IV during labor?

[Anonymous]

(FTM here) Along with the concerns about the IV being uncomfortable, I am also wondering how I can possibly labor actively when hooked up to an IV and probably a external monitor. From what I understand, having less mobility while in labor might result in other interventions.

It seems the hospital pays lip service to "natural methods", but in reality, they are not very supportive.

[Anonymous]

Possibly the hospital is more concerned with the safety of you and your baby than having you be perfectly comfortable with birdies singing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(FTM here) Along with the concerns about the IV being uncomfortable, I am also wondering how I can possibly labor actively when hooked up to an IV and probably a external monitor. From what I understand, having less mobility while in labor might result in other interventions.

It seems the hospital pays lip service to "natural methods", but in reality, they are not very supportive.

Exactly.

I can't speak for other moms, but I don't want "birdies singing". I just want to move around freely and avoid interventions that aren't necessary. Is that asking too much? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

It isn't routine everywhere. I gave birth in the UK and they had no desire to put an IV into me.

They did stab me in the thigh with pit after my daughter was born, but only after I was losing more blood than they liked out of a tear. Pit doesn't have to go through an IV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Possibly the hospital is more concerned with the safety of you and your baby than having you be perfectly comfortable with birdies singing?

Why do those opposed to natural birth always throw out these straw-man objections? People who choose natural birth typically do so precisely because it is safer, not because we are hellbent on having some hippy-dippy sing-songy "experience." There are risks associated with every single medical intervention. Yes, if the intervention is necessary than you need to weigh the risks vs. the benefits. But since birth is a normal life process, designed to function smoothly, then there is no reason to automatically introduce ANY medical procedures - until it is actually indicated. I'm honestly not sure why this line of reasoning is so difficult to understand. Hospitals operate under the assumption that if they provide MORE services and MORE medical interventions, than at least if they get sued they can claim that they "tried everything"; completely glossing over the fact that sometimes it is because of those interventions that the mom or baby developed certain complications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do those opposed to natural birth always throw out these straw-man objections? People who choose natural birth typically do so precisely because it is safer, not because we are hellbent on having some hippy-dippy sing-songy "experience." There are risks associated with every single medical intervention. Yes, if the intervention is necessary than you need to weigh the risks vs. the benefits. But since birth is a normal life process, designed to function smoothly, then there is no reason to automatically introduce ANY medical procedures - until it is actually indicated. I'm honestly not sure why this line of reasoning is so difficult to understand. Hospitals operate under the assumption that if they provide MORE services and MORE medical interventions, than at least if they get sued they can claim that they "tried everything"; completely glossing over the fact that sometimes it is because of those interventions that the mom or baby developed certain complications.

Amen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all of those who don't want to get a saline lock in the hospital, you'd better also not want an epidural. None of you want one, right? Besides the fact that they have to bolus fluids in you before the epidural (via IV), they will also be sticking a needle in your SPINAL CORD, which is a helluva lot more invasive that a peripheral vein.

So, none of you want an epidural, right?

I'm almost certain that they won't give an epidural if you don't have an IV in place. They require constant monitoring once you receive the epidural as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why do those opposed to natural birth always throw out these straw-man objections? People who choose natural birth typically do so precisely because it is safer, not because we are hellbent on having some hippy-dippy sing-songy "experience." There are risks associated with every single medical intervention. Yes, if the intervention is necessary than you need to weigh the risks vs. the benefits. But since birth is a normal life process, designed to function smoothly, then there is no reason to automatically introduce ANY medical procedures - until it is actually indicated. I'm honestly not sure why this line of reasoning is so difficult to understand. Hospitals operate under the assumption that if they provide MORE services and MORE medical interventions, than at least if they get sued they can claim that they "tried everything"; completely glossing over the fact that sometimes it is because of those interventions that the mom or baby developed certain complications.

ITA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(FTM here) Along with the concerns about the IV being uncomfortable, I am also wondering how I can possibly labor actively when hooked up to an IV and probably a external monitor. From what I understand, having less mobility while in labor might result in other interventions.

It seems the hospital pays lip service to "natural methods", but in reality, they are not very supportive.

I gave birth naturally, in a hospital (with *gasp* a saline lock in place!). I was given a choice whether to place the saline lock - asked if I wanted it, given time to ask my husband to help me recall whether I decided I wanted one or not - hard to remember some things when you're quickly moving from 7cm to 9. You just have to be judicious in who you choose as your care provider and which hospital you go to. FTR, I delivered with the midwives at GW. GW is probably the most natural-friendly in the area due to the work of WISDOM. The nurses are very knowledgeable, and they have the equipment (like wireless fetal monitors) to allow freedom of movement. It IS possible to have a wonderful, drug free birth in a hospital setting.

[Anonymous]

Simple risk analysis: saline lock is the definition of low risk. Inability to get quick venous access in case of emergency is very dangerous. Get the saline lock.

I find wearing a seatbelt uncomfortable, and even though the likelihood of a car crash is very very low, I do it anyway just in case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple risk analysis: saline lock is the definition of low risk. Inability to get quick venous access in case of emergency is very dangerous. Get the saline lock.

I find wearing a seatbelt uncomfortable, and even though the likelihood of a car crash is very very low, I do it anyway just in case.

Actually, the comparison would be if you drove around with a saline lock in your arm. You don't do that, do you? Yet, interestingly, you have a much greater likelihood of actually needing an IV as a result of a drive in your car than you will from giving birth! Birth is extremely safe. The horror stories you hear are extraordinarily rare. And frankly, if I can trust that an EMT can start an IV after a car crash, when I am laying in the pouring rain, in the dark, in a ditch, with glass and metal all around me -- then I sure as hell hope that a nurse in the hospital, where I am laying quietly in a clean bed, can figure out how to give me an IV if it becomes necessary.

[Anonymous]

OK - if you don't want medical intervention such as a low risk IV lock then WHY HAVE YOUR BIRTH IN A HOSPITAL?

I agree that giving birth is totally safe. You chose to have a hospital birth. The hospital feels the risks of not having an IV outweigh are significant enough to have one.

I'm on the side of the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Ugh - glad I don't work as a nurse in an L and D unit with all these entitled cry baby hormonal mothers-to-be.

[Anonymous]

Or an OB for that matter with all the demands (not requests). I can see why with the rising malpractice costs, it's just not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Why does everyone think hospitals are concerned with your health as a #1 priority? Hospitals that administer IV fluids (talking about the fluids here, not the lock) do not do so because it is safer. They do so because they have always done it, it's the standard of care, and it's easier for them. Hospitals are concerned with their bottom line, not getting sued, and providing care. Sometimes those incentives are aligned, sometimes they're not. The argument that hospitals know better doesn't fly. It doesn't explain why hospitals do things differently. Why do some hospitals require IV fluids while others do not? Since they do have different standard operating procedures, it makes sense to investigate whether one standard I'd care is better than another. If you actually do this research, you will find that there is no good reason to have all laboring women administered IV fluids. Getting the lock is a different issue, one of risk analysis. The hosptal's risk analysis is different than an indiudual's. The hospital administration does not care about natural birth. C-sections are money-makers, so why wouldn't the hospital provide an environment where caesarean birth is more likely? A natural birth is very cheap, whereas a birth full of interventions followed by a long hospital stay makes money for a lot of people. Our health care system has a lot of problems and maternity care is no exception.