So glad I changed midwives when I did...

• 06-30-2009 3:44 PM

  Mom~of~Munchkins Joined on 09-14-2005 Posts 236

  So glad I changed midwives when I did... Reply Contact You'll all probably remember that I had a CNM at a hospital at first with my most recent pregnancy. Well, I changed, because I just got that "feeling" about her. I heard of her doing elective inductions, she seemed nervous about my "big baby," which was big...9lbs 10oz...but popped out in 2 pushes after a 4 hr non-augmented labor...etc. Well, the friend of mine who recommended her to me just had her baby on Friday with her. My friend has had two, uncomplicated, drug-free deliveries, one with this midwife. But, last minute, the midwife called her (on Thursday) to say that she was going out of town next week. Probably a family emergency. The midwife offered her induction for last Friday, given that her due date was last Monday. "We can induce tomorrow or you'll be swapped over to one of my OBs." Well, she chose to induce, thinking she'd have the best chance at an epi-free labor with her midwife. They induced her from 2cm. After one hour, she was at 3cm, so the midwife broke her bag of water. Within 15 minutes, baby was having decels and not recovering well. They asked her to lay in bed on her side, which did not help the problem. They killed the pitocin, but she was still contracting strongly...one on top of the other. She couldn't handle the stress and pain of it anymore and, faced with a possible section, so she opted for an epidural. It was less than an hour after that that her midwife (the one I bailed on), came in with the OB and they wheeled her in for a section. The baby came out with signs of distress and was on oxygen. There was some evidence of cord prolapse. Why oh why is it always necessary to break the water so soon in a well-progressing labor?? So glad I bailed on that CNM when I did. I've now found that some CNMs are just OB-wannabes.

• 06-30-2009 6:26 PM

  In reply to

  ~Sonia~ Joined on 09-19-2006 Posts 233	Re: So glad I changed midwives when I did... Reply Contact Ugh...scary.  Definitely good you followed your instincts...good for you!!!

• 07-01-2009 12:59 PM

  In reply to

  hcjfctc Joined on 01-24-2008 Keira Joy born 10/19/2009~Virginia Beach, VA Posts 390	Re: So glad I changed midwives when I did... Reply Contact Wow. I'm glad you changed too. It really doesn't make sense to break the waters. The woman isn't progressing as we like so lets put her in more pain. Yeah that's what should be done.

• 07-01-2009 7:28 PM

  In reply to

  jess_cam3 Joined on 03-23-2006 Ontario, Canada Posts 12	Re: So glad I changed midwives when I did... Reply Contact whats so wrong about manually breaking a woman's water? i had my midwife do so cause i was tired of waiting and im glad i did, my labour just sped along after that point.if she hadnt, it would probably have taken a lot longer than it did.

• 07-01-2009 7:47 PM

  In reply to

  ~Sonia~ Joined on 09-19-2006 Posts 233

  Re: So glad I changed midwives when I did... Reply Contact The problem, in this case is that her water breaking was part of the induction process.  Induction because her midwife wanted to do it before she went out of town.  It also seems in this case, that breaking the water was particularly stressful for baby because of the evidence of cord prolapse...baby was probably very high when the water was broken...most providers I've seen won't break waters when baby is high because of the risk of cord prolapse.  Breaking the water to INDUCE labor is much different than in your case...I have had my water broken as well, but only when I was 8-9cm and I was in great pain (in a hospital bed) and trying to get to the pushing phase quicker.  If baby is low, labor is well established (and not induced), it can be an intervention that is welcome and well tolerated for many women...but any intervention carries risks.  For induction (or even in very early labor...<5cm dilated), breaking the water isn't something that can be undone.  If labor stalls otherwise, Mom can go home, or the pitocin can be shut off...breaking water carries many risks including infection (and fever), as well as opening the door to many other potential interventions that many women want to avoid (internal monitoring, intrauterine pressure cathedar, etc)...every intervention carries risks.  Each situation needs to be evaluated independently, in your case, breaking your water didn't cause any problems for you...and you are happy with your outcome.  In the original woman's case, breaking the water lead to a slippery slope of interventions that ended in a not-so-good experience for her.

• 07-02-2009 2:51 PM

  In reply to

  Mom~of~Munchkins Joined on 09-14-2005 Posts 236

  Re: So glad I changed midwives when I did... Reply Contact This was the case for her. Breaking her water was what, almost guarantee it, caused the cord prolapse. Pitocin contractions are rough on a baby. I just don't understand why we have to break water as standard for pitocin contractions when a woman is progressing satisfactorily. Its one of those benefits-greater-than-the-risks kind of scenarios. I also forgot to mention that there was meconium all over the baby when they got her out via section. How sad that the baby was in such distress from all of it. :-( Plus, yeah. I am just pissy the midwife would rather have induced than refer her to another midwife who could take her cases for the week. The only alternatives she gave my friend was to induce with her or schedule induction for the following week with one of her obstetricians. I just think that's absurd. But I'm highly biased now that I've had my first homebirth. Despite the appeals of my previous OBs, my body apparently CAN do things on their own in a reasonable amount of time. LOL With a baby nearly a pound larger than my largest previous baby. Her baby was high, too. I asked her about that. She hadn't descended well, yet. Logically speaking, the more they descend before the labor begins, before the water is broken, the more time the baby has to wriggle around and for the cord to float away from danger. Of course, cord prolapse can occur in natural environments, as well, but it is more frequently seen in augmented labors. The medical community just has no faith in a woman's body. Do it by the book...rather than case by case. This particular midwife is one of those that I have been told is more of a med-wife than a midwife. I like this quote: “We have not lost faith, but we have transferred it from God to the medical profession.” George Bernard Shaw

• 07-02-2009 2:56 PM

  In reply to

  Mom~of~Munchkins Joined on 09-14-2005 Posts 236

  Re: So glad I changed midwives when I did... Reply Contact hcjfctc: Wow. I'm glad you changed too. It really doesn't make sense to break the waters. The woman isn't progressing as we like so lets put her in more pain. Yeah that's what should be done. One of the things that turned me off about her was an answer to a curiosity question that I had for her. I asked her the benefits of having a baby born "en caul," which means the sac doesn't rupture in labor. She said that there are no benefits to the laboring mom or the baby to not break the water, but she would be concerned about allowing a baby to be born en caul since she wouldn't know if there was meconium in the fluid or not until birth. She also said that seeing a baby born en caul is really "yucky." That was one of my "cues" to run like hell. Not because she is a dangerous midwife; I'm sure she has a good record with infant/maternal mortality. Mostly because I realized at that moment that we had vastly different birth philosophies and perspectives. And obviously she thinks that AROM is God's gift to obstetrics and med-wifery.