# undermining women in labour?



## special_kala

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

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

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

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

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

special_kala said:


> 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

special_kala said:


> 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

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


----------



## pinklizzy

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

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.


----------



## everclearnut1

I don't want one either (besides not wanting easy access to put meds in w/o asking i'm super allergic to tape and its held in place with tape) However, I have been at the unpleasant end of being super dehydrated and having to go into the hospital (for non pregnancy related issues) It took them 30 min and 5 different ppl to put the dam thing in. I was bruised and in a lot of pain. I am willing to compromise with the hep block but i refuse to be feathered to to an IV poll!


----------



## DianaB

I can't imagine having one in, I would have refused. Here we may not have any other options then hospital birth but they at least don't force much of anything on you if you're having a natural birth. I was pretty much just left alone entirely, maybe they forgot I was there seeing as they didn't have to do anything for me haha. Although after I had my LO they wanted to give me some kind of meds as they thought I may have a bleeding issue (which I didn't they just couldn't find my tear and stitch it) and the doctor seemed pretty annoyed I didn't have an IV.


----------



## ljo1984

No way would I be having any cannulas put in unless required! It takes less than a minute to put in (if you've got good veins lol)!! When I was transferred the paramedic wanted to put one in "just incase" and my mw actually said, no your not, she does not need one!!! I know as a nurse over here cannulas are put in if and when needed not for "just incase". I've noticed over the years it's gone from practically every patient having one from when in a&e to only people who are on iv treatment having them and then have to be monitored on every shift and changed after 5 days!


----------



## solitaire89

special_kala said:


> It seems to me like women are expected to need intervention and things are expected to go wrong so its best to be prepared

I think you are absolutely right, and I think it goes much further than just an IV line going in.

Women have been lead to believe that birth is something that they cannot achieve without help - even if things all go swimmingly, your baby is "delivered" by someone else (be that a mw/doc/obgyn). Delivered - meaning saved/rescued and by someone else to boot. Which is why I hate the phrase, and tend to make a point of saying "to birth your baby".

We have a long way to go to fix the damage that has been done to the attitude towards birth, but I hope it can be achieved. I think the only way we can get women to trust their bodies again is for women who have a positive experience to get it out there, and hopefully then other women will start to trust and listen to their bodies and by the very fact that they do, make choices to avoid the things that prolong/disturb labour, such as lying on the back (all so that a medic can see what's going on between your legs) and not eating and drinking (ever tried to run a marathon on empty?!).

Just my opinion though :)


----------



## THart

After reading through all these pst, I must say that these things never even crossed my mind. I've always let doctors and them do whatever in a "they know best" manner, but you ladies have brought up a lot of points I really want to sit and think on. Thank you.


----------



## Pielette

I read that thread too kala and I was shocked.

I had no idea that precautionary IVs were so common. It seems so odd to me to place one just in case. Well technically I could break my leg crossing the road, so should I bring a crutch with me every time?

I do think it is a small part of a much bigger problem - the expectation that women are going to struggle during labour and need assistance. Naturally there are different problems that could arise, but also there are millions of straight forward births that don't require intervention. It sets women up to think that they may not be able to do it on their own, leading to anxiety and panic, which in turn leads to a higher probability of needing intervention and having a more difficult birth.

This only serves to feed into what some health professionals would have everyone believe - see, we told you you would need help. So the cycle perpetuates, more stories out there of women needing assistance. The mentality of positivity and embracing it has been lost to a certain degree.

When I gave birth to my son I did it at home, without pain relief and it was the best experience of my life. I didn't allow midwives to examine me, I had no idea how many centimetres dilated I was because I felt it wasn't necessary to know. I am the first of my friends to have a baby and they were amazed by the way I did it and I have been working on changing their mindsets for when they do it - that women CAN do it, that it doesn't have to be a scary experience and we are STRONG.


----------



## jensha

I totally agree! It makes me cringe when I hear women' stories about the nurse asking them when they want the epidural as soon as they are admitted. If you say "um, I never said I wanted it" they look at you like you're crazy, like why the hell would anyone want to go through hell. We are brainwashed to expect labor to be unbeareable, so pain medication is now the norm. People totally forgot about the risks. What did women do before induction and other drugs were invented?


----------



## special_kala

solitaire89 said:


> special_kala said:
> 
> 
> It seems to me like women are expected to need intervention and things are expected to go wrong so its best to be prepared
> 
> I think you are absolutely right, and I think it goes much further than just an IV line going in.
> 
> Women have been lead to believe that birth is something that they cannot achieve without help - even if things all go swimmingly, your baby is "delivered" by someone else (be that a mw/doc/obgyn). Delivered - meaning saved/rescued and by someone else to boot. Which is why I hate the phrase, and tend to make a point of saying "to birth your baby".
> 
> We have a long way to go to fix the damage that has been done to the attitude towards birth, but I hope it can be achieved. I think the only way we can get women to trust their bodies again is for women who have a positive experience to get it out there, and hopefully then other women will start to trust and listen to their bodies and by the very fact that they do, make choices to avoid the things that prolong/disturb labour, such as lying on the back (all so that a medic can see what's going on between your legs) and not eating and drinking (ever tried to run a marathon on empty?!).
> 
> Just my opinion though :)Click to expand...

Thank you! That's exactly how I feel too


----------



## aliss

I wonder if any of you girls read the thread in (I can't remember which tri- 2nd, 3rd?) a few days ago from a nurse who said girls with birth plan wishes were......... AND I QUOTE....... "needy". 

:shock: No wonder I didn't want to go back there.


----------



## aliss

https://babyandbump.momtastic.com/pregnancy-third-trimester/1712067-birth-plans-really.html
(Warning, might rile up the blood!)


----------



## Pielette

Blood suitably riled aliss! :nope:


----------



## solitaire89

aliss said:


> https://babyandbump.momtastic.com/pregnancy-third-trimester/1712067-birth-plans-really.html
> (Warning, might rile up the blood!)

I can confirm... Thread contains material that may not be suitable for advocates of natural birth, those who think a birthing mother's opinion matters in labour, and those with a modicum of common sense - I mean, you don't read the plan as an emergency presents itself, you read it BEFORE YOU NEED TO, DAMN IT!!!


----------



## Feronia

Thanks for posting that thread, aliss, and boiling my blood. :haha:

I can't understand why IVs would be given to every woman as a "precautionary" measure. I hemorrhaged postpartum and it only took like a minute to set up the IV. My midwife said she hadn't had to use an IV bag in years and said she had to keep buying them because they expired! I definitely agree that doing this as a routine measure undermines a woman's ability to give birth.


----------



## ljo1984

My got that birth plan thread what a load of crap!! Mine was two pages (I used the nhs template one so was in sections would of been less than a page if I wrote it myself. And my midwife followed it even during and after transfer, so even in what they'd deemed an emergency she was able to follow my plan as much as possible so that thread is ridiculous.


----------



## fionar

Wow, that thread... I... that's pretty goddamn horrible. How dare women have ideas about how they'd like labor to go! HOW DARE THEY.


----------



## andanumbrella

I am only agreeing to a hep lock (that's when they just put a catheter in your hand, right? No IV?) because I am doing a vbac and they are agreeing to let me be very mobile and in control. It is a compromise that I am willing to make, but otherwise, I would say no way. With my last labor I was preterm (35 weeks) and the nurses thought it gave them the right to overlook my whole birth plan. I think they put that iv in my straight away and then came in every twenty minutes offering to put sleeping and or pain medication in it. It was terrible. Anyway, I have to have faith that my new midwives won't try anything sneaky and I am arming myself with a doula!


----------



## Tasha

I had it as a precautionary measure with Riley Rae, partly because it was a VBAC but mostly because it was labour number five (so higher risk of haemoraging) and my iron (hb) was six. I have had a cannula put it in an emergency a few times and it is really difficult to get one in when I am so anaemic. Having said that it never crossed my mind to say no, given what I was going through.


----------



## Irish Eyes

I might have it wrong but I got the impression that in the US they are overly cautious due to a huge suing culture? I was induced & had monitoring once for 15 minutes, other than that I was left alone. A friend of mine who lives in the US said she had to be monitored the whole time so couldn't leave the bed, it caused more pain and so she then asked for an epidural. When she asked the nurse why, she bluntly explained if anything happened to the baby, they would be sued so they prefer women to have epis to keep them still.


----------



## ljo1984

Irish Eyes said:


> I might have it wrong but I got the impression that in the US they are overly cautious due to a huge suing culture? I was induced & had monitoring once for 15 minutes, other than that I was left alone. A friend of mine who lives in the US said she had to be monitored the whole time so couldn't leave the bed, it caused more pain and so she then asked for an epidural. When she asked the nurse why, she bluntly explained if anything happened to the baby, they would be sued so they prefer women to have epis to keep them still.

I was induced with pitocin, I'm in the uk and was constantly monitored as it can cause decelerations on babys heart rate (which it did!) said I could get up with it all on but really I couldn't because the stupid monitor disc things kept popping off! So ended up with epidural. While sat up having that I went from 4-10 cm!!! If I could of got up and been active I wouldn't of needed epidural and probably avoided forceps!! 
They wanted to do constant monitoring on dd2 as well after I was transferred in due to mec I waters, she only got one monitor on but I'd started pushing, she said heart rate was fine and pulled it off so I could move. Thank god!


----------



## BunnyN

I liked the idea of a home birth but because it's hard to arrange where I live I decided to settle for a hospital birth but after talking to the staff at my appointment I'm having second thoughts. When I asked about routine interventions she launched into a speech about how they are happy to support a natural birth and they only use interventions if it is best for the mother and baby. When I asked more questions it turned out of course they use IV drips as standard because that is for the best of the mother and baby, of course they cut if they think you might tear because cuts heal better, of course they induce at 41 weeks and at 38 if the baby is over 9 1/2lb, all because it's obviously the 'best' thing for mother and baby. She did say they couldn't do anything I didn't want them to but again that they only did what was in the mother and babies best interests anyway. I'm sure she believes in what she says but I don't share the same opinion in many of those respects and would rather be given the chance to make an informed decision rather than do everything just because it's hospital policy, I didn't even get as far as asking what their standard practice for cord cutting, skin to skin etc is. I know that I can refuse anything I want to but I didn't get the impression they would be eager for me to have an opinion. Now I'm not sure I want to turn my birth experience into a battlefield over standard practice so I'm looking into home options again.


----------



## aliss

BunnyN said:


> I liked the idea of a home birth but because it's hard to arrange where I live I decided to settle for a hospital birth but after talking to the staff at my appointment I'm having second thoughts. When I asked about routine interventions she launched into a speech about how they are happy to support a natural birth and they only use interventions if it is best for the mother and baby. When I asked more questions it turned out of course they use IV drips as standard because that is for the best of the mother and baby, of course they cut if they think you might tear because cuts heal better, of course they induce at 41 weeks and at 38 if the baby is over 9 1/2lb, all because it's obviously the 'best' thing for mother and baby. She did say they couldn't do anything I didn't want them to but again that they only did what was in the mother and babies best interests anyway. I'm sure she believes in what she says but I don't share the same opinion in many of those respects and would rather be given the chance to make an informed decision rather than do everything just because it's hospital policy, I didn't even get as far as asking what their standard practice for cord cutting, skin to skin etc is. I know that I can refuse anything I want to but I didn't get the impression they would be eager for me to have an opinion. Now I'm not sure I want to turn my birth experience into a battlefield over standard practice so I'm looking into home options again.

I don't wish to muddle your thoughts more, but cuts don't really heal better than tears. Tears heal better. Cuts are easier for hospital staff to deal with...

I've had one of each, the tear was a million times easier.


----------



## BunnyN

aliss said:


> I don't wish to muddle your thoughts more, but cuts don't really heal better than tears. Tears heal better. Cuts are easier for hospital staff to deal with...
> 
> I've had one of each, the tear was a million times easier.

Those were her words not mine, after research and reading lots of experiences like yours I plan on firmly refusing being cut (except in the case of a true emergency of course) but she spoke as if it was obvious cutting was the best option if there was any chance of a tear and and as if someone who refused an episiotomy was being foolish for not trusting them to know what's best. I didn't say much, thought I'd leave it for another time but I came away feeling like I was going to clash with them about everything:growlmad:.


----------



## ljo1984

aliss said:


> BunnyN said:
> 
> 
> I liked the idea of a home birth but because it's hard to arrange where I live I decided to settle for a hospital birth but after talking to the staff at my appointment I'm having second thoughts. When I asked about routine interventions she launched into a speech about how they are happy to support a natural birth and they only use interventions if it is best for the mother and baby. When I asked more questions it turned out of course they use IV drips as standard because that is for the best of the mother and baby, of course they cut if they think you might tear because cuts heal better, of course they induce at 41 weeks and at 38 if the baby is over 9 1/2lb, all because it's obviously the 'best' thing for mother and baby. She did say they couldn't do anything I didn't want them to but again that they only did what was in the mother and babies best interests anyway. I'm sure she believes in what she says but I don't share the same opinion in many of those respects and would rather be given the chance to make an informed decision rather than do everything just because it's hospital policy, I didn't even get as far as asking what their standard practice for cord cutting, skin to skin etc is. I know that I can refuse anything I want to but I didn't get the impression they would be eager for me to have an opinion. Now I'm not sure I want to turn my birth experience into a battlefield over standard practice so I'm looking into home options again.
> 
> I don't wish to muddle your thoughts more, but cuts don't really heal better than tears. Tears heal better. Cuts are easier for hospital staff to deal with...
> 
> I've had one of each, the tear was a million times easier.Click to expand...

^ this!!! And after been cut for forceps and having third degree tear up and down with dd2 I can confirm tears heal alot quicker, and were less painful in terms of I didn't need a rubber ring to sit on (no joke lol) my cut opened up meaning it took 8 weeks to heal, and as they cut into muscle made it alot more painful!! Although I found when having a wee the tear was alot more painful than the cut, but I'd rather tear any day now I've experienced both


----------



## lynnikins

BunnyN, what makes people think women cant birth big babies themselves lol, 

all my children have been over 9 1/2lb born , all natural deliverys though the first was assisted caus the begger stuck his arm on his head and got stuck. had an episiotomy with him too, and tore with both the others caus mine can really fly out lol


----------



## aliss

^Yep my 2nd (smaller at 8lb 6oz) had slight dystocia, a good wiggle, and flying on out!! You just need to not be drugged up!!

The one where I was drugged up... oh boy, that was another story.


----------



## BunnyN

Oh yeh, and she said to have an epidural because it was "Better for the mother". It's not that I object to interventions if they are needed, they can and do save lives. My objection is to routine interventions without any good reason and being looked at like you have two heads or you don't care about your baby as much as they do because you don't want to do everything they say.


----------

