Inducing for Mom's Convenience

[deleted account] ( 94 moms have responded )

I'm a bit shocked by this, but then the more I read I see this is NORMAL. A close friend of mine is due July 4th. She is currently 50% effaced and baby is in good position. Today at her OB appt. she and the doc decided that if the baby doesn't arrive by July 1st, she will go in that evening to be induced and then be home by July 4th. I thought that was just so bizarre why she wouldn;t want her baby to arrive naturally and when the baby was ready. I tell her (almost daily) to have rough sex and the semen sometimes thins the cervix and can trigger labor. She refuses that method but I know several women that triggered labor this way. My friend tells me it's a convenience factor since her in-laws are in town to help with the older kids and the sooner her daughter arrives, the longer recovery time she has until the start of school (we're both teachers-school starts Aug. 13). I know that women schedule their C-sectinos months in advance, but this is different. This is natural progression-baby is still cooking. It's not supposed to be for the mom's convenience because she's done being pregnant! I'm surprised that my friend feels this way. I suppose I feel jipped that I didn't get to experience the whole birth process of my water breaking when my son was good and ready to come out, but that's my own issue. Please, someone explain why this is now the norm?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Mary - posted on 06/25/2010

3,348

31

123

About the 37 week thing....while it is technically considered "full term", that does not always equate to lung maturity. No respectable OB would induce someone prior to 39 weeks without a sound medical indication.

I am proud to say that I work at a hospital that has rather stringent guidelines about inductions, both social and medically indicated. ANY induction prior to 39 weeks must be reviewed and approved by our perinatologists. It also means that inducing for purely social reasons is carefully regulated....she must have a favorable Bishop's score, and her dating must be good. To be honest, we almost never induce with a first baby for just social reasons/convienience. In addition, all inductions must sign a separate induction consent form, that clearly and plainly spells out all of the possible risks asociated with induction (it amazes me that anyone consents after reading it!).

I should add that our c-section rate is significantly lower than any other hospital in the area.

Becky - posted on 06/24/2010

2,892

44

93

I have no issue at all with inductions for medical reasons - I had to be induced at 37 weeks with my first because I was developing pre-eclampsia. I was one of the lucky ones. Apparently, my little guy was ready to come anyways, because my induction went extremely well. I went into labor with only Cervadil, never had to have pitocin, so didn't have to experience the more painful labor, and he was born after only 4 1/2 hours of active labor and was completely healthy, aside from being small for gestational age. However, induction carries increased risks, and personally, I feel it's irresponsible of doctors to perform them purely for reasons of convenience. (and by that I mean, the family parties and golf games, not because you're in extreme pain.) The thing is 37 weeks is full term, but, due dates are not an exact science. They can be off by as much as a couple of weeks. So you may be 37 weeks according to your due date, but your baby is only 35 weeks in actuality and so if you induce, you're delivering a 35 week baby, who could have breathing problems. The chances of c-sections also go up when you're induced.
With my second, I was never even offered the option of an early induction. Of course, I didn't ask either, but I have a feeling my dr. would've said no if I'd asked. Lucky for me, he came early on his own. Women in my family don't have late babies. :)
My cousin was induced with her first at 10 days past dates, and had a very bad experience. Bad enough, in fact, that she said if she was going to have to be induced again, she'd probably opt for a c-section instead. Although, that had to do with the epidural, not the induction, but she may not have needed the epidural if she hadn't had the pitocen,,, it just spirals!

[deleted account]

I suppose you could say I was induced for 'convenience'... though a LOT more went into that decision. I was 37 weeks pregnant w/ twins, a VERY small woman, massive edema, had been on bedrest for 3 months, 5 cm dilated, bulging water sac, the doc could reach in and feel baby A's head, and we lived 45 minutes away from the hospital. I BEGGED to be induced and the doctors, thankfully, agreed. Of course, it didn't work and I ended up w/ a semi-emergency c-section, but I believe it was for the best since baby B was badly stuck in my ribs and I had to be jumped on to dislodge her.

My repeat c-section was also scheduled for convenience (at 38.5 weeks). I had to be out of the hospital before Spring Break was over to care for my girls. Of course, if he hadn't been due around that time I would've had to make other arrangements, but since I've been on my own w/ 3 kids since the day we left the hospital.... I made the best choice I could.

Now, I don't agree w/ induction strictly for convenience, but I certainly do if their are extenuating circumstances.

Tara - posted on 07/31/2010

2,567

14

114

It's all about circumstance, choosing an induction because you live too far away from the hospital that it would be risky to wait until labour starts on its own is different than choosing an induction because you have family visiting or have plans for the time of your actual due date etc. is just being risky for convenience.
There are tons of risks involved in inductions. The chances of ending up with failure to progress are HUGE and the chances of that leading to a C-section are even greater. More women end up with an emerg section due to being induced than they do with spontaneous labour,
This is a risk to both mom and baby. Why take those chances if you needn't?
I was induced for one of my 6 births, she was only 4 days late, my dr. was heading out on two week holidays, he claimed the baby was really big and didn't want to risk my tiny body delivering this HUGE baby. She was 6 pounds 6 ounces, it was the worst labour of all my children and she was NOT ready, she was still covered in vernix and was so hairy!! She broke all the blood vessels in her eyes coming out and the labour was so intense and painful I almost opted for drugs, but knew my chances of having a section would be further increased by having any pain meds.
Not something I would choose, not something I agree with. Our bodies should be given the chance to have a normal, natural labour and delivery.

[deleted account]

Well w/ my first child I wanted to be induced due to my husband not being home b/c of his line of work. I wanted him to be there for the birth. Not to mention I had toxema and high bp. Now w/ that said if I could go back and do it again.....I would NOT choose to be induced!!! Reasons being after 36 hrs of labor and an hour of pushing she was unable to fit through my pelvis resulting in a csection:( I think that had I went the natural way and let her come when she was ready that my body may have been able to accomodate her??? Don't know, but now when i have a baby I have to have csection b/c the hospital I go to does not allow vbacs:(
What kind of bothers me since I'm a "pro-lifer" is.....that a mother has a "choice" to abort a baby and everyone says that's her "choice". Why is it that when a mother "chooses" to be induced we are being lazy, pathetic, not letting nature take its course or you feel we may be harming our babies? (not that you said these words or statements). I think that is backwards in my book.
And I'm not trying to make this an abortion issue .....I'm just referring to the word "choice".

This conversation has been closed to further comments

94 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

I think that if it is believed (by the doc or the mum) that waiting any longer would be dangerous to baby or mum, or that inducement before the due date is necessary for a medical reason, then it's not a case of just for the mum's convenience.

Naturally, there are times when the dad is not going to be there on the expected date, due to commitments. I've known a woman who was only able to get a babysitter for her other chilren at a specific time. These sorts of issues need to be discussed thoroughly with family and medical people before making an informed decision. Yes, there are elements of "mum's convenience" here, but other considerations too.

[deleted account]

Well let me say i wish i had of been induced earlier instead of been left in and out of labour in hospital causing my body to stress,i had her on a Tuesday morning before my inducement day but in hospital 4 days before then with lack of movement....i ended up clotting and could of lost my baby..but thankfully my determination lead the docs to do an emergency c-section because the cloths were not making me dilate and the contractions were very strong..turns out the placenta had half come away and if i hadn't of been persistent and slept through the placenta would of fully detached and killed her.If all is well i dont think inducement is wise but in my case it would of saved a lot of hassle.I say that because its wonderful to be able to start naturally if there's no complications etc and its not weeks after your due date of course.Going up to 2weeks over is hard for any mom to deal with,i went 3days over and with my problems on top of that i found it hard to cope with waiting.

[deleted account]

Wow! I completely forgot I started this thread a month ago and happy that it was revisited to add more comments.

To Shannon: I am truly sorry for the circumstances regarding your son's tramautic birth and months after. I hope that you are surrounded by a loving support system to help you through the years with your son's developmental milestones. Is it possible that you are eligible to seek legal compensation from the doctor? I know there is a thread about frivilous lawsuits, but I believe 100% that your experience is far from frivilous. I fel you are absolutely within your right to chose induction for your convenience in the future based on your previous experience.

I also agree that there are certain levels of "choice" but the overall goal is a healthy baby. I never had that choice. I had to induce, and I had my small but perfectly healthy baby. I do feel robbed of that natural feeling of going into labor, and it's something I will personally never feel ever. I'm still torn over the convenience issue though if an induction is not medically necessary. On one hand I agree when your spouse is military, or out of the immediate area on work related assignments. I do agree when you live so far from the hospital that it is more convenient to induce as opposed to being caught off-guard. But for the sake of "I'm done being pregnant" or "The doctor is leaving town" and no other medical issues present itself, I have mixed feelings. JMO.

[deleted account]

I disagree:) It's a CHOICE either way. Regardless of ones opinion on either subject, they are still both choices!

In my book the lesser of the two is induction. Not that it's a good idea like I stated b4 b/c I would re-think my induction had I known what I know now:)

Tara - posted on 07/31/2010

2,567

14

114

The choice to induce a baby with all the possible complications and increased risk of harm to the baby, increased risk of an emerg section, increased risk of a baby with respiratory problems, or kidney problems, or difficulty latching at the breast (I could go on and on about all the potential risks involved). is totally different than choosing to end the life of a fetus in the first trimester.
Entirely different choices. When you are pregnant your goal should be to deliver a healthy baby, if there is no medical reason to induce why would you choose to put your baby and yourself at risk like that?
When you are pregnant and don't care about the health of your child you choose to have an abortion, totally different scenarios of choice.
Tara

[deleted account]

"Why is it that when a mother "chooses" to be induced we are being lazy, pathetic, not letting nature take its course or you feel we may be harming our babies? (not that you said these words or statements). I think that is backwards in my book.
And I'm not trying to make this an abortion issue .....I'm just referring to the word "choice".

I couldn't agree more.

Tara - posted on 07/31/2010

2,567

14

114

oh and after that birth (my third) I have used midwives and have had homebirths for the last 3 of my children. That experience led me to believe that some male doctor does NOT know best.
I really wanted to let my body be the dictator when it came to labour and delivery. I loved my homebirths, I so truly felt the amazing power of my body during those labours and deliveries. I was in charge completely. My final and last baby was caught by his daddy, his were the first hands to touch him. Midwives were awesome at allowing this unconventional delivery on the floor beside our bed!!

[deleted account]

WOW Shannon....I'm so sorry for what you had to go through!!! That is beyond aweful:( So glad he is at home w/ you and it seems he has a wonderful mommy:)

[deleted account]

Thank you for sharing that with us, Valerie. I hope Asher remains healthy, and that you stay strong.

Shannon - posted on 07/31/2010

4

0

0

My next child will be a scheduled birth. Period.

I am a "working-class" mom, and with my first I had to go through public health for my prenatal care. I have always kept my menstrual dates on a calendar. The month I got pregnant, I was moving and everything was in storage, so I was unsure as to dates. An ultrasound was ordered that put my due date at March 30th, and also showed I was having twins. A second ultrasound a month later showed I had lost one of the babies. A few months after this, I found the calendar that I had marked my last period on and I knew my true due date was March 3rd. I shared this information with my doctor and he said we were keeping the March 30th date. I was very frustrated but assumed my little angel would come when he was good and ready, around the time of his "true" due date. A prenatal appointment on March 2nd showed him dropped, in position, ready to go. Prenatals on March 16th, 23rd, and 30th showed the same. By the 16th I was fairly concerned, and confronted my doctor with my worries. I was brushed aside and rushed through each time I said anything about my dates being wrong. My last prenatal on April 6th was the first time the doctor checked me for dilation. I went into labor naturally the next morning, at what I KNOW to be 45 weeks pregnant. Things quickly went very wrong and I ended up having an emergency C-section. My son was a meconium aspiration baby, with moderate to heavy staining of the amniotic fluid. He was born dead, and went 6+ minutes without oxygen in his system before they got him revived and breathing. He was 21 days dependent on the ventilator and oscillator, alternating. He had bilateral pneumothoraces, pneumonia, pulmonary hypertension, and seizures. Every physical characteristic my son displayed landed him in the 44+ gestational age category. I spent 32 days in the NICU at a children's hospital. In no way am I making the plight of any other mom's struggle any less, but I was surrounded with moms whose babies were very sick - 90% were premature - again, very sick, but fully expected to get bigger and healthier and go home. Then there was my Asher, who was either going to live or die. I have him home now, and he's quite healthy. We are to expect some level of cerebral palsey, and delays in speech and motor skills.

My point in this whole story is... I will NEVER again let a doctor tell me what he's going to allow and forbid me to do with my body or that of my child. My future children WON'T go past 40 weeks gestational age. The pain that might come with induced labor is nothing compared to the intense fear I experienced the day I had my son. The pain of the short 3 hours of natural labor, followed by the pain meds free emergency C-section, followed by the sheer terror of almost losing my baby... nothing will ever be as bad as that, and it's something I will do my best to avoid. So yes, I will opt for inducing for my convenience.

Sarah - posted on 07/01/2010

100

17

6

I don't agree with being induced for conveinence, A baby comes when a baby is well and truly ready.
If you are overdue, the baby is big or you or baby have health problems then that's when you should be induced. But every women to their own, what ever feels right for them. That's just my opinion.
With my 1st, when i got examined, 2 days overdue, i was 2cm dilated but the midwife said it didnt feel soft or all that ready. But she gave me a sweep. 3 days later my son was here, started labour naturally. So he was 5 days late. Was a fantastic labour and wanted to do it all over again straight away. Only had gas and air and it was a quick labour.
With my 2nd, i was 4 days late when i had to call the midwife out because i didnt feel well. She examined me and i was 2cm, waters were bulging and my cervix were soft. So everything was ready, just needed my baby to get into gear and come out lol. Midwife did a sweep. 2 days later, was examined again, still 2cm and everything still ready, had another sweep. 2 days was admitted to hospital with kidney stones. Was examined again and i was 3cm dilated. Had another sweep. 2 days later i went in to be induced and i was 3cm still. Few hours later, my daughter arrived, 11 days past her due date !! She just didn't want to budge out of me lol. But when she decided she was coming, it didnt take her long at all to come into the world. 50 minutes infact !
So experiencing natural and induced labours, i will NEVER EVER be induced again !! The pain was horrendous, i wanted every pain relief going, but didnt have time. It was the worst pain i had ever felt !! So i honestly can't see why women would have an induction by choice when they aren't even overdue or nothings wrong with themselves or the baby. Baffles me !

C. - posted on 06/29/2010

4,125

35

242

Ok. That's alright, Shannen.

No problem.. A lot of people still don't know what can happen to a diabetic's body when they're pregnant. That actually happened to my sister that had been diagnosed at 8 or 9, so I know for a fact it wasn't b/c she didn't know what to do. It was [painful and stressful]. I felt so bad for her.

Oh, Ok :) Just wanted to make sure b/c I know some people take it as me yelling at them. I'm sure it has.. Good luck to you :)

[deleted account]

No offense was taken.
Sorry if it came across like that i guess i am just so sick to death of being told what to do with my body and the diabetes from people in general. I must be a bit bitter and you coped it, sorry.
Thank you for your example. i have never heard of that happening. And i feel for your sister as that would have been a pain in the arse and a bit painful and stressful to deal with on top of being pregnant.
I knew you were not yelling in your first response.
And i am well now but it has been a hard long road to get here.

C. - posted on 06/29/2010

4,125

35

242

Shannen, you seem to have taken my post in the wrong context. I know you weren't arguing with me, and I wasn't arguing with you. I was just stating that it doesn't always happen the way you say it does.

And it's not always about whether the mother 'controls' her blood sugar or not. Sometimes it is out of the mother's hands b/c her body is reacting strangely to being pregnant (which happened to BOTH of my sisters with EACH of their pregnancies- 3 each- Again, not yelling, just stressing my words w/o the codes).

One of my sisters' blood sugar levels were so out of control no matter her diet or dosage of insulin that she had to go on an insulin pump and that STILL didn't keep her BSs from going too high or too low.

(The above was also my response to how it can be harmful to the mother). My sisters both had difficult pregnancies and they both eat very well, have been Diabetic for quite some time (the one was diagnosed at 8 or 9). They know how to control their sugars and how to adjust their doses if they find they are going too low or too high, but sometimes it is just out of their hands. It all depends on how their insulin-dependent body reacts to another body forming in them.

And again, I am really glad that you are well and you seem to know people who haven't had to be induced when diabetic b/c it harmed them, but like I said before, that's not the case for all. Please don't take offense to this at all. That is not how I intended my responses to you to be taken.

[deleted account]

I wasn't trying to argue with you. They don't ALWAYS induce diabetic women.
But I am diabetic and it all comes down to how well the mother controls her sugar levels. And unless you are diabetic i don't think you should tell other mothers about it.
Tell me then seen as though i am miss informed How is it harmful to the mother?
And of course they CAN Induce even though 90% of the time it is not necessary!

C. - posted on 06/29/2010

4,125

35

242

Maybe you know people that were able to go to 40 weeks, or even 38 weeks, being diabetic and pregnant. That's wonderful. That isn't the case for a lot of diabetics, Shannen. Yes, it CAN be harmful to the mother and yes, they CAN induce early for the MOTHER'S sake (not yelling, just don't feel like putting the code in to make the words bold). I'm glad that you are able to carry longer than most diabetic moms, but just b/c you can doesn't make it possible for all diabetic moms. And regardless of whether the diabetic mom can carry no longer than 34 weeks or not, they ALWAYS have a standby team to ensure that the baby's blood sugar doesn't skyrocket or fall too low.

[deleted account]

Ok Christina Lets get one thing straight, Diabetic Mothers are induced around week 38 for a whole lot of different reasons. You may have family who are diabetic but sorry that doesn't put you in their shoes.

Main reason for Inducing a Diabetic woman is due to the baby NOT the mother. The reason they like to induce is so they know when the baby is coming and can be ready just incase the baby crashes when born due to no longer having the higher amounts of sugar in the blood OR also having Low sugar in their blood. It has NOTHING to do with the mother and her health. It's all about the baby at that stage And with careful monitoring of baby with U/S for size and careful monitoring of mothers Blood sugars there is no reason for a diabetic mother not to carry to 40 weeks ( of course only if all is going well).

BTW i am 38 weeks pregnant and At 39 weeks we will be talking about inducing No sooner. I am Diabetic.

But i do agree that halley berry didn't do it for vanity that she was doing it for medical reasons.

C. - posted on 06/28/2010

4,125

35

242

Well, Hannah, I'm just saying. Look at the facts. She's diabetic and they always induce diabetics between 34 and 37 weeks b/c it could harm the mother. I wasn't trying to be rude and I wasn't necessarily defending Halle Berry, I just think it's rude to think it was for vanity when she had a medically sound reason, that's all. I apologize for coming off harshly.

Hannah - posted on 06/28/2010

66

1

0

@Christina- I NEVER once said it was a fact.. In fact at the very end you quoted me saying I don't know how true that is. Jiminy Crickets... I was only saying what I heard and never once said it was fact..

Cyn - posted on 06/28/2010

17

51

0

Personally I would not want to be induced (unless it was a medical necessity), I figure that nothing else is as important as the birth of my child and therefore everything else can be rescheduled if need be. But I could see how it would be more appealing to other moms.

[deleted account]

***UPDATE*** My friend DID give her husband sex on his b-day to try to trigger pregnancy. It didn't work. I told her she has to keep on trying! I was honest with her about my feelings of being induced, and we really had a good conversation about it. One other factor that I just didn't know about is building up a freezer of breast milk for the nanny. She only plans to nurse short-term, 6 weeks. Then back to work. So she wants to build up a supply so that the nanny could continue to use the breastmilk in a bottle. So while I still don't agree with her induction, I have a better understanding for her reasons.

Krista - posted on 06/27/2010

4,111

52

265

I'm totally done being pregnant and I'd be lying if I didn't THINK about being induced to be done, but I wouldn't actually do it. A baby will come when it's ready and that's that.
I had to be induced for my son. It went horribly and caused me to have to have an emergency c-section. I don't want to be induced again.

Charlene - posted on 06/26/2010

631

29

25

I was induced on my due date with Gracie, my first and only (so far) and I can absolutely say I would NEVER be induced for convenience.
It was a terrible time.

My doctor suggested that I be induced for a couple reasons. I had incredibly high levels of amniotic fluid and I was still producing so they were worried that the cord would wash out or wrap around her neck if my water broke. Also, she was missing a vessel in her cord, so they wanted to avoid any other complications that could come from that.

I went in at 11:30am on the 22nd, had the Cervadil inserted and nothing happened. I had the gel inserted three different times. Finally the third time I was dialated to 2 cm, just enough to break my water. The doctor broke my water at around 10am on the 24th and they started me on pitocen. I had been having a few contractions since the night before but as soon as they started the pitocen, those easy peasy contractions turned into horrendus back labour and the pain was easily 100 times worse.

13 hours and two botched epidurals later, I started pushing. When I started to push, they found out that she had turned when they broke my water and started talking about a c-section. I asked if I could try to keep pushing, and I pushed for two hours with no success at all. I had to have an emergency c-section and it was an even worse experience than the labour.

Gracie was born on the 25th at 2:27 am. I was so out of it when she was born from all the pitocen and drugs from the c-section that I didn't even get to hold her until over an hour later. To top it all off, I ended up getting an ifection had to stay in the hospital until the 29th in the late afternoon, so I had been in the hospital for 8 days. I was really disappointed that I had to have a c-section and especially since we have since moved back to PEI which means, if I ever have another child, I am going to have to fight tooth and nail to have a VBAC because our hospital is not very well equipped for them. :(

So why anyone would choose induction or a c-section is BEYOND me. It's their own business, but I think they are crazy. (hehe, jk)

@ Erin and Kati: I measured at 49 cms and Gracie was only 7lbs 13.5oz. The rest was fluid..

[deleted account]

OK ladies, start having LOTS of sex to trigger labor! We'll understand if you don't post in the late evenings ;-)

Charlie - posted on 06/26/2010

11,203

111

409

Shannen and Laura -

I have three estimated due dates !!

My first one just past yesterday , my second due date is tomorrow and my third due date is the 2nd of July he is already estimated at 9 pounds and very long again !!

A race sounds good Laura haha .

C. - posted on 06/26/2010

4,125

35

242

"I heard that Halle Berry was induced at week 36 because the last month is when the baby really grows and some women gain a lot of weight and get stretch marks that last month. I couldn't believe it. How vain of someone!!! :) I dont' know how true it is."

@HANNAH RIEDEL: The reason Halle Berry was induced at 36 weeks wasn't b/c she's vain.. SHE'S DIABETIC!!!! Diabetic babies are generally MUCH larger than your average baby. She did it b/c it could cause harm to her. Diabetics automatically have a high risk pregnancy b/c of their disease. Both of my sisters (and brother, but I really don't think any of this pertains to him) are diabetic, so I know what I'm talking about.. You on the other hand.. You need to gather your facts and not just base your opinion of a person on hearsay alone. (Not trying to be rude)

If there's a medical need, it's not selfish at all.

C. - posted on 06/26/2010

4,125

35

242

I keep hearing about this BS on CoM and it really bothers me!

The longer the baby stays in until the due date, the better. The earlier the baby comes, the higher the risk that something could happen to affect their health.

It's VERY SELFISH, IMO, for a mother to do this just b/c she wants to.

Elisabeth - posted on 06/25/2010

275

12

4

"She has refused sex to her husband for the entire duration of her pregnancy!"

What a prude. I feel sorry for her husband, what does he do to releive himself I wonder. Poor thing. I can't even deny my husband for more then a few days, nevermind a whole pregnancy. Anyway that is a whole other debate.

[deleted account]

Ha lol thats what i told my Support people. Can't do it if i don't show up! Baby's head is down and i haven't had any other complications with pregnancy or labour. So i think i am going to risk going when baby is ready!

La - posted on 06/25/2010

0

0

63

If the baby is head down and I had no previous complications at delivery I would take my chances of going into labor naturally and living far from the hospital. I understand your Dr's concern, but sometimes they are just too quick to intervene unnecessarily. Good thing is that he can't MAKE you be induced if you don't want to be...just don't show up for it LOL.

[deleted account]

Thats what i have also heard which is why i am fighting them.
I have had two spontaneous labours. 1st was 6 hours start to finish and my 2nd was under 1 hour start to finish. They initially wanted to induce due to GDM and i said we will wait and see. So now i have waited and all is good with the baby and myself i refuse it on that basis. So now they are pushing for an induction Because of how fast my son was born and how far we live from the hospital. I am still arguing with them as i don't feel its the right decision as its not medically necessary.

I don't see any Dr now until the 6th of july and he said we will talk about it then so my fingers are crossed that this baby wants to come soon just so i can avoid the whole frowned upon by the Dr's. But as far as i am concerned this baby will come when it is good and ready and if not then around 41/42 weeks we can do something.

La - posted on 06/25/2010

0

0

63

They want to induce you at 39 weeks? I can understand if you were past your due date and they were worried about placental insufficiency going into 41/42 weeks but why are they pushing it so early? I thought being induced was more painful than what normal labor would have been like because there is no gradual progression...it comes on very suddenly and fiercely once the meds are given.

[deleted account]

Oh and i thought having 2 weeks to go was bad :)
Laura thats awesome to hear. I wish more people would put aside their own discomfort and think about their unborn child. I Have 2 weeks left and i am arguing with my Dr's at the moment about not getting induced. They want me to but i don't feel its the right decision.

La - posted on 06/25/2010

0

0

63

Loureen when is your due date? I'm due in a week on July 2nd. Race you to the finish :)

La - posted on 06/25/2010

0

0

63

With my first child I never went into labor so my doctor induced me at 41 weeks. Whether it was the meds they used to induce me or the epidural, we did not tolerate it and both of our heart rates dropped dangerously low so we were rushed in for an emergency c-section. With this second pregnancy I was given the option of having an elective c-section at 39 weeks or scheduling my c-section for 41 weeks hoping that I will go into labor naturally before that and have a successful VBAC (they won't induce me at all because of the prior c/s). As much as I would love to have my baby out because I'm so uncomfortable, I feel that if my body is ready to go into labor it will. So I'm sucking it up and putting aside my discomfort for what I feel is best for the baby....it's better to avoid c/s if at all possible. People forget that c-sections are major surgery and should be avoided whenever possible. A VBAC is still safer and has less potential complications that a scheduled c/s.

Charlie - posted on 06/25/2010

11,203

111

409

Well im almost willing to go through the LOOOOONG , painful labour that comes after inducement for the simple fact im in LOADS of pain , my vagina feels like its been kicked in with steel capped boots , my pelvis feels like its being ripped in two , and my spine feels like its being pulled out my ass not to mention something went *CRACK* in my pelvis last night that caused so much pain in the vag i cried .

It almost sounds like the lesser of the two pains to be induced , but i know its not !!

Just have to keep waiting *sigh*

Lea - posted on 06/25/2010

540

11

21

I was also induced and they make it worse than natural birth so you go as quickly as possible for their convenience. Btw, I was induced because I was in terrible pain and had high blood pressure.

Rosie - posted on 06/25/2010

8,657

30

321

my doctor wouldn't induce me before 39 weeks, and i was given 3 diffferent due dates, and of course she went with the latest one. she made it seem like it was the law almost. i didn't know there were doctors out there that would do it before 39 weeks. that seems too risky to me.

[deleted account]

When I was induced at 36 weeks, I remember more discomfort than pain. But after my son's birth, I was heavily monitered for kidney function and it wasn't looking too good for me. I was also very sick with a fever for a full 24 hours and I was told the pictotin and magnesium does that. It took me 2 years to over come the fact that my body didn't work the way I hoped and planned for, but a healthy baby resulted.

[deleted account]

There's always going to be occasions when inductions and c-sections are necessary for medical reasons (mum's health, bub's health) But in my opinion mum's convenience is not an important consideration.

[deleted account]

On all four of my pregnancies ive carried on having sex all the way through at 32 weeks we are stuck with only one position but we both get grumpy if we dont have it regular.

[deleted account]

I know some people who have been induced and they would argue that there is nothing convenient about it. I've heard that it really hurts too. I don't really agree with getting a baby out before their due date just for personal convenience alone.

I can understand if the pregnancy is going overdue because I know one girls who just got bigger and bigger and the baby ended up being huge. She now has really bad back problems and she might have benefited from being induced on her due date rather than going a couple of weeks over and gaining several more pounds during each of those weeks.

Ez - posted on 06/25/2010

6,569

25

237

The thing is 37 weeks is full term, but, due dates are not an exact science. They can be off by as much as a couple of weeks. So you may be 37 weeks according to your due date, but your baby is only 35 weeks in actuality and so if you induce, you're delivering a 35 week baby, who could have breathing problems. The chances of c-sections also go up when you're induced.



Sharon, Becky answered your question for me lol. The range for full-term extends for that 5 week period to cater to the fact that EDDs are just that.. estimates! And the spiral of medical interventions necessitated by an induction (particularly if the Bishop score is under 8) can just lead to more complications.

[deleted account]

I feel for my Hubby at the moment he hasn't gotten any since i was about 25 weeks. I am now nearly 38 and i really want to just to see if the whole sex thing works in bringing labour on but i am so uncomfortable now and i remember how much it hurt last time :(

Johnny - posted on 06/24/2010

8,686

26

322

It seems like different places have different policies. At the hospital where I delivered, they will not even consider performing an induction unless a woman is 41 weeks + or has a risk factor requiring it. You can not request an induction or c-section for personal convenience. And women routinely are allowed to go 42 weeks+. It is not like there are a rash of dead babies resulting, the hospital actually has an excellent record and just received an award from the WHO. The infant mortality rate here is actually significantly lower.

I delivered on August 8, 2008 which is the luckiest year in history for Chinese people (well, those using the Western calendar). There were loads of women trying to fake symptoms at the admissions area so that they could get induced. While I was laboring, 3 different women were sent home.

And I'm with Jodi, for me, pregnancy sex was great. Being pregnant turned me into a teenage boy. I was horny and hungry all the time, farted like crazy, and couldn't remember anything.

Joanna - posted on 06/24/2010

2,096

19

137

Oh god, I've had sex twice since becoming pregnant (I'm 22 weeks) and it is just AWFUL. In fact last time I cried (I felt so bad for the hubby crying during sex, what a buzzkill!) because it was so painful. I think I have SPD (forget the full name but it's a problem with the pelvis that causes a lot of pain). But yeah, husband probably won't be getting any more sex until November (4-6 weeks after the baby's born, anyway).

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms