“Big Baby”

We’ve all heard about women who were told they needed to consider an artificial induction of labor or even Cesarean surgery, because their babies “looked big” toward the end of pregnancy. Many of these women were unpleasantly surprised when their babies were born at completely average weights, after they’d undergone a drastic intervention in a healthy pregnancy.

The latest article from our brilliant Rebecca Dekker on her site EvidenceBasedBirth.com is “What is the evidence for induction or C-section for a big baby?”  She confirms some sad news: 1 in 3 women in the U.S. are being told that their babies are too big, even though weight can’t be reliably predicted. Women are NOT being told that procedures such as artificial induction and Cesarean surgery for big babies have not been shown to improve outcomes, and, in fact, may be harmful. Induction for big baby likely increases the C-section rate.

Her article addresses the four “big” assumptions on which this approach is based:

  1. Big babies are at higher risk for problems.
  2. We can accurately tell if a baby will be big.
  3. Induction keeps the baby from getting any bigger, which lowers the risk of C-section.
  4. Elective C-sections for big baby are beneficial and don’t have any major risks.

In maternity care, treating assumption like fact can have devastating consequences.  In this case, we see that the “suspicion” of a big baby is more harmful than an actual big baby!

When it comes to big babies, there is a clear disconnect here between what research says is best and what is commonly practiced all over the country. Please read Rebecca’s article and share far and wide.

Why Is It Important?

Suspected big baby (or macrosomia) is not a medical indication for induction or Cesarean, yet it is one of the most common reasons given for these procedures.  In 2014, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued guidelines to care providers recommending that they limit interventions for suspected baby to “avoid potential birth trauma.”

However, we know that it can take many years for guidelines like these and current research to be implemented into routine care.

What You Need to Know

Research shows that common interventions used for suspected big babies, such as induction and cesarean surgery, are actually more harmful and carry more risks than big babies themselves.

★ Non-diabetic, low-risk women are NOT at higher risk of complications due to baby’s size. In some cases, such as with mothers who have pelvic deformities or uncontrolled gestational diabetes, a large baby can be a medical indication for intervention.

Myths and Facts

★ MYTH: It is possible to predict which babies will be big.
FACT: Ultrasound estimates of babies size are unreliable, especially at the end of pregnancy. Predictions of a big baby are right 50% of the time and wrong 50% of the time.

★ MYTH: Big babies are at higher risk for complications.
FACT: In low-risk women, having a big baby does not put them or the baby at greater risk for complications.

★ MYTH: When there is a suspected big baby, intervening in labor and birth can decrease risk.
FACT: Statistically speaking, intervening due to a suspected big baby has been found to be more risky than the big baby itself and can lead to more complications.

For More Evidence-Based Information

Read What is the Evidence for Induction or C-Section for a Big Baby? from Evidence Based Birth

What Do I Do With This Information?

You have the legal right to full information about anything that’s being suggested, and the right to say “no” or to choose an alternative.  Read more here about your rights to informed consent and refusal.

Hospital policies are “rules” for providers to follow, but do not overrule your legal rights to make choices about your care. Hospitals and care providers do not have have the legal right to impose them upon you.

You also have choices in your care.  If you don’t feel comfortable with your care provider, it is never too late to switch to someone else.  Remember, you hire your care provider—not the other way around.  Be an empowered consumer in your maternity care.  Your baby’s birth is one of the most important days of your lives.
DISCLAIMER: Remember, this is for informational purposes only and should never be construed as medical or legal advice. We encourage you to do your research and talk with a trusted care provider about your unique circumstances and your options.

Share the love!
Leave a comment
  1. Gdukjbh says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Ultrasounds have some uses but very limited. Drs pretend they can do much more with them then they actually can. Like they live in some scary playland using these weird funhouse mirroring machines. After seeing my father in hospital and someone I know with a false diaphragmatic hernia diagnosis, I will never believe an ultrasound again
    – most common sighting on ultrasound. Its called a mirror artifact and u.sound automatically shows organs above the diaphragm that aren’t actually there. Such as bowels, liver, etc. The organs that are actually below the diaphragm. Bc diaphrgam is such a highly reflective surface, it automatically does that on MOST abdominal ultrasounds. Pulmonary Drs are taught to expect it to be there, and that if it does not show up, the false mirror artifact, they assume it denotes a health problem exists. Because the machine didn’t make it’s typical error. all over the internet in lung ultrasound education. Drs be trippin’. Not cool. Not all of them are educated on ultrasound artifacts either. Surgeries anf other procedures have actually been performed because of their delusions from these machines. So apparently baby weight and fluid levels are some others. Anyone who has ever watched an u.sound for more than 10 minutes will see how it has so many distortions and is much like a warped funhouse mirror. I was watching the screensaver after one, and the company logo was purposely made in mirrored letters. Thought that was crazy. Siemens, in mirrored fonts. Some “Helx” machine, can’t remember if 2000, 2100 or what. How is hoping that Drs can correctly interpret mirrors and warped artifacts, without screwing up, really helping the medical field? The human body is misunderstood as it is. Drs looking at imaging equipment that automatically distorts stuff and puts organs in the wrong places? Wtf?

  2. Gfhkk says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Has ne1 noticed they also pretend they can accurately measure amniotic fluid on ultrasound, and it looks like they’re just measuring the entire inside of the womb space around the child. With the outline of amniotic sac not even being visible. They’re not measuring the amniotic sac. Last I checked, amniotic fluid isn’t freely floating throughout the entire womb. It’s contained within amniotic sac. How would someone accurately measure fluid in 2d ultrasound? And what about the space behind the child that isn’t visible, what about the fluid there? And what I keep hearing about stories where they’ve falsely estimated baby weight with ultrasound, how do they expect to measure fluid either. With no other tool except ultrasound?I keep seeing stories women forced into C-section bc fluid too high or low, or an amniocentesis offered to drain the fluid, which could break the baby’s water or kill the baby. What is wrong with these people?

  3. Jgfhjm says:

    Yeah, that’s ridiculous. I had a Dr put that I weigh 30 lbs more than I actually weigh, near my delivery date. My guess was trying to set someone else up for C-section. Because I probably wasn’t supposed to notice before the delivery date, so that they could just act like I’m overweight and so is the baby. Lying *ss snakes they are. Crooks

  4. Ash says:

    I was JUST writing about this. Here are some fascinating things I came across in my research and writing for my article…

    Pregnant women are often given C-sections when their physician thinks they are carrying a large baby due to the fear of stillbirth and shoulder dystocia (stuck shoulders). Rebecca Decker of Evidence Based Birth found nine different studies on large babies which found that a physician’s suspicion of a large baby led to higher rates of induction, cesarean, and stalled labor than did the birth of a large baby who was not anticipated to be large. One study from 2008 found the greatest risks were with women who doctors suspected to be carrying large babies and who had been consulted on the issues of large babies. Compared to women who birthed big babies that went unsuspected and unconsulted, the consulted women had three times the rate of induction and C-section, and four times the rate of maternal complications.

    Another study which Rebecca Decker makes reference to looked at the type of birth for large babies. This study found that the rate of vaginal births for unsuspected big babies was 91 percent, while the rate for suspected big babies was only 52 percent. This is particularly distressing because fewer than 8 percent of babies are born large (over 8 lbs 13 oz). Yet the national birth survey Listening To Mothers reveals that 4 out of 5 women given a C-section for a suspected large baby ended up delivering babies which were under 8 lbs 13 oz. Ultrasounds are notoriously inaccurate at measuring third trimester fetal weight, and medical literature states as much. Have doctors missed the memo?

    In 2013, the CDC compiled data for their report When Are Babies Born: Morning, Noon, Or Night? According to their data, the majority of hospital births took place Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8am and 5pm. Meanwhile, non-hospital births were more likely to occer between 11pm and 5am. What’s especially of interest here are C-section births. Birth for women who had attempted labor but ended up delivering by c-section tended to happen between 3pm and 11pm. C-section births with labor attempted reached their highest peak between 5 and 6pm. Based on this data, day and time may actually be a risk factor for C-section delivery.”


    And here’s what I learned about shoulder dystocia (the leading “cause” for inducing suspected big babies) writing a post for Green Child Magazine…

    Until recently, episiotomies were believed to prevent brachial plexus injury. The nerve injury was believed to be connected to shoulder dystocia (getting “stuck”) during birth. However, a 2010 study of by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology revealed that episiotomies had no impact on rates of brachial plexus injuries. An episiotomy may be warranted if baby is under distress, but as we discussed earlier, EFM readings are notorious for giving false positives. Episiotomies may also be used because pushing isn’t “effective” or it’s taking “too long,” but again, baby may just need help with their descent. A change in birth positions might be all the help they really need.

    The idea behind assisted deliveries is to help get baby out, but there are times where they may do the exact opposite. A 2012 analysis by UK’s Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital of nearly ten thousand births showed that assisted delivery increased the chances of shoulder dystocia; with vacuum/ventouse delivery increasing the risk almost threefold, and forceps upping the odds nearly 3.4 times.

    Induction comes with further controversy because inductions are often prescribed for low amniotic fluid levels, and suspected big babies are often induced out of fear of shoulder dystocia or birth complications. However, there’s a handful of evidence that stresses that low fluid or a possible large baby aren’t actually medical cause for induction, and other evidence suggests that inducing these births come with greater risks than waiting for labor to happen on it’s own. And induction may be provoking labor for a baby that isn’t properly engaged in the pelvis, or a cervix that isn’t yet soft and ripe — and that may mean a longer and harder labor. The information out there certainly alludes to that as induction nearly doubles the odds of a Cesarean.

    An analysis of episiotomies by Boston’s Brigham And Women’s Hospital revealed that their incidence of episiotomy was higher among women who had (1) received an epidural, (2) were induced, and/or (3) birthed babies at higher weights. The real shocker was the rate of episiotomy between the types of care providers. Compared to midwives, faculty physicians were almost twice as likely to perform episiotomies. As for private practitioners (ie. surgically-trained ObGyns), they were four times more likely to slice during birth.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts
Study: Two-Thirds of OB-GYN Clinical Guidelines Are Not Based in Science
March 1, 2012 BY Dawn
Sounds like a spoof of a headline, doesn't it?  But it's real.  The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (that's THE organization for ObGYns) published a study this month reporting that just one-third of their clinical guidelines met a standard of "good and consistent scientific evidence."   PushNews from The Big Push for Midwives Campaign…
Read more
Pushing for Your Baby, by Lamaze International
May 23, 2012 BY Dawn
Lamaze International today launched an amazing video and campaign called "Push for Your Baby."  The amount of time and energy that went into this project is evident. These are all stories that birth professionals have lived right alongside their clients. Many organizations are getting on board to make a change in our communities and question…
Read more
A Doula’s Journey to Vaginal Birth after Three C-Sections
June 20, 2012 BY Dawn
I was 20 when I got pregnant with my first child. I made all the typical assumptions back then. I went to my primary doctor for an OB referral. I had no idea I had a choice. I thought that I went to the OB, he would tell me all I needed to know about…
Read more