Further to my post about Caesareans (picked up by BBC Radio Lancashire... as you do!), I feel bound to make a comment about inductions. A friend has just given birth (big welcome to her baby) after 4 days of induction - by c-section. She also had delays getting into the labour room because they were very busy. This is identical to what happened to me, a cousin, another friend as well as woman I read about in the news the other day. There are probably a lot more out there with a similar experience.
Many people simply have a tendency to give birth late - the top 'risks' for a late birth are: first baby, boys and late babies running in the family. These factors don't seem to be given much consideration - e.g. should there not be, perhaps, a + 2 days margin given for each factor? My grandmother was born a month late, my mother 3 weeks. I was born over 2 weeks late, as was my son (who probably would have easily made it to 3 weeks judging how were getting on before the induction). Not to mention siblings, cousins etc. That's just how the babies are in our family, and they're all perfectly healthy.
My local hospital has a 12 day allowance after 40 weeks. But other hospitals have 10, 14, all sorts of numbers, so it's not like there's a 'correct' number. Add to this that while 40 weeks is the official due date in the UK, in France it is 41 weeks. The World Health Organisation says 'normal' human gestation is between 37 and 42 weeks. So the 12 days at my local hospital is not even allowing pregnancies to get through their 'normal' gestation period, let alone allowing for possible valid reasons for running beyond that time. I also notice hospitals like to start inductions early in the week (convenient for staffing so you don't hit the weekend?) so part of it is just about convenience rather than the lifesaving issue they make it out to be - this sort of backfires when the induction takes so long - my son was born on a Saturday having gone in on the Tuesday.
There is also an effect called the 'cascade' of intervention, which midwives are well aware of. Essentially, if you are induced, you are more likely to end up needing more and more intervention, quite possibly culminating in a Caesarean. E.g. they start induction with drugs, this means the contractions come on faster and harder than you might be ready for, so you need more pain relief, which might inhibit your ability to push, etc. In my case, the days of failed inductions meant that I was knackered before we even 'started' labour proper and because there was a delay getting into the labour ward (too busy) I ended up on antibiotics - which meant lack of mobility because I was attached to drips. None of this helps to lead to a natural birth.
As I've already said, I'm all in favour of elective Caesareans because I think the choice should be there. But I'd also be in favour of NICE taking another look at their guidelines regarding inductions. After all, in terms of stress to the woman and cost to the NHS I can't believe failed inductions win out over, say, monitoring (in a non-pressurised manner) a woman every two days once she is overdue and as a result letting her go further down the path towards a possible natural birth. Something to think about for the next revision?
Many people simply have a tendency to give birth late - the top 'risks' for a late birth are: first baby, boys and late babies running in the family. These factors don't seem to be given much consideration - e.g. should there not be, perhaps, a + 2 days margin given for each factor? My grandmother was born a month late, my mother 3 weeks. I was born over 2 weeks late, as was my son (who probably would have easily made it to 3 weeks judging how were getting on before the induction). Not to mention siblings, cousins etc. That's just how the babies are in our family, and they're all perfectly healthy.
My local hospital has a 12 day allowance after 40 weeks. But other hospitals have 10, 14, all sorts of numbers, so it's not like there's a 'correct' number. Add to this that while 40 weeks is the official due date in the UK, in France it is 41 weeks. The World Health Organisation says 'normal' human gestation is between 37 and 42 weeks. So the 12 days at my local hospital is not even allowing pregnancies to get through their 'normal' gestation period, let alone allowing for possible valid reasons for running beyond that time. I also notice hospitals like to start inductions early in the week (convenient for staffing so you don't hit the weekend?) so part of it is just about convenience rather than the lifesaving issue they make it out to be - this sort of backfires when the induction takes so long - my son was born on a Saturday having gone in on the Tuesday.
There is also an effect called the 'cascade' of intervention, which midwives are well aware of. Essentially, if you are induced, you are more likely to end up needing more and more intervention, quite possibly culminating in a Caesarean. E.g. they start induction with drugs, this means the contractions come on faster and harder than you might be ready for, so you need more pain relief, which might inhibit your ability to push, etc. In my case, the days of failed inductions meant that I was knackered before we even 'started' labour proper and because there was a delay getting into the labour ward (too busy) I ended up on antibiotics - which meant lack of mobility because I was attached to drips. None of this helps to lead to a natural birth.
As I've already said, I'm all in favour of elective Caesareans because I think the choice should be there. But I'd also be in favour of NICE taking another look at their guidelines regarding inductions. After all, in terms of stress to the woman and cost to the NHS I can't believe failed inductions win out over, say, monitoring (in a non-pressurised manner) a woman every two days once she is overdue and as a result letting her go further down the path towards a possible natural birth. Something to think about for the next revision?
No comments:
Post a Comment