My SIL has just had her baby. After labour began they decided that if she got to 24 hours and wasn't making progress they'd induce her, which they did. She had him at 36 hours by EMCS, he'd stopped breathing and was purple when they got him out. He's currently in NICU. She went into labour a day before her due date btw. I was just wondering if this was normal? When I had my daughter the midwives never once mentioned induction, it took me 30 hours just to get to 4cm dilated and was almost 35hours in total. At one point I got really worried that I was going to be too exhausted to give birth naturally and said I might need to transfer to hospital, which the midwife as nicely as possible discouraged. To help labour progress (my contractions stopped twice) I was told to pace around, which I did. In the end though we had our baby at home without any issues or complications and have always considered ourselves quite lucky given the horror stories out there. Obviously my own experience is my only point of reference, and it contrasts so much with SIL's. They'd already decided when it had only been 12 hours that she would be induced at 24hours to move things along and wasn't based on concerns for mother or baby (knowing SIL and MIL we suspect it was the hospital deciding this rather than SIL asking). She was put into stirrups, and at one point they also deliberately scratched the baby's head to make him bleed to see if he still had a heart beat. Surely this isn't normal, is it? I'm 10 weeks pregnant and am thinking to when I'm in labour again. The first time around it never occurred to me to ask about what to do if labour was taking a while, and after DD's birth it never occurred to me that they could have or would have done anything differently. At one point do you think it's reasonable for the midwife/doctor to encourage an induction during labour rather than just letting it progress naturally?