Inductions may be Illegal soon

Katherine - posted on 12/29/2010 ( 67 moms have responded )

65,420

232

5195

Hold on to your bellies, pregnant ladies. If plans to cut out non-medically necessary inductions make their way out of the Minnesota Department of Human Services and into the lawbooks, you could be stuck with that belly for a lot longer no matter where you live.

Folks on both sides of what would be the nation's first official state policy on timing induced labor say it could set the tone for debates on elective inductions across the nation.

Now if only the naysayers would sit down, shut up, and listen to the issues at the heart of the matter.

This isn't about taking away a woman's rights over her own body.

It's about saving lives. New studies have found 37 weeks pregnant, long considered full term or the safe date for delivery, has been woefully miscalculated. Women who breathe easy that they made it there, only to push their doctor into an early delivery, are creating a nation of babies with higher rates of respiratory problems, pulmonary hypertension, and admissions to neonatal intensive care units than those born at 39 weeks or later.

It isn't just the mothers; Minnesota is also decrying doctors who tell their patients to come in a little early so they can sneak out for a vacation without Mom crying foul. Together, the two groups have caused the induction rate to triple in the past 20 years in this country.

I'm on that list too. My daughter had to be induced at eight days past my due date -- I was 41 weeks along. But here's the major difference: not only was I "past due," but her heart rate had begun to drop, and the doctor said it could go either way. He saw a plausible medical reason to put a Pitocin drip in my veins, and 13 hours later I had a healthy baby girl.

It worked. He was right, and that's made me an advocate for inductions ... when they're doctor ordered.

That's all Minnesota -- and very possibly Hawaii, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Florida (where debates or ongoing, although no law is drafted) -- are looking for. They're not saying "no inductions." They're saying "no inductions ordered by Dr. Google."

Women have become empowered to make decisions about their pregnancy, giving us alternatives our mothers never had. We won't be strapped to beds, knocked out, have our husbands sent out of the room while we suffer alone. This sense of self is the best thing that's happened to pregnancy since they came up with "safe" heartburn meds for women toting hairy babies (raises hand).

But doing some research still doesn't make us experts in the field. We can't ramrod through our own agendas and to hell with the results. Women can be advocates for their own healthcare and their own choices without ignoring medical opinion. If one doctor disagrees with you, and you think he or she is flat out wrong, you waddle your pregnant hiney to another one for a second opinion.

If that second doctor still agrees with you, then you need to evaluate why you're calling for this early induction. Are you just tired of being pregnant? Did a random moms' group on the Internet convince you that it's OK to go early because their kids are breathing just fine?

I wanted my daughter out a heck of a lot sooner than it happened, but I gave up that choice when I decided to get pregnant. I was well aware that I was born 10 days late, my brother five days late. Women in my family miss their due dates. It's healthy and normal, and what I wanted most was a healthy and normal baby.

In the end, it took an extra week of baking in my oven to get her there.

Inductions aren't about you, Mom. They're about the baby, and if you can't see that, it looks like the government has to make you grow up.



I

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Joanna - posted on 12/29/2010

2,096

19

137

I am on the fence. While I'm not a fan of elective inductions, I dont feel they should be illegal. I would rather insurance companies just not cover the elective inductions (and elective csections as well).

Minnie - posted on 03/18/2011

7,076

9

788

See, I don't want any of my power taken away. And if we place limitations on one end of the birthing spectrum, saying we know what is best for a woman regarding her health and her body, then the government could start jumping in on the other end of the spectrum- and send the authorities barging in on a neighbor's tip during an unassisted birth. That could result in the child in custody. It's for the same reason that I am pro-choice regarding abortion. I don't like abortion. I don't like overmedicalized interventionistic births. I really don't. But if I want the freedom to birth however I choose, I need to support another woman's right to birth however she chooses, even if I think she's making a serious mistake.



It makes me think of the other debate here- about the woman who refused the cesearean and lost her child for three years due to it. Her body- her choice. Not the government's body.

Kate CP - posted on 12/29/2010

8,942

36

758

If you were 42 weeks then you were over due and it is medically indicated to induce at that point, Julianne.

Medic - posted on 05/01/2011

3,922

19

552

I think that this is the government sticking its nose where it does not belong. I was induced with both my kids and both happened to be at exactly 36 weeks. Yes it was because I had eclampsia and had spent 7 days with the first and 10 days with the second in the hospital before hand. I think that there will just be more drs who make up a reason as to why it is medically needed.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

67 Comments

View replies by

Tara - posted on 05/23/2011

2,567

14

114

I've locked this thread because it is really really old and in order for the conversation to be relevant one would have to read through the 66 replies that came after the OP.
If this is a topic of debate that people find of interest please feel free to post another thread about the same topic.
Thanks.
Tara DM mod

Sherri - posted on 05/23/2011

9,593

15

391

Sometimes it is necessary if baby is getting way to big and already overdue it is time to get that baby out of there. I am not for scheduled early inductions but I am for ones where there seems to be a need.

[deleted account]

Jeannette, it's only inductions that are not medically necessary that we're talking about here. We all know there are plenty of occasions when it's necessary for the health of the baby and/or the mother to have an indiction - that's not what we're talking about.

Momof1 - posted on 05/23/2011

528

0

17

I don't think inductions should become illegal. Some women really need them. My friend had to have two, with her two kids, because of high bp. I for one do not want to have an induction, mainly because I don't want to be hooked up to an IV. But if it comes down to that, I'd rather be induced then have a C section. However, I don't agree with inducing for no reason if the woman is before 40 weeks and there are zero problems. My son came at 39 weeks and 4 days and I was hoping he would wait until 40 weeks, not just because I wanted extra rest time :) but because the longer they are in, closest to 40 weeks, the better. Now if it is past your due date and there are starting to be signs of fetal distress, then yes, induce!! I think I'm the only woman in the world (or at least that I know) that didn't want my baby to come earlier then 40 weeks. I had a great pregnancy and didn't feel uncomfortable at all and all I knew was even though I wanted to meet him, I wanted all the relax time I could get. So I don't think they should become illegal, but barring any real problems, they shouldn't be used before 40 weeks.

Mechelle - posted on 05/23/2011

97

11

8

I was induced with both my kids. They were over a week past due date. I would never push for an early induction unless my Dr. ordered it.

Bottom line people: The Dr.'s have a degree, we don't. They know what is best for our babies and for us. There is a reason they don't induce early, so don't push it. Ask questions of course, but what Dr. says is what goes. Believe me, after all I went through with my 2nd, I was so ready to not be pregnant and actually be able to eat without having to take 5 different pills 3 times a day to keep food down. But the Dr. said she needed to bake some more so she stayed in there. (I was so excited when at my last checkup...a week and half past due.... to hear him say..lets induce in 2 days.)

Corinne - posted on 05/23/2011

1,288

14

121

I am totally against elective induction and c-section. Who are we, with no medical background, to say 'BING! It's done - get it outta me'? I was induced for medical reasons with both my bundles at *gasp* 42weeks! My waters had broken 5 days earlier with #1 and I was waddling about with a feckin hammock in my pants cause I was like a leaky tap - no fun. They took me in when my temp. started to climb as they though I was getting an infection with everything being open down there (TMI I know). With #2 I'd been having pressure pains for days but no sign of anything doing. They tried everything to move him and then my midwife had a look and said ' you need your water's breaking, your membrane is really thick' she popped me and he literally flew out! I have no respect for women that endanger the health of their unborn babies due to their discomfort, the word selfish springs to mind.

Charlotte - posted on 05/23/2011

89

8

5

I had both of my girls induced at 37 weeks and they were perfectly health babies. My blood pressure was a little high, I was dilated to 6cm with my last child before they induced, but she had be trying to come for 3 weeks. She was born in 45mins with no drugs.I have never carried to full term. The furtherest I got was my son came naturally at 38weeks.

Constance - posted on 05/01/2011

2,651

24

146

I realize that but both of my inductions would fall in this catigory ( can't spell). It was not medically nessasary with my first one I was just vey uncomfortable. With the second induction it was only done on my gut feeling that something was going to go wrong. Even though I saw something wong with my son heart rate dropping so dramatically my doctor did not agree. She said his heart rate was still 120 so he was fine. I bitched eveyday fo the last two weeks. I called and went to the hospital really I annoyed the hell out her so she did it, but she didn't believve it was nessary.
But my thid induction was for medical reasons but that was the only one that the law would be able to stop.

Constance - posted on 05/01/2011

2,651

24

146

I understand that all babies have to bake until done. But to allow law makers who most do not have medical trraing should not make the decisions. I had my first son by induction because I was so uncomfortable. I was in labor for just over four hours and he was at 36 weeks. With my second son I pushed for the induction granted I was one day before my offical due date. My doctor didn't want to do it but call it mother's intuition but I knew it had to be done that way and I was right. I had a ton of complications with all 4 of my childen stuff like preterm labor. Ihad close to thiry ultrasounds and I was hooked up to the monitors a lot. I knew what his heatbeat had been beating at 160 - 170 everytime I was hooked up, then three weeks before I delivered him his heart rate dropped down to 120. I know something was wrong. I didn't want to chance laboring at home with out monitors on him. I continued to push and she finally caved. I was in labor for two hours and his heart rate dropped down in the 60's. I ended up having an emergency c-section to save his life. My four we decided to induce because I wanted to do a VBAC and they wanted to make sure their would be an OR open just in case something happened during labor. I ended up having another c-section.
I just don't believe lawmakers have a place making medical decision with out training. I had to go with my gut and I was right.

Lacye - posted on 05/01/2011

2,011

31

164

Katherine, I could kiss you right now for posting this! LOL My husband's ex induced with their child almost 2 weeks early because she was "uncomfortable" and now we recently found out that the child has asthma. I kept telling her that it was a bad idea and now you just proved me right! Bless you!

Stifler's - posted on 05/01/2011

15,141

154

604

I never had any pictocin drip :S I'm actually disturbed that people think babies need to be induced before 41 weeks.

[deleted account]

This type of legistlation scares me. It does. So does the idea of banning elective c-sections. Were I not spayed and about to have another baby, I would schedule that c-section so fast my doctor would have whiplash. I had a very traumatic delivery (midwife, mostly at home blah blah blah, still one of the most horrifying, panic inducing experinces of my life). There's no way I'd have another kid if that ability to choose HOW he/she came out was taken away from me.

Krista - posted on 05/01/2011

24

11

38

Clearly, you don't understand, Lacy. Inducing labor is using medical intervention to bring on labor...it doesn't just mean giving pitocin (which is one way to induce, or it can be administered after a woman has gone into labor on her own). I was induced at 41 weeks and was not given pitocin, I just had my waters broken.

Also, there's a big difference between having an elective induction because you're uncomfortable or just ready to get it over with, and having a medically necessary induction. And if my doctor believed that it was too early for my baby to be healthy and to thrive outside the womb, despite my discomfort, I would be okay with that. And no, women shouldn't be allowed to risk their babies' health, against their doctors' advice. The other side of the argument that doctors don't know our exact due date, is that when you think you're 38 weeks and the baby should be fine, you may actually be less than 38 weeks. Or you could actually be 38 weeks and the baby is just not ready to be born.

Kate CP - posted on 05/01/2011

8,942

36

758

Uhh...no, we're not all hooked up to pitocin. When I delivered my son I didn't have any pitocin.

Lacy - posted on 05/01/2011

2

9

0

i don't understand this, because all pregnancies are induced. we all get hooked up to pitocin, right??
but i am in florida, where they will NOT induce until 39 weeks and you have to think about this- since they will be trying so hard NOT to induce people, they may also end up sending home some moms that really do need to be induced.
and i hate when people say things like "we gave that up when we chose to get pregnant...." guess what; i'm a person too, and my health matters too. for instance, i have had diarrhea for 6 weeks straight, every day. every. day. i have started throwing up twice a day again, for about a month. this causes dehydration and edema. also i have a hernia AND a cyst in my stomach, but still my doctor says "not medically necessary." to the baby, NO, but to me, YES, i feel it really is and a sign of poor doctoring.
besides, if doctors informed women of the (possible) risk of self-elected early induction, and they still choose to do it, then that really should be their decision. 38 weeks is full term and lungs should be plenty healthy. the bad part about trying to time the weeks, which is another absurdity to the argument, is that your doctor himself could be off on your due date by days, even weeks. it's not like they actually know with 100% accuracy when you are exactly 40 weeks!!

Katherine - posted on 03/21/2011

65,420

232

5195

I totally agree Julianne. I think the induction caused the cord to be wrapped around Alyce's neck. In fact I'm convinced of it.
I really hate to hear, "Well I'll probably have the baby tomorrow, I'm being induced today."
It's not natural or neccessary.
There is even an article atating it can cause hyper activity in babies http://www.healthcentral.com/adhd/h/pito...

[deleted account]

Well an induction almost killed Gabby and I. I thought it was necessary, but it was the doc pushing it on me because coincidentally he went on vacation the day after the c-section.
I think it should be a last resort, and not for convenience, doctors suggest it, moms want it, for selfish reasons. Its putting unnecessary risk on the babies ...

Minnie - posted on 03/21/2011

7,076

9

788

At least cytotec does- it's right on the label, not to use during pregnancy, and the FDA made a statement warning against its use in inductions. Unfortunately, some OB's (mine, for one) choose to ignore that.

Alexis - posted on 03/21/2011

632

21

21

I agree, in emergency or life threatning situations by all means use an induction method, but not for convenience. Many meds they use for inducing labor is dangerous to the life of the fetus and the mom as well. I at least would like to see certain meds used for inducing moms to be made illegal since they can cause death and even have warning labels on them saying not to use when pregnant. Watch the documentary pregnant in America...very eye opening!

Michayla - posted on 03/21/2011

23

15

4

I am completely dead set against elective ANYTHING when it comes to the delivery of a child. With my 1st and 3rd child I waited for neture to take it's course. However, with number 2, I was young and had a very old OBGYN who didn't want to be bothered with being awakened in the middle of the night for my labor. They used 2 cirvadils (4hours apart) and then Pitocin. It was more painful then my first, or my last. It was longer then my first or my last. Because of the induction drugs, my contractions were off the paper! (That didn't happen with either of the other two) I wouldn't suggest it to anyone. Although, once my son was born, he was just fine. Got scary during the labor because the contractions were hurting him, and my doctor couldn't be bothered to be at the hospital because it was midnight. All I can say is I will forever agree with using Midwifery.

Julia - posted on 03/19/2011

45

1

1

My baby was due on December 25th of 2010. This pregnancy would also be a repeat c - section....(my first was breech). Anyway. I was 36 weeks pregnant when I went to meet with the surgeon and to schedule a time when to have the baby. I wanted to schedule this c-section before I went into labor; because when delivering my first baby via c-section, i was in labor. This being said my uterus was contracting and when the doctor went to pull baby number 1 out my uterus contracted on his head. This is not good because the doctor pulls everything out and cuts the cord. Anyway this even took probably one minute or less; but he was blue and needed a bit of oxygen.I did not want to go through this again with baby number 2. Anyway. the surgeon when I visited him at 36 weeks had a fully booked schedule all the through christmas. While pondering what day will work for him the doctor said what about the 23rd? The scheduler said this "no that is your elective c-section...so the patient can get a tax deduction." That woman was not even due until January and she had a scheduled c-section. I couldn't believe it. I had to have my baby early so she could get a tax credit!!!!! So I am all for saying NO! to early inductions and early c-sections if the mother or doctor just wants them done early. It should be medically nessicary!

Stifler's - posted on 03/19/2011

15,141

154

604

I agree with banning early inductions for non-medical reasons, but I'm against forcing mothers to go past their due date. Every mom I've known that went over due had got really massive and had difficult births or back problems as a result.



Really? Because I went to 40+5 and my birth was great and my baby was extremely healthy. I know heaps of other people who have gone 10 days over and they are perfectly fine. Scan dates aren't always correct so they let you go to 10 days "overdue" before inducing you.

Stifler's - posted on 03/19/2011

15,141

154

604

I'm not into all this "scheduling" when the baby comes. Excuse me what?! Since when can we just demand to be induced because we're over being pregnant? Never heard of it prior to CoM unless someone is overdue or their waters have broken and nothing's happening yadeyadeyada. People have their babies when the baby is ready to come out around here with the exception of one person I know who got induced 1 day after her due date which pretty much everyone was like WTF.

Jenn - posted on 03/19/2011

2,683

36

96

I think it's a good thing. I was induced with both of my pregnancies though - at 42 weeks with my son, and at 38 weeks with my twins. But it was not at my request either time.

Veronica - posted on 03/18/2011

1,539

61

94

I agree with Lisa - you illegalize one - what's next?
Im against induction almost 100% - nature should be let to take its course - but I do understand there are circumstances that it IS needed.
With my second child, I labored through the morning, got to the hospital, was only 3 centimeters dialted - and all of a sudden the nurse and doc said that i HAD to have petocin and my water broken to move things along - BS I told them no, i didnt want my water broken - they broke it anyways - within the next hour or so, i went through excruciating labor and pain, and then ended up in c-section as the cord wrapped around my sons neck and his heartrate was dangerously low -- now, perhaps he might have had the cord there already -- but i think the induction and stress made it worse, and if i had more time to labor naturally, perhaps he could have made turn and the cord could of came free. One will never know. So im not only against induction - but i completely dislike popping the water manually. The rest of my kids i labored all the way through, and the water broke during transition, and the baby came right out. My last baby my water broke when i was near 7 cm - and the transition was sooo painful and so much harder without that water bag there.
Back to the point -- i dont think they should go as far as illegalizing it - but there definatly needs to be protocols, standards, and specific checklists done before an induction is considered, and carried out. Def. 'rules' to lay down.

[deleted account]

My friend scheduled her c-section for 1/11/11. She WAS due on the 18th. ;) Kiddo couldn't wait though and her water broke on Dec 28th.

Considering I chose to be induced w/ my twins at 37 weeks (I did have extenuating circumstances though) and scheduled my son's c-section at 38 weeks 5 days for my convenience.... I'm not sure what I can say against induction for nonmedical reasons. Definitely not before 38 weeks just for convenience, but I think 38-40 weeks is a gray area that should be between a woman and her doctor.

The 'funny' thing is that I'm actually against most medical interventions.... though I've pretty much had them all. ;)

Mrs. - posted on 03/18/2011

1,767

6

30

Well, yeah.

Doctors only have as much power as you give them, in most cases. Sorry, I don't want my rights taken away because some people have had a few bad experiences.

April - posted on 03/18/2011

3,420

16

263

If I get my way, I will never birth in a hospital ever again. Not all doctors cannot be trusted, but I have a hard time trusting them. I didn't mean to imply that the government was better, just that i want to trust but find it difficult is all. I just don't think imposing limitations is going to cut it. I think if a doctor wants to do an induction and you don't quite meet the criteria, that doctor will find a way to make you fit. Doctors have so much power. Is it really a bad thing to take a little power from them even if it means we are giving up some power too?

Mrs. - posted on 03/18/2011

1,767

6

30

So doctors are untrustworthy...and the government is better? That's why you want a birthing environment in which you have a say. You won't if there are laws passed barring that. At least with a doctor, you can say no on an individual basis.

April - posted on 03/18/2011

3,420

16

263

i tend to think that such a law would be wonderful. i think there are just too many doctors ordering inductions for non medical reasons. I truly believe there are more doctors ordering inductions for their own personal gain. I don't know. I am sort of biased. I just don't like doctors. I am sure there are some fantastic ones, but I will always wonder if there's a hidden agenda. I just can't get past the fact that hospitals are a business. I WANT to say that there should just be limits on who gets an induction and when, but I feel like there's always going to be a loophole or a doctor who is just going to make something up. God, I sound so irrational, but that's how I feel.

Mrs. - posted on 03/18/2011

1,767

6

30

I was born a month late. It's was real hippy birth centre my mother was going to. They refused to induce because they wanted "nature" to run it's course. My mother went through a lot of pain and discomfort that many birthing mothers never have to because of it. Would a law like this lead to more of the same?

Really, when you start drawing exact lines in the sand about women's bodies and the choices they make - it starts to get a little dicey.

If longer than 37 weeks is best for the fetus - should I have been given medicine to delay labour when my water broke at 36 weeks? The baby was at a healthy weight and I naturally went into labour. Still, we were a week away....it might not be the perfect length as the law dictates?

Every birth is different and every mother's reasons for inducing different as well. What makes the state think they can more carefully weigh birthing options for the general public better that the docs/the individual mother can?

Yeah, there will be some lazy, selfish bitches who want to do it to work it into a party they have scheduled or something. That's the lowest common denominator. I don't think they should make something law because a few losers/stupid docs tainted a women's right to decide what is best for her body with their behaviour. The majority of women and docs want what is best for themselves and the unborn baby.

Why is there always some group who wants to tell women what to do with their vaginas, babies or wombs? Keep your eyes on your own private lives, thank you very much.

Bondlets - posted on 03/18/2011

178

0

23

YES!!! Now can this get passed in time to prevent the idiots who are already asking their doctors to induce them on 11/11//11?? (yep, I've already encountered one such fool). I'm so sick of hearing/reading, "Well, my doctor says I'm "full term" at 36 weeks and I'm 37 weeks so let's get this baby out!" Well, let's see...at 37 weeks a baby's lungs can be immature which puts your baby at high risk for complications.

There aren't many debate topics that make my blood boil like this one so I'd better just stop with that. >:(

Krista - posted on 03/18/2011

24

11

38

I've never heard of anyone (around here) having an elective induction or c-section. I was induced with my first, but not til 41 weeks, and I have another induction booked for Monday, when I'll be 41 weeks and 2 days. I asked the doctor if we could do it today instead of waiting over the weekend, but I'm only 40 weeks and 6 days today, so he wouldn't go for it (and he's going to be gone over the weekend so there's a good chance I'll go into labor and my baby will be delivered by a dr I don't know).

I think that inductions should only be done at the recommendation of a dr and only when medically necessary.

Minnie - posted on 03/18/2011

7,076

9

788

Hmmm...I'm sort of wishy-washy on this. My opinion says "Yeah! Inductions carry so many risks!"



But then my philosophy says "Wait- you can't support that, because you are an advocate for unassisted birth- and that carries risks too."



So all in all, sorry birthing ladies, I'm against this law being passed. I do think that doctors shouldn't be so induction-happy and that mothers should be truly informed as to what the risks of inductions are and that most of the time they aren't necessary.



I like what Joanna said- perhaps insurance should refuse to cover it- just like many companies are beginning to refuse to cover circumcision. I mean, it's a mother's body- her choice regarding her health. It goes both ways- induced with every intervention in the book- I have to support that if I'm all for birthing alone in a hippie van.

User - posted on 03/18/2011

22

53

0

Sharon, that is not "your body" when you have a baby in your body that baby controls everything. As a mother, we are called to put our life on the line. The second you become Prego you become a mother, you begin to lay your life down for your baby.

Shauna - posted on 12/30/2010

1,015

19

35

Im glad i was induced at 39 weeks! my dr was afraid the baby was getting to big for my small pelvis. He was 8lb 10 oz pretty average size. and He did not budge after pushing for 3 hrs, i had a c-section, dr said if he would have came out vaginaly the damage would have been bad, and he prob would have had shoulder displasia. Sometimes you just cant predict what will happen. Just have to go with what you feel is right. A co worker of mine begged and begged to be induced at 38 weeks b/c she just knew the baby was big. The dr said no it wont be more than 8 lbs when he came out he was 11 lbs 3 oz if he would have went full term who knows how much that baby would have been!

[deleted account]

I agree with banning early inductions for non-medical reasons, but I'm against forcing mothers to go past their due date. Every mom I've known that went over due had got really massive and had difficult births or back problems as a result.

C. - posted on 12/30/2010

4,125

35

242

GOOD!!! I've always been in favor of keeping a baby in the womb as long as possible w/o complications.

Inductions for things like Diabetes or Gestational Diabetes, HBP, low heart rate, etc.. Those are fine b/c the baby and/or mother is at risk. But I do not like the idea of elective inductions. I think this is a great idea. Finally someone is thinking about the health of the baby when some people won't!

Mary - posted on 12/30/2010

3,348

31

123

I get a little uncomfortable at the thought of state legislators making laws about things like this. I understand the intentions behind it are good, but it can lead to whole new set of issues. While, at it's heart, it is an attempt to promote the health and well-being of the child, the same can be said for legislation such as banning homebirths, or even a law that would make it illegal to not take a daily prenatal vitamin.

It's been years since my hospital "allowed" elective inductions without a medical indication before 39 weeks. It's also been at least two years since our Chief of OB allowed any non-medically-indicated induction without a favorable BIshop's score. It was fairly easy to implement...inductions have to be posted, and all the relevant info (including EDC, LMP and the Bishops's score) had to be given. If anything was off, the doc would be called and notified that we would not do it without the approval of our Chief (a perinatologist). As well, any induction prior to 39 weeks required a consult with her....meaning she determined whether or not it was medically indicated (and no, maternal discomfort or exhaustion are not medically sound reasons for induction!).
Oh - and they couldn't even lie about a Bishop's score, since a pelvic exam was always done by one of our house midwives prior to starting. If they found that cervix unfavorable, the Chief got called (at home, at 6am!), and that patient was not induced.
Initially, there were a handful of docs that balked, and would induce their patient at the hospital down the street that is known for being much more accommodating of physicians (we were the first to really crack down on this). As time went by, this policy became more widespread, and even that hospital had to start narrowing it's acceptable parameters for induction.

It's not always easy to enforce. I remember a woman who came in for a scheduled induction. It was her 3rd baby, she had a history of fast labors, and she had been 4 cms for over a week. However, by both her LMP and first trimester sono, she was 38 6/7...one day shy of 39 weeks. Although both she and her OB pitched a fit, she was sent home.

Becky - posted on 12/29/2010

2,892

44

93

I would be in favor of this. It amazes me how many women say, "well, I'm 37 weeks, so my baby will be just fine, and I just don't want to be pregnant anymore," or who tell other women they should go ahead and be induced early. People seem to think the risks don't apply to them. I am one who was induced at 37 weeks for medical reasons, and it was terrifying! I was so worried that my son would be too early and have problems. I was fortunate that other than being small, he was healthy. Although he does have some digestive issues - I think some reflux, and he's really gassy - and I wonder if that's due to being born at 37 weeks.
I think a lot of women are just uninformed about the risks and sadly, their doctors seem to be encouraging their ignorance, rather than informing them that they could end up with a sick baby in the NICU, or a baby with chronic respiratory issues.
Given that the article states that some doctors will even suggest early induction for their own convenience (which is beyond disgusting, IMO), I would take it one step further than just "doctor ordered" and say "doctor ordered for legitimate medical reasons" and set out some criteria for those medical reasons.
All that said, there was a woman on my birth board with Cole whose husband was in the military and was deployed while she was pregnant. She chose to be induced while he was on R&R (I'm pretty sure she was 38 or 39 weeks) so he wouldn't miss the birth. I can see where it'd suck for the family not to have that option in cases like that. Although I'd still say, it should never be done before 38 weeks minimum if it's not medically necessary.

Ez - posted on 12/29/2010

6,569

25

237

I see where you're going with that comparison Laura, but I don't actually think it's that simple. In the case of abortion, the welfare of the fetus is not an issue since the pregnancy is being terminated. In an early induction, presumably the mother is expecting a healthy baby. Which means the welfare of the baby must be a factor when forming protocols regarding these interventions. Induction at 37 weeks is clearly not in the best interest of the baby, so in the absence of any complications, they should be allowed to gestate for many more weeks if necessary (I went to 41+4).

Laura - posted on 12/29/2010

698

59

56

My hospital will absolutely not do an elective induction before 39 weeks. I totally understand why. But if you take the choice away from women they are going to do dangerous things to start their labor. I have heard of women using knitting needles to break their own water because their doctor would not induce. I think it's the same argument people use for abortions, if you make it illegal then people will still do it just more dangerously.

Ez - posted on 12/29/2010

6,569

25

237

Sharon, I'm pretty sure your circumstances fall into the 'medically-indicated' category. Your issues were more than just the average pregnancy aches and pains, so someone in your situation would not be governed by this law.



I am against elective early induction. Unless there is a genuine medical concern for mother or baby we should not interfere. Due dates are merely educated guesses for most of us. If you induce at 37 weeks, you may actually end up with a 35 weeker requiring weeks in NICU.



So I agree with the proposed legislation. Induction rates are FAR too high, which means c-section rates have escalated. Anything that can cut down the intervention and keep pitocin out of it is a good thing IMO.

[deleted account]

kate i think that my due date was off, the baby was fine and nature would take its course, they dont get stuck in there forever, and i was in prelabour when i was induced, it was for 3 days, they just wanted to speed up the process she was perfectly fine though, it was not needed.

Sharon - posted on 12/29/2010

11,585

12

1315

Um - I'm sorry but they're about me too.

At 38 weeks I was agony. I hadn't slept for more than an hour at a time. I was crying all the time from the pain. I couldn't stand, sit or lay down comfortably at all.

I couldn't take any stronger pain meds and I gave up on the safe ones because they barely took the edge off and left me dazed and confused, unable to even make soup without burning it.

There was no way I wanted my child born before he was ready but when 40 weeks hit - that was it. OUT. Yes there were provisos. favorable cervix and all that shit.

Of course its fucking men behind this. Not one of them has passed so much as a fucking kidney stone.

Stop telling me what to do with my body! wth is wrong with people?

[deleted account]

good. if i wasn't induced then i wouldn't have needed a section. stupid doctor wanted the baby out before he went on vacation. i was 42 weeks.:P

Shauna - posted on 12/29/2010

1,015

19

35

Jodi--- i hope your little ones decide to move into a better position for you!!!! I didnt have twins, but my son was in a transverse position when i was in labor i pushed for 3 hrs and he didnt budge, i then got on my hands and knees for over and hr to try and rotate him and he ended up flipping all the way and being sunny side up, i ended up in a c-section after that exhausting and painful experience.

Kate CP - posted on 12/29/2010

8,942

36

758

While I like the idea of this I don't know if I really support a law where a woman is made to keep a baby in utero.

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