AIBU but why are so many women induced?

[labourisscary]

Everyone I know (nearly) who has given birth have been induced and so many of them have then had to have emergency c-sections. I have heard the numbers being induced are simply down to hospitals/docs etc not wanting to monitor you in the later stages of your pregnancy so they induce...I really do not want to be induced, I truly believe that it is better for the Mum and baby to let things develop naturally where possible...am I alone? AIBU??

They don't induce for the fun of it!

I was induced with three of four pregnancies. First because unsure of dates (I didn't have a scan until 5ish months plus a few other complications) so induced on best guess 'due date'. Second because my organs were shutting down. Third because I was psychotic and needed medication.

I have heard the numbers being induced are simply down to hospitals/docs etc not wanting to monitor you in the later stages of your pregnancy so they induce...

That's stupid. Monitoring is fairly quick and easy, and induction requires continuous monitoring anyway, unlike spontaneous labour.

Women are being induced because data shows it improves outcomes for babies, particularly reducing the stillbirth rate. Inducing before 42 weeks, or 40 weeks for 40+ year olds, or if there are growth concerns, has been shown to reduce the number of babies stillborn.

The most up to date data has also shown that induction doesn't increase the chances of a C section compared to spontaneous labour.

Induction does come with some potential complications so it isn't done for no reason, but the idea it's done for cost saving or laziness reasons is ridiculous.

I have had 3dcs.all natural deliverys. No pain relief. but i was induced with my second with a pecsary. Sorry spelling is awful. Because my waters broke and contractions stopped. So 24 hours late they did the first try of indicing and my contractions started as she was preparing it. So in my case it was due to risk of infection. They kept me in over night that night and i hadnt stayed in hospital with the other 2. Im guessing others experiences would be similar or the baby is distressed and needs to be out as soon as possible but naturally if possible. Or previosu complications in previous pregnanvies so they want to control everything to lessen the problemtic chances...?

My grammar and spelling are awful tonight. I need sleep!

Yanbu, although i believe many others will tell you that you are.

Like you, I believe that letting things progress naturally is best for both mother and baby, and many women are induced unnecessarily, usually based on fetal weight predictions or going overdue, both which for me are not reasons to induce.

I believe in prochoice, however I also feel that birth is over medicalised and women are often scared into an induction without doing the research.

Fwiw dc2 was predicted to be a big baby, usually a case for induction, and was 2 weeks late. I had an induction pushed on me maaaaaany times, but trusted my body and had a beautiful home birth. Turns out he was big, 9lb8, 98th centile for head and length and I delivered with no complications.

You can't say you believe something that you have done absolutely no research on! Doctors base EVERYTHING on best evidence based practice and research. They don't just randomly induce because it's easier. That is ridiculous to even suggest that.

not ime. everyone i know irl was early. apart from me. all 4 times :(

@Namechangemum100 going overdue is 100% a valid reason for induction!!! I'm sorry if you don't feel that way but your placenta starts to fail after 42 weeks and the stillborn risk is so much higher.

The way I look at it is so many women used to die in childbirth by "letting labour progress as natural" so why shouldn't we accept medical interventions in this day and age?

I know for a fact if I had've been born before medical interventions in childbirth both me and my daughter wouldn't have survived it.

I was induced both times. First time, failure to go into effective labour after waters had gone (by themselves) and meconium being present. That was not fun.

Second time due to severe pain which I now know was as a result of degenerative spine disease. They had to monitor my withdrawal from tramadol and at the same time induce, keeping everything crossed ds wasn’t born addicted (thank god, he wasn’t).

Induction isn’t the easy way out, quite the contrary, as said above it requires continuous monitoring.
As it happens, my dc were both still vaginal deliveries, no emergency csection required

I was induced for 2 of 3 labours. This was due to reduced growth, reduced fluid and reduced movements with both. Induction ensured my babies were delivered under supervision and in a timeframe that offered the best outcome for them, it was 100% because they HAD to monitor the births

Namechangemum that's all very well if your happy with the 'natural' outcome of complications and a higher risk of still birth

I have heard the numbers being induced are simply down to hospitals/docs etc not wanting to monitor you in the later stages of your pregnancy

Rubbish, those who are high risk due to GD, OC, high blood pressure etc will be monitored anyway. They will offer induction to these women when it's decided that the benefits of doing so outweigh the risks.

I had OC with my second pregnancy so was induced at 39 weeks. I had a much better labour, birth, recovery than with my first baby who was born after a spontaneous labour.

I'd rather have an EMCS than a stillborn baby. Sorry if that sounds dramatic, but if the hospital decides that there is even a slightly higher risk of this then they will offer induction.

My DC 1 was induced because he was over two weeks past his due date. It was a very long, tiring ad painful process, but he eventually arrived safely. When he was 24 hours old he was diagnosed with a condition that is not compatible with life. I do not think he would ever have been born of his own accord as his body knew he could not survive on the outside.

His condition was repairable, so I now have a lovely, ridiculously tall and totally fantastic child. I think his induction was the first of many medical procedures that saved his life.

Because going a certain length past due date is potentially dangerous for the baby and significantly increases the chance of the placenta starting to fail. My brother was born in the early 70s; he was over 3 weeks late by my Mum’s reckoning and was the only one of us that needed emergency care at birth.

@dwangelaforever there is actually little to no evidence that the placenta "fails" at 42 weeks. It is utter rubbish and such a shame so many people blindly believe that.

Induced at 39+1 with my first as I was showing signs of pre-eclampsia and my polyhydramnios was preventing dd from engaging so I was at risk of cord prolapse if waters went at home. Induction was not great and DD was forceps delivery
Induced with 2nd as he was showing big on scans and looked likely to be 10lb if I went to term. Cervix wouldn't shift at all so had a section which was well as his head was wedged weirdly and he couldn't have engaged either. He was 8lb12 at 38 weeks so probs would have hit 10lb had I let him bake longer.

You can refuse induction but I believe if you go over 41 weeks then you need to attend for daily monitoring.
The placenta starts to breakdown after about 42 weeks which increases risk to the baby. My mother was induced with my sister at 42w+1 as her urine showed signs of placenta failing. She had to collect all her pee in a large container for the last 7 days and my dad delivered it to the antenatal ward for testing each morning.

I was induced because of pre eclampsia and ds being a week overdue and they did not want to take chances.

I was induced at 40 weeks as I'm over 40. It ended in emcs, but it would have done anyway as she was never fully engaged and I was only 2cm dilated after 12 hours on the drip. I'm very pleased the hospital took the health of my baby and i so seriously.

My midwife said that if my DS was not showing signs of arriving by 40+12 then I would be induced because of increased risk of stillbirth. They try to reduce that.
Saying that, I know women who hated being induced because it was horrible for them but it needed to happen for various reasons like the labour not progressing after waters had gone etc. Theyd have preferred a natural birth (no induction) but there would have been very high risks of losing the baby in each case.

And I don't think I was monitored at all during my labour. But that may have been because I turned up 9cm dilated already because they didn't think I was that far along thanks to irregular contractions.... And I was high on gas and air for the whole thing so don't remember any of it at all...

Because the risk of stillbirth goes up and surely you care more about delivering a healthy and alive baby than enhancing your birth “experience”?
These posts make me so mad. Why would you risk the health of your child?

i have 5 dc
dc1 induced to being first baby and 41 weeks
dc2 spontaneous labour
dc3 induced to being 13 days late and bleeding
dc4 induced to having severe spd i couldn't wal at 37 weeks.
dc5 induced to having severe spd again and that dc4 weighed 9lb 2 at 37+1 as it turned out she only weighed 7lb 1
no cs needed and spontaneous labour was worse than being induced for me as it was very fast and i felt out of control it was horrible.

Dd2 would have died if I hadnt been induced. I was in slow labour. She had the cord wrapped around her neck. Reduced movements led to an induction on my due date. Pessary only. Dd was given oxygen to help her with her breathing after I gave birth. I was only in labour for a few hours so dd2s traumatic start had nothing to do with induction.

And because induction is really nothing? I’ve been induced in two out of three pregnancies. All were completely fine

YANBU I have heard that in other countries they let you go longer.

I wish I had known to say no and be monitored for DD1.

My body was not anywhere near ready and I won't go into it but it was pretty awful >> eventually emcs.

i donated my cord blood and the woman came to see me afterwards and said they got loads of really lovely blood (she said bright red or something can't remember) - ie the idea that placenta was about to fail and kill everybody was not correct.

Everyone is different, and I think there can be variations in length of pg due to stuff like ethnic background and for some women our 42wks = late is too late. For me it was definitely too early - it's not one size fits all.

I can kind of see what you mean given my experiences but I think on balance inducing labour is a medical intervention which is treated seriously.

With DD1 I was induced at 40+2 as my measurements hadn’t increased since 37 weeks. The midwife sent me for a scan saying it was 99% fine and baby was likely just lying funny. Scan showed baby to be possibly as small as 4ib and no idea why she appeared to have stopped growing. The consultant was relaxed about it but suggested that she wasn’t thriving inside anymore so needed out. I had the gel I think and a very painful lonely night before she was born in a straightforward manner.

I was monitored all the flipping way through pregnancy with DD2 due to a typo in my notes. DD1 was 40+2 but it was transcribed as 42 weeks so she was medically small. Also my sister had pre-eclampsia. Then I was exposed to slapped cheek without immunity. Then I had placenta previa. It was endless. I saw a doctor at 38 weeks whose words were “you don’t look like a woman who wants to hang about” and she booked me in for an induction. I had mixed feelings if I am honest. I was worried about childcare so the certainty of a date was reassuring but I was a bit sad I wouldn’t get the chance to experience natural spontaneous labour. The doctor didn’t write in my notes anywhere why I was being induced and the team who cared for me seemed pissed off. I was asked many times if I was sure I wanted to go ahead.

Second labour was absolutely fine as well with no complications. It did go from zero to crowning in 49 minutes though which sent me into shock but it was ok.