sorry, but mine was aweful. I induced at 40wks 3 days and for the last 6 out of the 12 hours I was hooked up on pitoccin I felt like I was being BEATEN with a bat, but I was determined not to have an epi. But with my second I hired a midwife and did a home birth. I went to 41wks 5 days before I went into labor, I was only in active labor for 4 hours and it was a breeze. I am convinced if I had ust waited on the first I would have been fine and it would not have been so intense

Monica, I totally agree that every birth is different, and I wish this had come out 6 weeks ago before I was induced for high BP. Having watched “The Business of Being Born” and reading tons of books about labor and delivery, I was TERRIFIED of being induced. Suddenly, it was medically necessary, and I was so scared. But the experience? Was great. I didn’t feel the need for any pain meds until transition; the pitocin contractions were totally handle-able for me. And out of all the things I was scared of (IV, AROM, catheter, epidural placement), the only thing that really sucked was the catheter – then when I needed a freak emergency surgery afterwards, I was suuuure glad that the epidural and urinary cath were already placed! Thanks for pointing out again that each birth is unique and the exact same circumstances can be totally different experiences for different women.

I think we need a lot of honesty in this subject. Those women in the the final study you pointed out were all induced at 41 weeks — not 37. Babies at 41 weeks are generally fine and basically ready to be born. Many are born sooner! The unfortunate part is, many doctors today are saying, “Well, you’re 37 weeks, that’s basically full term, so if you want to induce, sure.” But the risks, especially so early, are VERY REAL. Although I would personally never choose induction electively (and haven’t needed to, by the way — both my babies came when they were ready), I can understand why a woman would choose it when she was 40+ weeks. I do.

But as I said, there’s a big, big difference in inducing at 41 weeks vs. 37 weeks. And women need to understand that.

They also need to understand that no medical procedure is without risk. Inductions, especially early ones, are more likely to end in c-sections. That is true. If the body isn’t ready, sometimes it can’t be “forced” into labor. (And society’s freak-out about going post-dates is NOT helping this issue.) But we have these procedures for a reason. We should not fear them if they become medically necessary. We have to walk a line of balance. I believe we should not intervene as much as we do, because that’s not in the best interests of moms and babies (many doctors choosing unnecessary interventions because moms request or doctors are CYA). But we can’t say we’ll NEVER use them, either. They should be used when they are needed. Women should be informed of the risks AND benefits to any procedure and situations in which the benefits do outweigh the risks so that they are fully prepared for the birth outcome, whether it is what they wanted or imagined or not.

Thank you for this article. I appreciate hearing something that isn’t negative about “birth intervention.” I’ve gotta say, I get so tired of hearing women talk so negatively about induction and c-sections…get off your high-horses! These procedures were developed to ensure the safety of mother and baby. While some may feel that these procedures are used “too much,” who are they to judge, really?! Are you with every other pregnant woman, going to all her doctor’s visits, sitting with her all day, feeling what she feels, living her life? I’m guessing not, and just really wish people would knock it off! Mothers want the same outcome…to be healthy and safe with a healthy and safe baby, and we all make decisions that we think will help us achieve that outcome. So, can we just be supportive and quit making mothers feel bad for trying their best?!

Kate & Carolina…my words EXACTLY! So, I won’t restate everything that you both said so eloquently. But I do just want to reiterate that while I agree with Jessie that we all want the same great outcomes of a healthy baby and mommy, which is unfortunately NOT the same priority for many hospitals and Dr.’s lawyers/insurance providers! They are ALL ABOUT the risk assessment and decreasing liability for lawsuits. I believe this is one of the main– if not THEE–underlying issue we are up against. Let’s face it…many of the “medically necessary” interventions are based on this fact alone…not on what’s necessarily BEST for the mother and baby. I’m not purporting that Dr.’s don’t care or don’t’ want a favorable outcome for their patients, but I think perhaps from their perspective as they look at the big picture, they believe that they are doing what’s best for both. They feel more in control when they are intervening, to the point of doing a medically unnecessary c-section. Let me state it this way…they might think, “Would you rather have a few “minor complications” or have a dead baby?” Of course ALL of us mom’s would say…we want our healthy baby!!! Perhaps they think they are killing two birds with one stone, but in reality the liability will ALWAYS trump mama’s preference. Why else do the hospital staff stay glued to the machines the ENTIRE time the mom’s are in labor? What’s the first thing they usually look at when they walk into the room? The monitors…the print offs of the baby’s heartbeat, the contraction log, the….fill in the blank. THEN they look at the mom and ask how she’s doing, but it’s more of an obligatory thing at this point. And I guess with the epidural rate as high as it is, in a way, I don’t blame them. The mom’s are not really able to tell anyone what’s going on, so they stick to what they can medically understand.
I guess if I could sum it up, don’t mess with what women’s bodies are made to do naturally…give birth! If medical intervention is needed for the true safety of the mom &/or baby, then by ALL MEANS! intervene!!! But back to the old sayin’, “If it ain’t broke…don’t fix it!”