subsequent labors shorter than first?

Anne Rogers wrote:


I'm hoping I don't follow the statistical trend, according to my notes I
was in active labour for 1.5 hours, but that was induced. The midwife told
me when I was discharged that even though it was induced this still puts
me at high risk of another precipitate labour. Anyone know if that's true?

I think it ups your risk, but particularly with the
induction there's no real way to tell. My second labor
was precipitate, but the third was just short. Plan a
homebirth--then it doesn't matter ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Mary Gordon wrote:

If I were young enough to have had more, I think a 4th one would have
been sneezed out.

:-) That is a good one!

--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

Nikki wrote:
Mary Gordon wrote:
If I were young enough to have had more, I think a 4th one would
have been sneezed out.

:-) That is a good one!

My paternal grandmother gave birth to her ninth (and last) baby in the
middle of the night when she got up to go to the bathroom. (BTW, she was 47
at the time.) Since my pushing stage with Vernon was 5 minutes, I can
easily see how the same thing that happened to my grandmother could happen
to me if I had a fourth.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [2] mom)

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Anne Rogers wrote:
I'm hoping I don't follow the statistical trend, according to my
notes I was in active labour for 1.5 hours, but that was induced.
The midwife told me when I was discharged that even though it was
induced this still puts me at high risk of another precipitate
labour. Anyone know if that's true?

I think it ups your risk, but particularly with the
induction there's no real way to tell. My second labor
was precipitate, but the third was just short. Plan a
homebirth--then it doesn't matter ;-)

Well, if it's *really* fast, the midwife might not get to you in time so
you're planned attended homebirth might end up being an unattended
homebirth.

My husband and I were discussing this in a joking sort of way the other day
and I said that if I ever got pregnant again and planned a hospital birth,
I'd probably have to camp out in the hospital for five weeks to be
absolutely assured of getting there on time. Then I said we'd have to be
sure he got the right training to attend a precipitous birth, just in case.
His response? "Don't worry about it. I know what to do. I've watched it done
for three babies already. I can handle it."
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [2] mom)

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Circe wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I think it ups your risk, but particularly with the
induction there's no real way to tell. My second labor
was precipitate, but the third was just short. Plan a
homebirth--then it doesn't matter ;-)

Well, if it's *really* fast, the midwife might not get to you in time so
you're planned attended homebirth might end up being an unattended
homebirth.

True, but at least you'll have your supplies on hand,
and most midwives will have also given you information on what
to do in that situation so that you'll feel more prepared.
Also, I think that philosophically speaking, it's far less
stressful to plan a homebirth and end up with an unassisted
homebirth than to plan a hospital birth and end up with an
unassisted home (or by the side of the road!) birth ;-)

My husband and I were discussing this in a joking sort of way the other day
and I said that if I ever got pregnant again and planned a hospital birth,
I'd probably have to camp out in the hospital for five weeks to be
absolutely assured of getting there on time. Then I said we'd have to be
sure he got the right training to attend a precipitous birth, just in case.
His response? "Don't worry about it. I know what to do. I've watched it done
for three babies already. I can handle it."

;-)

Take care,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote in message ...
Anne Rogers wrote:


I'm hoping I don't follow the statistical trend, according to my notes I
was in active labour for 1.5 hours, but that was induced. The midwife told
me when I was discharged that even though it was induced this still puts
me at high risk of another precipitate labour. Anyone know if that's true?

I think it ups your risk, but particularly with the
induction there's no real way to tell. My second labor
was precipitate, but the third was just short. Plan a
homebirth--then it doesn't matter ;-)

But what if you aren't at home when it starts? eg

Irene

Irene wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote in message
...
Anne Rogers wrote:


I'm hoping I don't follow the statistical trend, according to my
notes I was in active labour for 1.5 hours, but that was induced.
The midwife told me when I was discharged that even though it was
induced this still puts me at high risk of another precipitate
labour. Anyone know if that's true?

I think it ups your risk, but particularly with the
induction there's no real way to tell. My second labor
was precipitate, but the third was just short. Plan a
homebirth--then it doesn't matter ;-)

But what if you aren't at home when it starts? eg

Irene

"Clean up Aisle 7" :-D

--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

Irene wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote in message ...

Anne Rogers wrote:



I'm hoping I don't follow the statistical trend, according to my notes I
was in active labour for 1.5 hours, but that was induced. The midwife told
me when I was discharged that even though it was induced this still puts
me at high risk of another precipitate labour. Anyone know if that's true?

I think it ups your risk, but particularly with the
induction there's no real way to tell. My second labor
was precipitate, but the third was just short. Plan a
homebirth--then it doesn't matter ;-)

But what if you aren't at home when it starts? eg

Well, you have a point, there ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Nikki" wrote in message ...
Irene wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote in message
...
Anne Rogers wrote:


I'm hoping I don't follow the statistical trend, according to my
notes I was in active labour for 1.5 hours, but that was induced.
The midwife told me when I was discharged that even though it was
induced this still puts me at high risk of another precipitate
labour. Anyone know if that's true?

I think it ups your risk, but particularly with the
induction there's no real way to tell. My second labor
was precipitate, but the third was just short. Plan a
homebirth--then it doesn't matter ;-)

But what if you aren't at home when it starts? eg

"Clean up Aisle 7" :-D

Lol! Oh, the mental image that brings up.... ;-)

Irene

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:32:42 -0800, "Circe" wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Anne Rogers wrote:
I'm hoping I don't follow the statistical trend, according to my
notes I was in active labour for 1.5 hours, but that was induced.
The midwife told me when I was discharged that even though it was
induced this still puts me at high risk of another precipitate
labour. Anyone know if that's true?

It does put you at risk but not necessarily more than any other second
time mother. There was a lady I met who had a normal labour with her
first child, I'm thinking it was about a 10 hour labour, and she had a
*9 minutes* labour with her second. She literally got her first
contraction, walked out to the car and had the baby standing next to
the car. Her third baby was induced and that labour took around 2.5
hours.

My personal history is that I was in active labour for one hour with
#2 (then 1.5hrs of pushing), second baby was induced and it took 1
hour from when contractions became steady and effective, third baby
took nearly 4 hours from when my contractions changed from "this
doesn't feel too bad" to "this is definitely labour", about 1.5 hours
from when my cervix was 4cm.

My husband and I were discussing this in a joking sort of way the other day
and I said that if I ever got pregnant again and planned a hospital birth,
I'd probably have to camp out in the hospital for five weeks to be
absolutely assured of getting there on time. Then I said we'd have to be
sure he got the right training to attend a precipitous birth, just in case.
His response? "Don't worry about it. I know what to do. I've watched it done
for three babies already. I can handle it."

You know what? Mine said the same thing


--
Cheryl
Mum to Shrimp (11 Mar 99), Thud (4 Oct 00)
and Mischief (30 Jul 02)