to refuse to be induced

[MagicMojito]

Just as the title suggests really.

I had mw appointment last week and was told that as I am overdue I will need to be induced in my 42nd week of pregnancy and it was pretty much presented as a done deal. I was handed a leaflet and got a date for induction and that was that.

After researching the pros and cons of induction I have decided that its really an option I'd prefer to avoid if at all possible.

I have been so so unhappy with my care throughout this whole pregnancy, I really don't feel comfortable rocking the boat as I know il be veiwed as a pita, but I just feel really strongly about this.

Aibu? Wwyd in this situation? Thanks for any replies, sorry if this post makes no sense, horrid insomnia has unfortunately frazzled brain!

Hopefully the OP has gone into labour this morning. She hasn't posted for a while.

I'm glad crazeeladee has already come to correct notasthere's wrong statistics.

www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12012/41255/41255.pdf

Look at Table 4.2:

In the UK, the risk of stillbirth at
39 weeks: 0.5/1000 (0.05%)
40 weeks: 0.9/1000 (0.09%)
41 weeks: 1.3/1000 (0.13%)
42 weeks: 1.6/1000 (0.16%)
43 weeks: 2.1/1000 (0.21%)

From the research here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9501781

"For me it absolutely WAS about the health of my baby - inductions can and do lead to a cascade of intervention that can increase the risk of fetal hypoxia and the attendant long term problems that can cause."

That's not what the evidence shows. It is safer for the baby to be induced rather than for prolonged pregnancy:

A policy of labour induction compared with expectant management is associated with fewer perinatal deaths and fewer caesarean sections. Some infant morbidities such as meconium aspiration syndrome were also reduced with a policy of post-term labour induction although no significant differences in the rate of NICU admission were seen.However, the absolute risk of perinatal death is small. Women should be appropriately counselled in order to make an informed choice between scheduled induction for a post-term pregnancy or monitoring without induction (or delayed induction).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22696345

Notoasthere :
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22914394

Cross-posted with crazeeladee's link to the NICE guidance.

Anyway, hope that you've gone into labour, OP. Most first babies arrive at 40+9 so hopefully it will all just happen anyway!

I was induced after ds2 was still showing no sign of coming out after 17 days, I couldn't wait to get him out

I took the advice offered by the professionals. It did lead to a emcs as he was stuck and the cord was round his neck, the section saved his life.

Hope all goes well OP.

inductions can and do lead to a cascade of intervention that can increase the risk of fetal hypoxia and the attendant long term problems that can cause. Which I didn't want to risk unless it was necessary in my case (vs on average for the whole population).

You have no way of knowing whether it was necessary in your case until after the event. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight.

Induction carries risks. Prolonged pregnancy carries risks. Pregnancy carries risks. Life carries risks. Sometimes you get to choose the risks you take. What you have to accept is that very often you have no way of knowing what would have happened had you made the alternative choice.

Same as delphinium here.

I had two inductions, babies were fine, I was fine. I agreed to both because in both instances I was showing signs of pre-eclampsia which was obviously dangerous for both me and the babies.

I think you really need to talk to the doctors about what the risks are and, in particular, any evidence of placental insufficiency and the risks of that. I'd put medical evidence before my feelings every time.

For those saying "the health of the baby is more important than the experience of the mother" I think you're making unfounded assumptions about the reasons that some women refuse induction.

whereisshe I am speaking from my own life experience of caring for the permanently disabled babies of mothers for whom birth has gone wrong. There are cases where it was unavoidable, cases where there is no explanation, very very few cases where it was medical negligence, and far too many cases where it was the mother "following her instincts" "listening to her own body" "going for a natural birth" or following whatever current fad or other had grabbed her attention.

DS1 was induced...I had the pessary and the syntoxcin drip within a couple of hours of each other to help things along and it ended in an extended labour, episiotomy, ventouse delivery, nearly an emergency c sec and haemorrhage.

I felt that that was a lot to do with being stuck in the bed on a drip and monitor, and having no chance for gravity to do it's thing.

With ds2 I went in at 40 +12 for induction. I had the pessary, fine. Then had an outright argument with the head MW who was trying to get me on the syntoxcin drip and lying in bed again. Despite the pessary working and me dilating 3cm in the couple of hours it had been in and mild pains already beginning.

I outright refused the drip, she kept pushing and pushing until I told her to fuck off and she left me alone. I kept on with my original plan (marching up and down the ward, keeping upright and on my feet). Ds2 was born 3 hours after I started having mild cramps following the pessary alone.

I would do the same with any other inductions. I don't mind the pessary - it's more of a topical thing, it irritates the cervix to start it dilating, I get that. But IMO they should give this a decent change to work alone before beginning to pump you full of chemicals to cause you to contract. IME it seems that as soon as the pessary has 'worked' and started to dilate the cervix, they want you on that drip to force things along, which in lots of cases may be unnecessary, but some women aren't allowed to find that out.

I was booked for induction but didn't need it. I think the hospital like to have it booked to manage staff etc.

Try a sweep? Lots of walking and a date night?

Induction definitely increases the chance of a cascade of intervention which gives you higher chances of stuff like instrumental birth or a section. I've never seen any research which says that this cascade of intervention increases your chance of the baby having a hypoxia event and long term damage.

I didn't have natural instincts- it was the first time. I didn't have a birth plan- I had never given birth so how could I possibly know what I wanted?
Medical opinion was that I should be induced. I wasn't going to risk problems for the baby because it wasn't how I imagined it or I thought my instincts more reliable!
As it was the induction was fine and had a natural birth.

I refused an induction with my 4th baby and she came 16 days overdue and was finealthough a bit small.
However if I had known what I know now I would never have refused.At about the same time a friend was induced at 10 days overdue and the only had a heart beat, all the other organs had shut down because the placenta was caput.It was a hairs breadth from being a stillbirth she was told.Miraculously the baby is now 8 and fit and well apart from hearing difficulties.

I refused induction.I felt like I was being forced to aswell.I did a lot of reading up before choosing myself not to and i tried to ring and speak to the hospital about it but they were very unhelpful to the point of being horrible and bullying.I argued my point the different areas have different guidelnes for intervention as in other areas it was two weeks longer before they offered induction.I cooperated with extra monitoring to be careful butI knew I was making the right choice for me in my circumstances as my baby was happy and healthy.Speaking to my midwife later she told me off for not asking for her help in refusing but I was too scared that she would side with thebecause the labour ward sisters thought induction was too readily offered and not in every case necessary.I can see why induction is right for a lot of people but wasnt for me.I was proud of myself for pushing for my wishes and the my midwife said she was pleased someone so young stood up for what they wanted.

My experience of induction was fantastic. I had an epidural and drip and was sitting up in bed doing a crossword!

My view was that the medical staff have years of training and experience behind them whereas this was my first birth so they were the experts. Being induced is suggested for good medical reasons and, although you don't have to go along with it, is it really worth taking any risks so near to giving birth?

Op how does it make you feel when people are saying to go with it?thats what made me decide because I completely knew that thats what I wanted and had decided.

For me (after two babies at 41 weeks, first induced after waters broke, 2nd helped along with a spoon of castor oil after 3 false alarms) a reasonable compromise was to tell the midwife we could plan for induction at 42 weeks rather than in the 42nd week. (ie Tuesday not the previous Thursday. So a week after due date she did a sweep of membranes which eventually got things going. Apparently castor oil is now strongly disadvised, as the strong contractions following can cause distress to the baby. If you and baby are healthy it's not unreasonable to plan for induction as your contingency plan, along with frequent monitoring (and curry, sex, sweep of membranes, trips to the swings....)
Even if you go for induction you can still have an active birth, but will need midwives who are happy to move the dripstand and monitors around to suit what you need, rather than just insisting on strapping you into monitors on a bed and ramping up the pain relief.

My niece had a home birth, because she 'knew' it was right for her.

The baby got stuck, was oxygen starved and by the time they got to hospital, was brain damaged.
The mother was following her instincts.

Every circumstance is completely different.

Sorry haven't read the whole thread but have you had any sweeps? I had two, the second one being quite lengthy (the midwife said to tell her when to stop - in the end she stopped first!) and I think it did the trick. I had my baby the next day. Of course it may have just happened anyway - we'll never know. I too was against going for induction because I'd have to spend the whole of labour in hospital and due to another medical condition I was going to have to have an induction without the drugs (Foley catheter induction).

I was in the similar situation, booked for induction etc but when I thought about it I just didnt want it. Reason for induction different, baby measuring small and they wanted me in a week early. I felt if I was let to go myself I would be better off. Turned up for induction as I couldn't cancel without doc seeing me. Explained how I felt and to be fair the doc was very understanding. He totally agreed induction especially early induction should be considered very seriously ans said I could go home. Gave birth 4 days later myself. Fight your corner. Tney cant force you. Good luck

OP, I was in your position a few months ago. The midwives also presented induction as very much a done deal (as in, shouting 'I'll just go ahead and book your induction then' over the curtain when I was putting my clothes back on after an unsuccessful sweep!).

In my case I was reluctant to induce before 42 weeks for a few reasons: there's a family history on both sides of 42-week babies (both me and DH were born then), the baby was doing well, and my body did seem to be progressing towards labour. I felt that there was a decent chance of going into labour before or at 42 weeks, and given that, I didn't want to take on the risks of induction until I got to 42 weeks.

It absolutely wasn't about my 'birth experience', following a fad or whatever. It wasn't about following a fad. It still really annoys me to read comments that suggest women who are reluctant to induce are doing it because they care more about rose petals and whalesong than they do about having a healthy baby.

At the same time I didn't want to outright refuse induction, because of the increased risks of going past 42 weeks. So I said I'd go in for induction at 40+14 if I wasn't in labour by then, and agreed to monitoring in the meantime. Monitoring can't totally eliminate the risk of stillbirth, but it can alert them of some things that are going wrong, so I would very strongly recommend doing this if you don't want to induce or don't want to induce at the date they initially suggest.

As it happened I went in at 40+14 having contractions and bloody show, a doctor suggested kicking things off with a sweep rather than starting prostin, and I went into full-on labour at 40+15 after more scans and monitoring. DD was born at 40+16 (90 minutes before I was due back in for them to start prostin!)

It was a pretty horrendous labour with a lot of interventions, though, ending in EMCS. Fortunately she came out fine, showed no signs of postmaturity, APGARs of 9/9. I'll never know whether things would have been better or worse if she'd been induced, because it's not clear what was going wrong. The doctors thought it probably wouldn't have made any difference one way or the other - she just wouldn't have handled strong contractions whether they were natural or induced - but that's an uncertainty I'll have to live with. So, be aware that refusing or postponing induction can still end up in a labour with all the interventions you'd hoped to avoid.

Chances are still that you'll go into labour before any induction date, though - most women do!

I had an induction. I am pregnant again and if I go overdue I will have an ECS.

I dont like the idea of going against medical advice (e leaving them too long) - as a pp stated, I am not a doctor. No matter how much research I did, I would still worry about going against their advice. The choice is yours though.

I should add, my induction was awful too! So I do know where you are coming from- but have you considered an ELCS instead?