Rise in induced births worries doctors

Seriously, puhlease....... Stop doing them then and stop blaming women!!!!!!

induced births

Rise in induced births worries doctors
KATE BENSON
January 8, 2010
ONE in three pregnant women in NSW has her labour induced - a rise of at least 15 per cent in the past 10 years - with almost half of inductions done without a medical reason.

Inducing labour, where women are given drugs such as oxytocin or prostaglandin to stimulate the cervix and start contractions, can increase the chances of a caesarean delivery or cause complications for both mother and baby.

Both drugs also make labour more painful because contractions are stronger and longer, leading women to require more analgesia and more time to recover after the birth.

In a study of more than 730,000 births between 1998 and 2007, researchers from the University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital were alarmed to find that half of those having inductions were pregnant with their first baby, a move which could change the way any subsequent births were handled if the induction resulted in a caesarean delivery.

The study, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, found that one-quarter of women given both oxytocin and prostaglandin had caesareans , compared with 19 per cent of those given prostaglandin alone and 15 per cent who had oxytocin.

The main reasons cited for induction were pregnancies of 41 weeks or longer, hypertension and diabetes, but 45 per cent of women had no medical reason for being induced.

In the past decade the number of inductions carried out on women with hypertension or diabetes rose from 6 per cent to 22 per cent, a result which could be attributed to Australia's the obesity epidemic, an increase in older mothers and better antenatal screening.



The study also found that inductions in private hospitals had increased from 18 per cent to 27 per cent.

But too many inductions were being performed on pre-term women in hospitals that lacked neonatal respiratory support facilities, despite most premature babies needing help with breathing, researchers found.

In another study in the journal, doctors in Queensland, which has the nation's highest caesarean rate, predicted surgical births would soar in the next decade because one-third of women having their first babies were having the procedure.

There was little agreement among doctors on the safety of vaginal births after caesareans and not enough research being done on the subject, they said.

There was little agreement among doctors on the safety of vaginal births after caesareans and not enough research being done on the subject, they said.

You know what the bitter irony is here? The only way they can conduct accurate research is to let women have a VBAC in the first place.

You know what the bitter irony is here? The only way they can conduct accurate research is to let women have a VBAC in the first place.

And you know what is the most infuriating? The fact that there are women who are willing to give informed consent to have this!

Crazy ridiculous isn't it?

Bingo Trillian!

Article Quote: 'The main reasons cited for induction were pregnancies of 41 weeks or longer, hypertension and diabetes, but 45 per cent of women had no medical reason for being induced.'

Well, being 41 weeks or more is not a 'medical reason' either so that makes the percentage of unecessary inductions even higher. And to add to that- more recent studies have shown that there is no apparent increase in risk when 'allowing' women with diabetes to go into labour spontaneously.

Honestly, the way these docs are treating our bodies, you'd think they were bored and just looking for something to do. Why complicate an otherwise uncomplicated natural process? Mother Nature, our bodies and our babies are infinitely wiser and they don't give a stuff about arbitrary timetables set by scanning machines!! Due date, smuew date. Obs, we appreciate that you are there in case we need you - and are happy to pay you for that assurance - but please, honor the sanctity of birth - step aside and let us labour as we were born to do!!

The main reasons cited for induction were pregnancies of 41 weeks or longer, hypertension and diabetes, but 45 per cent of women had no medical reason for being induced.

so why are they doing them?

I'm a perfect example.... textbook healthy pregnancy but was induced simply because I was overdue (11 days over when they induced me). On the very day they induced me I was hooked up to the fetal monitor where they told me that my baby was doing really well, was very happy & healthy and I still had heaps of fluid. Not knowing any better and being more worried about the risks of being overdue than being induced I happily went along with it.... intense labour with posterior baby who became extremely distresed = emergency c-section

I'd be curious as to what percentage of the 45% is elective induction?

The main reasons cited for induction were pregnancies of 41 weeks or longer, hypertension and diabetes, but 45 per cent of women had no medical reason for being induced.

so why are they doing them?

cos women are 'forcing' them into it. if the obs and the hospitals weren't doing it, there would be just gangs of women inducing each other in back alleys

of course, it has to be the women's fault again, and the doctors are so concerned about this pattern

I know this is an old thread, but I just came across it today and can really relate to the article. I am a first-time-mum and currently 36+4 and have been leaking amniotic fluid since 36+1.

In my experience I have found that from the get go, I was being groomed to have an induction. It was quite clear from the beginning with numerous doctors over the past three days that induction was going to be my only option. All the risks of not inducing were drilled into me, you could even say this option was aggressively dictated to me and packaged to me as though I had no choice and there wasn't any other alternative with the use of words like "we are going to induce" and "it is our protocol". At each consultation with four separate doctors, I have found the doctors to lack objectivity and only laid out the negatives of NOT inducing and not once have they mentioned anything negative with inducing.

After informing ourselves with as much information as possible with PROM and inductions, my husband and I decided to not induce immediately to possibly allow my body go into labour naturally in efforts to try and minimise distress as much as possible to our unborn baby. We have expressed this intention with the doctors and midwives, but have only been met with aggression from doctors. What I find interesting is that after making them acknowledge that it was my decision and my right to not be induced despite "Hospital protocol", it felt like we got there in an uphill battle.

My point is that yes medical professionals require the patient's consent, however due to the medical environment in which pregnant women and particularly first-time-mums like myself find themselves, places them in a position where it is just easier to consent to inductions. The quality of the patient's consent and how that consent was reached is very much skewed by medical professionals simply by how induction is packaged and sold to these women (and their partners) in the first place.

I have no doubt that if medical professionals were to inform patients of the risks of induction such as risk of uterine rupture, long term incontinence and higher rate of fetal distress and c-sections, many women would certainly think twice before jumping at inductions as their safest option.

Apologies if my post is long winded, I've just come home from a terrible experience with my doctor and spent many hours waiting at Hospital and I just needed to vent a little.

Thanks for listening