Babies on demand!

[Beckpatton]

Just wondering what others think about this? I think it's odd that any mother would want to bring her baby into this world before it's ready just for convenience! I understand bringing them on for medical reasons, sometimes the baby is quite big so they bring them on early. But because it might interfere with their holiday plans? Why take the risk?

Inducing can cause complications, a more difficult birth. Sure a doctor isn't going to do it if there's a real danger, and there are risks anytime a woman gives birth, but why increase those risks?


http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/...for-christmas/


Merry Christmas!

[AdminAssistant]

My sister's obstetrician induced her labor a few days early because he didn't want her to deliver during a holiday....because the hospital would be running a skeleton crew. It was an issue of safety over convenience.

[Beckpatton]

My sister's obstetrician induced her labor a few days early because he didn't want her to deliver during a holiday....because the hospital would be running a skeleton crew. It was an issue of safety over convenience.

But that was at the OB's suggestion, and like you said for safety. These mothers are requesting it because they don't want to spend Christmas in hospital giving birth.

Sure no one wants to spend Christmas in labour when they could be relaxing with family and a belly full of goodness.. but for that to be your only reason for wanting one, I find it odd!

[HYHYBT]

Anything weird involving Australia and medicine, I have to wonder: would Doc Rat approve?

[Giggle Goose]

My grandma was induced on December 19 before she had my dad. My grandfather was in the Army away for training and the doctor asked her if she wanted her husband home for Christmas.

[anakhouri]

I was induced a couple days before Khan's due date because my blood pressure shot up. The way they did my induction was incredibly uncomfortable and the contractions, instead of coming on gradually and getting more intense, came on incredibly intense from the start. Waiting for the epidural guy took 20 minutes and it was the longest 20 minutes of my life.

It's the same thing as convenience c-sections, which I also had due to complications: THEY BOTH SUCK. I have no idea why anyone would want either.

And even if you get your baby before Christmas, you'll still have a newborn over the holiday and be in pain and sleep-deprived and generally feel shitty, so what's the difference?

If you don't want a Christmas baby, stop having sex for a few weeks 9 months before. Sheesh.

[fireheart17]

Oh hell no!

Unplanned C-sections I can understand (a couple of my friends had to have those, while my mothers WAS planned, my sister decided that she didn't want to wait until then and arrived in December), but seriously, having your baby on demand because of Christmas?!

Generally as well, if mother and baby are doing fine after delivery, the hospital will let them go within 1-3 days, if there are complications or a C-section, then usually they're in for longer.

Another thing that occurred to me: having the baby early to "show off" to relatives on Christmas Day.

[Sleepwalker]

Inducing reduces infant and mother mortality/morbidity. Once the pregnancy is 'term' (8 to 8.5 months) it is generally safer to induce early, for ANY reason, than wait, for ANY reason.

So why not pick a day?

[RedRoseSpiral]

Do you have data to back that up Sleepwalker? Because it's always made more sense to me to wait until the baby is ready to come out on its own (barring any complications) than induction or c-section, but then again I'm a firm believer in natural birthing and taking birth out of the hospitals (again barring complications). Save OBs and surgery for emergencies.

[BlaqueKatt]

Inducing reduces infant and mother mortality/morbidity. Once the pregnancy is 'term' (8 to 8.5 months) it is generally safer to induce early, for ANY reason, than wait, for ANY reason.

funny I find this that easily refutes your unfounded claim.

As compared to mothers who begin labor naturally, labor induction risks include:

A doubling (or more) in the cesarean birth rate.

If the cervix (opening of the uterus) is not "ripe" (unfavorable for labor), the chance for cesarean birth may be even higher.

A longer labor and an increase in the use of vacuum or forceps for delivery.

Also not all babies mature at the same rate, and "due dates" are an "estimate" based on a woman's last menstrual period, my LMP was actually 4 days before I concieved, so my "due date" was way off.



The drug Cytotec, which is used to ripen the cervix during some inductions is used "off label" and on-label contraindicated(label says SPECIFICALLY to not use it to induce labor as it hyperstimulates the uterus and can cause uterine rupture and subsequent hemorrhage)-the FDA has not, and will not approve it for that usage due to the extreme risks involved-I found several articles written on that as well, written by doctors.

Cytotec has been connected to numerous cases of ruptured uteri, life- threatening hemorrhages, emergency hysterectomies, profoundly brain-damaged babies, stillbirths, newborn deaths, and even some maternal deaths

article 1
article 2
Article 3

It has long been known that pharmacological agents that stimulate uterine contractions may overstimulate the uterus in labor, to the point of shearing off the placenta, rupturing the uterus, or causing the uterus to contract so hard and long that the baby is deprived of essential oxygen.

{the physician/author's}review of 30 misoprostol [Cytotec] induction studies and reports representing 3,415 births was far less reassuring. I found 14 baby deaths, 25 uterine ruptures, 2 maternal deaths, and 2 life-threatening hemorrhages. Significantly, several of these complications occurred in women given a single 25 mcg dose-the smallest dose possible. According to one researcher, the author of several studies, "Some patients appear to be quite sensitive to misoprostol, demonstrating prolonged contraction responses after a dose of the agent, sometimes in excess of 20 hours after the drug."

[Andara Bledin]

Considering that a typical pregnancy lasts 9+ months on average and that some babies take as long as 10 months to be ready for birth, I take that "inducing over waiting is always better," as being completely inaccurate.

Let's see what people in the know have to say:
Lamaze.org = No
TransitiontoParenthood.com = No

Apparently, unless medically necessary, inducing just makes it harder on both mother and child, as well as increasing the risks of needing to have a c-section.

^-.-^

[fireheart17]

Apparently, unless medically necessary, inducing just makes it harder on both mother and child, as well as increasing the risks of needing to have a c-section.

^-.-^

Even if it's medically necessary to induce, in some cases, that's ended up with a C-section. It's actually creepy the list of coincidences these two women had with their C-sections:

-Both of them had girls.
-Both of them were way overdue.
-Both of them had to be medically induced.
-Both of them ended up having C-sections
-Both girls were quite dark and had a LOT of hair at birth.
-Both women ended up having complications from their C-section.

All of my friends who have had boys on the other hand, have had no problems pushing em out. (my cousins both had to be induced for their firstborns, but the result was a natural birth)

[HYHYBT]

I'm a firm believer in natural birthing and taking birth out of the hospitals (again barring complications).

I know it's a bit to the side of the main point, but still...

How do you know in advance there won't be complications that need to be handled in the hospital? Why is it not better to go ahead and have the baby at the hospital *in case* complications arise, rather than trying to get there mid-delivery?

[blas87]

The doctors wanted to induce my mom, but that was because I was getting to be over a week over-due. I behaved and came out the next day after he said they'd induce her. And I was barely over 5 lbs.

[RedRoseSpiral]

I know it's a bit to the side of the main point, but still...

How do you know in advance there won't be complications that need to be handled in the hospital? Why is it not better to go ahead and have the baby at the hospital *in case* complications arise, rather than trying to get there mid-delivery?

You can never know there will not be complications, but the vast majority of pregnancies and births don't have them. And regardless of what Hollywood shows, most births don't go quick, so there is time to get to a hospital if medical intervention is needed.

I know it's anecdotal, but I've heard the birth stories of many woman whose first was in a hospital and full of interventions and then went on to have a home birth the next time and believe that the only reason they did have so many interventions that the doctor said were "needed" was because of how nervous they were made by threats by nurses and doctors who want a time table and want things done their way.

Doctors see birth as something that needs to be controlled and they make interventions (many unneeded) to do so. I'd like to be able to labor in the position I feel is right for my body instead of being on my back because "it's easier on the doctor". I'd rather be in the comfort of my own home and labor how I want to instead of having some nurse in my face telling me to push when my body is telling me otherwise.

If you want some really good examples of these types of things go to the website http://www.myobsaidwhat.com. I recently posted one about my own birth and how the doctor's botched my mom's epidural.