I don't know what the stats are on the risks of cyotec for non-vbac moms but I don't understand why a practitioner would take any unnecessary risks when there are other safer options available.  Is cost the only benefit? Doesn't cervadil work the same way with a lower risk of hyperstimulation?  I understand that there are risks involved with almost anything, it just seem like this is one that could be easily avoided.

 

Whenever I hear the topic of cyotec comes up I always hear about it being "cheap" I guess I just assume that most pregnant women have medical coverage.  I mean if they don't have group insurance don't they pretty much automatically get medicaid when you are pregnant?  Sorry I am probably completely ignorant on this topic!  But who is footing the cost?  If it we're me and I had to pay out of pocket for cyotec vs cervadil it would be a no brainer and I would take the safer option and pay the money.  Has anyone been sued yet for using cyotec with fatal results? 

 

I am also interested to know how the risk of catastrophic cyotec ruptures compares to catostrophic vbac ruptures. 

 

Lindsay