Mandatory IV and Fetal Monitoring -- Also C-section rate for Foxhall Group

[Anonymous]

OP here - Thank you! This is just the kind of feedback I was looking for. Didn't know about hep locks until now ... sounds like the solution. I definately want intermitant fetal monitoring, it was just the thought of not being about to move around while trying to deal with the pain of natural birth that was worrying me.

[Anonymous]

A final thought for you, OP. You don't have to have a heplock either, which some people find very uncomfortable while moving around in natural labor. Search heplock and hep lock on this board and you'll see some good discussions.

[Anonymous]

OK, I really have to disagree with not getting a heplock or IV. If you don't want one of those, then I think you really need to ask yourself why you're delivering in a hospital. I'm totally supportive of delivering in a non-hospital setting if that is what a woman wants, but I think that most women who want a natural birth but chose to do it in a hospital do so because they want to know extra emergency care is there if necessary.

I'm one of the PPs who had an heplock. Originally, I was dead set against getting anything (I hate needles). But I looked into the issue, and more importantly talked to my mom, a nurse who worked as an IV nurse in a hospital. The fact is, if anything really bad happens (and that is one of the primary reasons most women chose to deliver in a hospital, right?), most life saving protocols involve the use of an IV or heplock to administer a drug. Most OB nurses (and definitely most OBs) are not experts at getting in IVs. And, most hospitals have gotten rid of their IV nurse teams that used to respond in emergency situations. That means that it is going to take extra time to get a drug administered, time that could be crucial to the outcome. So, in my mind, if you don't want an IV or heplock. you're really turning down the heart of any medical treatment that you gain by being in a hospital setting.

And for me, the discomfort of the heplock was nothing compared to the intense pain of childbirth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I really have to disagree with not getting a heplock or IV. If you don't want one of those, then I think you really need to ask yourself why you're delivering in a hospital. I'm totally supportive of delivering in a non-hospital setting if that is what a woman wants, but I think that most women who want a natural birth but chose to do it in a hospital do so because they want to know extra emergency care is there if necessary.

I'm one of the PPs who had an heplock. Originally, I was dead set against getting anything (I hate needles). But I looked into the issue, and more importantly talked to my mom, a nurse who worked as an IV nurse in a hospital. The fact is, if anything really bad happens (and that is one of the primary reasons most women chose to deliver in a hospital, right?), most life saving protocols involve the use of an IV or heplock to administer a drug. Most OB nurses (and definitely most OBs) are not experts at getting in IVs. And, most hospitals have gotten rid of their IV nurse teams that used to respond in emergency situations. That means that it is going to take extra time to get a drug administered, time that could be crucial to the outcome. So, in my mind, if you don't want an IV or heplock. you're really turning down the heart of any medical treatment that you gain by being in a hospital setting.

And for me, the discomfort of the heplock was nothing compared to the intense pain of childbirth.

What's wrong with the middle ground? If you are in a hospital you are surely closer to immediate emergency care. If birthing in a non-hospital setting is fine (which it is and you seem to agree), then why is it not okay to birth right where emergency services could be given but without prepping as though an emergency is going to happen? To each her own, of course, and the OP may be perfectly happy with a heplock but she should know that she doesn't have to get one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I really have to disagree with not getting a heplock or IV. If you don't want one of those, then I think you really need to ask yourself why you're delivering in a hospital. I'm totally supportive of delivering in a non-hospital setting if that is what a woman wants, but I think that most women who want a natural birth but chose to do it in a hospital do so because they want to know extra emergency care is there if necessary.

What's wrong with the middle ground? If you are in a hospital you are surely closer to immediate emergency care. If birthing in a non-hospital setting is fine (which it is and you seem to agree), then why is it not okay to birth right where emergency services could be given but without prepping as though an emergency is going to happen? Women who give birth at home or in birthing centers still transfer to the hospital if there is a real emergency.

To each her own, of course, and the OP may be perfectly happy with a heplock but she should know that she doesn't have to get one.

[Anonymous]

I delivered at Sibly with a heplock and intermittent monitoring. I had to be really firm, but YOU are in charge and if they know that you know that you have the final say over your care, they will back down pretty fast. I actually had a lovely L&D nurse who was very supportive. Having my DH and doula there was also invaluable. Good luck! You can do it!

[Anonymous]

I also delivered at Sibley with a heplock and intermittent monitoring. All I had to do was tell the L&D nurse that I didn't want to labor in bed (I brought a birthing ball so they knew I was serious). They said I had to be hooked up for 15 minutes every hour and then they disconnected me so I could continue walking and sitting on the ball (pilates/exercise ball soooo comfortable to sit on while laboring). I didn't feel I needed to be particularly firm. I just told them my intentions when I walked in. Good luck!