Hell, I'll come out and say it. I think pitocin is to blame for J Boy's autism.
I know, no one knows the reason some children are autistic. Bite me, I'm busy using my mother's intuition and have always wondered whether my crappy OB/GYN was to blame.
I have never, until now, found a possible "cause" for autism that corresponds to J Boy's circumstances. He was not a low birth weight baby, our families don't have an unusual history of mental illness, I took pre-natal vitamins and avoided mercury-laden fish. I'm not even going to approach the vaccine question, though we did use a modified schedule.
I just can't look at this information without my heart racing. Every time I read it I feel like my brain is glowing. Is that weird? It is.
Call it intuition or call it stupidity, but the fact of the matter is that I had two very high doses of pitocin when J boy was induced and two rounds in my epidural. I've always regarded the circumstances of his birth with resentment and bitterness; Jacob's entry was dramatic and I've never stopped being upset about it. The reason my doctor gave me for being induced in the first place was bunk, according to the doctor I used with J Girl. The first round of pitocin was stopped because of fetal distress and no progress; I was supposed to be wheeled in for an emergency c-section within the hour. Instead, ten hours passed and in the meantime I was given the second round of pitocin. The logic behind this sequence of events is hard to find. If it was an emergency because the staff kept losing J Boy's heart rate like they said, why wasn't he cut out when they first made the decision? Why instead subject him, AGAIN, to a procedure that was obviously not working and quite possibly causing him harm? When the induction was obviously not working --- I never dilated past four centimeters --- why couldn't they just stop? Is it an all or nothing proposition once you artificially start labor? I don't know, but I do know I had no reason to be in labor in the first place. J Boy's due date was still four days away, he wasn't abnormally large, his placenta was in the beginning phase of insufficiency but apparently that's normal at 39 weeks. My doctor had not checked my cervix once (sorry to be graphic) during the course of my pregnancy, not even when he told me he was scheduling an induction later in the week. In fact, he told me at my very first appointment that I would have a c-section. Funny how that happened.
There are a few theories for why pitocin can cause autism. One is that it down-regulates the fetus' production of oxytocin by flooding his body with a synthetic replica. Another is that pitocin causes unnaturally strong contractions with shortened intervals between them, hence the FETAL DISTRESS many babies suffer during labor. I know J Boy had a tough time bonding and breastfeeding, two processes that rely heavily on oxytocin. I had terrible post-partum depression, another circumstance that is linked to oxytocin.
Stumbling upon this information has forced me to re-examine this experience in a new and devastating light. If eventually it's proven that inducing birth can lead to autism, it means I was complicit in causing my son's disorder. The fact is that I knew my doctor was a jerk and I trusted him anyway. I didn't object to his amateurish performance in the hospital, even though I knew things weren't adding up. I am not someone who sets my heart on having a magical birth experience; I just want my baby to be delivered safely according to what the circumstances require. Overwhelming evidence suggests, some of which I haven't included here, that J Boy and I weren't exactly the priority in that birthing circus. Pair the rise in autism over the last decade or so with the increased rate of inductions and you have a very interesting correlation.
I am in no way suggesting that using pitocin is the only cause of autism or will certainly result in an ASD diagnosis. It's a complex disorder with seemingly complex origins. I'm just saying, no other shoe fits. And it's not exactly as if I'm jamming my toes in like I try to do when other research pops up its ugly head. It seems that these days the medical profession is preying on women's natural concern for their babies and a societal habit of implicitly trusting the people holding the M.D. Of all the women I know who have had babies the last few years (trust me, it's a lot), I can think of only three who were allowed to go into labor naturally. Doesn't this mean something? Hopefully, none of their children will turn out to be autistic or otherwise compromised. Women (read:me) aren't paying attention to this problem and not using their authority as mothers and paying customers to get the care they deserve.
Recent Comments