Subject: failed induction
has anyone got a good definiton of a failed induction? rosalee You know induction and time limits are something that has had me thinking -- after meeting with a lady at the picnic in Geelong who was told that she "Just didn't go into labour anyway " and therefore needed a second c/s. And knowing a number of other women who have been told the same thing. I am a little concerned and confused... Where are the Ob's basing their opinion? They say that the baby produces the hormones/chemicals that start labour?? Am i right? They then say that if the women goes post dates and has for some reason a c/s for her first....during the pregnancy with a second it is regularly reinforced that she "Doesn't go into labour naturally" Therefore may need another c/s. Is this not false because it is not the same baby??? It may even be to a different father...It will not be the same production of hormones/chemicals?? Is this not just setting her up to not trust her body and therefore to expect to fail right from the start?? Is this not really really demeaning and negative? What grounds do they have to prove that women just don't go into labour?? How many women in history have been pregnant indefinitely? I also read that out of 500 inductions it saves 1 baby from having the placenta fail. 1 in 500 is that really High RISK??? They also have really good technology now to monitor placental function through blood tests and scans etc - if everything is normal Why then do women need to be induced by a certain date?? Maybe I am being a bit sarcastic here but I have been thinking about this for days now and the more I try to reason through it - the more confused I get.. Does anyone have any answers? Or is it just a really stupid medical policy that nobody in the highly inteligent medical profession has had the brains to question? Regards Rhonda. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
