or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Help me about non-necessary induction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help me about non-necessary induction

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 
Her doctor is going to induce her this week because she's sick of being pregnant. No medical reason-at all. So 4 weeks before her due date for convenience. How freaking unethical is that? I am just enraged right now.

Can anyone recommend a good link to the dangers that isn't too crunch-tastic to send her? She is 100% mainstream and she would be turned off by anything with midwives, I can guarantee you. Please?
post #2 of 52
http://www.motherfriendly.org/Downlo...fact-sheet.pdf
post #3 of 52
Thread Starter 
Thank you!
post #4 of 52
You're welcome
post #5 of 52
4 weeks before her due date?! The baby won't even be "term" (37 wks among most obstetricians). I can't believe her doctor would even allow that with no medical reason.
Babies born before 37 wks
post #6 of 52
"Sick of being pregnant"? I bet her baby's going to be sick of the NICU before even half of those four weeks go by.
post #7 of 52
Wow--this just makes me sooooooo sad....so puzzled and sad. :

Not only has medical science reduced women to mere machines-- baby -producing machines which can be freely manipulated according to the will of the 'operator'--now even women have reduced their sense of themselves to being merely machines. Now, even the women have been persuaded to know themselves as machines replaceable by other machines, and their babies as objects whose health/wellbeing is as safely in the hands of the doctors and the NICUs of the world, as in the bodies of their mothers. We have had so very much stolen from us. And now women give our gifts of Life away with both hands, not seeing what those gifts are, having no idea of their value to ourselves, our babies or our society-- or how pathetic an imitation of Life is a doctor or an NICU.

Does she realize that if her original edd was Jan 6, then they are actually running the risk of producing a premie of 35wks gestational age--or less? Does she realize that u/s edd estimates can NEVER be considered 100% accurate, even in the first 6-9wks? Does she know that weight estimations can also be off by quite a bit?
post #8 of 52
Are you sure you are aware of all the facts? Inducing this early, for no medical reason, just seems so unbelievable to me. Maybe there is some medical reason that SIL is not comfortable discussing?
post #9 of 52
I'm with the PP's...I just can't wrap my head around that. :
post #10 of 52
Just no words to express how sad this is.
post #11 of 52

thank you

I just want to thank the person who posted that link. It is a great one. I am currently at 41 weeks and sometimes get tempted to induce. But my gut is telling me that my baby just needs a little more time to prepare to enter this world. My pregnancy has been a healthy one. It is truly insane how prevelent induction is these days. Luckily I have a really nice midwife who took the time to explain to me the additional risks, and that in an otherwise healthy pregnancy "elective induction" is not really worth it.

I for one, am just 'over' the whole emphasis on due dates. So many people act just shocked that my baby is 6 days 'late'. Library books are late, not people! I myself was induced. Maybe I just needed a little more time! ; )

Thanks again.
post #12 of 52
What was the reason for changing her original due date from January 6th to December 28th?

*If* it was an early transvaginal u/s (around 8-10 weeks is ideal) performed by a competent professional with a good u/s machine, I'd trust the new date.

Assuming the new date is accurate, I would consider induction under non-emergency conditions at 37 weeks with a favorable Bishop score. That would mean she'd need to wait until at least December 7th to be 37 weeks, more like December 16th if you go by the January 6th due date.

Before 37 weeks is just asking for trouble, and even then is not ideal at all. She needs to understand what she is asking for here.

Also, if her cervix isn't ready for induction, she might as well save herself the trouble of trying to induce and head straight to the OR for an elective section. An unfavorable cervix at that early of a gestation...sounds like a recipe for ending up with a section anyway.

I admit that I have very little empathy for women who complain of being SO uncomfortable while carrying their 6 pound singleton. I carried just under 14 pounds with my twin pg and didn't TRULY get miserable til the last 10 days.

Even with the last 10 days of misery, I'd take that again a million times over. We brought them both home with us 24 hours later.
post #13 of 52
Thread Starter 
Thanks everyone. I know I'm sick of being pg (~38 weeks), but I wouldn't think of inducing-especially that early!

She emailed me back after I sent on the info.

There is NO medical reason. She did this, apparently, with her second dd, too. She went into preterm labor, decided she just wanted it over with, so they gave her pitocin and she was born ~36 weeks. They HAD stopped her labor. But she was sick of being pg. :

So she is still going through with it. The dating is from the normal 20 week u/s. The first which would have been a transvag u/s put her date (and LMP) at Jan 6th.

I just don't know what to say. She knows the risks now if she bothered to read the email...

I have talked to several people about this looking for info, and apparently this is a new trend so that you won't have a "big baby" or get "stretched out".
post #14 of 52
Wow.
My first was 36 weeks and I was terrified because she was too early.
She did come home with me on time but ended up being only 5 pounds 4 ounces, and after losing weight went down to 4 pounds 11 ounces at her smallest. It is scary to have a baby that small at home and to try and strap into a carseat correctly. She also was so sleepy that she had to be awakened every 2 hours, around the clock, for about 6 weeks to eat. Nursing was tough with her little mouth and sleepiness, and it took a while to establish our nursing relationship, and we had to use a nipple shield at first.

I can't for the life of me imagine wanting to be induced at that gestation. If I ever happen to be pregnant again, I'm hoping with all my might to go to at least 39 or 40 weeks.

I guess there isn't anything you can say to change her mind at this point. I think would upset me a lot too.
post #15 of 52
No way would I trust a regular 20 wk u/s to give a "new date" - can't they be 1-2 weeks off in either direction? I know my date of conception for this pregnancy to within a day or two, and the 20 wk u/s placed my due date about a week earlier than it should be.

I think early u/s can also be wrong, for example if the mother has unusually slow-rising hCG, but overall early u/s is a much better indicator of dates.

I guess there's no point in giving her information since it went fine the other time she did it and she's made up her mind. Would you let us know how it turns out, though? Hopefully the baby will be ready to come home.
post #16 of 52
*weeps*

The more I read about the current state of maternal care and the insane push for induction, the more I BELIEVE that OB's get a cut/end of year bonus for how many babes they send to the NICU - I suppose if hospitals are making 50% of their money from the maternity ward (and I can only assume that the NICU provides a healthy chunk of that money) would anyone be suprised if OB's were gently 'nudged' financially to produce more early babies?

*cries* Poor babe.
post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthymama2b View Post
*weeps*

The more I read about the current state of maternal care and the insane push for induction, the more I BELIEVE that OB's get a cut/end of year bonus for how many babes they send to the NICU - I suppose if hospitals are making 50% of their money from the maternity ward (and I can only assume that the NICU provides a healthy chunk of that money) would anyone be suprised if OB's were gently 'nudged' financially to produce more early babies?

*cries* Poor babe.
I have a hard time believing this is true in most cases. Even if for no other reason than how lawsuit happy our country is in. Imagine if a doctor routinely induced patients really early and sent lots of babies to the NICU. Sooner or later there would be a baby with RDS and the parents would sue.

Plus NICU care is so outrageously expensive, I think the insurance companies would be having fits.

And on a personal level, while there are plenty of doctors out there who do lots of questionable things, I really think that most still abide by, "first do no harm." I can't imagine a doc deliberately sending babies to the NICU. Well, I can, but most of the time, not.
post #18 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousli View Post
I have a hard time believing this is true in most cases. Even if for no other reason than how lawsuit happy our country is in. Imagine if a doctor routinely induced patients really early and sent lots of babies to the NICU. Sooner or later there would be a baby with RDS and the parents would sue.

Plus NICU care is so outrageously expensive, I think the insurance companies would be having fits.

And on a personal level, while there are plenty of doctors out there who do lots of questionable things, I really think that most still abide by, "first do no harm." I can't imagine a doc deliberately sending babies to the NICU. Well, I can, but most of the time, not.
I disagree. I don't think half of them even remember the "first do no harm" part. Many are greedy, impatient, and negligent at best. Look at our c-section rates, induction rates, infant mortality. They do what they want for their convenience. I would be honestly surprised if half of OBs remembered that they are supposed to work for us and do what's in our best interest.
post #19 of 52
As far as sending babies to the NICU, I don't think that in and of it self is something that can be sued for, and really, your doctor sending your baby to the NICU is less likely to be sued, because they are doing the "best" they can in the eyes of the medical field.

While I don't think doctors deliberately do stupid things that do cause harm, I do believe that a majority of doctors believe themselves above everyone else, in the same way a noble man would feel above the peasants, and therefore believes their opinions and desires are superior to everyone else's, including the patient. So the "causing" of harm is really not what they think they are doing, but just a side effect of their practice.

Though I know not every doctor is that way.
post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousli View Post
I have a hard time believing this is true in most cases. Even if for no other reason than how lawsuit happy our country is in. Imagine if a doctor routinely induced patients really early and sent lots of babies to the NICU. Sooner or later there would be a baby with RDS and the parents would sue.

Plus NICU care is so outrageously expensive, I think the insurance companies would be having fits.

And on a personal level, while there are plenty of doctors out there who do lots of questionable things, I really think that most still abide by, "first do no harm." I can't imagine a doc deliberately sending babies to the NICU. Well, I can, but most of the time, not.
But see, that's the thing - the parents are, in most cases, CONVINCED that the doc's know best, and the docs SAVED their poor baby by getting that kid out early. If the parents didn't BELIEVE that their babes would be perfectly healthy/perfectly safe four bloody weeks early, there simply wouldn't BE as many inductions.

Doc's are more likely to be sued for NOT inducing that they are to be sued FOR inducing. It would be a long leap for a parent who was willing to be induced early to turn around a sue the doc for inducing early. *sigh*

:
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Help me about non-necessary induction