Inductions have real risks!

New Kerala.com- a Sydney newspaper reported this on December 10th...Italics in parenthesis are mine for my input.

Inducing labour in pregnant women is risky

Sydney, Dec 10 : Inducing labour in uncomplicated pregnancies can be risky, according to a study.

A quantitative study based on 50,000 first births between 2000 and 2005 showed that induced labours were more likely than spontaneous births to lead to forceps delivery, caesarean section and haemorrhage. (now keep in mind- 50,000 births is a lot of births! and the data was recorded over five years!)

Babies were also more likely to be admitted to nursery care and to require active resuscitation after induced labour.

Mary-Ann Davey of Mother and Child Health Research at La Trobe University, who conducted the study, stressed that the sample included only those women whose pregnancies were progressing in a healthy and normal manner. (so these were not moms or babies at risk of something happening to cause a more interventive birth!)

"I used data that are routinely collected on all births in Victoria by the midwife attending the birth," Davey said. "I selected those first births that appeared to have no clinical indication for induction of labour. (so these were elective inductions- not medical inductions! keep in mind most inductions today are just such inductions- "I am tired of being pregnant." "I am afraid your baby is getting too big.")

These were all single pregnancies of normal presentation born between 37 and 40 weeks. (so again these are not "late" babies- these are women being induced actually early at times- 37 weeks is considered premature still- what if the due date was off by a week- yes remember full term is between 38 and 42 weeks and many times gestation is just a guess at best! all women do not ovulate at day 14 and some women do not menstruate at every 28 days!)

Mothers had no complications, such as pre-existing diabetes, hypertension, cardiac disease or mental illness and those younger than 20 years or older than 45 were excluded from the analysis.

Davey believes that many of the labours were induced for reasons of convenience rather than for any medical indications. Sometimes the pregnancies might be induced because they are past the due date but only by six days or less. (so convenience is worth what cost? having your baby end up in the NICU? having a surgical birth with the complications that can cause? six days late is not even considered really past due yet!)

The risk of haemorrhage following induced labour was increased by 17 percent, of an instrumental delivery by 20-70 percent, of nursery care for the infant by 24 percent and active resuscitation by 15-100 percent, depending on the method of induction, said a La Trobe release. (so instead of having a healthy mom bonding gently with her new baby- soon to be nursing at her breast, she is recovering from an instrumental or surgical birth and her baby is in the warmer being tubed or worse sent to the nursery...for what?)

The risk of a caesarean was between two and four times more likely after induction. (so in Atlanta where some hospitals are already nearly 40% think about what the rate would be if inductions were only allowed when medically neccessary? would the rete drop back down to below 20%?)

...So can we safely say that inductions are not safe? Can we conclude that when it is done it is not without risk to both the mom and the baby? Can we share this with a mom when she complains about being tired of being pregnant? Or when a doctor "thinks" a baby may be too big? Can we just allow babies to decide for themselves when to be born? Can we stop playing God?