undermining women in labour?

special_kala · Feb 3rd, 2013, 17:02 PM

A different thread has highlighted the fact that precautionary IVs are common place in some countries. The idea of that seems very strange to me.

It seems to me like women are expected to need intervention and things are expected to go wrong so its best to be prepared but to me women need to feel empowered and to feel like they can do it.

I'm pretty passionate about natural delivery so it really just baffles me.

NaturalMomma · Feb 3rd, 2013, 20:16 PM

Yes that is common in the US. Not very many hospitals have faith in women to give birth naturally or unmedicated. We have high rates, up to 90% in some hospitals, of epidural and pain medication use. We have high rates of induction and vacuum extraction. It's pathetic.

Proserpina · Feb 3rd, 2013, 21:30 PM

In mild defense of routine IVs, some care providers really are going to be concerned that you be ready for surgery if an emergency is needed. And having an IV put in will waste precious minutes.

I think that a hep-lock is a good compromise. You retain your freedom and mobility, care provider gets the security of knowing that an IV can quickly be hooked up in an emergency.

That said, completely agree that a big part of it is the lack of faith in a woman's ability to birth naturally.

Fortune Cooki · Feb 4th, 2013, 02:19 AM

Yep, I mentioned to a group of ladies at a party that I didn't want an IV (unless necessary), and they all tried to convince me that having the IV in 'just in case' was safer. One of them was a young nurse and said: "I hardly think they will let you go without one, it is standard where I work." Well, come to find out, my birthing center is more pro-natural. = )

special_kala · Feb 4th, 2013, 03:00 AM

Does just having it in not give doctors more chance to use "well the iv is already in so..." When pushing further intervention.

The idea you don't have a choice in it is ridiculous to me. How in a 1st world country can you have no choice whether something is being stuck in your arm.

fionar · Feb 4th, 2013, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by special_kala

Does just having it in not give doctors more chance to use "well the iv is already in so..." When pushing further intervention.

Exactly this. If for any reason I end up at a hospital to labor instead of being at home as is currently the plan, I'm refusing a hep lock on admit. WHEN and IF I need an IV, they can do it then. It feels really disrespectful to me that they'd try to get you to allow one when your plan clearly states you want to labor naturally.

gryphongrl · Feb 4th, 2013, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by special_kala

The idea you don't have a choice in it is ridiculous to me. How in a 1st world country can you have no choice whether something is being stuck in your arm.

They absolutely will let you decline it. It's not in their wording, though. The wording is, "We're going to put in an IV right now." Then you have to say, "no, you're not." But definitely the way they phrase it makes it sound like they're going to do it. Everything does. They hand you a hospital gown and say put it on. You can just say no. (I said no.) But, they don't phrase it like you can. Another one is, "you can't have anything to eat or drink." Or, "get on the bed." You just keep your own clothes on, sit on the floor, and take out a granola bar. Those are all issued as directives but they aren't requirements.

aliss · Feb 5th, 2013, 08:34 AM

I'm curious how many women & babies actually die or suffer lifelong complications because it took 2 minutes to put in an IV??

pinklizzy · Feb 5th, 2013, 08:41 AM

I had one put in and as far as I remember I was told they would be doing it rather than them requesting that I allow it but by that time I was fully dilated and ready to push and couldn't be bothered to argue.
I would've have refused one any earlier than that though, they're so uncomfortable.

LoraLoo · Feb 5th, 2013, 08:49 AM

One of the Mums at school had one put in as a precation as it was her 5th baby and you are at higher risk of hemorrage. I had one in anyway for antibiotics. I dont think its undermiming women in labour as such.

Feb 3rd, 2013, 17:02 PM	#1
special_kala Mum (Mom) BnB Spammer Elite Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: West sussex, england Posts: 20,519	undermining women in labour? A different thread has highlighted the fact that precautionary IVs are common place in some countries. The idea of that seems very strange to me. It seems to me like women are expected to need intervention and things are expected to go wrong so its best to be prepared but to me women need to feel empowered and to feel like they can do it. I'm pretty passionate about natural delivery so it really just baffles me.

Status: Offline

Feb 3rd, 2013, 20:16 PM	#2
NaturalMomma Mum (Mom) BnB Addict Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,592	Yes that is common in the US. Not very many hospitals have faith in women to give birth naturally or unmedicated. We have high rates, up to 90% in some hospitals, of epidural and pain medication use. We have high rates of induction and vacuum extraction. It's pathetic.

Status: Offline

Feb 3rd, 2013, 21:30 PM	#3
Proserpina Pregnant (Expecting) Active BnB Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Illinois Posts: 740	In mild defense of routine IVs, some care providers really are going to be concerned that you be ready for surgery if an emergency is needed. And having an IV put in will waste precious minutes. I think that a hep-lock is a good compromise. You retain your freedom and mobility, care provider gets the security of knowing that an IV can quickly be hooked up in an emergency. That said, completely agree that a big part of it is the lack of faith in a woman's ability to birth naturally.

Status: Offline

Feb 4th, 2013, 02:19 AM	#4
Fortune Cooki Pregnant (Expecting) Active BnB Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: East Bay, CA Posts: 562	Yep, I mentioned to a group of ladies at a party that I didn't want an IV (unless necessary), and they all tried to convince me that having the IV in 'just in case' was safer. One of them was a young nurse and said: "I hardly think they will let you go without one, it is standard where I work." Well, come to find out, my birthing center is more pro-natural. = )

Status: Offline

Feb 4th, 2013, 03:00 AM	#5
special_kala Mum (Mom) BnB Spammer Elite Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: West sussex, england Posts: 20,519	Does just having it in not give doctors more chance to use "well the iv is already in so..." When pushing further intervention. The idea you don't have a choice in it is ridiculous to me. How in a 1st world country can you have no choice whether something is being stuck in your arm.

Status: Offline

Feb 5th, 2013, 08:34 AM	#8
aliss AutoSignup (SAAB) BnB Spammer Elite Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Québec Posts: 24,347	I'm curious how many women & babies actually die or suffer lifelong complications because it took 2 minutes to put in an IV??

Status: Offline

Feb 5th, 2013, 08:41 AM	#9
pinklizzy Mum (Mom) BnB Addict Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Wales, UK Posts: 3,889	I had one put in and as far as I remember I was told they would be doing it rather than them requesting that I allow it but by that time I was fully dilated and ready to push and couldn't be bothered to argue. I would've have refused one any earlier than that though, they're so uncomfortable.

Status: Online

Feb 5th, 2013, 08:49 AM	#10
LoraLoo Pregnant (Expecting) BnB Addict Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Cumbria Posts: 7,970	One of the Mums at school had one put in as a precation as it was her 5th baby and you are at higher risk of hemorrage. I had one in anyway for antibiotics. I dont think its undermiming women in labour as such.

Status: Offline

User Name		Remember Me?
Password