Does Induction Really REDUCE C-Section Risk?

induction-training1Several weeks ago, I came across a claim that Induction reduces the risk of C-section! I sincerely thought, this must be a joke; however, it was referencing an actual journal publication. You can find the actual publication here.

Since I’ve always heard people say, “I had to be induced, and then it ended in c-section,” I thought I would do a series of polls to see if there was any indication that induction REDUCED the number of c-sections.

First, I did a poll directed to those mothers who ended up with emergency c-sections to see how many of them received drugs to induce. You can find the results here“If your birth ended in an emergency c-section, were you given any drugs to start labour or speed up labour prior to the need for a c-section?” Results: 68% Yes to 32% No.  Continue reading

Advertisements

How to Avoid Fetal Distress (and a C-Section)

Live-Tweeted-C-SectionIs this even possible? Yes. Today, “fetal distress” is a leading cause for a c-section. So how can it be avoided?

How to Avoid Fetal Distress

1. Refuse EFM, Electronic Fetal Monitoring. This is your birth. This should be your choice. Many hospitals may ‘require’ you to be monitored using EFM; however, you have the choice to refuse! If you don’t have to guts to refuse a health professional, then I advise hiring a doula to speak for you. Why is this important? There is significant data that shows the increased risk of c-section with an increase of EFM use. Here’s a quote from the 2005 Practice Bulletin #70 of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

“Despite its widespread use, there is controversy about the efficacy of EFM. Moreover, there is evidence that the use of EFM increases the rate of cesarean and operative vaginal deliveries. Given that the available data do not clearly support the use of EFM over intermittent ausculation, either option is acceptable in a patient without complications.” (Obstetrics and Gynecology, Intrapartum Fetal Heart-Rate Monitoring 106 (6), 1463-1561.)

Continue reading