Reducing Infant Mortality
- Thread starter thanka2
- Start date
In your case, your own body initiated labor--the doctor didn't go in and say, "Your baby is now done at 38 weeks so you need to be induced to get the baby out." I think that the problem is that many doctors are putting too much trust in numbers--actually, a baby is done when a baby is done--whether that's 38 weeks or 42 weeks or whenever. If a woman goes into labor before 36 weeks the baby will most definitely be treated as if he/she is premature but that's based on estimates as well--a baby born a 36 weeks (of the body's own accord--not induction) may very well, after investigation, be found to be "fully cooked."
Would you say that in your case you now feel that the interventions performed on you and your son were necessary at the time?
Gataloca
Registered User
I know people that had elective c sections because they were afraid of going into labor... They just didn't want to endure long hours of pain.
I chose c section mainly because of convenience, due to my insurance coverage. I could have scheduled induction at week 41, and the baby might have engaged during labor. Probably would have required other kind of interventions, like forceps, or may have ended in emergency c section. I didn't know... I was more concerned about the hospital bill rather than the baby, as I thought I was in good hands. So I went to c section directly since we have different coverage for vaginal delivery and for c section. If I had been in a public hospital, I would have gone for the induction for sure.
Posted via Mobile Device
I chose c section mainly because of convenience, due to my insurance coverage. I could have scheduled induction at week 41, and the baby might have engaged during labor. Probably would have required other kind of interventions, like forceps, or may have ended in emergency c section. I didn't know... I was more concerned about the hospital bill rather than the baby, as I thought I was in good hands. So I went to c section directly since we have different coverage for vaginal delivery and for c section. If I had been in a public hospital, I would have gone for the induction for sure.
Posted via Mobile Device
Shenzhennifer
Registered User
My water started to break, but my body didn't go into labour naturally - that was the problem.I know another woman who recently told me that her waters started to break like mine, and she didn't go into labour until about a week later. She was not told 'urgently' to go to the hospital, as I was.
So they made me lie down, then after hours of nothing much happening, I finally agreed to the oxytocin. I pretty much knew that once I was forced to lie down, intervention after intervention would happen. They all did, like clockwork. Were they all necessary? Well, with my somewhat limited knowledge at that time, I also thought that the baby needs to come out within 24 hrs of your waters breaking. So after prolonging the oxytocin as much as I could, I pretty much let them do their work. I couldn't handle the contractions very well (3 at a time, 5 minutes long type thing, but not dilating me much), so I asked for the epidural, which then led to other interventions like a cathetor (Agh!!!!!!). At 22 hrs after my waters first breaking, and all the other stuff, and my baby not liking contractions with oxytocin, and my body not making them naturally, and a bunch of other stuff (and lots of pain!) I was quite fine when the doctor suggested the caesarian. So I think they did try everything they could before the end result, as my doctor knew I really wanted to avoid a c-section.
As far as interventions on my son, the bottle feeding was the only one. They proudly told me that he drank something like 60mls of milk, he was so hungry. After that, my colostrum wouldn't satisfy him and he would cry out for more and more. It's much easier to get milk from a bottle, than from a breast that hasn't made much milk yet. That's where the 'confusion' comes in, misnamed perhaps.
I would never plan a c-section for convenience, that I do know. My only reason to possibly plan this next one is out of the safety for me and my baby. Funny, since c-sections have a higher chance of complications, I know, but it's about how I feel about letting possible trainee doctors have me labour on unnecessarily and potentially dangerously, unbeknownst to them.
nicolejoy
Registered User
I know that 38 weeks isn't considered pre-term, but when you add in that often the due date could be a week (or sometimes even two weeks) wrong, depending on when it is calculated and by what method, sometimes a baby supposedly born at 38 weeks is not as "fully developed" as he should be, PARTICULARLY when the labour was started artificially by induction or by C section.
Do you now feel that the choices you made because of the insurance etc. were in the best interest of your child's health?
I think that is exactly the point that that all of the professionals who spoke on the video were really making. That our estimates of how old a baby is are not infallible. And even if the baby is technically 38 weeks or 40 weeks into gestation, every child is different as is every mother and a lot of the children who are already 'term' (38 weeks onward) are, for that particular child, not ready to come out. A lot of development of the brain and lungs happens in just the last few weeks before a baby is born and if we force a baby to come out when he/she is not ready we in essence cut that development period short and shock their systems as we introduce them to life outside the womb too soon. Just like when children leave the womb they develop at different paces so we can't assume a "one-size-fits-all" model of development I don't think we can say that "Well, this baby should be done at 38 weeks." It's just not that cut-and-dried and that's where we get into problems. I've heard several experiences from other women where they went over their due date--even by several weeks but it was the healthiest thing for the baby to leave him/her in even though many doctors would disagree. There was even one woman who labored for 2 weeks after her water broke and gave birth naturally with no complications to the baby or mother.
Gataloca
Registered User
Well... I shouldn't have said "mainly".. should be "partly"... If it were totally due to the insurance, I would have gone for the C section from the beginning.... Sometime it really amazes me! It was only 5 month ago, and I have already loss memory of my pregnancy!!!!
Anyway, even when my insurance coverage for normal delivery was low, I was hoping to have a natural one, without epidural if possible. Everything was fine, and my baby was head down already at around week 34. I have been having scans every 2 weeks to monitor the baby position, and at week 40 the doctor noticed that the baby hadn't dropped further since week 38. I got diagnosticated CPD and suggested C section, although still gave me the option of waiting till week 41, and go for an induction labor hadn't started yet by then. I weighted the pros and cons:
- There was a high chance that the baby will not engage, even during labor.
- by themselves, many induced labors end up in emergency C sections.
- emergency C sections are more risky than elective C sections.
- Long labor is stressful for both the mother and the baby.
- I get fully covered by the insurance, and can stay in a private room, where my baby could room-in.
- I totally trusted my doctor.
So yes, I do feel that the choice I made were in the best interest of my baby.
I just have a few questions regarding what you listed--
- There was a high chance that the baby will not engage, even during labor.
How do you know that the chance was high? Did the doctor tell you that? There are quite a few women for example who are facing a breach baby and the baby turns at the last second (or there are things that can be done safely and naturally to encourage the baby to engage) and the woman gives birth vaginally.
- by themselves, many induced labors end up in emergency C sections.
- emergency C sections are more risky than elective C sections.
Why do you say so? If you have an experienced surgeon, there shouldn't be any more risk involved in doing the c-section at the last minute than pre-planning it--unless there is already something going wrong with the child or mother. In both cases there is a major abdominal surgery taking place.
- Long labor is stressful for both the mother and the baby.
Had you gone through a long labor before? What do you base this assumption on? Labor itself can be a stressful situation--whether it's long or short. Having gone through an extremely long labor naturally myself (43 hours) I can say it was difficult but I wouldn't say that it was any more stressful--I guess it depends on how you define "stress." Part of what makes labor, labor is that it is something one needs to submit to and allow oneself to go through--not fight against--when it's fought against that's when it becomes stressful in my opinion. As far as stress caused to the baby--long labors often are no more stressful to the baby than short ones. There are women who labor for weeks with a child and the child shows no signs of stress during or after labor. I think that the images we get from Hollywood give us a lot of misinformation about what labor is and can be.
- I get fully covered by the insurance, and can stay in a private room, where my baby could room-in.
Because you had a pre-planned c-section you got fully covered by insurance with all the benefits?...or if you had chosen a different route, would you have received the same coverage?
- I totally trusted my doctor.
Just really curious to know. Thanks.
Last edited:
Neha
Banned
we do know some weirdos who had their child delivered at 7 months because the date was a combination of the husband and wife's birthday and month was also the same as their anniversary. the Child was fine at birth but later has developed lot of issues. It might not be connected. i dont know but really how dumb can people be. There was no issue of money, holidays etc in the above delivery. The child at the age of 3 was treated with a heart issue