Mothering Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A friend of mine delivered last Friday morning. She was scheduled for an induction 11 days past her due date, Thursday. She had been 1 cm dilated, 0 effaced for weeks. So they went in at 11am, the pitocin was injected at 12:30 and for 12 hours she had contractions, but no progress on the dilation or effacement. Around midnight, they lost the baby's heartbeat, but they did find it again by inserting the thing through her cervix. But the heartbeat was weak. So they prepped her for the OR. As soon as everything was ready for the c-section, they found a strong heartbeat again. So they gave her a choice - go through with the c-section, or continue laboring. They opted for the c-section.

The baby was 9 lbs 12 oz, and had the cord wrapped around the neck twice, which they suggested was th reason for the weak heartbeat.

My question is, what are the possible reasons labor would not induce naturally? My friend is a pretty small girl, so a 9 lb 12 oz baby seems quite large. I'm guessing the baby was completely mature and ready. So why didn't she start labor naturally, on her own?

I'm at 36.5 weeks myself, and have this fear of having to be induced. I just keep reading horrible things about it. My friend is not at all upset with how things turned out because now finding out how large the baby was, plus the cord being wrapped, she feels she might have ended up with a c-section anyway, even without the heartbeat issue. Why do you think nature didn't take its course??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
I've read here and other places that a baby will come when they are ready, etc. However I do know women who do not go into labor, do not dilate, unless they are induced (then they spit them out like firecrackers)

One of the things that you mentioned was that she wasn't dilating. I've been reading about and know several women who do not dilate, even when they have waters broken (AROM or Natural) and it was because they had scar tissue on their cervix. This was the very case with my aunt. They had to scrape it off and then she went from 2-10 in two hours. I am not sure if your friend has ever had surgery or other problems that could effect the cervix but I've been reading that this is becoming more and more of a problem. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Kim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
I agree with the previous posts--but wanted to add that big baby/small mama does not = c-section! I'm 105 lbs, 5;4", and my first was 10 lbs 4 oz. I did have an epidural (natural with #2), but no c-section.
Both my babies went to 41+ weeks--gestation doesn't mean 40 weeks, and the pitocin probably didn't work because her body & her baby just weren't ready yet. Pitocin can drop baby's heart rate, too, I believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,640 Posts
Medical intervention and being in an unfamiliar place such as a hospital can actually slow down or stop labour. We have built-in defenses that keep us from giving birth when we are feeling threatened or unsafe.
Glad everything turned ok for your friend!
I was induced for my first btw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,119 Posts
her body and her baby just weren't ready to be born. No method of induction will work if the time isn't right. She probably had a really low Bishop's Score, too. The heartbeat "issue" was probably brought on by the induction meds themselves, that happened to me with my first, too, when they attempted to induce my labor. For me, besides the fact that it just wasn't time for my baby to be born, my labor stalled out and would not start up because of how deathly terrified I am of doctors and hospitals, and the one doc I trusted was not on call that weekend.

Lots of women give birth to big babies (MIL is barely 5 ft and DH and his sisters were all over 10 lbs, and still born vaginally) and lots more women give birth to babies with cords wrapped around their necks, two, sometimes three times. Those things don't really mean a thing, I'd bet they aren't even mentioned in her hospital records as justification for the cesarean. That's probably what the nurses said to her after the fact, in an attempt to blame the baby for what happened instead of the doctor or hospital policy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFence
However I do know women who do not go into labor, do not dilate, unless they are induced (then they spit them out like firecrackers)
Yeah but, how long post dates did they go? I ask because I've heard stories of moms who maybe went 3-10 days past their due date and said something similar and I always think that they would have delivered their babies if they had been given more time.

I always feel sad when I hear women say they don't go into labor on their own and have to be induced (barring any real medical problems). They have been told this by the medical community and had their power taken away from them
There are lots of women who just have longer gestational periods than the 40 week number that is always used.

My "due date" is tomorrow and I've been doing some reading about this so this is kind of timely for me as I try to keep the faith that my baby will be born when he is ready


jazcat, I'm barely 5'1", 95 lbs and my last baby was over 9 lbs. I had no problems pushing her out. Size shouldn't make a difference.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,450 Posts
I thought I would throw a reasonably good induction story in (mine) just so the OP doesn't think they are all horrible. Of course, the more natural the birth process the better. My induction, however, was necessary because I was leaking water and had very little left and we were worried dd would suffocate. So, they induced me with that little tab they put up your vagina to get things going and then 12 hours later, when I was 4 cm dilated, they gave me pitocin. Dd came out 3 hours later, healthy and robust. Having spent two years dealing with infertility and 8.5 mos of bleeding on and off and having contractions now and then, I was just sooooo happy to see her. Except for the epidural, which I hated, everything was fine. I had a nurse who has been delivering babies since 1969 and she was awesome! She also birthed my ob's two kids, so it was like a family reunion in there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,317 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna
Maybe my science is off, but I don't see how lack of fluid would make a baby suffocate.

-Angela
I was just thinking the same thing. It isn't "breathing" the fluid, it's oxygen is coming throught the umbilical cord. How could it suffocate bcause of low fluid?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,552 Posts
cause the cord to collapse and thus cut off ciculation to the baby. However, leaking water does NOT mean that you are ogliohydramios by any means. The baby's kidneys continue to produce fluid, and provided there is no obstruction, they will continue to do so.

The more important thing would be to guard against infection.

I did a lot of reading when I was certain my water was leaking, but it could not be confirmed. I found out that a lot of midwives (even non-interventionists) are NOT comfortable with leaking water for over [insert # of hours here] --- usually 24-48 hours.

My midwife and I were fine with it as long as I took my temp several times a day. I also increased my intake of vitamin C and took the occasional antibacterial herb. I avoided bathing and sex and vaginal exams. We also had weekly appointments and phone contact nearly daily. Oh and did a kick count too.

My baby was born at home wrapped in his cord 4 weeks after my water had begun leaking. His cord was 3x neck, 2x left leg. My midwives told me that the cord will stretch given time and proper positioning of the baby. I did a lot of marching in labor because he was having trouble getting positioned.

(My water also started leaking with my first baby, but I agreed to an albeit natural induction. I've always regreted that, although everything turned out seemingly well. It was a homebirth as well.)

To the OP, I would think the baby wasn't ready. I do read more stories of babies who are wrapped in their cords going later than other babies. But the size of the baby and the size of your friend, well provided she had no pelvic injury, the fat just smooshes.

HsomeofTH,
MamaVerdi
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,492 Posts
no surprise that the induction didn't work, with no effacement, dilation almost non-existant and my guess that the baby was also high.
because they just lost the heart beat is different than - the baby's heart rate being low- sounds like the baby moved and then trying to insert an internal monitor on a tightly closed cervix( and probably high baby) would be also a hard manuver and may not have attached properly . this would be why they offered to wait because if the baby had true distress they would not have offered to wait.
-------------------------------------------
How was this woman's pregnancy dated? early ultrasounds have an error of +/- 3-5 days
12- 20 weeks have a +/- 7-10 day margin of error
20-30 week ultrasounds are wrong +/- 2 weeks
32 weeks and up can be off 3-4 weeks
-----------------------------------------------
so if she had dates/ultrasound they could have been off on dating her pregnancy-- there is a tool that can be used by to figure out if an induction is likely to work-- it is called the Bishops score here is a link
http://www.mother-care.ca/bishop.htm

as you can see by her bishop's score that there was little likelihood an induction would work
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,329 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by stafl
her body and her baby just weren't ready to be born. No method of induction will work if the time isn't right. She probably had a really low Bishop's Score, too. The heartbeat "issue" was probably brought on by the induction meds themselves, that happened to me with my first, too, when they attempted to induce my labor. For me, besides the fact that it just wasn't time for my baby to be born, my labor stalled out and would not start up because of how deathly terrified I am of doctors and hospitals, and the one doc I trusted was not on call that weekend.

Lots of women give birth to big babies (MIL is barely 5 ft and DH and his sisters were all over 10 lbs, and still born vaginally) and lots more women give birth to babies with cords wrapped around their necks, two, sometimes three times. Those things don't really mean a thing, I'd bet they aren't even mentioned in her hospital records as justification for the cesarean. That's probably what the nurses said to her after the fact, in an attempt to blame the baby for what happened instead of the doctor or hospital policy.
:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,594 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by boongirl
So, they induced me with that little tab they put up your vagina to get things going
Wouldn't that be cytotec?


On the "some women don't go into labor" thing... Historically, are there any accounts of women never going into labor? Sure, women died in childbirth. Okay, most who did delivered and either hemmorhaged or later developed an infection and died, from what I understand. And I imagine some women labored with a stuck baby, transverse or something, never turned, and eventually hemmorhaged and died (or were c-sectioned when near death anyway in attempt to save the baby. Mothers generally did not survive c-sections). But I have never heard anything about women not laboring at all. I admit I haven't studied this extensively, so maybe I'm missing something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Thank you for all your replies. It sounds like in this case perhaps they should have waited at least a few more days. I'm guessing the doctor asked them their preference and she was having tailbone pain, so they opted for sooner rather than later.

An update on my friend, I talked with her today.... she's doing really well. She said the pain from the c-section is not bad at all, just having to take some things a little slower and not put too much pressure on her tummy. She's already talking about making the second a c-section as well. No problems breastfeeding whatsoever. Apparently the baby latched on right away and she's already got regular milk coming in. I was feeling sorry for her...now I don't know what to think. She couldn't be doing much better at this point and she's very pleased with the outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
I was induced at 39 weeks for low fluid. I had a three day induction that included cervadil & pitocin on the last day. I had no pain meds and it was not that big a deal. Of course, I would rather not have been hooked up to an iv, but at least it was not a c-section.

I just wanted to say that my midwife said it is useless to start pitocin if the cervix isn't ripe, so maybe that's what happened to your friend. That's why I had 2 days of cervadil before pitocin, because I was not effaced or dilated at all when I went in. My midwife also said to start pitocin very slowly. Sounds like they just jumped right in with the pit for her.

I hope your birth goes the way you want it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,578 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by jazcat
Thank you for all your replies. It sounds like in this case perhaps they should have waited at least a few more days. I'm guessing the doctor asked them their preference and she was having tailbone pain, so they opted for sooner rather than later.

An update on my friend, I talked with her today.... she's doing really well. She said the pain from the c-section is not bad at all, just having to take some things a little slower and not put too much pressure on her tummy. She's already talking about making the second a c-section as well. No problems breastfeeding whatsoever. Apparently the baby latched on right away and she's already got regular milk coming in. I was feeling sorry for her...now I don't know what to think. She couldn't be doing much better at this point and she's very pleased with the outcome.
It's her birth, and if she's content with a cesarean section (possibly unnecessary) then it's her path, you know?

It's clearly not mine, or perhaps yours, though.

Good for you for thinking of your friend, and she still may grieve the loss of the vaginal birth--she's still so newly postpartum.

Amanda
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,477 Posts
IME, my 14 lber was WAY, WAY overdue- I think because he was larger, his head was larger and it took longer to find a smooth path into my pelvis and put enough pressure on my cervix. I may, of course, be wrong on this one, but that could be one reason for your friends problem- baby hadn't dropped sufficiently yet, the head wasn't engaged, and so one of the big triggers for cervical dilation was missing.
I know you're fretting, but please, don't worry. Your friends story is not yours- your birth will be completely different, because you're different people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,702 Posts
I just want to chime in how common it is for babies to be born with the cord around their necks. Babies, in utero, can have the cord around every ol' thing--their bodies, their necks, the cord gets squished between baby and the side of the womb, etc. In the womb, the cord is rigid like a garden hose full of water (but it's a cord full of high-pressure blood) so it's not like a noose.

It just sounds scary. And maybe sounds like a good reason for a c-sec. But a simple Google will reveal study after study and stat after stat attesting to the hum-drum commonness of a nuchal (around the neck) cord.

From MedPix

Quote:
up to 20% of all deliveries are associated with a nuchal cord. (2) Despite its frequency, fetal demise as a direct result of nuchal cord entanglement is exceedingly rare and often reported as statistically insignificant.
TheFetus.net talks about a case with a 5-loop nuchal cord, and does say that nuchal cords going around 3 to 4 times "demands special care due to the risk of intermittent cord compression."
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top