So if it came down to it, induction or c-section? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 08:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
JulesP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
JulesP is offline  
#2 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 10:09 AM
Banned
 
2Sweeties1Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
2Sweeties1Angel is offline  
#3 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 11:34 AM
 
Peppamint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 13,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Peppamint is offline  
#4 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 11:45 AM
 
Mama Poot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Youngstown OH-Gotta Live Somewhere!
Posts: 6,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Mama Poot is offline  
#5 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 11:48 AM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
alegna is offline  
#6 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 12:10 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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?


~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#7 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 01:54 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mamabadger is offline  
#8 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 02:04 PM
 
huggerwocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
huggerwocky is offline  
#9 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 02:18 PM
 
onlyboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: FL
Posts: 3,755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
onlyboys is offline  
#10 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 06:09 PM
 
AllisonR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
AllisonR is offline  
#11 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 06:35 PM
 
FiveLittleDucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
FiveLittleDucks is offline  
#12 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 07:49 PM
 
boscopup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,944
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
boscopup is offline  
#13 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 08:30 PM
 
bobandjess99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Northern IN
Posts: 5,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

CPST
bobandjess99 is offline  
#14 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 09:07 PM
 
ice_chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
ice_chick is offline  
#15 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 09:17 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#16 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 09:34 PM
 
MommytoTwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Actually, its Mommy to Three now
Posts: 3,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
MommytoTwo is offline  
#17 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 09:43 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MommytoTwo
I am convinced that pitocin has long term effects.
Can you elaborate on that?

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#18 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 09:47 PM
 
MommytoTwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Actually, its Mommy to Three now
Posts: 3,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My DS had some developmental delays... I have no scientific proof to back it up.. just a gut feeling.
MommytoTwo is offline  
#19 of 51 Old 07-13-2006, 11:15 PM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#20 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 12:52 AM
 
erin_brycesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
erin_brycesmom is offline  
#21 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 01:04 AM
 
coloradoalice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
coloradoalice is offline  
#22 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 01:37 AM
 
wannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)
wannabe is offline  
#23 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 02:00 AM
 
doula and mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: is EVERYTHING!
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
doula and mom is offline  
#24 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 05:22 AM
 
AllisonR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
AllisonR is offline  
#25 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 05:33 AM
 
AllisonR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
AllisonR is offline  
#26 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 08:52 AM
 
Manda316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Armenia
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Manda316 is offline  
#27 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 10:19 AM
 
erin_brycesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
erin_brycesmom is offline  
#28 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 11:33 AM
 
rmzbm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 16,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!

~Marie : Mom to DS(11), DS(10), DD(8), DD(4), DD(2), & Happily Married to DH 12 yrs.!
rmzbm is offline  
#29 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 11:48 AM
 
3daughters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Land of milk and honey
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...
3daughters is offline  
#30 of 51 Old 07-14-2006, 12:43 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mamabadger is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off