Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have had two babies, both born at 41 weeks, one spontaneous, one induced. I think that the PPs need to recognize that the risks, though they do increase between 37 and 42 weeks, are still very, very small. If you are talking about 2 babies in 10,000 or 10 babies in 10,000, it is still a very, very small risk. I don't think that gets mentioned frequently enough.

I am not an anti-science idiot, but I think that people make decisions all the time to engage in things that are more risky than that. Driving a car is risky, for example, but many of us put our children in cars multiple times a day, every day, and no one is ever criticized for doing so.

Either way, I think that the PP is taking this very personally and is being rather nasty. PP, who hurt you? Why do you feel like it's a good use of your time to be snippy and superior to someone who disagrees with you on an anonymous website?

Sure, but if something whose statistical risk is low happened to you, like stillbirth or preeclampsia, and it could have been avoided by induction at 39 weeks rather than waiting to go into labor naturally, you would have a very different outlook. Just like you take precautions when driving, like wearing a seatbelt, and not driving in poor weather, and having your car inspected and cared for, you can take precautions in pregnancy and delivery to avoid poor outcomes.

Anonymous wrote:I have had two babies, both born at 41 weeks, one spontaneous, one induced. I think that the PPs need to recognize that the risks, though they do increase between 37 and 42 weeks, are still very, very small. If you are talking about 2 babies in 10,000 or 10 babies in 10,000, it is still a very, very small risk. I don't think that gets mentioned frequently enough.

I am not an anti-science idiot, but I think that people make decisions all the time to engage in things that are more risky than that. Driving a car is risky, for example, but many of us put our children in cars multiple times a day, every day, and no one is ever criticized for doing so.

Either way, I think that the PP is taking this very personally and is being rather nasty. PP, who hurt you? Why do you feel like it's a good use of your time to be snippy and superior to someone who disagrees with you on an anonymous website?

Healthy first-time mothers whose labor was induced in the 39th week of pregnancy were less likely to deliver by cesarean section, compared to those who waited for labor to begin naturally, according to a study funded by the National Institutes of Health. Researchers also found that infants born to women induced at 39 weeks were no more likely to experience stillbirth, newborn death or other severe complications, compared to infants born to uninduced women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you afraid of an induction, OP? There is a lot you can do to start labor on its own. Like acupuncture, for one. But if you don’t go into labor on your own, an induction is important and needed. There’s a lot of fear mongering about it as an “intervention” but it’s much better to induce than the alternative—having a baby who is gaining weight rapidly and can be too big to birth vaginally, having a placenta at the end of it’s life that may not be working well, decreasing amniotic fluid, rapidly rising stillbirth risk, increased risk of preeclampsia and other complications, etc.

Nothing drives the point home than more fear mongering!

Being honest about risks is not fear mongering.

If they were real risks, yes. Risks that are either greatly exaggerated or entirely made up to coerce women to induce are indeed fear mongering (see "baby too big to birth vaginally", "rapidly rising stillbirth risk", "placenta at the end of its life").

If you are going to tell me that there is not a rising risk of stillbirth, preeclampsia, and fetal weight gain the later a pregnancy goes and that these are made up risks, then you are not even worth responding to because you are ignoring science and evidence. Feel free to go freebirth your baby, because your ignorance of modern day obstetrics is frankly, insulting to anyone who has done a base level of research on these topics.

You sounds like that poster on an older thread who kept citing articles on the evidence based birth website, and refused to acknowledge the author’s profound bias and understanding of how to accurately understand evidence.

And you sound absolutely unbearable and preachy without actually backing up your claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you afraid of an induction, OP? There is a lot you can do to start labor on its own. Like acupuncture, for one. But if you don’t go into labor on your own, an induction is important and needed. There’s a lot of fear mongering about it as an “intervention” but it’s much better to induce than the alternative—having a baby who is gaining weight rapidly and can be too big to birth vaginally, having a placenta at the end of it’s life that may not be working well, decreasing amniotic fluid, rapidly rising stillbirth risk, increased risk of preeclampsia and other complications, etc.

Nothing drives the point home than more fear mongering!

Being honest about risks is not fear mongering.

If they were real risks, yes. Risks that are either greatly exaggerated or entirely made up to coerce women to induce are indeed fear mongering (see "baby too big to birth vaginally", "rapidly rising stillbirth risk", "placenta at the end of its life").

If you are going to tell me that there is not a rising risk of stillbirth, preeclampsia, and fetal weight gain the later a pregnancy goes and that these are made up risks, then you are not even worth responding to because you are ignoring science and evidence. Feel free to go freebirth your baby, because your ignorance of modern day obstetrics is frankly, insulting to anyone who has done a base level of research on these topics.

You sounds like that poster on an older thread who kept citing articles on the evidence based birth website, and refused to acknowledge the author’s profound bias and understanding of how to accurately understand evidence.