Inducing for convenience
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Here are the known risks of induction:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53624/ In sum -- uterine hyperstimulation, failed induction, umbilical cord prolapse and uterine rupture. (rupture is rare and happens mostly with prior cs) This article has a lot of good, unbiased info on later inductions (may not apply to earlier ones): https://evidencebasedbirth.com/evidence-on-inducing-labor-for-going-past-your-due-date/ It's also important to be aware that induction is a medical procedure (vs spontaneous labor) and with any procedure comes the need for increased monitoring, so make sure you're ok with that before signing on. |
Anonymous
|
I had an induction at 37 weeks (for medical reasons), and it was a really awful experience. It was successful (vaginal birth) and we both ended up safe, but he just did not want to come. That said, if you're already closer to natural labor, it's much more likely to be an easier process for you.
Upsides: he was BIG (over 8 pounds at 37 weeks), so glad I didn't have to give birth to a 9-10 pound 40+ weeker. It was nice to be done being pregnant at 37 weeks early. I was getting big and uncomfortable, but skipped that very end of pregnancy hell. He nursed with no problems, but was very sleepy at first (was also jaundiced, so that may have accounted for the sleepiness). Downsides: induction before you're body is ready can be very hard and has a high likelihood of a csection. If your doctor thinks you're a good candidate and your cervix is favorable, then this is less of a concern. Not sure about your plans for pain relief, but I would plan on an epidural if you go the induction route. Not impossible to do pitocin naturally, but it sucks. Why not schedule one for 39 weeks and see if you go into labor naturally before then? |
Anonymous
And there's also growing evidence that induction is safest at 39 weeks for baby and mother: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/863383 |
Anonymous
The problem with this viewpoint is that you're assuming the alternative to induction is a natural, intervention-free labor. That's not necessarily the case. The alternative to induction might end up being a c-section, or an operative birth (vaccuum or forceps). So it's not necessarily true that forgoing induction at 39 weeks = fewer interventions. The well-designed studies on induction at term don't look at induction at term v natural labor; they look at induction at term v expectant management (i.e., waiting until overdue). A lot of those pregnancies that are allowed to go overdue end up in c-sections or inductions because they develop a medical indication for intervention that might not have been present at 39-40 weeks. Here is one recent study that, for women 35+, found no difference in c-section rates between induction at 39 weeks and expectant management: http://contemporaryobgyn.modernmedicine.com/contemporary-obgyn/news/labor-induction-vs-expectant-management-women-over-35. Other studies have found that induction at term actually REDUCES c-section rates: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905733/ |
Anonymous
| i kind of did. i was 39 weeks and in so much physical pain (hip, back). i asked to be induced, and my doc said no. within a couple of minutes he agreed b/c he was going to be on vacation the following week and he prefer to deliver his patients himself. (i was induced and had some minor post-delivery complications, which were unrelated to the induction. so i was glad to have my doc there.) |
Anonymous
|
My sister did this b/c her DH was deployed and was back visiting at home during a narrow window of time.
All went well. Her pregnancy was healthy. And my BIL was there to see my nephew born. The one thing, though, that does make a huge difference is if your body is ready and primed - already dilated, baby head down, etc. It makes for a faster and smoother birth. Pitocin can be rough otherwise. Plus, the contractions, at least for me (I also induced) were much more intense. |
Anonymous
|
Induction is totally routine at 39 weeks if you've already had a successful vaginal birth -- most OBs will agree to it, even if they don't suggest it.
If it's your first baby, it's more unusual. OP, was he saying he'd schedule a completely elective induction before 39 weeks? That is odd. |
Anonymous
|
I never would as I'm one of those strange people who loves the last few weeks and the anticipation that comes with not knowing when some story you are going to tell and remember for the rest of you life is about to happen.
THat said, I couldn't care less about what other people do, so go for it! |
Anonymous
Mike was also born 38+2 and was the same. Made bf'ing a lot more difficult because of the sleepiness. I used to practically torture the poor thing to stay awake long enough to nurse more than 5 minutes. |
Anonymous
My view is that choosing to have any elective medical procedure should not be done before thoroughly weighing the risks v benefits. Are there benefits to inducing at 39 weeks? Yes. The biggest one is convenience – for her and the doctor. Are there risks? Yes. And OP asked what the risks were, so obviously her doctor didn’t fully discuss them. It’s called informed consent, and clearly all women aren’t getting it! https://www.childbirth-u.com/routine-labor-induction-at-39-weeks-epitome-of-medical-model-thinking/ |
Anonymous
My reason is mainly that my in-laws will be here for a short period of time and can take care of my 16 month old while my husband and I are at the hospital... and also would just be nice to have family here for the birth. My due date is on Wednesday (so I'm 39+5 today) and I think my OB won't let me go past 41 weeks anyway, so I'm still contemplating it but have not decided yet. |
Anonymous
| I did it few times at 39w. Fast labors (under 5 hours) and easier childcare arraignments. |