Usenet Writings

Induction

For convenience? As a necessity?

©1995 Beth Weiss, Posted to misc.kids Usenet newsgroup, January 11, 1995, February 25, 1995

I wrote this

Women also often don't realize that not all inductions are successful.  When I went in to be induced with Jordan, after almost 2 days on pitocin, I wasn't making any progress, and went home for the weekend.  A more aggressive induction might well have led to a c-section, which my doctor was trying VERY hard to avoid, because of my medical situation.

It's women who want a natural birth who should be most concerned about
unnecessary inductions.  I am not suggesting that an induced labor is always a bad idea--some of them save lives.  If you're going to have an epidural anyway, and the doctor suggests inducing, I'd say it probably doesn't matter much, and go ahead with it.

If you really want a totally natural, drug-free, low-intervention labor and delivery, I wouldn't recommend an induction unless it's absolutely necessary, because once they hook you up to that pitocin and the monitor, you're already in the middle of lots of interventions.

Since my medical situation means a c-section is a absolute last choice option, and I can't have an epidural, I really want to avoid another induced labor--but it's also probably women like me who bad-mouth inductions so much, since an induction without strong pain relief can be very difficult.

There are valid reasons for being induced (and the original poster certainly seems to be in that category), but I don't think that convenience really is a valid reason.  I'm mostly posting this so first-time pregnant women see an alternative view to Kim's.  Clearly, it was great for her, but many of us with induced labors didn't have the same sort of experience.

I think this is the real issue--pitocin without pain relief can be incredibly difficult/unpleasant/horrible.  Most women with induced labors end up having an epidural, which means that their induced labor isn't much different (confined to bed, on monitor, etc.) from what it would be if they'd had a natural labor with an epidural.

Some women can't have an epidural, for a variety of reasons.  Other women prefer not to have medication for their labors, and in that case, an induced labor means an unnaturally strong labor which lasts longer than those types of contractions do in natural labors.

In addition, not all women respond well to epidurals.  A number of women on misc.kids have posted that their epidurals didn't work.

And, of course, there's an increased risk of surgery with an induced labor.  Once the water is broken, the baby delivery is going to be born within the next 24-48 hours, (depending on your doctor), even if that means a c-section.

Although it might sound like I am, I'm not knocking inductions.  I was induced with my first for sound medical reasons, and although it was a horrible experience, the reasoning was sound, and the induction was in the best interests of my health.  Even so, I very much hope to avoid an induced labor with my current pregnancy; I'd prefer not to go through that again.

I think that induced labors, like cesarean births, have saved countless lives of mothers and babies, and are a great addition to the medical repertoire.  However, that doesn't mean that they are, or should be, used as a routine method of dealing with labor.  Medical intervention and surgery should be reserved for situations that require it.