Worrying trend: social inductions

Western Bulldog Brian Lake* has requested that his wife be induced 2 weeks before her due date so that he can 'focus on the finals'.

Since when did it become acceptable for football to trump the birth of your first child? And why on earth would his wife agree to such a preposterous and unnecessarily risky request?

When women are induced, there are given pitocin which is a synthetic form of oxytocin, the hormone that kicks off labour. With induction, there is no gradual build up with contractions become increasingly stronger and more frequent over an extended period of time. Induction essentially sticks women right into the second stage of labour so contractions are strong straight away. Some studies have shown that induction is linked caesareans because when you don't have a gradual build up to get your body used to being in pain, women often will have an epidural because the contractions are so strong straight away. As a result, for some women labour is slowed with the epidural, they can't push as effectively, the baby can become distressed and then needs to be born surgically. There are also considerable risks with induction including brain damage to the baby as a result of lack of oxygen if contractions are too strong or too frequent.

In my mind, unless induction is medically necessary, I can't conceive of how one could justify putting the lives of loved ones at risk. When Adam Gilchrist's** son Harrison had complications after being deprived of oxygen in his induced birth before the 2002 Boxing Day Test, he wondered if the induction was partly to blame. "Looking back, it seems stupid that I got myself into that position. I should have just walked away from cricket for the critical week or weeks, however long it took," Gilchrist wrote in his autobiography True Colours.

What is really worrying is that that having high profile people in the community participate in these sorts of things, it sets a precedent by which it becomes increasingly acceptable to have interventions in birth unnecessarily.

I am befuddled that his wife's obstetrician would consent to doing this. Considering we now live in an age in which patients have power as paying consumers of medicine, is an obstetrician breaching their duty of care to the patient by ceding to the patient's wishes for a scheduled birth (and of course the same argument can be made with regard to elective caesarean)?

BIRTH IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE TIME, DAMN IT!

*this is an Australian rules football player for those of you who are outside of Oz
**Australian cricket player

'Natural' birth is best?

Mothers who give birth naturally are more responsive to the cry of their baby than those who choose to have a Caesarean, American research suggests.

A research team at Yale carried out brain scans on 12 women two to four weeks after they had given birth - known as the early postpartum period.

Half had a Caesarean, the other half gave birth naturally.

The differences in brain activity were found in regions that not only appeared to influence a mother's response to her child, but also to regulate her mood.

It seems oxytocin, the 'love' hormone is a critical factor in the bonding process.

The researchers suggest that women who have caesareans should be encouraged to cuddle their babies straight after birth.

I think this is all a bit problematic. Sure we have known for quite a long time that oxytocin does a number of important things for birth and bonding. Yet, making sweeping claims on the basis of a sample of 12? Hmmm.

Anyone have a different experience? Did you have a caesarean? How was your bonding experience? Did you get to cuddle your baby straight away? If not, how long did you have to wait?

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7594282.stm

Michael Odent says birth is women-only business

Leading obstetrician Michael Odent says he is finally able to say what he really thinks about birth: men should stay away. According to the doctor who has been delivering babies for 50 years:

"The effect of this is that, with a man present, a woman cannot be as relaxed as she needs to be during labour, and hence the process becomes longer and more difficult."

Odent says that when men are present in the birthing room, often their anxiety rubs off on the birthing women and disrupts the natural release of oxytocin (the wonder hormone that starts labour and helps with bonding). Moreover, Odent argues that men are at greater risk of negative post-natal symptoms particularly if they see their partners through a difficult birth.

Finally, and this is the part that really annoys me...Odent thinks that if a man sees his partner give birth he might be turned off by her sexually forever:

"There are many things we do in private in order to preserve a degree of modesty and mystery.
And, for the benefit of our sex lives, it may be worth adding childbirth to this list. "

This is so old school. Whilst some men I talked to in my study, for instance, were a bit freaked out by the whole process of birth, when they saw their babies being born that same fear just turned into love. The men I spoke to found their wives more attractive and felt more in love with them after birth because they felt it united them as a couple.

What do you think? Should men be kicked out of the birthing suite?

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=559913&in_page_id=1879