IV during labor?

[Anonymous]

I am planning to attempt a drug-free delivery, and while my doctor says they are supportive of my plans, the hospital would require me to have an IV when I'm admitted for delivery - even if the IV is just running a saline solution into me. For some reason, this freaks me out. The thought of looking down and seeing a needle in my arm during labor makes me uneasy. I realize this must be a pretty standard policy in most hospitals - can anyone tell me what your experience was like having an IV during labor? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

[Anonymous]

I asked for a hep lock. Just the needle and you can barely see/feel it. Ask them if this is an option.

I would hate to be flushed with fluids for no reason. You'll get all swollen - and the baby too - depending on how long your labor is. It happened to me. Not fun.

[Anonymous]

An IV is unnecessary, and the excess fluid can cause problems. Insist on a heplock instead. The hospital cannot force a treatment on you without your permission. At this stage in my life I would refuse a heplock, too, but the hospital cannot have any objections to the compromise of a heplock, which gives them instant access to you in the exact same way an IV does.

Yet another reason I am so glad I don't give birth in the hospital anymore...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An IV is unnecessary, and the excess fluid can cause problems. Insist on a heplock instead. The hospital cannot force a treatment on you without your permission. At this stage in my life I would refuse a heplock, too, but the hospital cannot have any objections to the compromise of a heplock, which gives them instant access to you in the exact same way an IV does.

Yet another reason I am so glad I don't give birth in the hospital anymore...

Exactly! Agree with this post 100%.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, OP. sounds like your doctor is giving lip service to your desire for a natural birth. IV fluids are not medically necessary upon admission unless you are dehydrated. The excess fluid can dilute the oxytocin in your body and slow down labor, leadin to further interventions. Do you have a doula? You should have one for support and to interface with the hospital staff. Some hospitals are more friendly to natural birth than others. If you have time to switch, I'd look into it. Your OB should not just tolerate your desire for a natural labor, but be able to articulate what he/she will do to support it.

[Anonymous]

an IV line can seriously deteriorate your efforts to labor naturally, you just cannot get into all of the positions you naturally want to while chained to a bed. Some women do it- and I truly believe they are rock stars.

[Anonymous]

I delivered at Holy Cross and had a heplock. I found that to be uncomfortable, but understand they need an IV line in a hurry if there is an emergency.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I think you are making a big deal about nothing. It's an IV, not a c-section. If you are THAT averse to medical intervention, you shouldn't be delivering in a hospital (or using a doctor).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think you are making a big deal about nothing. It's an IV, not a c-section. If you are THAT averse to medical intervention, you shouldn't be delivering in a hospital (or using a doctor).

I don't think the OP is making a big deal out of nothing at all. An IV is unneccessary for all of the reasons stated above, and can compromise the OP's ability to change positions and achieve the natural birth that she's hoping for. The IV could itself lead to further interventions (pitocin, epidural that she might not get otherwise) and those can result in a c-section. The heplock can be uncomfortable but is a reasonable compromise for someone who wants a natural birth in a hospital setting. I second the recommendations to consider switching doctors if it's not too late, and to consider getting a doula. My doula told me she'll help me to make sure the heplock is place correctly (in my arm, not wrist) so that it doesn't make changing position uncomfortable during labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think you are making a big deal about nothing. It's an IV, not a c-section. If you are THAT averse to medical intervention, you shouldn't be delivering in a hospital (or using a doctor).

Or, she's an educated consumer who has read the research for best practice which states that standard use of IV fluid isn't indicated necessary for every labor. Hep-locks for easy IV access are a hospital policy of convenience. Standard IV fluid on the other hand, is not an evidence based practice. She has every logical reason (and right) to question her provider about this intervention.

[Anonymous]

I had an IV for both my natural labors. Ugh... that is what I get for delivering natural at a hospital. Everything went as planned, but of course I had to follow hospital protocol. I'm pregnant now with #3 so I will tell them no IV this time...

[Anonymous]

I'be had a heplock in my arm before and it was pretty damn uncomfortable! Not to mention that heparin is a drug and kind of nasty stuff. I would refuse both. Luckily gw/wisdom don't make you do that as a matter of course. Just refuse it - doctors don't have the right to force treatment on you, and I don't think they will kick you out when you are in labor.

[Anonymous]

I had a heplock and couldn't feel it at all. The nurse put it into my left forearm, so I could lean on my hands, make fists, etc, without feeling the heplock. There's no reason to hook up an IV "just in case", and many reasons not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think you are making a big deal about nothing. It's an IV, not a c-section. If you are THAT averse to medical intervention, you shouldn't be delivering in a hospital (or using a doctor).

Or, she's an educated consumer who has read the research for best practice which states that standard use of IV fluid isn't indicated necessary for every labor. Hep-locks for easy IV access are a hospital policy of convenience. Standard IV fluid on the other hand, is not an evidence based practice. She has every logical reason (and right) to question her provider about this intervention.

Heplocks are not a policy of convenience. Trust me, it's inconvenient to insert a heplock and it's inconvenient to remove it later. Both take time and a trip to the supply closet. It would be far more convenient to save that time and take care of the 1,001 things that need to be done during a shift. However - in the event of an emergency, that inconvenient heplock can save your life or have a significant impact on outcome. If your BP suddenly dropped, or baby's heart stopped beating, would you want te hospital staff to have to spend time looking for a good vein? Good veins are often quite hard to come by when your body is on distress, or dehydrated, or you're hemorrhaging. The heplock is about being prepared for an emergency, not about making it convenient for the staff.

I'm on board with unmediated labor (had one myself) but find it utterly foolish to resist something as simple, yet potentially invaluable, as a heplock. Big deal - you get poked with a needle and have a canula in your arm. You're not tethered to anything - it is just there in case of emergency. I'd prefer the heplock to lost one if my or my baby's life were at stake.

[Anonymous]

when you say a heplock goes in the arm, where in the arm? Inside the elbow? I've had IVs placed there before and it was horribly uncomfortable for me.