Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

Get updates on how your baby develops, your body changes, and what you can expect during each week of your pregnancy by signing up to the Mumsnet Pregnancy Newsletters.

1 2 3 4

Get updates on how your baby develops, your body changes, and what you can expect during each week of your pregnancy by signing up to the Mumsnet Pregnancy Newsletters.

Childbirth

Why does fetal monitoring cause unnecessary intervention?

89 replies

BamBamMania · 19/12/2015 19:46

I keep hearing that fetal monitoring causes unnecessary interventions. This is the heartbeat monitor isn't it? Does anyone know why it's meant to cause unnecessary interventions? I understand that u are meant to move around in labour so that's obviously one concern but i keep seeing suggestions that fetal monitoring makes it look like the baby is in distress when it's not? I can't understand this? They have a monitor that can be put on the baby's head to confirm if they suspect an issue. How can this one be wrong? Is it case of when fetal monitoring is used incorrectly or misread it causes unnecessary interventions? Or are they saying it causes unnecessary interventions even when used correctly? In that case are they saying that if doctors tell me the monitor says the baby is not okay should I ignore them and tell them fetal monitoring is often incorrect and continue with a natural birth? Because that's what it sounds like to me . I find this whole idea that the doctors don't really know if the baby is okay and are using equipment that doesn't work very worrying. hopefully someone on here will be able to explain it to me a bit better.

OP posts:

Report

Want2bSupermum · 21/12/2015 17:18

mini It doesn't always turn out that way. My friend delivered her baby boy viva a forcep delivery and he died a few days later. He had gouge like marks in his head and my friend had her pelvic floor shredded. There is absolutely no way I would even consider a forcep delivery.

Report

LibrariesgaveusP0wer · 21/12/2015 17:22

Which is your right. But a c section has risks too. There are tragic stories from all spheres and different countries evaluate risks and benefits differently because it's complex and not clear cut. Sadly

Report

Sameshitdiffname · 21/12/2015 17:25

The simple fact is any form of childbirth has risks to the mother and baby no one can 100% guarantee it will be fine and parent and child will survive unfortunately although obviously the odds are in your favour!

Report

minifingerz · 21/12/2015 17:34

I said 'the vast majority' not 'all'.

Report

minifingerz · 21/12/2015 17:36

Want - are you saying that forceps caused the death of your friend's child? Was she told that?

Report

minifingerz · 21/12/2015 17:41

Your poor friend. :-(

Report

SparklyTinselTits · 21/12/2015 17:51

I think it depends on the medical professionals taking care of you too. I was induced, so had continuous feral monitoring throughout my labour. When the synto drip was started, my baby's heart rate rocketed, and doctors where set to jump in and intervene (EMCS), but the MW told them she thought they were jumping the gun, and they should stop the drip and see if my baby's heart rate stabilised....which it did.

Report

Want2bSupermum · 21/12/2015 18:58

Yes there was damage to the brain in the immediate areas where the forceps had applied pressure. My friend is still unable to control her bladder or bowl. A review they had done by an independent obn before starting a formal complaint said they should have delivered via CS. Coroner report said delivery clearly caused brain damage from what they saw autopsy.

It is so very sad for them and their family.

Report

BamBamMania · 22/12/2015 14:37

Thanks for all the info! This is really useful. The general consensus seems to be that continuous monitoring has a place and is appropriate in certain circumstances particularly when there are other signs that the baby is in distress. However, if there are no other signs of distress the continuous monitor may suggest distress erroneously and no one can really be sure until the baby is out so there may be unnecessary intervention. That said, I think I would happily take the risk of intervention over and injured baby so I can't blame Drs etc for stepping in just in case when monitors do show something. Hence it may be best to avoid the monitor entirely unless there is a concern. That's my interpretation of what people seem to be saying anyway.

OP posts:

Report

BamBamMania · 22/12/2015 14:46

Want2BSupermum - so sad for your friend. I hope they are getting the support they need. I almost had forceps for DC1 but had Emcs instead. I didn't have a choice as was an emergency and staff had minutes to act but I have to say I am very relieved now that I had Emcs. I was horrified at injuries a couple of friends had with forceps and the recovery time was far longer than mine. In fact they may well have further issues as they age and it just sounded traumatic too. I wasn't made aware of the risks when I agreed to forceps or I wouldn't have agreed it at all.

OP posts:

Report

Want2bSupermum · 22/12/2015 16:14

It's very raw for them and we are so upset for them. I had no idea about the risks of forceps but now I know there is just no way I would consent to them being used.

There is this attitude that the worst thing to happen to a labour is a CS. I find the attitude bizarre. There will always be some births which are 'safer' with a CS. My 2nd delivery was def along those lines. DS was 10lb6oz and his head was so big it wasn't in my pelvis. As a newborn he was in 3-6 month clothing because he was so long.

Report

stairway · 22/12/2015 16:39

I think the medical professionals see a emcs as the worst birth however although the risks if a difficult birth are not discussed with women unlike csections.. I think women are starting to get clued up and realise that sometimes you're lucky to be given a c section. With my first an emcs everyone felt sorry for me. I went to baby groups this time and many of the mothers had had emcs. A lot of them said ' Im so glad they gave mw a section as he was big'
However I don't think the risks if repeat sections are much discussed either.

Report

5madthings · 22/12/2015 19:28

Thete are risks with all births, my frirnds planned c section resulted in her being in icu for a week and damage to her uterus that meant she delivered prematurely for subsequent child.

It's working out what is the 'best' risk for you and your circumstances. All women are different both physically and with what risks they are happy with. I have been lucky enough to have had five easy natural deliveries including a 10lb 13oz baby born in birthing pool. His head was off the top of the percentile charts, he was huge and the consultant said I shouldn't have been able to deliver him vaginally yet he was my easiest birth! I am only 5 2 and a size ten when not preg but have good birthing pelvis. All my babies have been big. This tome round I currently have placenta previa, so if it doesn't move I will need a c section as it's the only safe way to deliver. If it moves then I will be going for a vaginally delivery again and am guessing I will be induced at 42+wks as I was with my others,I seem to cook them for longer yet none look overdue, no peeling skin or signs of deterioration of the placenta.

A lot of midwives and Dr's are getting better at looking at each woman as an individual, assessing her obstetric history etc and then coming up with a plan to suit her.

A c section has always been my worst nightmare because of what happened to my friend but if I need one then a nice planned c section rather than an emergency would be my choice. Otherwise an active birth, labouring in the pool with intermittent monitoring would be my preferred labour but others are happy with continual monitoring, epidural etc it has to be a decision made in conjunction with your hcp where a woman feels supported.

Report

ayria · 22/12/2015 23:10

Continuous monitoring is a problem when it is used as a substitute for proper midwifery care. When I had my first baby the midwife was looking after 4 mothers and would zip from room to room to look at the trace rather than the mother. (Almost 14 years ago)
I think this is what happened to me in 2012.

I had continuous monitoring with my first baby. It seemed like they just put the monitors on me as soon as I got in, I wanted an active labour but they told me to get on the bed which pissed me off. I ended up getting cut in a panic by a doctor that stormed in. I had no idea why until I had a birth debrief 3 years later as I had never gotten over it. I was just shocked because no one was in the room with me until just after I got the first urge to push, so felt like they weren't paying any attention but then all of a sudden they're rushing me?! Yeah, I was traumatised. Still am. They didn't help, explain, support or care for me. It was bloody worse than bog-standard care.

It's taken a lot out of me, but I'm pregnant again which I never thought would be possible. Having a home birth with intermittent monitoring and demanding that the midwife attending explains exactly what is going on or at least afterwards to put my mind at ease if anything goes a bit wrong, so I don't end up having nightmares about 2 births and left with unanswered questions! As far as I'm concerned that hospital ruined what could have been a positive first birth experience for me and potentially ruined my life.