurse put in pitocin. I had asked what she had done and she told me she gave me pitocin to help stop the bleeding. They kept insisting that they give me pitocin throughout labor and I always refused. I was pretty aggravated with that nurse and had very bad afterpains but she was my third baby so I wasn't sure if it was because of the pitocin or just because that's what happens after you have that many.
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweettalker View Post
...I think getting a drug without your consent is an unlikely occurrence in a hospital. And if anyone ever does, you can sue them within an inch of their lives.
Gee, I wish I lived in your world.

It happened to my daughter 1 1/2 weeks ago. All four medical professionals in the room at the time are lying to cover their individual and collective asses. Entirely too typical.

~BV
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweettalker View Post
I think getting a drug without your consent is an unlikely occurrence in a hospital. And if anyone ever does, you can sue them within an inch of their lives.
Nope. It's not unlikely NOR is it a win-able suit.

It's standard of care to give pitocin. So they do. Even without consent.

-Angela
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Reasons to refuse a hep-lock?