If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Second birth easier?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:20:16 -0500, Vicky Bilaniuk
wrote: This reminds me, though, of that other thread where people have been talking about waters breaking before labour. Gee, what would I do then? I would have to go right away, wouldn't I, for fear of infection? Also, at that point, I would probably be induced if things didn't progress quickly enough. (well, at that point, I think I would rather be induced if I have to in order to avoid infection) When my waters broke with my first child, contractions started within about 1.5hrs. I'd already rung the hospital to find out what they recommended and they told me that since it was my first child I had plenty of time to have lunch and wander in at my own pace. They expected to see me before dinner, but that easily gave me 6-8 hours between my original phone call (11.15am) and the regular hospital dinner time. When my waters broke with my third child I was only 33.5 weeks pregnant so I went to the hospital about 2 hours after I'd figured it out (it was a slow leak and it took me nearly 8 hours to work out that I was really leaking). They were quite happy to keep me in hospital for 48 hours on antibiotics and see what happened. If it had been my first baby I would have been sent home with antibiotics after 48 hours to wait for labour to start, but since I have a history of short labours they would have kept me in. As it turned out my labour contractions started almost exactly 24 hours after my waters had originally broken so the point was moot. The nurses told me that about 80% of women will go into labour naturally within 48 hours of their waters breaking so there really isn't any need to induce labour before that unless there is a temperature rise that shows the mother has an infection. If labour hasn't started after 48 hours then it's time to look at whether induction is necessary. But unfortunately this is not the standard of care you get at a lot of hospitals -- Cheryl Mum to DS#1 (11 Mar 99), DS#2 (4 Oct 00) and DD (30 Jul 02) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Second birth easier?
Vicky Bilaniuk wrote:
Ericka, thanks for your pointers. I'll have to check more deeply into things in time. BTW, I think the midwives around here are more in the medical model - they (AFAIK, anyway) are all registered nurses with extra training in midwifery. Beats me what they are like elsewhere, so I don't know if this is normal or not. It's common in the US. Certified Nurse Midwives are the only sort of midwives who are legal in all 50 states. There are also direct entry midwives (DEMs), who are almost universally non-medical, but they aren't legal everywhere. I had my first two births with DEMs, and my third with CNMs (because DEMs are illegal where I live now). However, while the CNMs I was with were slightly more medical than the DEMs I had previously, they worked very much in the midwifery model. CNMs vary a great deal, even though they're all RNs with additional obstetric training. Best wishes, Ericka |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Second birth easier?
"Cheryl" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:20:16 -0500, Vicky Bilaniuk wrote: This reminds me, though, of that other thread where people have been talking about waters breaking before labour. Gee, what would I do then? I would have to go right away, wouldn't I, for fear of infection? Also, at that point, I would probably be induced if things didn't progress quickly enough. (well, at that point, I think I would rather be induced if I have to in order to avoid infection) When my waters broke with my first child, contractions started within about 1.5hrs. I'd already rung the hospital to find out what they recommended and they told me that since it was my first child I had plenty of time to have lunch and wander in at my own pace. They expected to see me before dinner, but that easily gave me 6-8 hours between my original phone call (11.15am) and the regular hospital dinner time. When my waters broke with my third child I was only 33.5 weeks pregnant so I went to the hospital about 2 hours after I'd figured it out (it was a slow leak and it took me nearly 8 hours to work out that I was really leaking). They were quite happy to keep me in hospital for 48 hours on antibiotics and see what happened. If it had been my first baby I would have been sent home with antibiotics after 48 hours to wait for labour to start, but since I have a history of short labours they would have kept me in. As it turned out my labour contractions started almost exactly 24 hours after my waters had originally broken so the point was moot. The nurses told me that about 80% of women will go into labour naturally within 48 hours of their waters breaking so there really isn't any need to induce labour before that unless there is a temperature rise that shows the mother has an infection. If labour hasn't started after 48 hours then it's time to look at whether induction is necessary. But unfortunately this is not the standard of care you get at a lot of hospitals -- Cheryl Mum to DS#1 (11 Mar 99), DS#2 (4 Oct 00) and DD (30 Jul 02) With my first my fore-bag broke (but I don't they figured out it was the fore-bag til much later) and they told me if my labor hadn't start 12 hours later that they would induce (I was induced since I didn't stay home like I should have, instead I went to the hospital and labor stalled out). the hospital typically doesn't like women to go 24 hours without labor starting, at least here in the Midwest. Kat mama to Maggie 11/03/01 and #2 EDD 02/01/04 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Second birth easier?
LeAnn wrote:
|| Hi, my name is LeAnn. I have a 7 year old son and I am 7 months || pregnant with my second son. Maybe I just can't tolerate much pain || but I remember labor with my first son to be just horrible. I || remember screaming at everyone to give me some drugs! ;-) Labor and || delivery lasted about 16 hours from start to finish. My current || doctor keeps telling me that since this is my second child, labor || will be much easier and faster. For those of you who have given || birth to two or more children, how much truth is in this? || || LeAnn Well for me number one was a horrid 16hr drug infested intervention loaded labor. Number 2 was a natural 4 hour labor so the theory of more than one being easier rings true in my case. I am hoping that the trend continues for this one! --? Jenn -WAHM -DS Feb'92 -DD Feb'97 -Jellyfish due June 25/04 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Second birth easier?
Mary wrote: LeAnn, thank you for this thread! It gives me warm fuzzies to read. I love you all for having easier second births, too. Mary S. (had a doozy of a first labor) mom to the stubborn-and-posterior Sproutkin, 22 months exactly what I felt! -- Vidya mom to Vandu(4) EDD May 6th '04 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 25th 03 02:04 AM |
Rule 302, Birth and Trigon/Anthem (Glasscock) - and ACOG's Willett LeHew, MD | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 18th 03 05:19 PM |
FRONTLINE FIX (now one for babies, Raney?) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | November 7th 03 04:47 AM |
'Closed vagina' never discussed/Louis XIV viewed vagina at birth... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 2nd 03 05:34 PM |
Birth spikes and Gloria's midwifery mud | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 24th 03 08:31 PM |