OMG
Scary Baby Brain Damage Lawsuit Could Spell Trouble for Pitocin Births
The use of synthetic oxytocin (Pitocin) during labor is hardly uncommon, but it's what you might call a controversial topic. Some believe its risks outweigh its benefits, some believe it's merely used as a convenience for the mother, some believe it's both a legitimate birthing choice and, in many cases, a medical necessity. Whatever your personal opinion about Pitocin may be, an Iowa hospital must be second-guessing their decision to use it during one woman's birth five years ago -- since they just paid out $3.75 million to settle a lawsuit for the problems the drug allegedly caused.
Jonathon and Martha Fountain of Iowa City filed the lawsuit against University of Iowa hospital, claiming that the use of Pitocin during their son's birth caused permanent brain injuries. The hospital denied all claims of negligence … but the fact that they agreed to pay a multimillion dollar settlement certainly makes you wonder.
Five years ago, Martha Fountain went to the University of Iowa near the end of her normal full-term pregnancy. According to her lawsuit, UIHC staff gave her Pitocin without determining whether her naturally occurring contractions were too frequent or too strong, and she went on to have a 28-hour labor -- prolonged, she says, "due to excessive contractions."
The lawsuit claims that she continued to receive Pitocin despite later recordings that showed "significant trauma" to the baby's head, which was having difficulty descending into the birth canal. The baby boy was eventually delivered through a C-section, and was found to have severe brain injuries.
Today the boy is 5 years old, and suffers from cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and other serious health conditions.
The university's lawyers said the child's brain injuries were likely caused by other factors, and that the notion that excessive contractions can cause brain injuries to babies "is not supported by scientific evidence." The family's lawyer, however, claims there are a growing number of cases in which Pitocin prolonged delivery and caused "a lack of blood flow to the baby's brain."
While the hospital denied any wrongdoing, they must have felt like it was in their best interest to avoid going to trial. Settling is not an admission of guilt, of course, but it leaves me with an uneasy feeling about this story. What really happened? Could a prolonged labor have really caused this child's brain injuries? Is there any way to know if the Pitocin actually had a negative effect on the situation? How does this information fit with the prevailing opinion that a C-section should be avoided at all costs, even if labor is dragging on?
For every childbirth horror story, there are a ton of perfectly normal, healthy births that don't end up in the news because, well, they're not particularly newsworthy. And there's no doubt that Pitocin can be a lifesaving intervention for both mother and baby.
Still, this is a hell of a medical malpractice settlement, and one that makes you wonder how hospital childbirth policies regarding Pitocin might change in the future. Whether for good or for bad, it's anyone's guess.
What do you think about this story? Do you think it's possible the baby really was damaged from 'excessive' Pitocin-triggered contractions?
Image via aaron_anderer/Flickr
Piping Hot Posts
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Faith Pinto
It IS true that Pitocin can cause contractions that are much stronger than the body would produce on its own. Sometimes this is necessary, and sometimes the hospital is just looking to speed things along. Either way, it CAN have consequences for the baby's oxygen supply. I think this potential complication should be discussed more thoroughly with all mothers who are receiving it. I think in a lot of cases, mothers aren't being given this information at all.
I'm not sure, however, that the prevailing opinion is to avoid C-section at ALL costs. If it is the prevailing opinion, then I disagree with it. If labor is prolonged because baby is having trouble, then I think a C-section isn't a bad option at all, and in fact I'd call that medically necessary. But if labor is prolonged but baby is doing just fine thank you, then why hurry things along, other than to make things more convenient for the hospital? And after this lawsuit, maybe less hospitals will be so anxious to speed things along.
abra819
Well I had pitocin, and honestly, I hope to never have it again.
CraftyJenna
Yes, I have no trouble believing that pictocin could be responsible for the babie's injuries. Medical interventions should only be used when they are medically nessisary, not for every woman who walks threw the door. But the birth industry is so screwed right now, go into labor, go to the hospital, lay down, get your epidural and pitocin and let the doctors do everything for your birth. Unnessisary interventions have been proven to hurt mothers and babies, and the hospitials should reveiw their policies, and change them.
tyrelsmom
And yes, it does reduce baby's oxygen supply, as it makes contractions longer and stronger than they should be.
me
Megankae
Just imagine how physically exhausting contractions are for hours, now expand that to days.
They reluctantly admitted me ( AKA I refused to leave) and at about 11 gave me pitocin.
It was awful, contractions on contractions. But that's what it's supposed to do. It could have taken my body twice as long to labor what pitocin did for me.
As it is I still didnt give birth until 4 in the afternoon on Sunday.
It could very well have gone on even longer if I tried naturally. My mom had regular contractions for 3 weeks with my brother, it ended up that her body just gave up from sheer exhaustion and she had to get a c-section.
My doctor figured it was taking so long because my boy was so big (8 pounds 10 ounces 22 inches, I'm a very small woman) for my body.
Without the pitocin I may not have been able to give birth vaginally. I'll take pitocin over a csection any day.
Brenna
GlowWorm889
Something is fishy to me. The baby was born in 2007. And five years later they just decide to sue the hospital?
mariesmama
could that be why my 2 yr old is speech delayed?
Jespren