I feel awful and uneducated :(

**sepata** · December 18th, 2012, 05:56 PM

I didn't realise until today that the internal foetal monitor actually screws into the baby's head. That must hurt the baby so much

I feel heartbroken and sick knowing that not only did my son have this done once when I was in labour, but twice because the midwife accidentally pulled the first one out. I had already decided not to allow it with my next birth, because I didn't like the invasiveness, but now there is no way in hell any of my future babies will ever have this done

**Traveller** · December 18th, 2012, 06:03 PM

It's only a teensy scratch into the baby's skin, very superficial. Please don't feel bad about having one. If it was necessary then it was worth doing.

**little_O** · December 18th, 2012, 06:03 PM

I never knew that either! I didn't have one, never heard of it, but it sounds horrible!

Don't blame yourself Hun, at least you know now and can make an informed decision.

**Catastrophic** · December 18th, 2012, 06:07 PM

Your not awful!

Xoxox most of the population would just take the advice of a medical Professional. This doesn't make you ineducated or awful. Xoxox

**Teeki** · December 18th, 2012, 06:08 PM

Big hugs

Don't feel bad. And you're not uneducated - there are so many things about both and labour we're apparently supposed to know! We can't know it all.

My DH didn't realise it either. When the midwives thought DD was going into distress (she wasn't, they were just measuring my heart rate instead of hers) they tried to put a monitor on DD. I didn't realise what they were doing, I thought it was just an internal. DH knew but didn't know what it actually was. Thankfully, it didn't work, they couldn't get it on. When the Dr said "I can't get the fetal heart monitor to stay" I figured it out and was ****ed.

I really think they should explain it and get full consent for something like this. When DD was born and had a very obvious scratch on her head DH asked how it would have got there, then he was ****ed too!

**PumpkinZulu** · December 18th, 2012, 06:08 PM

Don't blame yourself. The name is misleading, its description is (intentionally) misleading....who would think to check to make sure nobody screws anything into your baby's head? It's not something that immediately jumps to mind, is it?

**sepata** · December 18th, 2012, 06:12 PM

Thanks for the kind words. I don't think it was necessary, they told me they wanted to use it because the external ones kept slipping - they could've got a student or someone to sit there and hold them. It is very misleading, and as you say, who would expect them to be screwing something in!

**FabFiona** · December 18th, 2012, 06:24 PM

I was educated and I had one. For me, it was the best option. I needed monitoring during both births as I was induced due to pre-eclampsia. The first time the external monitors kept slipping and it wasn't possible for someone else to hold them on as it would have meant someone right next to me and I wanted to be able to move around. Also, I know I only wanted hubby that close to me.

With the internal monitor, it really only nicked the top of his head. The mark was gone shortly after.

It meant during labour despite the crap sandwich that is pre-eclampsia and induction, I could move around and have as close to active labour as possible. It meant no drugs for me and a much better labour and birth.

**peanutter** · December 18th, 2012, 06:36 PM

I understand that you may feel that way.

I also had the internal foetal monitor on DS1 for quite some time (ie: hours) during my labour, and when it came off we would have agreed to have it done again if they weren't about to do a forceps delivery.

I considered it to be akin to the heel pr!ck, or an injection, etc. Do I want things piercing my baby when they may or may not be necessary? No. But in terms of risk -v- reward, it was an acceptable concession so that on whole, I was doing the best I could do, to promote my baby's safe arrival.

In the same way, I had a c/s with DS2. I didn't want one, I wanted a natural labour and birth, to give him the best start in life, minimal intervention, maximise clearing his lungs, stimulate milk supply, etc ... but for my personal circumstances, there were unacceptable risks there, and so I made the best choice I could make with the options I had and with the knowledge I had.

In both situations, if I knew more, might I have made different choices?

Sure.

But I didn't, and I feel happy and guilt-free about having made the best choices as a parent with what information I had at the time.

There will always be things we don't know - but we always do our loving best.

**Trillian** · December 18th, 2012, 08:49 PM

I knew what it was and how they put it in, it does just go under the skin, but it still didn't make me feel better to see these two little scratches on her head from it

BUT, it was the best choice of monitoring for me so I could stay as mobile as I can.

**onthefly** · December 18th, 2012, 09:13 PM

It's not a nice feeling when we get more information that leads us to think we didn't make the best choice for our kids. But I sounds like you made the best choice you could with the information you were given then. Now you know more, you can make different decisions.

**HotI** · December 18th, 2012, 09:00 PM

I'm sorry.

It was the responsibility of the midwife to explain it to you, and the risks and benefits of the procedure, before she went ahead with it. This is known as informed consent, but unfortunately it is often lacking in the medical field.

And it is not a 'teensy scratch into the baby's skin'. The OP and others reading this are grown women and should be provided with accurate information so that they can make choices for themselves and their babies.

**The[cookie]Doctor** · December 18th, 2012, 10:31 PM

I'm sorry.

It was the responsibility of the midwife to explain it to you, and the risks and benefits of the procedure, before she went ahead with it. This is known as informed consent, but unfortunately it is often lacking in the medical field.

And it is not a 'teensy scratch into the baby's skin'. The OP and others reading this are grown women and should be provided with accurate information so that they can make choices for themselves and their babies.

Absolutely what Hoti said. I had it performed without my consent and it is disgusting that medical teams believe that you accept their dictations when you step into their room without giving proper information.

**Traveller** · December 19th, 2012, 07:01 AM

And it is not a 'teensy scratch into the baby's skin'. The OP and others reading this are grown women and should be provided with accurate information so that they can make choices for themselves and their babies.

HotI I appreciate you are not a fan of this form of monitoring. Truth be told, neither am I. But as you say the women reading this need the facts, and the facts are that internal monitoring involves a small scratch on the baby's skin and a very tiny piece of wire placed there to monitor bloodflow. It does not screw into the baby's skull, it is not deep, and most of the time the mark is gone from the baby shortly after birth. It is probably unpleasant for the baby, but the process of birth (being compressed, squeezed and denied oxygen for periods of time) is unpleasant for the baby and the internal monitor could be compared to the discomfort of a cannula being placed during contractions for the woman. In situations like this I don't believe emotive language helps and there are many times when an internal monitor is a good decision which saves a woman from an unnecessaarean.

**BellyBelly** · December 19th, 2012, 07:18 AM

It is a very difficult thing, when you are in labour you need to move about to cope with the pain and to best help the birth, but this means monitors often slip and move about and then staff are quick to suggest the internal monitor - be it for the best outcome for the baby and/or to cover themselves legally - they would be in deep poo if they needed a trace and couldn't get one - the obs/other staff would be demanding to see a trace (which would be used in court if they got sued) but there would be nothing to show for it.

I always remember my mum's story, when she was in labour with her 3rd (my sister) they put one on her head, and they got no reading after a little bit, even told mum her baby had died. When in fact it had just fallen off her head. They used one of those old fashion instruments (the name slips my mind) that midwives used to use long ago ( shaped like a horn), to listen to the heartbeat. They got one from that and knew the baby was okay.

Its hard to change what's happened, and I think as mothers most of us do the very best we can with what we know - you can't do different if you don't know. The best thing to do, is to avoid procedures like inductions and augmentations when they are not necessary - these things lead to monitoring and other interventions. But in cases like mentioned above -pre-eclampsia etc - sometimes intervention is important. Also sharing what you have learnt too is a huge thing.

Please don't be hard on yourself xx

**Trillian** · December 19th, 2012, 07:26 AM

HotI I appreciate you are not a fan of this form of monitoring. Truth be told, neither am I. But as you say the women reading this need the facts, and the facts are that internal monitoring involves a small scratch on the baby's skin and a very tiny piece of wire placed there to monitor bloodflow. It does not screw into the baby's skull, it is not deep, and most of the time the mark is gone from the baby shortly after birth. It is probably unpleasant for the baby, but the process of birth (being compressed, squeezed and denied oxygen for periods of time) is unpleasant for the baby and the internal monitor could be compared to the discomfort of a cannula being placed during contractions for the woman. In situations like this I don't believe emotive language helps and there are many times when an internal monitor is a good decision which saves a woman from an unnecessaarean.

It is a very difficult thing, when you are in labour you need to move about to cope with the pain and to best help the birth, but this means monitors often slip and move about and then staff are quick to suggest the internal monitor - be it for the best outcome for the baby and/or to cover themselves legally - they would be in deep poo if they needed a trace and couldn't get one - the obs/other staff would be demanding to see a trace (which would be used in court if they got sued) but there would be nothing to show for it.

I always remember my mum's story, when she was in labour with her 3rd (my sister) they put one on her head, and they got no reading after a little bit, even told mum her baby had died. When in fact it had just fallen off her head. They used one of those old fashion instruments (the name slips my mind) that midwives used to use long ago ( shaped like a horn), to listen to the heartbeat. They got one from that and knew the baby was okay.

Its hard to change what's happened, and I think as mothers most of us do the very best we can with what we know - you can't do different if you don't know. The best thing to do, is to avoid procedures like inductions and augmentations when they are not necessary - these things lead to monitoring and other interventions. But in cases like mentioned above -pre-eclampsia etc - sometimes intervention is important. Also sharing what you have learnt too is a huge thing.

Please don't be hard on yourself xx

A pinnard Kel?

**BellyBelly** · December 19th, 2012, 07:37 AM

Thats it!!!

**HotI** · December 19th, 2012, 03:13 PM

In situations like this I don't believe emotive language helps and there are many times when an internal monitor is a good decision which saves a woman from an unnecessaarean.

I don't believe that dismissive language helps a woman who has just realised that she may have been duped. it is not a case of whether i am a fan of this monitoring or not, i just believe that women should be given accurate information to make decisions, and it doesn't sound like Sepata felt that she was.

My experience of the probe was a sore on my baby's head that remained for over 6 weeks, with a scar that was visible until she grew hair. This may not be typical, but that is what i have seen.