I did a search of PubMed or Medline on induction of labor.
There were at the time 941 articles. My survey showed that
665 of them were about techniques of induction: how, where,
when, what drug to use, etc.; 50 were about side effects and
complications; less than ten were on the experience of
induction. Tells you something about priorities doesn't it?
Some articles:
-Kato K, Nagata, Furuya K et al. "Programmed induction of
labor for primiparous women to ensure daytime delivery."
Asia J Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol 1987 13: 405-415. (Doesn't
the title alone give you the creeps?)
-McNeil TF, Blennow G. "A prospective study of postpartum
psychoses in a high-risk group. Relationship to birth
complications and neonatal abnormality." Acta Psychiatr
Scand 1988; 78: 478-484. (Sample is only 24, so trends are
non-significant. However, induction, fetal distress,
instrumental deliveries and offspring abnormality were
associated with postpartum psychosis within three weeks of
delivery.)
-Wigtron WR and Wolk BM. "Elective and routine induction of
labor. A retrospective analysis of 274 cases." J Reprod Med
1994; 39: 21-26. (Basically, the authors say induction is
not a problem for anybody except those primips with
unfavorable cervices that had twice as many cesareans, and
the respiratory distress syndrome in three cases, all
secondary to meconium aspiration and all from the elective
induction group.)
-Out JJ, Vierhout ME et al. "Elective induction of labor: a
prospective clinical study, II: psychological effects." J
Perinat Med 1985; 13 :163-170. (Elective induction again not
a problem, except that mothers with induced labors were
rated as being generally less emotionally involved in the
first contact with their newborn than mothers with
spontaneous labor. "Differences not significant." How can
one breastfeed if there is less emotional involvement at the
first meeting?)
-Xenakis EM et al. "Induction of labor in the nineties:
conquering the unfavorable cervix." Obstet Gynecol 1997;
90:235-239. (Nice title, kind of like saying rape is merely
conquering the unfavorable vagina.)
-Smith, Nagourney et al. "Hazards and benefits of elective
induction of labor." Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148:579-584.
("For the obstetrician and nursing staff, there has been
great value in the concentration of 88% of deliveries to the
hours of 9 am and 9 pm on weekdays. The hospital has
benefited, not only from better use of staff and reduction
of weekend and holiday workloads, but from improved
occupancy of beds with the leveling of the peaks and valleys
associated with deliveries after spontaneous onset of
labor.")
I strongly encourage you all to research this and talk about
it with everybody who will listen, particularly girlfriends,
daughters, female relatives, anybody. Our female process is
being taken from us, and we are letting it happen. Our
babies are being injured, taken too soon, not ready to be
out in the world yet. Then we lactation professionals have
to work so hard to undo the psychic damage and support the
basic mechanisms of lactation and infant maturation until
mother and baby are ready. I would cheerfully give this up,
even if it meant my private practice disappeared.
One can refuse routine induction. In fact, if one's heart is
not behind it, it will not work because the internal
chemistry will work against the technology. Then the
technology will be intensified, because after all, that
unfavorable cervix must be conquered. If the baby is
breathing, and goes home with the mother, then all must be
well, right? NOT!!!
-Nikki Lee RN, MSN, Mother of 2, IBCLC, CIMI, craniosacral
therapy practitioner, childbirth educator
Elkins Park,PA
Reprinted from Midwifery Today E-News (Vol 2 Issue 30 July 26, 2000)
To subscribe to the E-News write: enews@midwiferytoday.com
For all other matters contact Midwifery Today:
PO Box 2672-940, Eugene OR 97402
541-344-7438, midwifery@aol.com, Midwifery Today
|
|