Bulldog Inducement

"We had a baby boy Cohen born in 2007 two weeks premature, which didn't worry us because it was around Christmas time," Lake said.
Of course I'm sure it was much more convenient!

"But with finals, and wanting to have Shannon's and my parents over, we thought it was a lot easier to do it a couple of weeks early and the doctor said it was fine.
Oh well yeah finals and the parents over couldn't muck those plans around:rolleyes:

"Obviously the idea was to do it mid-week because with footy finals I didn't want to be worried about it around Saturday or Sunday."
Obviously! you wouldn't want to "be worried" about giving birth on the weekend near finals



"We wanted a girl and we wanted to get it out of the way and find out," Lake said.:o
All these comments make it sound like they're buying a car not having a baby!!!

I really don't think the AFL would sanction separating dads-to-be from being there for their wives over contractual issues! They're not shift workers and the PR machine alone would see them give parental and family leave, alone - not to mention club management, psychs etc. So, I'm not really seeing the 'job' side of the coin here. Even footy clubs know that players are not irreplaceable.
Kristy Lee - I agree, I haven't actually heard ANY media criticism about this. I'd say this is because interventions like inductions (and the cascade!) are so normalised that they are not questioned for safety of the child - so many in our society just assume that because it's medically overseen that it's safe. After all, we've got politicians who are willing to spout that Australia is amongst the best maternity providers in the world...which is patently untrue when you look at anything resembling facts!
It remains in my opinion that this story represents a lot that is wrong with our society, our approach to birth, our approach to expedience in life, our approach to mothering and parenting, our skewed values of who should be exalted in our communities.

I was going to start a thread on this once i heard it on the radio yesterday.. how stupid can some people be?

I have been told i might have to be induced at 39wks and thats the EARLIEST they are allowed to do it, by the dates given on the radio this woman will only just be 37-38 wks, do they not consider the babies health AT ALL?

I am dreading that i might have to be induced and can't see why anyone would make this choice just for football !
Don't get me wrong i love my footy but seriously people!

And what idiot doctor has agreed to this, seems money and a football name gets you everything you want in life... i think its ridiculous.

Sorry so glad i got that out has been bugging me since yesterday!

[QUOTE=Mayaness;1954715]I really don't think the AFL would sanction separating dads-to-be from being there for their wives over contractual issues! They're not shift workers and the PR machine alone would see them give parental and family leave, alone - not to mention club management, psychs etc. So, I'm not really seeing the 'job' side of the coin here. /QUOTE]


don't get me wrong - i don't agree with what is happening re the induction AT ALL - i'm just trying to see the other side of the coin here and look at it from their perspective. average afl player has a limited "career" in which they have the opportunity to earn themselves decent money and set them and their family up - how many of them disappear into obscurity? a player who has appeared and played well in finals footy has more negotiating power than one that hasn't. they need to sell themselves when re-negotiating contracts and this is a huge thing in their minds (well, i'm assuming.,,) as well as looking at their options after playing. i don't agree with it - but we DO live in a society that puts importance on those factors. it happens in every type of employment really - those that have the most "experience" are seen as a better catch.....

ultimately, they've made a decision that they have to live with - WHY they decided to go public i have NFI - why even announce it - why not simply make a "proud daddy" announcement once the baby is here? no one would have been any the wiser...

I think my issue is not that I dont understand his committments or how long he has the opportunity to play finals football for - it is that she isn't even due until the 16th. Now they have to make it through tht efinals to still be playing then in the first place.

Why would you induce unnecessarily TWO weeks early, when she could be induced the week bore the grand final if they make it that far? Why put your baby at risk, your partner at risk, when it is completely unnecessary - EVEN for the purposes they have quoted as the reasons?

The fact that this has been touted in the media as something he should be proud of, that he is putting his team first as he should because as a woman said las tnight on TV "It isn't just him, it is a whole team and a whole year of football to get here..." - what about his FAMILY team? What about acknowleging that the welcoming of a new life FAR more important than a football match, or any other job for that matter. If he cant be there for the birth, tough tits! If it means that much to him he will have to grow a pair and make an actual decision about which is more important to him.

Their choice speaks volumes about wha tthey consider the most important priority in their family's life, and it is sad.

Yeah Lime, it's just completely bloody bizarre. It's ok to scream "women's rights" when a woman wants to induce herself 2 weeks before her due date so her husband can run after a ball on the field, WHICH mind you puts herself and her baby at risk. Yet they are trying to ban home births? It's like where do you draw the line? It's ok to have a choice SOMETIMES?

I like that last sentence Kirsty lee.... the same sentence resonates with me quite frequently... good point!

Brian Lake, though, is not just kicking a footy around on a field. He is an elite sportsman, a professional. He is currently not under contract and highly underpaid by his club (probably due to salary cap limitations)... anyhow that is not really relevant. But a few people have alluded to his career as just playing footy. It's more than that. Refusing to accept that just diminishes the argument. Football might not be your focus in life but you can't dispute that it is a multi-million dollar industry based on consumer demand. I completely understand it when people post in frustration that football is such a trivial part of life... I too once really hated the sport (when I was exposed to rugby). But now I consider myself a fan. Most people who know me know that I tend to think too much about things and this doesn't exclude football. It is something that fascinates me because it brings so much about human nature to the fore. It brings out the best and worst in people.... both as fans as players. It generates a lot of healthy discussion: about morality (should a player play so passionately that he puts another players safety at risk? etc) and in OUR society... our safe peaceful war-free society we "need" this "conflict" in our lives to exercise our emotions and arguably our bodies. Brian Lake is not just playing footy... he is not just entertaining... he is a part of the process which helps us explore and deal with conflict. This needs to be acknowledged.

The fact that the media have decided that this aspect of his personal life is worthy of discourse is interesting and instead of being outraged by what this couple is doing we should take the opportunity to open up a larger discussion about it. All of us do things without properly considering the consequences. Most of us blame our busy lives: "I'm too busy to research all the pros and cons" and this couple are just the same. I get frustrated when people don't stop to think about what all the Coke they drink is doing to their bodies... we all have our focusses and our blind-spots.

I am not defending Mr and Ms Lake... I am hoping that something good might come out of this. As a viewer of many Footy shows i do see that often an issue (eg sexual harassment, think of Sam Newman's antics) is often given much needed attention and is discussed thoroughly and often intelligently (believe it or not) and often the people who need to hear it most actually sit up and pay attention because it's all in the name of football. Does this make sense? Not meaning to be an intellectual snob... but the average person needs an interesting context to bother giving anything that doesn't directly affect them more than a seconds thought :( Footy IS an interesting context to millions of people, like it or not. That's why it gets the advertisers dollars. If it's footy then people take notice. We should learn to do what they already know: spring-board our own agenda off the foot of the footballer! Write to Sam's Mail Bag girls... if you really want a chance at expressing your concern. Don't expect a good reaction... but even a bad reaction can be good: "Any publicity is good publicity" and all.

I understand all the important footy business blah blah, I'm a follower myself - but if he takes his career so seriously (not just him ykwim?), why not plan it so your baby is NOT due anywhere near such an important time.

FGS, I didn't want a baby at Xmas, so I avoided conceiving during the right time, simple.

LOL Lulu... my first baby was a "whoopsie" and born December 23rd! I'm assuming this baby's birthday wasn't planned in detail. As a highly fertile person I can't criticise that aspect of things I guess... often it's beyond your control... maybe their contraception just failed. :dunno:

I though they were encouraged to plan their babies for the off season. Can't remember where I heard it.

Hang on though - an 'elite' sportsperson usually has most of their lives planned or controlled in some way. I'm pretty sure 'elite' sportswoman have the nous to make it so they are not pregnant during the Olympics....

Yes, that would an interesting topic on The Footy Show Lulu! :clap:

There are many MANY players over the years, good and average, that have missed finals and GRAND finals to be at the birht of their children...and many that chos eto play those games over attending the birth...
The fact that the wants to choose football finals over the birth of his child, but it too spineless to stand up and admit it, so will manipulate a natural process to the point of risk to both mothe rand child just to avoid the conflict (rather then dealing with the conflict) is still my sticking point.

And as wonderful adn fulfilling we as a society find football and how much money it makes and people it employs - at the end of the day, it IS JUST A FOOTBALL MATCH...it isn't like he is perorming life saving surgery that day, or donating a kidney to a dying child...or on deployment to Afganistan...He is simply one of 22 men that day who will try and win a football match.
If he really is that good he will get picked up next year whether he plays finals or not.

The notion that a doctor who takes an oath to first do no harm would condone and allow this sort of cavalier "convenience" attitude with no dire medical need is abhorant, and again, speaks volumes of the docotors priorities - I tell you I hope he doesn't make it on TV - ther eis no way on earth I would allow myself to be treated by such an ob, ever, after agreeing to this.

I agree in regards to the time & was actually suprised to read of the players that were or were not by their partners side at finals time for the birth of a baby. I guessed it would be encouraged to DTD after finals LOL.....it's amazing how many AFL players get married come Oct, Nov etc. But like most people would know, esp on here that they are not always planned, or you can try & try for so long that you are not going to stop just for that. Guess that's where you make the decision, do you be there, miss it or get induced! She could go a week over for all we know I guess they are not willing to take any chances. Perhaps she's been told she is likely to go early.......we only get from it what we've read & that was a completely one issue article. We don't know that they have been ill informed, we can only presume from the way it read IYKWIM. We don't know what info they have been given.

To me it's a little like the argument for or against bottle/breast.....or to circumcise or not to, cloth v's disposables. We all have reason for what it is we choose, they are not always considered right & sometimes choices are made on poor information, lack there of or just personal choice. Either way these things are all available, so if they are available then they are available IYKWIM (did that make any sense LOL). Anywho that's just IMO.

FWIW I don't agree with how early they are choosing but YES I was induced with DS due to my husbands work. It was not a choice we made lightly but we had many things to factor in & considre & that is what worked for us.

I know that it may seem to be "just a football match" but that seems to be saying that the event is of no greater importance than a football game played in Nan's backyard. But I don't think you can come at the problem from that angle. It's not just a football match... it is a product and service that generates millions.... who amongst us has given more to charity than personal entertainment? Surely the millions of children born into poverty in Africa is more important than our sources of fun?

I personally don't beleive money is King... that is why, despite the financial difficulties I have been a SAHM for 9 years (not consecutive). Many mothers place their newborn babies in child care because they "need the $" when they could technically live on 1 income.... I don't mean to inflame anger... but it's reality that people will do things for their careers that mean a child has to be temporarily put second. Who knows... maybe Brian figures that he can retire at 35 and be a better dad than most of his mates from that point on? :dunno: So I'm not fixating on the $ or the game. I think we should set about educating the average mum and forget about all that peripheral stuff... just my thoughts.

The whole thing about the 'parents right to choose' is not really relevant in this instance, I believe. What about the baby's rights to come into this world as risk-free as possible? Who is the advocate for the one who knows what is best for itself but cannot yet speak for itself? Who is the most fragile in this situation? Who requires protection above anyone else? The baby - of course.
In maternity practice, the chosen outcome should always be based upon what is best for the baby - not what is best for the parents based on their external employment adgendas.
I understand that football is important to this family - but nothing can be so important that it is worth sacrificing the safest possible journey of a child's entrance into the world. The poor little soul's voice has been stolen from him/her - before they even have the chance to speak.
God knows how important football is to this guy - and chances are - their little cherub will NOT choose to come whilst he is playing. But give the poor thing a chance for heaven's sake!!

I agree JB... but it's not about Football... it is not Football's fault... the fault lies with the lack of education received by parents. I just think people are misdirecting their anger. Substitute the word "football" for "career".

:

---

I understand all the important footy business blah blah, I'm a follower myself - but if he takes his career so seriously (not just him ykwim?), why not plan it so your baby is NOT due anywhere near such an important time.

FGS, I didn't want a baby at Xmas, so I avoided conceiving during the right time, simple.

---

:yeahthat: I am a fan as well. But I guess I am just looking at it in the 'grand scheme' of things. What would you rather. Be there for the birth of a child or play football kwim?

I think it's sad how clinical he sounds about the whole thing - imagine being the baby and growing up to read that article ... what should be one of the most exciting days of your parents' lives as long as it doesn't interfere with Dad's football match. I know I would feel completely undervalued.

The whole article is just sad.

I feel sorry for the woman too - I have been induced to give birth and if your body is not ready, it is not fun at all. I hope it doesn't take 3 days for the induction drugs to work for her like it did for me, that would make it a weekend, and we can't have their baby being born on a weekend. Doesn't he or she understand that nothing comes before the football???

I wonder if the woman is going along with it because that's the only way she is going to get the support of her partner. She is putting herself at a lot of risk and through quite a horrible, violating and traumatic thing as well and I'm not sure that she understands that it is not like going into labour naturally.

:

---

What would you rather. Be there for the birth of a child or play football kwim?

---

I would ask: "Be there for the birth of a child or work". :)

Good point bath. And I reckon 9 times out of 10 people would say birth. No way would dp go to 'work' instead of being there for the birth of his child. I mean he took a week off work before she was born because I was in pre labour and he wanted to be there to help me and make sure if the time came he was there

There is a interesting comment in today's paper - under the headline "Why risk your baby?" (Hope she didn't read that before she went in for her inducment ;)) that Adam Gilchrist's son suffered complications after being deprived of oxygen after being induced for the Boxing Day test. He says now "Looking back it seems stupid that I put myself into that position.I should of just walked away from cricket for the critical week or weeks, or however long it took".
I guess when you are in the moment, and you may feel pressure from your club/boss/workplace, you don't consider the risks. Without knowing the facts, I would make the judgement that their doctor is partly to blame. Has he/she layed out every potential risk for them? Maybe he has and they are still ok with that..

I hope it all turns out well for them - the fact that they may spend the first few weeks of their babies life copping a backlash from the media/public is sad. I'm not saying whether I agree with their decision or not - it is their choice and they will have to cope with the consequences, I guess.

Lets remember he did not write the article himself & how it has come across is one persons take on the situation......it could also have very well been written by someone with no experience or lack of education in regards to the situation making it sound so "matter of fact" too.

I agree with using "work" instead of football, that's what it is really about & they would not be the first nor the last to do this for "work"reasons....it's just that we don't read about it in the paper everyday.

I don't think it's fair to say anyone has been "ill-informed" etc as we do not know first hand what they have been told, what reserach they have done or the information given to them.

NO my DH would not choose going to "work" over being there for the birth of our child, but it doesn't always work that way for people in regards to their situation or their work.

Thanks :) I know it seems I am a terrier dog on the ankle of this thread that just won't let go... but I just think it would be really helpful to the discussion if people could see the difference between "playing football" as a job and as a form of recreation. Big difference. I'm sure there are lots of women who are at their wits end about the obsession that football is in the lives of their men. But I think we have to be careful not to overlay our frustration onto this situation. Brian Lake doesn't "play" in the usual context of the word. "Playing" means "for fun". He "works football". I am not excusing his choice because he has made this decision to support an inducement for work reasons but if people can think of it in that context then it will be a better discussion i think. Yes football is not life and death... but a lot of the things we value in life aren't life or death either. We risk our lives for "silly" reasons like cosmetic surgery and a need to relax (eg smoking) so I don't get the particular vehemence when a risk is taken in the name of football. Like I said, everyone has their blind spots. And the basis for the blind spot is a lack of education. The average person does not understand how risky an inducement is... THAT is the issue. How can we rectify that??? I had my 3rd child induced at 37 weeks and he was 9 pounds and perfectly healthy.... going from personal experience i should be all for it... but I'm not. I was terrified. (I also had cholestasis BTW) but I was more than aware about how things could go terribly wrong.

ETA: that's interesting Snacks about that article! I'm glad there has been some useful media response.

It is such a hard situation to discuss. For all we know Shannon could of said to Brian "Honey I'm booking in for an inducement whehter you like it or not" and Brian could of been walking to his car as he was pursued by a journalist, therefore he come off sounding like a meathead football player, when in actual fact the times I have seen him on tv, he seems quite intelligent.

As it has here on BB, this issue may stir up some intelligent discussion within the media and prehaps the message may come across that an inducment is not something to be taken lightly, as it was in yesterdays paper.

I had a c-section for a breech baby which was planned in advance and he came at 37 weeks. Although I too was aware of the risks, I also trusted my doctor and his medical team. Fingers crossed it all goes well for Shannon and Brian and that they have a wonderful experience.

Yes its all very sad. And yes we're all preaching to the converted here. But the response the situation has received gives me great hope. I know my MIL had 4 inductions out of 5 and 1 of those was my husband which was a week before Xmas so he wouldn't be born on Xmas. It wasn't uncommon then, yes it wasn't a drip it was ARM but induction is still induction. I was induced (as in my mother was) due to complications related to diabetes and you'd seriously all die if I told you by how much. The first week or so I spent in a quarantined room and in a humidicrib with only my parents being able to be near me due to germ phobias at the time. And I was quite prem, but those days thats what they did and even still I was 7lbs and they were concerned had I went to full term my mother wouldn't have coped with a 10-11 lb baby. Does that mean they were right? No. But we have all been a lot more educated, and we continue to be, especially through situations like this. We need to step away from the convenience of birth (or inconvenience) when it comes to any form of intervention, be it induction, ARM, C/S etc as studies are continuing to show that it is like russian roulette and just because Mrs Jones had an awesome induction doesn't mean everyone will. And the stories of inductions gone bad are finally coming to the surface.

Its interesting though what society deems as ok. A few years ago when Cate Blanchette took her child all of a few days old to the 20/20 summit (I think that was it) there was an uproar about what a horrible mother she was and how she should be at home bonding with baby. Now IMPO I think it was great that she chose to take her child with her, it was her third child, she knew what she was doing and to be frank there are plenty of women in countries who give birth and continue to work only hours after birth with child in tow. She wasn't neglecting her child but she felt her cause or "the" cause was important so insisted on taking part. Yet its perfectly ok to induce a child for WORK, as Bath put it so eloquently.

But the funny thing is I know many partners who have had phone calls from work the DAY their child is born asking for help or assistance. DH was also rang after the birth of our daughter. But he was also in a position to say NO. Some people aren't. And no I'm not talking about football here either, I'm talking everyday middle class australians.

I feel for this couple as I doubt they are the first to do it, nor will they be the last but they are being made an example of. And whilst that could help educate australians on birth practices, I wonder how its going to impact on what should be a special time for them.

The thing is, it's HIS choice to play or to be at the birth. Somehow it's come down to her making a choice between letting things take their course or to unnecessarily medicalise and possibly complicate the birth.
I actually don't think I'd judge him for being at the match instead of at the birth - birth can happen beautifully when supported just by women ;) What I am having problems with is the birth then having to be manipulated to fit in with the finals. If it means so much to him to be at the birth, be at the birth, otherwise play the game, is the way I see it. Really, I don't see an adult in a couple of decades having a personal crisis stemming from knowing her dad was playing finals footy instead of being at the birth - it's a pretty good excuse not to be at the birth, as much as the birth is a good reason not to be playing. To have it both ways with so much real risk (like, a lot more than VBAC or perceived risk of homebirth!) confounds me. When people get sick of me talking about my right to homebirth I always hear the same tired old saying of "as long as the baby is born healthy"...as if my own choice means I've put myself above my child, which is not what my birth choice is about at all. Yet, here, the wellbeing of the child is being entrusted to faith in medicos to finish off what nature started. "As long as the baby is born healthy" has not been the primary consideration - it's parents being over at the same time, not wanting to 'worry' on the field etc.
My dad wasn't at my birth and was at my sister's. He didn't even have the excuse of being away at sea (merchant seaman for all of my childhood) at the time - he was led astray by the idea that a first birth takes AGES by a family friend and went to their place for lunch (not even that far away at the time) and missed the event! No, I don't hold it against him. FWIW, my sister's birth ended up in a prolonged labour and ended in epidural, with some breathing issues for her...so, for me, the dad being there isn't critical and I know it is for others.
I just can't see how this is an informed decision, and if it is, good luck to them!

That's a really good point Maya... about women and babies doing fine by being supported by women... maybe that was at the back of my mind all this time :think: it's another unpopular idea these days.... but I completely agree: it wouldn't actually be that bad if he did play while his wife was giving birth as long as she had the proper support. It would be sad if he felt the pressure to attend... when really... it's not always in the best interests of the baby. But it's totally up to what the mum needs.

Ha ha ha - my dad was told to p!ss off (literally) by the midwives when mum was in labour with me! He was driving everyone crazy with pacing and worry so they made him go home. AND I was number 5!

He wrote a fantastic letter to my auntie about it all - so funny.

Ummm my point? I dunno :ROFL:

:rofl: Lulu!
Apparently my dad sat in the staff lounge with the doctor eating steak and jelly while I was born...mum never let him live it down

... I meant to add though if Brian wants to be there and will be a genuine support then fine... bit of tricky subject but maybe father's need to feel ok about not attending :dunno: Really. from a guy's perspective they are in a no-win situation. These days it's the expectation that they MUST attend... even if their nerves will just be a distraction to the woman in labour. I actually requested that the middy wait a while before she let DH in because she was about to insert a drip needle. I know that my DH often faints when there are needles involved and I just couldn't face being thrust into the role of carer to my DH while I was in labour. If my DH was a footballer I would feel perfectly ok about him playing while I was in labour... I would never say it to my mothers group though... can you imagine the scowls! Yes I felt proud that my DH was able to cut the cord with my last two births but if I am honest he was... for most of the labours... more of a distraction that support. I love him... but that is the reality. The midwife who had been through labour herself and I could see the deep compassion in her eyes was, at the time, the biggest thing I needed. There was a time in transistion though that DH was helpful but he also feel asleep on the couch when I was asking for water... hmmm. I don't subscribe to making them watch so they feel guilty or sorry or grateful or anything like that. Well, maybe a small part of me does... but I don't agree with it LOL anyhow... I've lost my point too...

My due date is the AFL grand final day. When DH realised that, he told me that if the Saints are in the grand final and I go into labour, he won't be coming. TBH I felt pretty ****ed off that he would favour watching a football game on tv over seeing his fourth and last baby being born, but then I thought about it for a while and I figured I would be just fine if it was just me and my mum there. He has since changed his mind anyway - he came to the conclusion all by himself that it would be silly to miss the birth of his daughter for a footy game. Not that he has to worry about it anyway - my babies never come on their due date, and it's still questionable whether the Saints will make it all the way to the big game anyway :lol:

I think the biggest thing is women need to be ok with the fact that their partner may or may not be a good support person, forcing anyone into an emotional role that doesn't suit them isn't ever going to end well. My DH was just as blind and confused as I was the first time around as neither of us knew what we were doing or had done any research... But the second time around he was a pro. The love and support I felt from him was amazing and there were so many times where even though my doula and a midwife was in the room it truly felt like it was just us, but that also says we had a great doula too.

I think you are right though, sometimes men just shouldn't be there but their partners need to be ok with that and find the right support person to suit them.

I actually think its fine. If I was due GF day and my team were gonna play I would want to be induced prior. I'm prolly the only one here that thinks it.

On the point about football/career, how important da da da - well the guy is a part of a TEAM. There are several people that can take his place right? It's not like he is the only one there....

Brian Lake might be the All Australian FB. He is much needed but I agree with Shell induce me before GF day (only if my team is playing) lol

I fully understand that this is his chosen career, but he needs to get his priorities right. How many of us can say that our DH's would rather we do something risky to bring our child into the world to suit their work? I bet there wouldn't be any. Life is far too short and too precious to put work before something like this.

You know what the bitter irony is, if this was any other ordinary Mum who wanted to homebirth a baby at 43wks pg she'd be practically burned at the stake for even suggesting it, but here we have a woman who is choosing to give birth early, with a fully medicalised birth, where there are KNOWN risks and everyone is cool with that? Maybe society needs to have a rethink of its collective priorities.

So has she had the bub? Did it end in a c/s?

It doesnt say that it was a c/s or not

:

---

I actually think its fine. If I was due GF day and my team were gonna play I would want to be induced prior.

---

But two whole WEEKS prior, when the baby is not even term? Why not a few days before? Why such a long time before, when it's obvious that the earlier a baby is born, the higher the risk of complications?