# shocked by a reply in third tri section.



## tristansmum

So i was just noseing (sp) around in third tri section and a girl was asking when they normally induce. so most people saying 10-14 days and a few earlier for medical reasons. then i came across this:

I'm in the U.S. And my doctor told me to just let him know if and when I wanted to be induced anytime after 39 weeks. He said he really doesn't like babies going over due because the longer they are in there, the bigger they are getting and the more likely they are to need medical intervention such as cesarian etc.


I'm so shocked! I mean seriously! this doctor wants them before they are even full term!? :shrug:

Please don't all go piling in to comment as i don't want to be the cause of a agruement cause some threads can get nasty (not that i think you guys would do that ) but just wondering what you think.


----------



## diz

Well i suppose any thing past 37 weeks is considered full term... but i like my babies fully baked and there is no way that induction would be an option for me...even at 10 days over, unless there was a medical reason for it, or my LO was in harms way.

maybe its a USA thing? xx


----------



## special_kala

Honestly....i am very very glad to be in the UK sometime when i read how _some_ doctors in America are. Everything seems so medicalised and things done for convenience sake rather then naturally


----------



## Trying4ababy

37 weeks is full term 


I refused induction and went 17 days overdue


----------



## tristansmum

me to. I'm not oppossed to induction once overdue... like 10+plus. I was induced on due date but that was for obstetric cholestasis. its just the fact they are saying the baby is too big after 39 weeks! thats must be why on USA birth programmes the babies are often so small. on 16 and pregnant (yes i know i'm sad for watching!!) the babies are often under 7lbs


----------



## tristansmum

Trying4ababy said:


> 37 weeks is full term
> 
> 
> I refused induction and went 17 days overdue

yeah i know its full term but i see 40 weeks as ful term personally. thats your 9 months of pregnancy... not 8 months and a week LOL


----------



## tristansmum

Trying4ababy said:
 

> 37 weeks is full term
> 
> 
> I refused induction and went 17 days overdue

did she come sponaniously??? I don't think i could go that long but good for you for waiting x


----------



## Trying4ababy

My Dr wanted to induce me at 10 days over and I said nope. I was due October 24th and had Madison on November 10th.

It was like 10 hours from my water breaking to her birth.

I have heard the induced labor goes slower because you are forcing your body to do something it isn't ready for.


----------



## Trying4ababy

Here is a link to my birth story:

https://www.babyandbump.com/birth-stories-announcements/461818-birth-our-daughter.html


----------



## tristansmum

Trying4ababy said:


> My Dr wanted to induce me at 10 days over and I said nope. I was due October 24th and had Madison on November 10th.
> 
> It was like 10 hours from my water breaking to her birth.
> 
> I have heard the induced labor goes slower because you are forcing your body to do something it isn't ready for.

your due date is tristan's birthday! lol

Yes i didn't want to induced but with OC there is a small risk of stillbirth due to the liver releasing bile acids which can effect the baby's heart. i felt i couldn't take that risk so had the induction. it was ok but next time i hope i get to experience labour starting naturally.


----------



## bigmomma74

I also refused induction....Tegan was born at 43 weeks exactly. Due on Jan 25th born on Feb 15th with no problems. I went into labour spontaneously at 42+6 and she appeared in the early hours of next morning. I am so glad to be in the UK although TBH I had to fight for no induction, so I wish sometimes things were easier here too.


----------



## lozzy21

I think its shocking, Some babys are fully cooked at 37 weeks but others need an extra 5 weeks. Your lucky if baby is born healthy if you induce early when there is no medical need to do so.


----------



## lucy_x

My baby was induced at 37+5 due to my appauling BP (200/100), although my labour was relativly simple and my baby was 8lbs 11! Given the choice, I would love to have labour start spontaniously the next time.

I really think babys should be left until their DD where possible.


----------



## Lexilove

tristansmum said:


> me to. I'm not oppossed to induction once overdue... like 10+plus. I was induced on due date but that was for obstetric cholestasis. its just the fact they are saying the baby is too big after 39 weeks! thats must be why on USA birth programmes the babies are often so small. on 16 and pregnant (yes i know i'm sad for watching!!) the babies are often under 7lbs

I don't post in here but I stumbled upon this thread and I just want to say that on 16 and pregnant it's often the girls lifestyles that make for small babies, not medical care.


----------



## LoraLoo

I feel mixed about this tbh, I don't like how Dr's in UK can leave you up to 14 days. The placenta can begin to deteriorate after 40 weeks. I think 7 days would be a happy medium xx


----------



## LoraLoo

Lexilove said:


> tristansmum said:
> 
> 
> me to. I'm not oppossed to induction once overdue... like 10+plus. I was induced on due date but that was for obstetric cholestasis. its just the fact they are saying the baby is too big after 39 weeks! thats must be why on USA birth programmes the babies are often so small. on 16 and pregnant (yes i know i'm sad for watching!!) the babies are often under 7lbs
> 
> I don't post in here but I stumbled upon this thread and I just want to say that on 16 and pregnant it's often the girls lifestyles that make for small babies, not medical care.Click to expand...

Some people just don't have big babies :shrug: I have had 4- my first was 7lb 4, Second was 6lb 4, Third again was 6lb 4 and Fourth was 7lb. I dont smoke or drink, and have no medical problems.


----------



## madasa

tristansmum said:


> So i was just noseing (sp) around in third tri section and a girl was asking when they normally induce. so most people saying 10-14 days and a few earlier for medical reasons. then i came across this:
> 
> I'm in the U.S. And my doctor told me to just let him know if and when I wanted to be induced anytime after 39 weeks. He said he really doesn't like babies going over due because the longer they are in there, the bigger they are getting and the more likely they are to need medical intervention such as cesarian etc.
> 
> 
> I'm so shocked! I mean seriously! this doctor wants them before they are even full term!? :shrug:
> 
> Please don't all go piling in to comment as i don't want to be the cause of a agruement cause some threads can get nasty (not that i think you guys would do that ) but just wondering what you think.

Privately, someone might like to send that lady a link to The Business of Being Born. In the US it really IS a business. tHere is no healthcare, and pregnancy and birth are "illnesses". The more procedures they can do, the more money they make... Don't look now, ladies. We in the UK are not far behind :(


----------



## bigmomma74

LoraLoo said:


> I feel mixed about this tbh, I don't like how Dr's in UK can leave you up to 14 days. The placenta can begin to deteriorate after 40 weeks. I think 7 days would be a happy medium xx

Drs would love you to believe that every minute after 40 weeks the placenta deteriorates but I was having scans every other day from 12 days overdue until Tegan was born to check both fluid levels and placenta function and there was NO deterioration and she was born perfectly healthy and straightforwardly. Some Drs just want to deliver you at their convenience.


----------



## LoraLoo

bigmomma74 said:


> LoraLoo said:
> 
> 
> I feel mixed about this tbh, I don't like how Dr's in UK can leave you up to 14 days. The placenta can begin to deteriorate after 40 weeks. I think 7 days would be a happy medium xx
> 
> Drs would love you to believe that every minute after 40 weeks the placenta deteriorates but I was having scans every other day from 12 days overdue until Tegan was born to check both fluid levels and placenta function and there was NO deterioration and she was born perfectly healthy and straightforwardly. Some Drs just want to deliver you at their convenience.Click to expand...

Nothing to do with what a Dr has told me, I have many friends- too many- that have lost their baby because of this. I have never known anybody In the UK, to be scanned because they were overdue??


----------



## special_kala

LoraLoo said:


> bigmomma74 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoraLoo said:
> 
> 
> I feel mixed about this tbh, I don't like how Dr's in UK can leave you up to 14 days. The placenta can begin to deteriorate after 40 weeks. I think 7 days would be a happy medium xx
> 
> Drs would love you to believe that every minute after 40 weeks the placenta deteriorates but I was having scans every other day from 12 days overdue until Tegan was born to check both fluid levels and placenta function and there was NO deterioration and she was born perfectly healthy and straightforwardly. Some Drs just want to deliver you at their convenience.Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with what a Dr has told me, I have many friends- too many- that have lost their baby because of this. I have never known anybody In the UK, to be scanned because they were overdue??Click to expand...

If you refuse induction at 10/12 days then you can ask for monitoring which is usually daily scans


----------



## lozzy21

No placenta is the same, just as no babys are the same. Some might stop working propperly at 40+2 and others are still going fine at 43.


----------



## Samantha675

Don't you ladies realize that in the past 40 years the pelvis of the American woman has shrank considerably!!! 

It has become about control, and money and not being sued to be honest.


----------



## lozzy21

Samantha675 said:


> Don't you ladies realize that in the past 40 years the pelvis of the American woman has shrank considerably!!!
> 
> .

I honestly dont believe that, it sounds like some crap a doctor has said to make women more complacent to an unnecessary over medicalised birth.


----------



## Lil_Baby_Boo

My Noah was born 16 days over due, I was taken for induction at 14 days and then sent home as they were too busy to cope :dohh:

Due to my experience and it was a bit scary, Noah ended up getting stuck and I was rushed to theatre and then I got quite ill, it all happened so quickly and it was horrible. I still think it was due to the size of him (his head was mahoooosive) - I was always measuring 'bigger' when I was pregnant but they weren't prepared to do anything for me earlier. I will fight, argue and pleed to be induced if I hadn't gone naturally by by due date - thats just because of my own experience - I'd like a 'less traumatic' birth and an actual baby next time, not give birth to a full grown toddler :haha:


----------



## aliss

Most US women have epidurals in labour, isn't it something like 85-90% in many places?

Epidurals are a contributor to shoulder dystocia, along with induction and other major interventions. It makes sense that doctors are paranoid of this, so they seem to want to induce early for smaller babies. Vicious cycle. Shoulder dystocia is one of the leading complaints against doctors in the US...


----------



## tbaby

I had an induction with my son. No clue as to what I know now. I was at least 41+6 ..however it sickens me doctors think babies should be born before 40 weeks. My sons birth was traumatic and he had to go in the NICU for 1 hr under oxygen.

Thankfully my naturopath/midwife said after 42 weeks they monitor and do ultrasounds and go from there. This baby wont be induced unless there is a medical emergency.

On the other hand I have a friend who had planned c sections before 40 weeks, why because her first one she was told he would be to big, 8 lbs is to big? and the second one of course you cant have a VBAC :wacko:


----------



## Samantha675

lozzy21 said:


> Samantha675 said:
> 
> 
> Don't you ladies realize that in the past 40 years the pelvis of the American woman has shrank considerably!!!
> 
> .
> 
> I honestly dont believe that, it sounds like some crap a doctor has said to make women more complacent to an unnecessary over medicalised birth.Click to expand...

Neither do I. But I hear it all the time. A friend, a woman in prenatal yoga, at my son's preschool all being induced so their babies don't get too big. The problem is that with such high epidural rates, which puts a woman flat on her back causes her pelvis to be not able to open as it should when she is upright. Hence the baby is too big and her pelvis too small. It's all just bullshit.


----------



## tristansmum

Samantha675 said:


> Don't you ladies realize that in the past 40 years the pelvis of the American woman has shrank considerably!!!
> 
> It has become about control, and money and not being sued to be honest.


i think you are being sarcastic about shrinking pelvis. am i right? If so it made me giggle. :haha:


----------



## MamaD

I'm an American living here in the UK, and I've got to jump in a defend (a bit)... :winkwink: I've had 4 babies, 2 in civilian hospitals, and 2 in Army hospitals, and each was a completely different birthing experience. My eldest son was 10 days late before I was induced (American military hospital). They induced because they were worried if left to his own, he'd get too big, and I was wanting a VBAC. He was born 10 days "late" at 8 lbs, 10 ozs. My OTHER military birth, I was induced "early", June 12th, when his due date was June 15th. I was dilated and ready, but not in labor. Stupid doctor insisted on inducing me as he was worried it would get too busy on the weekend. He was born healthy, at 8 pounds even. I always felt a bit cheated about that birth... 

I'm sure the original post was about a military birth, so monetary functions don't really come into play, as doctors in the military are not paid the same way civilian doctors are. 

All I'm saying is that every birth is different, and every doctor is different, no matter where you're from. I've also given birth in Germany, and I have to say, best experience so far! Loved it.... :kiss: But that could have been down to the day that I gave birth, and the staff on hand that day. Maybe could have been a completely different story had I gone in to labor 12 hours later. xx


----------



## Mum2b_Claire

I find this quite shocking too, and also I thought that after a certain point, like 37 weeks or something, they are their birthweight and don't really get bigger - e.g Ruby was born at 41+2 and was 7lb 2oz - just under the 50th centile I think. There are loads of babies of people I knew who were 2-3 weeks earlier than Ruby and MUCH bigger. 

I lived in London when I was pregnant with Ruby and their policy was to offer induction at 42 weeks, whereas now I live in Kent and they want to induce at 41+3 - which I will of course be declining if I get that far, that's only one day over Ruby's gestation, and there wasn't even an induction date booked when i went into labour with her. I definitely don't want an induction booked until I'm 42 weeks + if I get that far, don't want that hanging over me making me stressed which is hardly going to help me go naturally.


----------



## Samantha675

tristansmum said:


> Samantha675 said:
> 
> 
> Don't you ladies realize that in the past 40 years the pelvis of the American woman has shrank considerably!!!
> 
> It has become about control, and money and not being sued to be honest.
> 
> 
> i think you are being sarcastic about shrinking pelvis. am i right? If so it made me giggle. :haha:Click to expand...

Very much so.


----------



## lozzy21

What do these doctors class as big though?

Il be advised on growth scans next time but have allready been told they dont like to induce you just because your having a big baby as it just leads to more problems but Niamh was 8lb 15 at 35 weeks.


----------



## tristansmum

lozzy21 said:


> What do these doctors class as big though?
> 
> Il be advised on growth scans next time but have allready been told they dont like to induce you just because your having a big baby as it just leads to more problems but Niamh was 8lb 15 at 35 weeks.

wow! i would call her big! at 35 weeks! lol can you imagine if you'd gone 2 weeks over with her! But surly they can't keep growing rapidly... otherwise some babies would be enourmous


----------



## CMarie

bigmomma74 said:


> LoraLoo said:
> 
> 
> I feel mixed about this tbh, I don't like how Dr's in UK can leave you up to 14 days. The placenta can begin to deteriorate after 40 weeks. I think 7 days would be a happy medium xx
> 
> Drs would love you to believe that every minute after 40 weeks the placenta deteriorates but I was having scans every other day from 12 days overdue until Tegan was born to check both fluid levels and placenta function and there was NO deterioration and she was born perfectly healthy and straightforwardly. Some Drs just want to deliver you at their convenience.Click to expand...

You can get scans to see if the placenta is not working as well. Once I hit 41 weeks, my doctor is sending me for an ultrasound to see if the fluid levels are ok, placenta is still working, etc and she has no problem with me not getting induced as long as everything is ok, but she'll offer it anyways. She's had a couple of patients that went into their 43rd week of pregnancy and their placenta was working great, fluid levels were good and they delivered a very healthy baby that wasn't that big (right around 7 pounds).


----------



## Caezzybe

I think it's a USA thing. If you look at One Born Every Minute USA, they all appear to be induced in the featured hospital. I don't know if every hospital is like that, but I believe it's very common.


----------



## NaturalMomma

That can be common in USA. I've heard of many women saying their Doctors told them anytime after 38 weeks they can induce. It is just crazy. It is extremely rare (less than 1%) to "grow" a baby too big to fit through the birth canal. That is in rare cases of uncontrolled GD or other problems. The pelvis is also a unfixed joint. It can move to get bigger. Doctors can be so dumb sometimes.


----------



## Trying4ababy

I had to have fetal monitoring but it wasn't everyday. I told the Dr that I felt the human body knew what it was doing and that my baby would come when it was ready.
I do not believe in induction because it is forcing your body to do something before it is ready.

It may be a coincidence but every woman I've known who was induced and had an epidural had an extremely long labor. My sis in law had both and was in labor for 22 hours.
I let my body decide when it was time for Madison to come and I did not have an epidural. I checked into hospital at around 10:00 a.m. and had Madison at 4:55 p.m.


----------



## nickyXjayno

I have read loads of information stating that placenta reaches it's peak at 37 weeks and by 40 patches can be seen on it and it doesn't give as much nutrients.
I don't want an epidural but I do want to be induced if I do go past my due date.
I have spoken to loads of women who have gone over due and it's caused issues.
Worst story was a woman in work and her sisters baby was born sleeping, she'd gone a week and a bit overdue, baby had been fine in checks then one day just died.
PM showed placenta had just failed and she was told it's just one of those things....

Everyone has a different opinion but I wish I could just give birth as soon as baby is healthy and considered full term.


----------



## madasa

tristansmum said:


> lozzy21 said:
> 
> 
> What do these doctors class as big though?
> 
> Il be advised on growth scans next time but have allready been told they dont like to induce you just because your having a big baby as it just leads to more problems but Niamh was 8lb 15 at 35 weeks.
> 
> wow! i would call her big! at 35 weeks! lol can you imagine if you'd gone 2 weeks over with her! But surly they can't keep growing rapidly... otherwise some babies would be enourmousClick to expand...

Right. They keep putting on fat, but their head doesn't keep growing at an exponential rate ;)


----------



## pea-in-pod

Yes it's definitely a USA thing and if you watch "The Business of Being Born" it will give you a sense of what it's like there and why it is sooo messed up! Didn't you know women don't know how to birth babies anymore? (and yes I am being sarcastic with the last line!)


----------



## Trying4ababy

Maybe I was fortunate but Madison was 17 days overdue and she was perfectly healthy and I had a quick and easy delivery.


----------



## aliss

I would much rather go overdue, looong overdue, with fetal monitoring than force a baby out. Just because a baby is "cooked" (ie. lungs to full capacity at 37 weeks) does not mean the baby is ready to go out. When a baby is forcibly induced (meaning the mother's body is not favourable or ready), it's pure agony. Pure. Agony. I cannot even begin to describe a 3 day pitocin labour with a baby that was not ready to come out (all 9lb 3oz of him). It's a violent experience. I don't think many women realize that the whole "wait until baby's ready" also means wait until YOU are ready.


----------



## SmokyJoe78

nickyXjayno said:


> I have read loads of information stating that placenta reaches it's peak at 37 weeks and by 40 patches can be seen on it and it doesn't give as much nutrients.

I was 18 days past EDD with DS and the placenta was absolutely fine! He showed no signs of being 'postdate'... so I guess everyone is different and you just have to try and trust your body, which is hard to do :flower:


----------



## fides

tristansmum said:


> So i was just noseing (sp) around in third tri section and a girl was asking when they normally induce. so most people saying 10-14 days and a few earlier for medical reasons. then i came across this:
> 
> I'm in the U.S. And my doctor told me to just let him know if and when I wanted to be induced anytime after 39 weeks. He said he really doesn't like babies going over due because the longer they are in there, the bigger they are getting and the more likely they are to need medical intervention such as cesarian etc.
> 
> 
> I'm so shocked! I mean seriously! this doctor wants them before they are even full term!? :shrug:
> 
> Please don't all go piling in to comment as i don't want to be the cause of a agruement cause some threads can get nasty (not that i think you guys would do that ) but just wondering what you think.

this makes me angry. if the baby doesn't come early enough for her OB, she'll probably be given pitocin, then she'll need an epidural b/c the contractions will be so hard, and if she's lucky, she'll have a vaginal birth; if not, after a long labor, she'll end up with a c-section for failure to progress or fetal distress. way to go, doc! :dohh:


----------



## JFS

I'm planning a natural birth at a birth center with a midwife. But I don&#8217;t find induction shocking or appalling. In fact, I think the &#8220;absolutely no intervention&#8221; crowd is often a bit over the top. 

Women have been using whatever means available to induce labor for a long, long time. In the old days, help could be far away and difficult to find so a woman might take castor oil and go for a buggy ride over a bumpy road when her mother/sister/friend was available to help. Prayers to the goddess, herbs, acupressure, and other strange concoctions shoved inside an expectant mother have been used since women have been getting pregnant. 

I&#8217;m not keen on pit and epidurals and c-sections, but I do think we need to be realistic and find balance. And in my opinion there are sometimes reasons, other than the standard medical ones, to opt for induction. For instance if a father is shipping out at 40weeks, the little family would probably be better served by inducing at 39+ than waiting for daddy to see his child for the first time for six months or a year. 

But maybe I feel that way because I'm a crazy American.


----------



## fides

JFS said:


> I'm planning a natural birth at a birth center with a midwife. But I don&#8217;t find induction shocking or appalling. In fact, I think the &#8220;absolutely no intervention&#8221; crowd is often a bit over the top.
> 
> Women have been using whatever means available to induce labor for a long, long time. In the old days, help could be far away and difficult to find so a woman might take castor oil and go for a buggy ride over a bumpy road when her mother/sister/friend was available to help. Prayers to the goddess, herbs, acupressure, and other strange concoctions shoved inside an expectant mother have been used since women have been getting pregnant.
> 
> I&#8217;m not keen on pit and epidurals and c-sections, but I do think we need to be realistic and find balance. And in my opinion there are sometimes reasons, other than the standard medical ones, to opt for induction. For instance if a father is shipping out at 40weeks, the little family would probably be better served by inducing at 39+ than waiting for daddy to see his child for the first time for six months or a year.
> 
> But maybe I feel that way because I'm a crazy American.

I agree that there is a time and place for everything, including medical inductions, and no, i'm not angry b/c there is any induction being spoken of at all - it's the situation that angered me. 

A woman is being told by her doctor, whom she most likely trusts and respects as a professional, that he just doesn't like to go past a woman's EDD, then as his reason, he gives her some story about how past-EDD babies are in there just getting bigger and running a higher risk of interventions (which other posters in this thread have already said is not true). The fact is, medically induced labor has its risks, and I think he should be mentioning those risks along with his plug for an induction in the absence of a medical necessity/health emergency/etc. 

But then, I'm also just a crazy American, so, yeah... hee hee! :flower:


----------



## x__amour

I went overdue but was induced for preeclampsia. I don't like voluntary inductions/cesareans. They can be dangerous. My daughter was overdue and was only a 6 pounder. Just on the news though, here in Colorado there are hospitals refusing voluntary inductions/cesareans before 39 weeks. :flow:


----------



## miel

fides said:


> JFS said:
> 
> 
> I'm planning a natural birth at a birth center with a midwife. But I dont find induction shocking or appalling. In fact, I think the absolutely no intervention crowd is often a bit over the top.
> 
> Women have been using whatever means available to induce labor for a long, long time. In the old days, help could be far away and difficult to find so a woman might take castor oil and go for a buggy ride over a bumpy road when her mother/sister/friend was available to help. Prayers to the goddess, herbs, acupressure, and other strange concoctions shoved inside an expectant mother have been used since women have been getting pregnant.
> 
> Im not keen on pit and epidurals and c-sections, but I do think we need to be realistic and find balance. And in my opinion there are sometimes reasons, other than the standard medical ones, to opt for induction. For instance if a father is shipping out at 40weeks, the little family would probably be better served by inducing at 39+ than waiting for daddy to see his child for the first time for six months or a year.
> 
> But maybe I feel that way because I'm a crazy American.
> 
> I agree that there is a time and place for everything, including medical inductions, and no, i'm not angry b/c there is any induction being spoken of at all - it's the situation that angered me.
> 
> A woman is being told by her doctor, whom she most likely trusts and respects as a professional, that he just doesn't like to go past a woman's EDD, then as his reason, he gives her some story about how past-EDD babies are in there just getting bigger and running a higher risk of interventions (which other posters in this thread have already said is not true). The fact is, medically induced labor has its risks, and I think he should be mentioning those risks along with his plug for an induction in the absence of a medical necessity/health emergency/etc.
> 
> But then, I'm also just a crazy American, so, yeah... hee hee! :flower:Click to expand...

but maybe he did present to her the cons etc...be careful of what people translate sometimes on their post...

i do i like to think most doctors are good and do know what they doing !! i never felt i was push to do anything against my own Will with my labor and delivery etc...i ask for the Epidural on my own etc...i gave a birth plan and the hospital doctors help me try to stick to it ...

i had a sweep at 38 weeks and i asked for one :) and i got one ...i had asked for one at 37 weeks and my doctor refused to me ...but at 38 weeks i was really miserable and she took me " the patient as well as the baby " in consideration i appreciated i was being taking care into the equation of giving birth not just the baby...


----------



## storm4mozza

37 weeks is full term here but the docs will leave me till about 42 weeks before inducing me, ill be offered a sweep if baby goes past 40 weeks, which i was when i was pregnant i was offered a sweep at 40 weeks but i went into slow labour before they had a chance


----------



## Nikki_d72

miel said:


> fides said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFS said:
> 
> 
> I'm planning a natural birth at a birth center with a midwife. But I dont find induction shocking or appalling. In fact, I think the absolutely no intervention crowd is often a bit over the top.
> 
> Women have been using whatever means available to induce labor for a long, long time. In the old days, help could be far away and difficult to find so a woman might take castor oil and go for a buggy ride over a bumpy road when her mother/sister/friend was available to help. Prayers to the goddess, herbs, acupressure, and other strange concoctions shoved inside an expectant mother have been used since women have been getting pregnant.
> 
> Im not keen on pit and epidurals and c-sections, but I do think we need to be realistic and find balance. And in my opinion there are sometimes reasons, other than the standard medical ones, to opt for induction. For instance if a father is shipping out at 40weeks, the little family would probably be better served by inducing at 39+ than waiting for daddy to see his child for the first time for six months or a year.
> 
> But maybe I feel that way because I'm a crazy American.
> 
> I agree that there is a time and place for everything, including medical inductions, and no, i'm not angry b/c there is any induction being spoken of at all - it's the situation that angered me.
> 
> A woman is being told by her doctor, whom she most likely trusts and respects as a professional, that he just doesn't like to go past a woman's EDD, then as his reason, he gives her some story about how past-EDD babies are in there just getting bigger and running a higher risk of interventions (which other posters in this thread have already said is not true). The fact is, medically induced labor has its risks, and I think he should be mentioning those risks along with his plug for an induction in the absence of a medical necessity/health emergency/etc.
> 
> But then, I'm also just a crazy American, so, yeah... hee hee! :flower:Click to expand...
> 
> but maybe he did present to her the cons etc...be careful of what people translate sometimes on their post...
> 
> i* do i like to think most doctors are good and do know what they doing !! *i never felt i was push to do anything against my own Will with my labor and delivery etc...i ask for the Epidural on my own etc...i gave a birth plan and the hospital doctors help me try to stick to it ...
> 
> i had a sweep at 38 weeks and i asked for one :) and i got one ...i had asked for one at 37 weeks and my doctor refused to me ...but at 38 weeks i was really miserable and she took me " the patient as well as the baby " in consideration i appreciated i was being taking care into the equation of giving birth not just the baby...Click to expand...

Have you watched Rikki Lake's The Business of Being Born? I'd reccommend it. Unfortunately egos and schedules come into it far too often.


----------



## lozzy21

nickyXjayno said:


> I have read loads of information stating that placenta reaches it's peak at 37 weeks and by 40 patches can be seen on it and it doesn't give as much nutrients.
> I don't want an epidural but I do want to be induced if I do go past my due date.
> I have spoken to loads of women who have gone over due and it's caused issues.
> Worst story was a woman in work and her sisters baby was born sleeping, she'd gone a week and a bit overdue, baby had been fine in checks then one day just died.
> PM showed placenta had just failed and she was told it's just one of those things....
> 
> Everyone has a different opinion but I wish I could just give birth as soon as baby is healthy and considered full term.

But some babys are ready to be born at 37 weeks, others need a another 5 weeks cooking and we just dont know when that is for each baby. They are more problems from people being induced early than they are for being overdue.

For example

My best friend was induced at 38 weeks after he water started leaking, her daughter spent 3 weeks in special care with breathing problems, she couldn't maintain her temp and needed feeding with a tube for a week or so.

My daughter was born at 35 weeks after my waters started leaking, because she was early they were not going to induce me untill i was 37 weeks but i went into labour naturaly 2 days later. Aside from a little oxygen straight after delivery (thats a different story) she needed no help with her breathing, she could maintain her temperature, she struggled with BF but could feed from a bottle fine. Had she not developed bad jaundice we would have only been in hospital for two days while they gave her antibiotics.

There is a reason why you are given a 5 week window.


----------



## madasa

JFS said:


> I'm planning a natural birth at a birth center with a midwife. But I dont find induction shocking or appalling. In fact, I think the absolutely no intervention crowd is often a bit over the top.
> 
> Women have been using whatever means available to induce labor for a long, long time. In the old days, help could be far away and difficult to find so a woman might take castor oil and go for a buggy ride over a bumpy road when her mother/sister/friend was available to help. Prayers to the goddess, herbs, acupressure, and other strange concoctions shoved inside an expectant mother have been used since women have been getting pregnant.
> 
> Im not keen on pit and epidurals and c-sections, but I do think we need to be realistic and find balance. And in my opinion there are sometimes reasons, other than the standard medical ones, to opt for induction. For instance if a father is shipping out at 40weeks, the little family would probably be better served by inducing at 39+ than waiting for daddy to see his child for the first time for six months or a year.
> 
> But maybe I feel that way because I'm a crazy American.

The father might be "better off", in the short term, because he is THERE when the baby is born. The mother may also feel better off in the short term because he is there to give her support. I get that. But the baby is no better off. It's now thought that when the lungs are fully developed they release a hormone that starts labour. 

If my husband was leaving at 40 weeks, I would mentally prepare for that and have a different support person to help me during labour, birth & post partum. Either a mother, sister or friend, or a doula. TO ME, the presence of the father does not outweigh my health and my baby's health. 

Induction is not benign. There are risks. Increased risk of severe pain, increased risk of needing pain medication (which have their own risks!), increased risk of a section (again, with its own risks!) increased risk of a newborn who is compromised, needing resus and/or needing time in specal care and in the long term, with an increased chance of health problems....

If you feel that those risks are worth it to have the father present, then I'm not one to tell another which risks are OK to take.... You have to do what's right for you and your situation. Those risks are too much for me, personally. And my main concern is that many women (in teh US and elsewhere) are being led to believe that induction is benign.... Or even being pressured into having one. That's wrong. If people make an informed decision to be induced, that is one thing, but often that does not happen. Induction is OFFERED at 40 weeks - or earlier - and the risks are not made clear. That is what I have a problem with.

It's not the MOTHERS in the US that are crazy. Its the system, the doctors who know damn well what the risks are and do it anyway... because it's ALLLLL about $$$ :(


----------



## miel

My obgyn is not all about money ..she works around the clock days and nights ...she made personal phone call at my house when i had to fight against a blood infection and stayed at the hospital after the birth to make sure i was ok at home when i was back...

i just wanted to said it is not because you saw a " document on tV that reflect some of the system here " and i do agree we need improvement specially insurance wise ...that ALL the doctors wants to put $$$ in their pocket either ...


----------



## Nikki_d72

Miel, it's not just the documentary, but many, many posts on this forum that lead us to these conclusions. It's also not neccessarily the OB's themselves that are about money, but the pressures of the hospital system force them to be like this, as the hospitals are run as businesses. There is just far too many women putting blind faith in a system they falsely believe is solely there to protect them, where far too often the needs of the woman and baby are below financial gains for the hospital and/or avoidance of litigation. it's not just in the US either, it happens throughout the "developed world" but as the US is privatised healthcare, it is probably the country where this is most endemic.


----------



## madasa

miel said:


> My obgyn is not all about money ..she works around the clock days and nights ...she made personal phone call at my house when i had to fight against a blood infection and stayed at the hospital after the birth to make sure i was ok at home when i was back...
> 
> i just wanted to said it is not because you saw a " document on tV that reflect some of the system here " and i do agree we need improvement specially insurance wise ...that ALL the doctors wants to put $$$ in their pocket either ...

miel, YES there are some great docs and some rubbish ones! But the national stats for things like sections are very telling. Interventions are over used and (generally speaking) birth *IS* a business. Not talking about ONE ob, or one hospital or even one town.... that is a nationwide trend. Of course there will be some wonderful OBs working within that system, and their patients are very lucky to have them!


----------



## NaturalMomma

nickyXjayno said:


> *I have read loads of information stating that placenta reaches it's peak at 37 weeks and by 40 patches can be seen on it and it doesn't give as much nutrients.*I don't want an epidural but I do want to be induced if I do go past my due date.
> I have spoken to loads of women who have gone over due and it's caused issues.
> Worst story was a woman in work and her sisters baby was born sleeping, she'd gone a week and a bit overdue, baby had been fine in checks then one day just died.
> PM showed placenta had just failed and she was told it's just one of those things....
> 
> Everyone has a different opinion but I wish I could just give birth as soon as baby is healthy and considered full term.

That's actually not true. The placenta doesn't reach a "peak". The placenta will still deliver nutrients while it's attatched to the uterine linning. Now, sometimes your baby can be fully ready to come out, but your body doesn't recieve the signals and so you don't start labor and the placenta starts deteriating because the placenta and baby are over ready now. But it doesn't stop delivering it's full potential of nutrients at 37 weeks. 



JFS said:


> I'm planning a natural birth at a birth center with a midwife. But I don&#8217;t find induction shocking or appalling. In fact, I think the &#8220;absolutely no intervention&#8221; crowd is often a bit over the top.
> 
> *Women have been using whatever means available to induce labor for a long, long time. In the old days, help could be far away and difficult to find so a woman might take castor oil and go for a buggy ride over a bumpy road when her mother/sister/friend was available to help. Prayers to the goddess, herbs, acupressure, and other strange concoctions shoved inside an expectant mother have been used since women have been getting pregnant*.
> 
> I&#8217;m not keen on pit and epidurals and c-sections, but I do think we need to be realistic and find *balance*. And in my opinion there are sometimes reasons, other than the standard medical ones, to opt for induction. *For instance if a father is shipping out at 40weeks, the little family would probably be better served by inducing at 39+ than waiting for daddy to see his child for the first time for six months or a year. *
> But maybe I feel that way because I'm a crazy American.

To the first bolded, yes and no. In some cultures women would do "natural" things to induce their labor. But in other cultures, even to this day, women don't do anything, they just let nature take it's course. Even in some cultures if there is a complication, they don't do anything. The problem with medical inductions is that it carries a risk. Everytime you introduce medicine into your body it has a risk. Inductions should only be used when they are medically needed, not because a woman is uncomfortable, but when they are needed. We're finding out just now that Pitocin has links to behavioral problems in older children. Pitocin, the leading induction method in the US, hasn't been studied much until now. We've been inducing women like crazy, majority for no reason but convenience, and didn't even know about the short and long term risks to it. Sounds safe and smart to me. Then you have the problem with Cytotec, another very common induction medication in the US. It causes uterine rupture. Women have died after being induced with this, and their babies. Cytotec is far too powerful to be inducing with, and it says right there on the lable of the medication "not to be used during pregnancy or for induction of labor". Yet Doctors use it. And medications used in labor, believe it or not, is linked to money. 

Not all Doctors are money hungry. Many Doctors are salaried so it doesn't matter if they do a c-section or not. But there are many accounts of Doctors who are not salaried that have done things to get more women under the knife to make more money. These are documented cases in the US in the past decade. There are also many documented cases of Doctors doing c-sections and inductions so they can push more women in and out of the rooms and so they can get home at a decent time. I find it funny that people don't want to believe these things when there is proof that inductions and c-sections are highest on Fridays and inbetween normal clinic hours. That is not a coincidence. This is an injustice of women, babies and medicine. The US is out of control. We have a horrible maternity care system. One thing that needs to stop is women just trusting their Doctors. We know with documented accounts that women need to look into things further instead. Doctors don't go to medical school for 12 years for OBGYN (which I often hear on forums). They only go for about 2 years and the focus is not on labor and delivery, the focus is on Gynecology and surgery. 

To the second bolded, I completely agree, we need balance. However my balance would be to not do anything until you need it. Don't do a c-section unless you need one, and a 9 lb baby can be born vaginally by small women. Don't induce unless you need to. Full term is considered 38-42 weeks, not 40 weeks + 1 day like many Doctors think. Letting women be out of bed instead of strapped to machines. We know from research that labor is best when a woman is on her feet moving around, not laying in bed. 

To the third bolded. I couldn't disagree more. I think that is a completely stupid reason to have an induction. You should be doing what is best for the mother and baby, and making a baby come sooner causes short and long term risks to the baby and can also make mom have a harder labor. Perhaps military families should plan their children better if they want to make sure dad will be there. I have several friends and family who are in the military and all of them have been overseas at one point, and they know more than 9 months in advance if they will be shipped out. But sometimes they don't, especially in the beginning of the war, but that is still no reason to make a baby come before they are ready. In life we need to be patient, and this is a good leason to learn to be patient and wait for someone else. This reason is nothing but selfish. Yes, it sucks to be a dad and not to get to see your baby be born, and it sucks to be a mom and not have your DH by yourside, but that is a part of life. There will be times, during a major event, where we can't have our way and have to re-asess our plans. My dad was not there when my mom gave birth to me, and my mom caught me herself (at the hospital though, Doctor didn't make it). Sucks, but guess what? My mom and I are ok, we don't suffer any affects due to my dad missing my birth. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. My dad also didn't see his first 3 daughters being born. Back then fathers weren't even allowed to witness birth. Again, no one suffers any long term affects. My dad only witnessed my brother and sister being born, and we all are bonded the same way. Many men don't even want to see it, they aren't any less of a dad or have bad bonds just becasue they didn't see the birth of their child.


----------



## Tasha

Every single baby and placenta is different. My first placenta was fine (35/36) weeks, my second was fine (37 weeks), my third was too small, clots abruption etc etc (36+6), my fourth was pass maturity or what ever they call it (39 weeks) and my fifth was mature at 24 weeks. A placenta doesnt get to midnight at 40 weeks and suddenly decide it is too old now or 41 weeks, and so on. 

I think in the UK mostly it is daily CTG scanning that is offer :thumbup:


----------



## madasa

NaturalMomma - there are some taht would argue that there are distinct disadvantages to the FOB being at the birth! Many reasons, including bringing adrenaline into the room, and/or because the labouring woman sometimes ends up "carrying" her partner emotionally instead of the other way round. I know one lady who KNEW that her partner was extremely upset to see her in pain. She was expending energy trying to HIDE her pain. She kept getting up and going to the loo to be TOTALLY on her own just so she could moan through the sensations. Is it any wonder her baby "got stuck" when she couldn't open up and let go in front of her partner, because she didn't want to upset him?! Yeah, it's a whole nutha topic.... Sorry.


----------



## littlemonster

I have family members and family friends who deliver babies (they're doctors) and let me break it down for you all.
In the U.S., when it comes to OBGYN malpractice, mothers will win almost every case. Because mothers will sue over the drop of a hat (these mainly being uneducated and ignorant mothers who are money hungry) the doctors have to do whatever they can to cover their butts. The malpractice rules set their standard because no malpractice insurance wants to pay anything out. 
For example: If a baby's shoulders get caught in the birth canal during labor a mother can sue just because of that, even though it's a pure anatomy issue the doctor has nothing to do with and that's a lawsuit she will automatically win.
So doctors will do things that way and will also push for c-sections when they aren't necessary. They will use scare tactics and anything they can to get women to have c-sections because it's easier on them. They don't have to wait or be up all night or anything like that if someone has a scheduled c-section.
I am disgusted with that kind of practice which is why I see my OBGYN. They have decent malpractice insurance and all the doctors, PA's and nurse practioners have a common goal for all pregnant women at their practice: Vaginal birth unless it is medically necessary!
I'm diabetic and they also agree it's not in my best interest to have a c-section...because it's major abdominal surgery.


----------



## aliss

littlemonster said:


> For example: If a baby's shoulders get caught in the birth canal during labor a mother can sue just because of that, even though it's a pure anatomy issue the doctor has nothing to do with and that's a lawsuit she will automatically win.

I don't disagree with most of your post but this is not accurate.

Medical interventions, when not necessary, can increase the risk of shoulder dystocia. Induction, epidurals, they all contribute. Yes, shoulder dystocia is a result of the baby being in an anatomically incorrect position but interventions that delay labour and delay pushing will increase the risk. Many times the intervention risk is appropriate (ie. infection) but when doctors are inducing for non-medical reasons (ie. father not being present), combined with the inevetiable epidural which is rarely medically necessary, it can spell disaster for women who are already at a risk for SD. 

Me, I was induced for good reason (infection), given an epidural on day 2 (my choice, albeit misinformed, but again my responsibility), and allowed to labour into day 3 (all with massive amounts of pitocin) and pushed for 4 hours. That, with a 9lb 3oz baby and petite pelvis was a recipe for SD disaster and my OBGYN herself admitted that she made the wrong call by allowing my labour to continue. I left my labour and my boy's life into her hands and she made a mistake. It happened. I'm traumatized from it. I also don't think she's a bad person as I work in emergency services myself and know that this happens. But it doesn't mean that she had no fault in it.

Being Canada, she felt safe enough to admit that. Lawsuits are very rare here. In the United States where medical malpractice suits are more prevalent, I can imagine few doctors would admit to being at fault (although fatal SD is rare, it's usually unilateral paralysis of the arm or cerebral palsy in sever cases)


----------



## littlemonster

I'm talking about a birth that's going as planned without medical intervention and their is SD. It is accurate because the doctor who told me that was told that by his malpractice and also looked it up himself.


----------



## aliss

Fair enough, I see your point :) I'm not sure how common a natural birth with SD really is though.


----------



## lozzy21

aliss said:


> Fair enough, I see your point :) I'm not sure how common a natural birth with SD really is though.

There not common at all unless the mother has GD. Most cases are caused by women being stuck on their backs, epidurals, pitocin ect

Niamhs SD was caused because of interventions but necessary intervention. Why would i try to sue the person who prevented my daughter from dying?


----------



## tristansmum

sorry i haven't thanked everyone but "THANKS" for all your responses. some i agree with and others not so but its lovely to read a tread where everyone can discuss something with out it turning nasty. LOL


----------



## aliss

lozzy21 said:


> aliss said:
> 
> 
> Fair enough, I see your point :) I'm not sure how common a natural birth with SD really is though.
> 
> There not common at all unless the mother has GD. Most cases are caused by women being stuck on their backs, epidurals, pitocin ect
> 
> Niamhs SD was caused because of interventions but necessary intervention. Why would i try to sue the person who prevented my daughter from dying?Click to expand...

Unfortunately litigation in the US is completely outrageous. I live on the border and we have all American TV (specifically local Vermont and New Hampshire), it's like every other commercial is a medical malpractice lawyer looking to cash in, it's really obscene. Doctors in the US are terrified and they really have the right to be.


----------



## NaturalMomma

madasa said:


> NaturalMomma - there are some taht would argue that there are distinct disadvantages to the FOB being at the birth! Many reasons, including bringing adrenaline into the room, and/or because the labouring woman sometimes ends up "carrying" her partner emotionally instead of the other way round. I know one lady who KNEW that her partner was extremely upset to see her in pain. She was expending energy trying to HIDE her pain. She kept getting up and going to the loo to be TOTALLY on her own just so she could moan through the sensations. Is it any wonder her baby "got stuck" when she couldn't open up and let go in front of her partner, because she didn't want to upset him?! Yeah, it's a whole nutha topic.... Sorry.

Exactly! I've had many clients who didn't have their husbands with them because the mom didn't want them there, or they were there at first but mom threw them out. Some DH's are just not good with labor and birth and are a hinderence to mom.



littlemonster said:


> I have family members and family friends who deliver babies (they're doctors) and let me break it down for you all.
> In the U.S., when it comes to OBGYN malpractice, mothers will win almost every case. Because mothers will sue over the drop of a hat (these mainly being uneducated and ignorant mothers who are money hungry) the doctors have to do whatever they can to cover their butts. The malpractice rules set their standard because no malpractice insurance wants to pay anything out.
> For example: If a baby's shoulders get caught in the birth canal during labor a mother can sue just because of that, even though it's a pure anatomy issue the doctor has nothing to do with and that's a lawsuit she will automatically win.
> So doctors will do things that way and will also push for c-sections when they aren't necessary. They will use scare tactics and anything they can to get women to have c-sections because it's easier on them. They don't have to wait or be up all night or anything like that if someone has a scheduled c-section.
> I am disgusted with that kind of practice which is why I see my OBGYN. They have decent malpractice insurance and all the doctors, PA's and nurse practioners have a common goal for all pregnant women at their practice: Vaginal birth unless it is medically necessary!
> I'm diabetic and they also agree it's not in my best interest to have a c-section...because it's major abdominal surgery.

Exactly, and that is a huge problem with the US maternity care system. I also have OBGYNs amongst family and friends, and the stories I hear, are just sad. Suing a Doctor should be harder. You shouldn't be able to sue just because something went wrong, because many times no one is to blame. And when going to before the board they should look at what went wrong. SD that wasn't caused by anything? Case should be thrown out. This is why ALL interventions should be ONLY used when medically needed, that way we don't have cases of lawsuits because a complication happened because an intervention was used that wasn't needed.


----------



## chuck

madasa said:


> NaturalMomma - there are some taht would argue that there are distinct disadvantages to the FOB being at the birth! Many reasons, including bringing adrenaline into the room, and/or because the labouring woman sometimes ends up "carrying" her partner emotionally instead of the other way round. I know one lady who KNEW that her partner was extremely upset to see her in pain. She was expending energy trying to HIDE her pain. She kept getting up and going to the loo to be TOTALLY on her own just so she could moan through the sensations. Is it any wonder her baby "got stuck" when she couldn't open up and let go in front of her partner, because she didn't want to upset him?! Yeah, it's a whole nutha topic.... Sorry.

I certainly did not labour well with hubby around first time, by the time I got to hospital I was so concerned for him I didnt think of me.

He didnt bother coming to theatre with me in the end anyway he may as well have not been there until afterwards!


----------



## littlemonster

aliss said:


> Fair enough, I see your point :) I'm not sure + how common a natural birth with SD really is though.

In the US it's not common anymore, however with malpractice there are certain things a mother will automatically win. It's very disgusting just because people will do anything to get money. I would never sue my OBGYN for something like that..but that's why so many doctors push c-sections. OBGYN malpractice is the most expensive in the US when it comes to malpractice because they get sued the most.

Lozzy- I disagree. GD can be a reason for a big baby, but it's not only women who have GD having large babies. Some women just have large babies. I dated a guy (before my DH) who's mom had all 10lbs+ babies vaginally...her son was 12lbs at birth.

As for FOB being at the birth...he won't be when I have our baby. To me, it's a woman's thing and I would feel better if I just had my best friend, my doctors and my doula...


----------



## Tasha

I keep typing and deleting. The system for law suits in America must be very different to the UK


----------



## lozzy21

Little monster i dident say that its only women with GD that have large babys. I said that most women who get SD do so because of interventions or the mother being in a bad position. Its also caused by having a big baby BUT the chances of your body growing a baby that is to big for it to birth are really small unless the mother had GD which can cause the baby to grow too big for the mother.

A woman with a normal size baby can have SD because of interventions and a mother with GD can get SD in a natural birth because the baby is too big for her but the chances of a woman having a natural birth who doesent have GD getting SD are slim to none.


----------



## bky

Tasha said:


> I keep typing and deleting. The system for law suits in America must be very different to the UK

It really is I think. :hugs: I know from being from the US and from my recent visit that there is a large cultural element of who can you sue. So things are over the top in terms of doctors trying to cover themselves.

I think I read once that the average Dr is paid around $140k/year and the average malpractice insurance is something like $70k per year. 
OB/GYN is a diminishing speciality-especially outside the cities- because the malpractice insurance rates are so high doctors cannot afford to practice. And like insurance does, if anything does happen in terms of a claim the rates increase....


----------



## lynnikins

id like to see what the doctor mentioned in the original post would say about my babies and pregnancys then lol, from the medical history we have of my family no woman in my direct blood line has had a baby before 40wks unless they have been induced or having multiples, and in the cases left go naturally all the babies born after 40wks have been 9lb + in weight
My mother gave birth at 42wks to a 10lb 4oz baby and and at 43+3 to a 10lb 6oz baby, I have had 9lb 10oz boy at 40+13 and 10lb 12oz boy at 40+11 and if left naturally i fully expect this one to come at 41 +wks and be 10lb+, none of the natural births in my family have had complications except my firstborn who needed ventouse assistance because he had his arm up in front of his face and got stuck with that big ol' head of his that he got from my OH ( cheers darling ) and i didnt have the will with it being my first baby and 55+ hrs in labor to push him out myself lol ( with hindsight i could see i was fighting the contractions ,tensing up and not helping myself ) my larger baby I was induced ( one lot of gel hardly an induction ) and we found out afterwards why my body needed that because i was acutely anemic my body was protecting itself from blood loss caus that one lot of gel was enough of a push start for a nice easy under 8 hour labor and 20min of pushing and he was out with no issues it was me that had the issues lol.

my consultant this time thinks im obviously capable of giving birth to a nearly 11lb baby so why worry about things unless i measure big ( i didnt with either of the others which hints to me baby has got to be ALOT bigger before i measure bigger lol ) I dont have GD and havent with any pregnancy i know my body "can" do it but with my SPD i want to be careful this time caus i dont want the 4 month post birth recovery time I had with ds2


----------



## Tasha

bky said:


> Tasha said:
> 
> 
> I keep typing and deleting. The system for law suits in America must be very different to the UK
> 
> It really is I think. :hugs: I know from being from the US and from my recent visit that there is a large cultural element of who can you sue. So things are over the top in terms of doctors trying to cover themselves.
> 
> I think I read once that the average Dr is paid around $140k/year and the average malpractice insurance is something like $70k per year.
> OB/GYN is a diminishing speciality-especially outside the cities- because the malpractice insurance rates are so high doctors cannot afford to practice. And like insurance does, if anything does happen in terms of a claim the rates increase....Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining to me, because here you dont sue individual doctors, you sue the NHS/hospital. Like I sued the hospital because Honey died from medical negligence (I am not a money hungry bitch, no money would bring my girl back but they refused to learn from their mistakes, and so it was the only way to bring in changes that prevent it from happening to another baby/family) and it took three years and ten months of fighting with them for it to finish. So it is a long, hard, emotional process here.


----------



## SmokyJoe78

lynnikins said:


> id like to see what the doctor mentioned in the original post would say about my babies and pregnancys then lol, from the medical history we have of my family no woman in my direct blood line has had a baby before 40wks unless they have been induced or having multiples, and in the cases left go naturally all the babies born after 40wks have been 9lb + in weight
> My mother gave birth at 42wks to a 10lb 4oz baby and and at 43+3 to a 10lb 6oz baby, I have had 9lb 10oz boy at 40+13 and 10lb 12oz boy at 40+11 and if left naturally i fully expect this one to come at 41 +wks and be 10lb+, none of the natural births in my family have had complications except my firstborn who needed ventouse assistance because he had his arm up in front of his face and got stuck with that big ol' head of his that he got from my OH ( cheers darling ) and i didnt have the will with it being my first baby and 55+ hrs in labor to push him out myself lol ( with hindsight i could see i was fighting the contractions ,tensing up and not helping myself ) my larger baby I was induced ( one lot of gel hardly an induction ) and we found out afterwards why my body needed that because i was acutely anemic my body was protecting itself from blood loss caus that one lot of gel was enough of a push start for a nice easy under 8 hour labor and 20min of pushing and he was out with no issues it was me that had the issues lol.
> 
> my consultant this time thinks im obviously capable of giving birth to a nearly 11lb baby so why worry about things unless i measure big ( i didnt with either of the others which hints to me baby has got to be ALOT bigger before i measure bigger lol ) I dont have GD and havent with any pregnancy i know my body "can" do it but with my SPD i want to be careful this time caus i dont want the 4 month post birth recovery time I had with ds2

I'm a bit OT but wanted to say ..... I'm so pleased to read your post about babies in your family arriving post 40 weeks - thank you for posting - I'm trying to stay positive that this baby *is coming* - DS was 42+4 with CS after 'failed' induction. Even being post 41wks, you start to feel the pressure :)

Tasha :hugs:


----------



## kdea547

tristansmum said:


> So i was just noseing (sp) around in third tri section and a girl was asking when they normally induce. so most people saying 10-14 days and a few earlier for medical reasons. then i came across this:
> 
> I'm in the U.S. And my doctor told me to just let him know if and when I wanted to be induced anytime after 39 weeks. He said he really doesn't like babies going over due because the longer they are in there, the bigger they are getting and the more likely they are to need medical intervention such as cesarian etc.
> 
> 
> I'm so shocked! I mean seriously! this doctor wants them before they are even full term!? :shrug:
> 
> Please don't all go piling in to comment as i don't want to be the cause of a agruement cause some threads can get nasty (not that i think you guys would do that ) but just wondering what you think.

I hadn't heard of a doctor doing this until recently. My sister-in-law is currently in induced labor...at 40w 1d. And her doctor told her she could schedule anytime after she hit 39 weeks. She took the absolute first available spot at the hospital. My jaw dropped when I heard this! Most women want to avoid induction because the extra interventions, pain, etc. But got word this morning that less than 3 hours after starting the induction, she also had an epidural. I just can't imagine...seriously. Of course I am dead-set on a minimal intervention birth. I will be induced at 39 weeks because of my gestational diabetes - I just don't have the energy to argue against it at this point, but I've thought about it a lot.


----------



## Bournefree

^^^ PLEASE make your own decisions and take responsibility for your own health and your body

GD doesn't mean automatic induction. It is your choice. take in on evidence and NOT policy> know the risks of induction V allowing your pregnancy to continue.

I had GD with my first baby and all tests were fine> but they still wanted to induce ME. I couldnt DO that.

I inderstand you don't want to fight, but you don't have to; just state what your wishes are and ask yourself who are they protecting? Your health and welbeing or thier interests?

It IS important how your baby is born> it will effect you for the rest of your life

Hugs
XXX


----------



## ann89

Tasha said:


> bky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tasha said:
> 
> 
> I keep typing and deleting. The system for law suits in America must be very different to the UK
> 
> It really is I think. :hugs: I know from being from the US and from my recent visit that there is a large cultural element of who can you sue. So things are over the top in terms of doctors trying to cover themselves.
> 
> I think I read once that the average Dr is paid around $140k/year and the average malpractice insurance is something like $70k per year.
> OB/GYN is a diminishing speciality-especially outside the cities- because the malpractice insurance rates are so high doctors cannot afford to practice. And like insurance does, if anything does happen in terms of a claim the rates increase....Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for explaining to me, because here you dont sue individual doctors, you sue the NHS/hospital. Like I sued the hospital because Honey died from medical negligence (I am not a money hungry bitch, no money would bring my girl back but they refused to learn from their mistakes, and so it was the only way to bring in changes that prevent it from happening to another baby/family) and it took three years and ten months of fighting with them for it to finish. So it is a long, hard, emotional process here.Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking what did Honey die from? I lost my daughter due to a subgael hemmorage (due to them using the vaccum.) and her umbilical cord being wrapped around her neck. But autopsy only mentioned the subgael hemmorage. And I thought about doing something.. not even for money.. but maybe for them to have to go back to school to learn how to use a stupid vaccum!


----------



## mamawannabee

This makes me so mad, if the baby was ready, it would come naturally. I understand not wanting to go beyond 42 weeks, personally I will avoid induction as long as possible, but I get it. But before 40 weeks unless there is a medical reason seems silly, the baby is obviously not ready to come out yet, leave it cooking! The doctors here are all about convenience though, unfortunately.


----------



## kdea547

Bournefree said:


> ^^^ PLEASE make your own decisions and take responsibility for your own health and your body
> 
> GD doesn't mean automatic induction. It is your choice. take in on evidence and NOT policy> know the risks of induction V allowing your pregnancy to continue.
> 
> I had GD with my first baby and all tests were fine> but they still wanted to induce ME. I couldnt DO that.
> 
> I inderstand you don't want to fight, but you don't have to; just state what your wishes are and ask yourself who are they protecting? Your health and welbeing or thier interests?
> 
> It IS important how your baby is born> it will effect you for the rest of your life
> 
> Hugs
> XXX

It doesn't really matter much anymore because my baby is still currently breech and refusing all attempts to move her. I will most likely end up with a c-section if she doesn't turn in 3 weeks. There is no such thing as a breech vaginal birth where I'm at. No one does it. I'm still praying and talking to the little one in hopes that she'll turn, but she's been this way for at least 6 weeks now. I'm in my mourning phase for the birth that I desired right now. I am somewhat consoled by the fact that the doctors around here do eagerly encourage VBACs, so hopefully in the future I will be able to have a normal delivery if it doesn't happen this time.


----------



## Samantha675

Oh kdea, what a naughty baby! I really hope she turns for you!

https://www.birthinternational.com/articles/midwifery/37-if-your-baby-is-breech

Using moxibustion to encourage the baby to turn by itself (there are photos on the link showing how to position the moxibustion)

A very successful "do it yourself" technique with a proven high success rate is to use locally applied heat treatment.

The heat from burning moxa sticks can also be used to stimulate the baby's movements and encourage it to turn. These sticks, shaped like cigars, are available from herbalists, Chinese medicine stockists and some acupuncturists (who use moxa sticks for other purposes) and they contain tightly rolled dried leaves of the mugwort plant. They are very inexpensive and two sticks will be needed - they can be used several times.

Sit on a chair and place each foot on a book with your little toes hanging over the edge. Place each stick on another book with the tip in the gap.

Light the sticks (they burn with no flame but an intense heat and pungent smell) and position the hot tip as close as possible to the outside of each little toe, with the heat directed at the point just above the toe nail. Leave in place for 20 minutes. Be careful not to touch the skin as you will burn yourself. The heat should be as strong as you can tolerate, for the best effect.

After a few minutes, you will notice the baby begin to kick and move. The primary aim of the moxibustion treatment is to encourage the baby to move around and thus increase the effect of gravity which will help the heaviest part of the baby (its head) to turn over and enter into the pelvis.

This simple treatment is best done just before bed, starting at 34 - 36 weeks. It takes several hours for the baby to turn, and this will be easier if you are lying down, because the baby will not be sitting as firmly into the pelvis. Continue over several nights, or until the baby has turned itself.

A randomised controlled trial (see below) indicates that at approximately 70% of breech babies will turn using this method. If the baby does not turn from its breech position, external cephalic version should be attempted just before labour begins. Further information can be found in the Cochrane Library.

If, after trying the moxibustion and/or external cephalic version, the baby does not move into a head down position, there may be a good reason why the baby prefers to remain in the breech position -perhaps the placenta is positioned low down, limiting the space for the baby's head in the lower part of the uterus or the uterus itself is shaped unusually and is restricting the baby's movements. If the baby does not turn easily, then it must be assumed that the baby needs to stay where it is, and options for the birth (either by caesarean or vaginally) will need to be considered.


----------



## Tasha

ann89 said:


> Tasha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tasha said:
> 
> 
> I keep typing and deleting. The system for law suits in America must be very different to the UK
> 
> It really is I think. :hugs: I know from being from the US and from my recent visit that there is a large cultural element of who can you sue. So things are over the top in terms of doctors trying to cover themselves.
> 
> I think I read once that the average Dr is paid around $140k/year and the average malpractice insurance is something like $70k per year.
> OB/GYN is a diminishing speciality-especially outside the cities- because the malpractice insurance rates are so high doctors cannot afford to practice. And like insurance does, if anything does happen in terms of a claim the rates increase....Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for explaining to me, because here you dont sue individual doctors, you sue the NHS/hospital. Like I sued the hospital because Honey died from medical negligence (I am not a money hungry bitch, no money would bring my girl back but they refused to learn from their mistakes, and so it was the only way to bring in changes that prevent it from happening to another baby/family) and it took three years and ten months of fighting with them for it to finish. So it is a long, hard, emotional process here.Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't mind me asking what did Honey die from? I lost my daughter due to a subgael hemmorage (due to them using the vaccum.) and her umbilical cord being wrapped around her neck. But autopsy only mentioned the subgael hemmorage. And I thought about doing something.. not even for money.. but maybe for them to have to go back to school to learn how to use a stupid vaccum!Click to expand...

I am a bit emotional tonight, so will send you a message tomorrow about the medical negligence with Honey, and also Riley Rae. I am so sorry for your loss :hugs:


----------



## madasa

kdea547 said:


> Bournefree said:
> 
> 
> ^^^ PLEASE make your own decisions and take responsibility for your own health and your body
> 
> GD doesn't mean automatic induction. It is your choice. take in on evidence and NOT policy> know the risks of induction V allowing your pregnancy to continue.
> 
> I had GD with my first baby and all tests were fine> but they still wanted to induce ME. I couldnt DO that.
> 
> I inderstand you don't want to fight, but you don't have to; just state what your wishes are and ask yourself who are they protecting? Your health and welbeing or thier interests?
> 
> It IS important how your baby is born> it will effect you for the rest of your life
> 
> Hugs
> XXX
> 
> It doesn't really matter much anymore because my baby is still currently breech and refusing all attempts to move her. I will most likely end up with a c-section if she doesn't turn in 3 weeks. There is no such thing as a breech vaginal birth where I'm at. No one does it. I'm still praying and talking to the little one in hopes that she'll turn, but she's been this way for at least 6 weeks now. I'm in my mourning phase for the birth that I desired right now. I am somewhat consoled by the fact that the doctors around here do eagerly encourage VBACs, so hopefully in the future I will be able to have a normal delivery if it doesn't happen this time.Click to expand...

Will you have a TOL? Most babies (about 96% I think) turn before they are born... of the remaining 4%, some turn in early labour. So, if you have a TOL, it means you at least give your LO maximum chance to turn AND you will know that they are born when they are ready, and not taken out early.

Feel free to tell me to butt out, but just wondering if you've tried any remedies to get LO to turn? (My last client had a breech baby, so I picked up a lot of stuff about getting them to turn...)

Good luck. :hugs:


----------



## kdea547

I am seeing a chiropractor for the webster technique to open up my pelvis and uterus as much as possible, also doing moxibustion every night and inversions as often as possible. I am scheduled to have the doctor attempt to manually turn her this week, but no one is very hopeful that it will happen as she is a little large, my uterus is tight since it's my first, and I don't have a whole lot of fluid. I still have almost 3 weeks so I'll keep trying and hoping!


----------



## fairywings

Trying4ababy said:


> I had to have fetal monitoring but it wasn't everyday. I told the Dr that I felt the human body knew what it was doing and that my baby would come when it was ready.
> I do not believe in induction because it is forcing your body to do something before it is ready.
> 
> It may be a coincidence but every woman I've known who was induced and had an epidural had an extremely long labor. My sis in law had both and was in labor for 22 hours.
> I let my body decide when it was time for Madison to come and I did not have an epidural. I checked into hospital at around 10:00 a.m. and had Madison at 4:55 p.m.

I was induced with my first and was in labour for 4 hours. I was 39+1. She was about 7lb 4. So that isn't that long. And I was induced due to pre-eclampsia. My second I went naturally at 39 weeks and he was born in 2 hours from being admitted although I had been having "pains for over 12 hours. With both I only had gas and air.

I think it is down to whoever is having a baby whether they want to be induced or not - it's not right or wrong. All down to personal choice. xxx


----------



## madasa

kdea547 said:


> I am seeing a chiropractor for the webster technique to open up my pelvis and uterus as much as possible, also doing moxibustion every night and inversions as often as possible. I am scheduled to have the doctor attempt to manually turn her this week, but no one is very hopeful that it will happen as she is a little large, my uterus is tight since it's my first, and I don't have a whole lot of fluid. I still have almost 3 weeks so I'll keep trying and hoping!

There are homeopathic and aromatherapy remedies too.... I don't know if they would be worth a try if the moxibustion and ECVs don't do it? One lady I spoke to said she thought some babies just wanted to grow close to your heart.... 

GOOD LUCK! I hope baby turns for you.


----------



## kdea547

madasa said:


> There are homeopathic and aromatherapy remedies too.... I don't know if they would be worth a try if the moxibustion and ECVs don't do it? One lady I spoke to said she thought some babies just wanted to grow close to your heart....
> 
> GOOD LUCK! I hope baby turns for you.

That's sweet and I would believe it. Though it's really frustrating, it is funny and endearing because any time I sing or talk a lot, her little head moves up as far as possible! Thanks for the well-wishes.


----------

