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)

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

"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

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

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