Pre-labour rupture of membranes: impatience and risk

Pre-labour rupture of membranes: impatience and risk

http://midwifethinking.com/2010/09/10/pre-labour-rupture-of-membranes-impatience-and-risk/

When my water broke with my first baby and I had not had the first contraction yet, I remember being so upset, since I knew the Dr's would want me to come into the Hospital right away! I had read a 'vast' library (all 7 that I could get my hands on) of books on pregnancy and childbirth. I knew that what I wanted was to stay at home and labor for as long as I could before going to the hospital. Now, with my waters broken, that was not going to be a possibility, under todays medical management of labor.

Lucky for me, my contractions started up 30 minutes after the rupture of membranes, and then I was off. I am among the small number of women(abt 10%), whose membranes rupture spontaneously, prior to labor actually beginning. Most women if left alone, will begin labor within about 24 hrs. In this article it states that jsut a few short years ago they would wait for 72 hours, then the timeline became shorter and shorter. Now days, you are advised by your OB Dr. that if your membranes should spontaneously rupture, you are to call them and rush right in to the hospital.

In many cases it will mean that your labor is artificially stimulated by a pitocin drip in the i.v. in your arm, you will also very likely have to have i.v. antibiotics, "just in case" you might get an infection, which is unlikely if you aren't putting anything up into the vagina, but at the hospital you will be submitted to numerous vaginal exams to 'check' for dilation. You may even be pressured to have an internal contraction and fetal monitor attached, which then add to the 'stuff' going up into your vagina while you have ruptured membranes and increases your risk of uterine infection.

Early, prelabor, rupture of membranes does not however increase the risk of your baby getting an infection, as the article states so nicely, but that is NOT what the medical team will tell you. In fact if you begin to get an infection, with an elevated temperature, (or if you get an epidural fever, where your body gets a slight fever trying to, I suppose, fight off the epidural line, medicine, etc being introduced into your body, but does not mean that you are in fact 'sick' or have an infection), your baby will be taken from you after the birth for observation in the nursery or NICU, and often subjectred to a battery of invasive testing, (ie: a spinal tap for meningitis), then given a course of antibiotics "just in case" your baby has an infection. This 'routine' separation of mother and baby and delay in the breastfeeding relationship, often is for a minimum of 24 hours.

Another thing that will most likely happen to you if you go directly to the hospital, is that because of your rupture of membranes, and the unrealistic (my theory is, there are a lot more prolapsed cords with induced labors. The baby - often 38 weeks or before it is 'due' - isn't really setteled down into the pelvis well, and as part of the inductin they artificially rupture your membranes, then since the baby is still floating, with the rupture of membranes, the cord gets washed down and out with the big gush of fluid that was just released) fear of a prolapsed umbilical cord, you will then be restricted to bed, often forced to use a bed pan, instead of being allowed up to go to the bathroom, and all of that being stuck in the bed, instead of being up to move around and have the effects of gravity, do not help your body kick itself into labor and encourage you to labor on your own.

Doesn't all of this sound like a lovely way to start labor? (dripping with sarcasm)
The sad part if, that inducing a labor to start just because of spontaneou rupture of membranes, is not justified, or backed up by research.

Read this blog post. It has all the links to the Cochrane Review's with the research and facts to back this up.

Please educate yourselves on the issues dealing with pregnancy and birth.