Induction v c-section

Nikki - posted on 10/03/2011 ( 21 moms have responded )




If you had to either be induced or have a c-section for medical reasons which would you choose?


Sarah - posted on 10/03/2011




It depends on the situation I've already had a C-section tho, I would be adverse to the idea of having another one anyway.
I was induced too (overdue) they burst my waters to get things moving.

I didn't have any problems with either procedure, so if I needed one or the other or both again........I wouldn't be worried.

Aleks - posted on 10/03/2011




It depends on the reasons......
I honestly believe that majority of the times women are induced, it usually ends up being an emergency cesear anyway.
But yeah... sometimes you don't really get that choice, it can be induction first, as the medical issue is not risky enough for a c-section right away.

Like I said first of, depends on the medical issue.

Mary - posted on 10/03/2011




I think it depend greatly on the scenario. If I needed to be delivered at 37 weeks, it was my first, and I had baby whose head was still floating and a rock-hard, posterior cervix, I'd opt for a section.

If I was 36 weeks, preeclamptic, with a cervix that was closed, but 50% effaced and anterior, with the head at a -2 to -3 station, I'd go with an induction.

Cervical status, maternal health, and fetal health are integral pieces that need to be factored in when deciding whether to try induction, or just go straight for a section.

[deleted account]

Since my induction ended up in a c-section and that recovery was way worse than my scheduled c-section.... c-section.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 10/03/2011




It really all depends on the circumstance. If the fetus is in distress, the induction very well might lead to a c section regardless of progress.


View replies by

Ez - posted on 10/04/2011




It would depend on whether my body was showing signs of readiness for labour (as Mary explained), and what the specific problems were.

I loathe the idea of a c/s, but if I was showing zero signs of progress (ie, looking down the barrel of a failed induction) and knew the baby needed to be delivered, I think I would jump straight to the c/s.

Stifler's - posted on 10/03/2011




c- section. induction sucked and ended in an emergency caesar in the middle of the night anyway. i don't give a shit about having a vaginal birth anymore. recovered much quicker from the caeser than my first baby who was vaginal.

Sarah - posted on 10/03/2011




@Ashley: I'm another one that recovered quickly and easily from my C-section........not many of us on here! ;)

[deleted account]

If all was okay i would opt for an induction if nothing was going on.That is over 40weeks.Nothing before.Unless i had to have it done.
I had an e/c-section to save my second daughter.I recovered so fast it was silly lol..compared to what i heard and read i was amazed as were others.
With that said its not easy so i would rather being induced than cut open to but it so boldly.

Rosie - posted on 10/03/2011




depends on what for? preeclampsia, i'd choose induction, breech i'd choose c-section.
i've had 2 inductions and they were much better than my regular birth. or course they were my second and third births which are supposed to be easier than the first.

Katherine - posted on 10/03/2011




I've only been induced and it was hell. BUT I've heard recovery from a c-section is long. I guess whatever I needed to do is what I would do. But my preference would be to be induced.

Sara - posted on 10/03/2011




I've had both, and I'd take the induction, just because a c-section takes so long to recover from, and it's difficult...especially with a newborn to care for. But certainly, as with my c-section, if there was no other option for the safety of the baby or myself, I'd do another section.

Becky - posted on 10/03/2011




If my health was the issue, I'd opt for induction. I was induced at 37 weeks with my first because I was developing Pre-E, and actually had a very quick, easy labor. Never even had to have pitocin or have my water broken, just cervadil. My body just knew he had to come out. If the baby's health was the issue and going through labor could be dangerous for him, then I would go for the c-section. But I'd never willingly choose a c-section unless it was necessary to ensure either the baby's or my safety.

Lady Heather - posted on 10/03/2011




It would depend on the likelihood of induction success I think. Of course you can't always tell, but sometimes there are things that make it more likely to work. I know quite a few women who have had perfectly pleasant and successful inductions and others who have had horrible ones followed by c-sections. In the end it's kind of a gamble, right? Last time I opted for a c-section (which I didn't have in the end) because we weren't sure if I could have a natural birth on account of the messed up uterus and baby's position. This time I'd be more inclined to lean towards an induction because my last labour was so easy. Still a gamble, but meh.

Ashley - posted on 10/03/2011




Coming from someone who was induced twice (first time i had preeclampsia and the 2nd i was dialating, water was broken but i was having no contractions) and with my first i almost begged them to just give me a c-section. I was in horrific pain, the delivery was horiffic and we ended up with a 2 wk old baby with bacterial meningitis in his brain. So for me (even though i've never had one) if i had the choice i would definately go for the c-section over the induction!!

[deleted account]

I was induced at 36 weeks due to the onset of kidney failure, which was already prevalent in my family. I gave birth vaginally though. However, 6 months prior, my sister had the emergency c-section at 37 weeks due to kidney failure. We shared the same doctor. My sister is currently on dialysis waiting for a kidney transplant. So in hindsight, the doctor made the right call for me to induce a week earlier to avoid a C-section. She also went back to my sister's records to compare blood work & urinanlysis levels at 36 weeks in order to make her determination to induce me at 36 weeks. It took me a long to time to understand that while both my sister & I had small babies (hers was 4.8 # and mine was 4.13#) both boys were 100% healthy and home in 48 hours. I think regardless of how a baby is brought into the world, heathy should take precedent.

Jaime - posted on 10/03/2011




Before joining CoMs I had no idea about induction horror stories. But even so, in the case of a baby having health problems, I might opt more toward a c-section to save the trauma of coming through the birth canal. I suppose it really depends on what the problem is. I was induced with Gray because I had high levels of amneotic fluid and my doctor was concerned that my water breaking naturally could choke him. When he was born the cord was around his neck and they spent a good 10 minutes reviving him. Scariest moment of my life and if I was faced with the same situation a second time, I would consider a c-section.

Nikki - posted on 10/03/2011




Not always, for example liver issues during pregnancy, the baby needs to be born early to prevent the mother's health from deteriorating. I have a friend who suffers with this issue and has had to be induced really early during all of her pregnancies. Hearing some of the horror stories from inductions, especially so early in pregnancy (32-34 weeks) I almost think I would be inclined to go for a c section.

Jaime - posted on 10/03/2011




I don't know that you would have the choice because aren't there different circumstances that would dictate this choice? I was induced because my doctor didn't want my water breaking naturally.

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