Anonymous wrote:I trust the people that went to medical school.
Anonymous wrote:Hi - resurrecting this post. I am going to Foxhall and so far all the OBs I’ve seen recently there have asked me “when are you scheduling your induction?”. They keep citing studies about outcomes being equal to not inducing, which bears the question: then, why do I need to induce. The more I ask, it feels it’s a resourcing issue / workload for them, more than benefits for the mother.
Anonymous wrote:I’m in AA county but dang. They wouldn’t even LET me get induced at 39 weeks despite being AMA (36). I went 40+6 before finally getting induced for reduced fetal movement.
Anonymous wrote:I did an induction at 39 weeks because that’s what my OB recommended and it went fine. Good, even! I think.
I don’t get the doctor shopping. They’re supposed to make recommendations based on the best science available. If you want to say no for some reason, just say no. But wouldn’t it be worrying if they didn’t make the recommendation?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hi - resurrecting this post. I am going to Foxhall and so far all the OBs I’ve seen recently there have asked me “when are you scheduling your induction?”. They keep citing studies about outcomes being equal to not inducing, which bears the question: then, why do I need to induce. The more I ask, it feels it’s a resourcing issue / workload for them, more than benefits for the mother.
Benefits to mother include reduced risk of stillbirth, as well as hypertension, preeclampsia, hypertension, C-section, and perineal injury. Don’t those things matter to you?
Personally I was permitted to go to 41 weeks when I went into labor naturally, had to push out a nearly 9 pounder with forceps, and got preeclampsia, and had a nearly 4th degree tear. So I am a textbook reason for why trusting Mother Nature can lead to crap outcomes.
Babies at the end of pregnancy get huge very fast and that makes birth harder, no matter what the midwives say.
https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/may/mothers-choosing-to-induce-labour-at-39-weeks-have-better-health-outcomes
Anonymous wrote:Whaaat? I was 41 and delivered at 40 weeks and then 42 and delivered at 41 weeks. Ohhh the good wise women of midwifery.
Anonymous wrote:Hi - resurrecting this post. I am going to Foxhall and so far all the OBs I’ve seen recently there have asked me “when are you scheduling your induction?”. They keep citing studies about outcomes being equal to not inducing, which bears the question: then, why do I need to induce. The more I ask, it feels it’s a resourcing issue / workload for them, more than benefits for the mother.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Foxhall. None of the OBs said anything about induction until I brought it up, and then made it very clear that it was my choice and I could go until 41 or even 42 weeks if I wanted. And my pregnancy was IVF so dates were certain.
I recently delivered with Foxhall and WAS an induction at 39 weeks. I am AMA but it was because they thought he was going to be a chunker!They first mentioned it after his 32 weeks growth scan, then at the 36 week when he still measured big. If anything I was actually annoyed that they were not pushing me one way or the other. It was 100% my decision, and they even asked if I had a set birth plan or was set in vaginal vs C-section. Highly recommend Dr. Davis—one of the advantages of being induced is you can pick who is on call that day!
How big was your baby and how long did it take for baby to come once you had the scheduled induction? I’m currently in Dr. Davis’ care and they think my baby is going to be big but Dr. Davis is pushing for either a 39 week induction or c-section even though I don’t have GD and have a history of large babies being born in my family so I’m confused with the lean towards unnecessary medical interventions...