Talk:Pitocin

I've removed the following paragraph:

''The use of pitocin may also be linked to the development of autism in children. A high level of the drug in an infant brain could cause a downregulation of oxytocin receptors, which might lead to the development of a pervasive developmental disorder such as autism or Asperger's syndrome.''

Having read more than the typical layman about both pitocin and PDD, I've never come across this linkage before. If you wish to reinstate the paragraph, please give a supporting reference. --Woggly 09:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you were to do a google search for "pitocin autism" you would find ample evidence that such a linkage has been suspected, although now it appears the connection between the two is pretty roundly disproven, so I will put back in a version of the above paragraph noting this. --Aratuk 23:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I searched as you suggested (before I had been searching "pitocin P.D.D.", which gave fewer results). It looks like most of what is coming up is speculation and rumors: the only real research doesn't seem to support a link. My concern is that this is the sort of accusation that gets thrown about irresponsibly as part of a general backlash against medical interference in childbirth, which seems to be trendy. I'm all for doctors stepping back and allowing more freedom and more natural choices in childbirth. I think doctors have a tendency towards over-interference, which should be discouraged. What I don't like, is when the natural-birth advocates start bashing standard medical practices that are most likely safer than the alternatives. Pitocin is one of the most commonly used drugs during labour, and one of the most useful. Sure, it can be abused, like any other drug that actually works. But as far as I've been able to research, it is safer than several other drugs that are commonly used for labor induction. One drug in particular that is sometimes used instead of Pitocin, causes uterine rupture if used irresponsibly (I forgot the name of the drug, but it's pretty common). Not inducing labor at all would probably mean more C-sections, and the risks of C-sections are greater than the risks of a Pitocin induction. For some reason, I just don't like the fact that the stub here on Wikipedia, which gives so little information about the drug, gives such prominence to a rumor that doesn't seem to have much support. Believe you me, as someone who had an utterly miserable experience with a failed Pitocin induction, and whose son was later diagnosed with P.D.D., I would jump on any verifiable evidence of a link, and use it to support my case when I sue the pants off my Ob-Gyn. --Woggly 11:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you'd like professional information about it, I suggest you email the man I link to in response to your comment on my talk page.--Aratuk 18:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Supported, thanks for that Woggly. There are too many crackpot views on Wikipedia that get inserted and then never verified or fact-checked! JFW | T@lk  14:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Two PubMed references. A 2003 University of Utah study that found no correlation between Pitocin-induced deliveries and autism. And a more recent literature review asserting that there is enough molecular/mechanistic "potential evidence" for a connection to justify further research. -- jfinlayson 04:15, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

pitocin
anyone who reads this should leave it alone


 * Why? JFW | T@lk  23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

when were Pitocin and Syntocinon invented? For the life of me, I can't find that anywhere.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.231 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)