My hospital had an induction rate of 45%.  I *routinely* see babies with a 10%
weight loss at 3 days, and some at 2.  I think there's a major correlation here.

Of course there are some good reasons for scheduling a baby to come early--but
not the percentages that a lot of us are seeing.  For the record, induction does
not necessarily mean pitocin--it can be as simple as rupturing the membranes to
start labor, or just prostaglandin gel and walking, but often pit is involved.
I subscribe heartily to the "one intervention leads to another" theory, and see
it all the time.

I think inducing for "a big baby" in most cases is a bunch of baloney, and would
also recommend the books by Cohen.  A *really* neat book I picked up at ILCA
last year is _Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities_ by Henci Goer, 1995.
Many very current references to refute much of what is going on in American
hospitals currently.  An article I've got in my files from Obstetrics &
Gynecology, vol. 81, no. 4, April 1993, by Combs, Singh, and Khoury titled
"Elective Induction Versus Spontaneous Labor After Sonographic Diagnosis of
Fetal Macrosomia" concluded:  "Because elective induction of labor increased the
cesarean rate and did not prevent shoulder dystocia, we concluded that mothers
with macrosomic [this means big] fetuses can safely be managed expectantly
[means wait for labor] unless there is a medical indication for induction."
What a concept!

Becky Krumwiede, RN, IBCLC
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]