The phrase is "pit to distress". Here's what that means, according to Jill, at Keyboard Revolutionary:
...the practice... entails administering the highest possible dosage of Pitocin in order to deliberately distress the fetus, so a C-section can be performed.
I know this sounds ridiculous. Barbaric. Surely not in America. But I kept reading. I read Nursing Birth's description of her interaction with a Dr who ordered her to "pit to distress":
Ladies and gentleman the account that you have just read is called “Pit to Distress” whether the pitocin order was actually written that way or not. What Dr. F gave me was a VERBAL ORDER to increase the pitocin, regardless of contraction or fetal heart rate pattern, until I reached “max pit,” which he acknowledged would hyperstimulate her uterus. This goes against our hospital’s policy and the physical written order that this doctor signed his name under. However, like some other doctors I work with, none of that mattered to him. What he wanted was for me to “crank her pit” regardless and from my experience with this doctor, at the first sign of fetal distress we would have been crashing down the hallway for a stat cesarean!
I read the nursing textbook page (Jill--Unnecesarean posted this excerpt from it in her article on the subject) that instructs a student nurse in how to deal with a order given to "pit to distress":
I read this article about changing birth procedures that discusses the advisability (hah! ya think???) of discontinuing this practice. Someone (sorry, can't keep track of who sent me where) posted this excerpt:
"Pitocin is used like candy in the OB world, and that's one of the reasons for medical and legal risk," says Carla Provost, assistant vice president at Baystate, who notes that in many hospitals it is common practice to "pit to distress" -- or use the maximum dose of Pitocin to stimulate contractions.
I read another first-hand account on A Midwife's Tale:
As a former L&D nurse and now a midwife, I have heard this term before. The context in which I am familiar with it is a little different than it is described on the (Unnecesarean) post. The term was used in situations where the baby was looking less than stellar during latent labor and it was already predicted that the a c/s would be likely for this reason. The pit to distress term would simply mean, go ahead and pit hard so we can section the baby.
This really doesn't sound any better at all. It's even worse, actually-- to deliberately provoke an already possibly unstable baby in order to justify an emergency section. That's practically murder! Especially if your primary reason for doing it is to avoid a prolonged trail of labor so you can make it to your afternoon golf game. That's criminal.
I tell you what. I have talked with many women about my homebirths who go on and on about how brave I am to have had my two (three, really, but again, another post for another time) births at home and how they could never do something so risky and (what they probably mean is) weird. But I tell you what. This new information, while it shocks and sickens me, doesn't surprise me AT ALL. Let me tell you, they are the brave ones. You couldn't pay me enough to take my normal, pregnant self into a hospital and put my life and the life of my innocent, helpless unborn child into the hands of men and women who do things like that. Uh uh. No way. If I need your help, I'll come ask for it.
It's late. I'll have to write more tomorrow. I'm mulling over lots of issues that I feel are connected to this one. In particular the callused attitude towards the health and well-being of the baby in these situations and how that relates to the prevalence of abortion these days. Stay tuned for that one!
Thanks so much to all of the bloggers who've been sharing this information. Here are some links to even more:
N is for Nurse (this one will super-freak you out, do not read on a full stomach)
MamaMid(Wife)Madness
Stand and Deliver
