I don't understand why women have inductions when everything is perfectly fine?

[TheBreastmilksOnMe]

I'm trying to understand why women have their labours induced, usually at term + 10, when there is no medical reason and mother and baby are doing fine?

Having done lots if reading up about it, the benefits and risks of induction versus leaving nature take it's course it seems to me more risky to induce then to leave things be.

Term is considered 37-42 weeks so why do medics need to interfere before then? It realky gets me annoyed tbh and it seems a lot of women feel they don't have the choice to sit and wait. No one stays pregnant forever. I personally would prefer a c-sect to induction if there was a medical reason for it. Forcing the body into labour using artificial chemicals sounds so wrong and painful to me.

I'm not judging women's personal choices rather I'm questioning the nhs protocols and the way women are often made to believe that there is something wrong with their bodies if they don't go into labour by term+ 10 and are made to feel fearful that something bad work happen to their babies if they go 'overdue'.

I personally would prefer a c-sect to induction if there was a medical reason for it. Forcing the body into labour using artificial chemicals sounds so wrong and painful to me

Yet cutting through several layers is absolutely painless...

One consideration might be that if you start induction and are lucky enough to labour from only the initial methods within the first 24 hours, you can usually go to the birth centre/ use the pool/ have intermittent monitoring etc but if you have started the process at 42 weeks you are now 42+15 and likely to be barred from any dedicated low risk setting and/ or very strongly encouraged to accept continuous monitoring.

There's a study recruiting locally to me looking at whether woman having their first baby over 35yrs old should be induced at 39weeks on the premise that the risk for that group at that point has reached the risk at 42weeks for the general poplulation.

Personally I wouldn't want any increased risk, even if small.

I think saying 'the risk of stillbirth is relatively small, about 4-7 deaths per 1000 deliveries' (when not induced) runs the risk of minimising what this actually means- it isn't just a number, it means an additional 4 -7 families utterly devastated by a stillbirth in every 1000, which is a horrific concept.

If the increase went up by just 1 in 1000 I'd want to mitigate against it with induction.

40+13 when waters broke at 1am, was due to go in to be induced that morning. Merconium in the waters. This is dangerous because they cannot let baby breathe until they have been "hoovered" out. Breathing in can cause lung infection. Also the placenta starts to degrade after 40 weeks.

Lydia I went in for a planned CS with ds at 38 weeks and after he was delivered I was told my placenta was all but had it. I just wonder what would have happened if I had left it any longer. The outcome could have been very different. I was nearly 41 at the time.

I went to 14 days overdue and was induced. Wasn't aware there was another option. Wish I had refused and waited a few more days to see if things progressed naturally TBH. Horrible induction, long painful back to back labour, complications, all the drugs, forceps, 4th deg tear, haemorrhage, two hours of stitches in theatre and two blood transfusions.

Absolutely wish I had been offered a ELCS and not forceps.

For me, what matters is women being given all the information they need, so that they can then make the best decision for their baby and themselves. For example - if there are risks involved in being induced, these should be made clear, alongside the risks of going over one's due date, so that the woman and her partner can examine those risks, in the light of their own circumstances, and come to a decision.

If people aren't being told all the facts, and are being pressured into a particular choice, this is not right, imo.

Definitely preferred planned CS to being induced. I think (given that I have not had a straight forward natural labour) that the pain you feel in labour when it comes naturally builds slowly and gives the body time to get used to it but when you are induced it goes from 0 to full throttle at once and is more painful.

Money planning staffing health issues not necessarily in that order. But please op don't be so petty or insulting to make it sound like feckless women demanding unnecessary treatment.

Totally agree with STDG. People need to be given all the facts. I thought induction was just a helping hand. I have no idea why anyone would consider induction to be a good thing actually, its quite brutal but I don't think many women know this! Ironically I have been told due to damage I would only be able to have a planned CS if I have another baby.

Both my boys were induced, DS1 because he was 2 weeks overdue and I was 40, the risk of placental disintegration increases quite a lot at that point.

DS2 was induced at 39+2 because I was 45, had polyhydramnios, he was unstable lie so I had ECV first, then ARM, and needed the syntocin drip to induce contractions to get his head to connect with the cervix and STAY in place.
It wasn't pleasant, but the only alternative was CS, which I wasn't keen on having if not necessary; me going into spontaneous labour would have = emCS, and leaving me any longer would have been too high risk of that.

But I guess that DS2 doesn't constitute a "perfectly fine" scenario; DS1 might have, but also having a friend who lost her first DS to placental disintegration at 41+5 weeks, I wasn't going to take the chance and lose him.

Should point out that DS1 induction didn't involve the drip, just had 3 pessaries and nature took its course from there, so it was almost a natural delivery, just needed kickstarting.
DS2 induction - completely different story.

Only 2 of my inductions needing ARM the others were just with pessaries and were very much like spontaneous labour - the last one was 10 hours of pain but my official labour was 2 mins, it clearly just takes my body an awful lots to get going!

The more overdue you are the more like an induction is just a helping hand. Huge difference to needing to have the drip, forceps etc. It is all about making an informed choice and being confident enough to say that once I get to point x y z I want a c-section rather than continuing.

Sadly the UK has one of the highest stillbirth rates in the "developed" world so we are clearly getting something wrong.

I would always choose induction, rather than risk my baby's life for the sake of going natural. The placenta can stop working after 42 weeks.

I have had 2 inductions and i found both pretty pleasant unlike my 2 spontanious births, one which ended up in me needing a ventouse.

Not only that the sooner i get to meet baby, the better
Quite happy to have another induction this time if i go over dates.

I just think people don't actually realise how high it is IYSWIM, we all know about cot death and worry about it yet stillbirth & neonatal death a much higher risk

The increased risk after 42 weeks should not be ignored but equally we cannot ignore the increased risks of induction has of leading to a negative birth experience as well. That is never measured of course as hospitals are not concerned so much with that as they are with trying to minimise of the risk of stillbirth and meconium aspiration. It is a really tricky area but I know that lots of woman go into the induction process not realising the implications it can have on labour. I think a bit more honesty from hospitals about that would be good so women could make a really informed decision.

I was induced with dd she reacted badly to the pessary and was in distress so ended up having to have a emcs.

I'm pregnant again and going for a Elcs. I didn't find it at all bad last time considering the surgeon apologises and said I would be sore because it was a bit "slash and grab " but it was ok.
I certainly never want to experience watching a heart monitor going down to 20 again whilst a hoard of midwives dived on me ripping my clothes off, catheterising me as they run me through corridors on a trolley shouting to the consultant "this baby needs to come out now".

I understand I was just unlucky but once bitten twice shy

A friend of a friend thought like the OP, she had a still birth at 40+13. A terrible tragedy.

I've had 2 inductions with drip (plus one 'natural' birth) and didn't find the labours any worse than the natural one. With DS my waters broke and were full of merconium, the doctors wanted him out that day but since I'd had 2 vaginal deliveries they hooked me up to the drip (no pessary since there was no time) to see if I could be induced to avoid a CS. Luckily it was a short labour with next to no pain relief (few puffs of G&A was all I got to have due to the speed of his arrival) and having sat in the postnatal ward and seen the woman next to me wheeled in after an EMCS I know I was glad I'd been able to have the vaginal delivery. Actually, considering DS was in hospital for over a week due to complications associated with being early I'm really glad I was fit and well because it would have been much harder on the whole family if we were both needing care.

I think this is a really complex issue and there's no right answer. It annoys me somewhat then when some posters proclaim that there IS a right answer and why wouldn't you refuse/accept induction (delete according to view point)

Personally I was induced at 42 weeks with dd1. It wasn't the nicest experience but it was ok. Funny things is though I KNOW we were told the placenta could fail but nobody talked about induction as a means of reducing the risk of stillbirth. Nobody talked about stillbirth at all actually. With both dd1 and dd2 it never occurred to me that I could lose them. For dd3 I was considerably more aware and did worry about stillbirth but I still would not have accepted induction before 42 weeks. They tried to book me in for 40 + 10 and I refused. I suspected in any case that I would deliver at the same time as I had with dd2 and I was right - in labour on 40 +7.

However - since then a friend has lost a baby to stillbirth. It was before term. Induction was not an issue. And yet if I was pregnant today would I still be refusing induction and insisting on going longer? I really don't know.

I think you have to play the cards you're dealt as well as you can. For some people tragically there will be regrets. That's the way of the world. There is no guarantee of a perfect outcome and nothing you do can change that.

Mrsantithetic - completely understandable and I think they would be recommending c-section tbh.

I'm not anti c-section at all but it is major surgery, I think I'm more concerned about those people who seem to think they is no need to intervene.

Random, indeed. I was induced with dd3 and ended up having a crash c section.

I was 41, post dates -42 weeks by the hospital's reckoning, more by mine-, and she was not tolerating the induction process at all well and nearly died. But, had I not been induced and had the crash section, she would have died anyway (major cord entanglement), just later. Before antibiotics we would both have died. Nothing to do with my age, health, her health, the health of the placenta, management if the labour, just her pesky habit of wanting to play with her cord. Sobering thought.