I am delighted for you! It is also good to hear that obs like him exist. I only wish he were mentoring a crew of young obs before he retires completely.
Well, it seems as if you have solved your own problem, but you illustrated the old saying that a healthy person is simply one who hasn't undergone enough testing. In point of fact, we have no evidence that nonstress testing or any kind of fetal surveillance testing improves outcomes--and it isn't benign. Like all screening tests (amniotic fluid volume, biophysical profile, oxytocin challenge testing, electronic fetal monitoring in labor), nonstress testing has a high false-positive rate, meaning the test says there is a problem when there really isn't. No one, though, is going to sit tight when a test shows the baby might be in trouble, so these tests lead to unnecessary labor inductions and cesarean surgeries, and in the case of electronic fetal monitoring, unnecessary cesarean surgeries and instrumental vaginal deliveries.
Even with a true positive, the tests can do more harm than good. Thinking about it logically, if the test says "here is a baby who might have less tolerance for labor," does it make sense to stress the baby with the rigors of an induced labor, which usually involves stronger contractions over a longer period of time than with normal labor and without the protective cushion of amniotic fluid? And if the baby is really in serious trouble, the cause is often one that will not be helped by a rescue delivery, although, of course, one would have to try. Unfortunately, too, newborn outcomes reinforce the use of surveillance testing whether the baby is in good or poor condition at delivery. The ob says (and believes), "Thank God we got the baby out in time! Who knows what might have happened if we had waited."
Please let us know how everything goes.
-- Henci