Is being induced better?

Answer 1

NO! I was induced with my first child and I absolutely had the worst time ever with it. I ended up with a migraine, I went into convulsions... the contractions are ten times worse. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who didn't NEED to do so.

I did not induce with my 2nd and she was a very easy pregnancy. I highly recommend waiting it out if at all possible.

Answer 2

I'd have to say no. Doctor's don't just induce labor because people want them to. They do it when it's necessary, or when a mom has lost her mucus plug and is dilated to 3+... so has an increased chance of infection. At that point it makes sense to induce, if contractions aren't occurring naturally and regularly.

A natural contraction in graph form is like the outline of a hill... pressure increases, the mom has a few moments to prepare for the climax of the contraction... and then breath through the tail end of the process. An induced contraction is more like the outline of the side of a cliff. When induced, the contractions hit full force with just a second or two of warning, not nearly enough time to prepare... so you're always a little bit behind the pain curve.

If you have a choice, go without the induction meds.... if the doctor recommends inducing labor, he's probably got a good reason for doing so, and it's bearable.. just not really preferable.

Answer 3

No.

Artifical labor comes on very fast and hard so it's quite painful and you will most likely ask for the epidural.

I've been there and done that.

If you want to go natural, don't get induced. It's like sabotaging your chances for the birth you want. There's also a higher rate of c-section for women who are incuded. It's like a domino effect.

With inducement they have to monitor you more closely so you are confined to bed. When confined you can't move about freely so labor might be stalled. Add to that the effects of the epidural and things are very likely to get "sluggish" thereby setting up the domino effect that leads to surgery.

The few people that argue inducement is better are the ones who want to put the birth on a schedule which is ridiculous. Why don't we just let baby come when he's ready and not think we should control nature?

Every intervention brings risks, some serious, so the benefit of being able to pick the day of your baby's birth is outweighed by the negatives.

Hope this is helpful.

Answer 4

Absolutely not! I was induced at about 42 weeks since I never started labor on my own. I ended up with a long and painful labor. It lasted 42 hours from the time I started having contractions until the time they finally decided the baby was in distress from the length of the labor and needed to be delivered via c-section. So after all that I still had to recover from the c-section to boot. If you have the option do not let them induce you, you are better off waiting.

Answer 5

It depends on how they induce, I think. I was "induced" with both my sons. But they only broke the water, no drugs were involved. With my first son, I was in early stages of labor so they did it just to speed things along. With my second, he was 41 weeks and showing no signs of wanting to come out, so they had me come to the hospital in the morning, broke my water at 8:30am and he was born at 11:41am. It was a short, but VERY intense labor. I had no ill effects from it, but it seemed to condense 16 hours of pain (my labor time with my first son) in to 3 hours!
I am pregnant again and having some blood pressure issues, so I am afraid I will be induced again. I would rather not if at all possible. There is a reason why the body goes through all those stages in labor. Skipping them can be more painful than it has to be.

Answer 6

My wife has done it both ways. She said that with inducing, it causes you to go almost straight into hard labor instead of gradually. This intensifies the pain but doesn't last as long as not inducing. If it's your first pregnancy it is best to not induce so your body can adjust to the pain levels. After a few deliveries, the labor, while not getting easier pain wise, tends to be shorter on it's own.
All in all, it would depend on your specific circumstances but, both my wife and I would advise against it. I have to go along with her because she had to bear the hardest part of having children. I got to have all the fun so She is the expert here.

Answer 7

I had to be induced with both of my children and I can tell you the pain is more severe with induced. I had to because my kids were both over 2 weeks past the due date. Don't get induced unless you have to.

Answer 8

No.

First off, if your body isn't ready, it won't work and can end in a c/s.

Second, an induced labor is different from a spontaniously occuring one. The contractions typically come one right on top of the other and you don't have the same kind of gradual build up you get with a natural labor.

Also, moms who are induced are more likely to request medications for pain relief.

ANY intervention you allow brings additional risks, along with any potential benefits.

Answer 9

Not necessarily. Under certain situations, the doctor decides to induce the baby. As a result, it will reduce the risk of hurting the mother and the baby. Sometimes, it could be that the baby is overdue, so the doctor has perform an induction. However, if a mother can have her baby without induction, that will be ideal.

Answer 10

My first and second were not induced but my 3rd was and personally I didn't really see the difference being induced. I was in labour for 1 hour 52 mins and only had gas and air and even that was for the last 10 mins or so, it wasn't any easier or harder but I think it's different for everybody.