I am pregnant with our third kid -- just saw the documentary a few months ago and really wished I had seen it several years ago before my first two were born. But I *DID* at least have a doula and a midwife (although I was induced in the hospital both times)... and had two healthy boys -- who happen to have Autism. I am SUPER proud that I had no pain medication what-so-ever! But definitely bummed that I was given pitocin after seeing the documentary.
I was REALLY hoping this time around to use a birthing center. I found a great one, went to my first appt. and then the itching started... My midwife told me to see their OB-GYN who is their back-up in case of any serious issues. I had blood work done and was diagnosed with Cholestasis of Pregnancy (something 1 in 2,000 women get). I never had it in my previous pregnancies... and the big issue is that you have to have the baby early to avoid having a stillborn baby. I have been seeing a perinatal doc as well, who has said I will need to be induced at 35-36 weeks. Anyway, I was thinking -- what's worse, pitocin again?? Or having a C-section. As much as I want to avoid pitocin, I think I will have to go that route compared to having major surgery with a c-section. Any thoughts??
Also, the specialist says having a c-section will not allow the fluid in the baby's lungs to be pushed out like it would if the baby is delivered vaginally... and right away jumped on the bandwagon that nothing is wrong with pitocin. Yeah, nothing was wrong with eating fish containing Mercury a while back -- and now it's an issue. I am all about erring on the side of caution. I want the best for my unborn baby... I can deal with surgery, just as I can be a trooper and deal with being induced. I just can't seem to find much comparing the two ways of having the baby since this is a rare circumstance. As much as I want to do the birthing center route, the birthing center will not allow me to because they won't deliver babies before 36 weeks.