A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Midwives and my birth/story



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 18th 04, 02:04 AM
Circe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

Piggybacking; I missed the original somehow

"Karen" wrote in message
...
My comments:
- not such a good idea to head straight to the hospital after your
water breaks if there are no contractions. Chances are awfully
good that for a first baby, it isn't going to just appear from
nowhere if there are no contractions! I'd wait many, many hours
to see if labor starts on its own before heading to the hospital.


Ah, but practitioners routinely advise women to come to the hospital as soon
as their water breaks, contractions or no contractions. And the reason they
do it is, in part, to rule out a cord prolapse, which is life-threatening
and is a risk when your water breaks if the baby is not engaged. In this
situation, I would personally try to check *myself* to verify that a
prolapse hadn't occurred and wait it out, but women are simply following the
instructions they're issued when they dutifully appear at the hospital after
ROM. It's unfortunate that practitioners then feel the need to induce labor,
though, given that there's no evidence that it does any good in the absence
of GBS+ status or unknown GBS status and ROM for 18+ hours, but having got
the woman to the hospital, I suppose they feel a bit nervous about sending
her back home to wait, especially if it's a first baby.

- 18 hours from beginning to end for a first baby is average,
maybe a little less, for a first baby. For my first, it was
around 25 hours. I felt that was pretty good!


For a pitocin-induced labor, though, it's very long (they generally
administer the pitocin with the aim of generating a labor of roughly 8-12
hours in duration), and she *pushed* for over 4 hours, if I read right.
That's a very long time to be in the *hospital* hooked up to everything in
God's creation while laboring with pitocin-induced contractions that may
come on considerably more strongly and painfully than spontaneous
contractions. My pitocin-induced labor was a mere 8 hours from start to
finish while my second, spontaneous labor was 28+ hours (90 minutes in the
hospital) and I can tell with certainty that the 28+ hour labor was much
easier to cope with. 18 hours being induced with pitocin is my idea of hell
on earth. But I see you've had the experience, so you know.

I don't think Jill did anything she shouldn't have done except, perhaps,
have a little too much faith in medication's ability to make her birth
completely pain-free. But that's not particularly unusual: I daresay it's
what the *majority* of women hope for (we're just a bit of an odd contingent
here on mkp!).
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant, Daddy."
Me (later)--"You should feel flattered."

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


  #32  
Old May 18th 04, 02:40 PM
Cathy Weeks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

"Jill" wrote in message . com...

I think next time I will stick with an OB and have a doula, instead of a
nurse-midwife.



Congrats on the birth of your daughter. Daughters are cool! Your
midwives were indeed poorly-behaved.

I'm one of those who had a midwife birth (at home) and wouldn't trade
it for the world.

Your bad experience with a nurse-midwife isn't indicative of how good
or bad they all are. I've heard many horror stories about OBs, too,
easily as bad (and worse in some cases). The individual philosophy of
the provider is more important in some ways than the profession of the
provider.

However, Midwives *do* tend to be better at helping women get through
birth with fewer interventions, and tend to be better for women who
don't want pain relief. OBs are *generally* more experienced at
working with anesthesia.

However, OBs often tend to come and go during labor, usually only
staying once the pushing starts, whereas most midwives tend to devote
themselves to the laboring patient (doulas are similar, and many
doulas are also midwives).

Anyway, the next time around, you'll likely have a better experience,
simply because you'll be armed with more knowledge!

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01
  #33  
Old May 18th 04, 04:20 PM
Ilse Witch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:32:36 -0700, Circe wrote:

Just an observation, but I didn't find pushing to be "the hardest bit" at
all, at least not during my unmedicated labors. It was a bit harder during
the one when I had an epidural, but that was because I couldn't feel what I
was doing. Maybe I was just lucky and my babies were in good positions, but
pushing just didn't take much effort on my part at all--certainly not nearly
as much effort as *not* pushing would have been!


In my case it definitely required a lot of strength, which I would surely
have lacked after a much longer labour. Plus I forgot to mention that my
water was broken for 18 hours and they were getting really upset about DS
not being born "on time". In retrospect, that reason just totally sucked,
but I didn't know any better then.

Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant, Daddy."
Me (later)--"You should feel flattered."


ROFLMAO!! I hadn't noticed this in your sig yet...

--
-- I
mommy to DS (22m)
mommy to two tiny angels (28 Oct 2003 & 17 Feb 2004)
guardian of DH (33)




  #34  
Old May 18th 04, 04:50 PM
Circe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

Ilse Witch wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:32:36 -0700, Circe wrote:

Just an observation, but I didn't find pushing to be "the hardest
bit" at all, at least not during my unmedicated labors. It was a
bit harder during the one when I had an epidural, but that was
because I couldn't feel what I was doing. Maybe I was just lucky
and my babies were in good positions, but pushing just didn't take
much effort on my part at all--certainly not nearly as much effort
as *not* pushing would have been!


In my case it definitely required a lot of strength, which I would
surely have lacked after a much longer labour.


I guess it never ceases to amaze me how different our experiences can be.
For me, dilation was hard work; pushing was a piece of cake. And yet I know
that many women have very long, difficult pushing stages. Given that I've
never pushed for more than 30 minutes (and only for about 50 minutes put
together), I'm stunned when I read birth stories from women who pushed for
an hour or more.

I think my point wasn't to say that pushing is NEVER the hardest bit or that
avoiding exhaustion by pushing time isn't a good idea--it's just that for
me, a long labor wouldn't have made me too exhausted to push because I
couldn't help pushing when the time came; it was a physiological imperative
for me. Plus, I just never had to push for very long and, in fact, I wish I
*could* have pushed more slowly and a bit *less* effectively with #3, as I'd
probably have avoided some of the tearing if I could have done.

Plus I forgot to
mention that my water was broken for 18 hours and they were getting
really upset about DS not being born "on time". In retrospect, that
reason just totally sucked, but I didn't know any better then.

I hear ya. I wouldn't have done any better at resisting augmentation under
those circumstances that you did.

FWIW, though, I always wonder to what extent pitocin augmentation/induction
actually *leads* to long and difficult pushing stages. The reason I wonder
if there's a correlation is that I think maybe part of the reason labors
either don't start or are unproductive is because the baby isn't in a good
position to be pushed out yet and the body is naturally inclined to wait for
better positioning before laboring to achieve full dilation. Of course, some
babies never get into a good position, but I always think that when labors
are started or augmented, there's a chance that there's a good *reason* the
labor hasn't started or gotten productive, and maybe pushing the body with
pitocin to achieve full dilation before the baby's ready to come out makes
pushing harder. It certainly seems to me that the majority of women I know
who had long or difficult pushing stages were augmented or induced; not all
by any means, but most. And that makes me think there might be a connection.

Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant,
Daddy." Me (later)--"You should feel flattered."


ROFLMAO!! I hadn't noticed this in your sig yet...


It's been there for a little over a month. I certainly thought it was
hilarious at the time.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant, Daddy."
Me (later)--"You should feel flattered."

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


  #35  
Old May 18th 04, 05:22 PM
Ilse Witch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:50:33 -0700, Circe wrote:

FWIW, though, I always wonder to what extent pitocin augmentation/induction
actually *leads* to long and difficult pushing stages.


I wouldn't be surprised if you were right in that. My experiences
certainly point in that direction.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (22m)
mommy to two tiny angels (28 Oct 2003 & 17 Feb 2004)
guardian of DH (33)




  #36  
Old May 18th 04, 05:37 PM
Circe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

Ilse Witch wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:50:33 -0700, Circe wrote:
FWIW, though, I always wonder to what extent pitocin
augmentation/induction actually *leads* to long and difficult
pushing stages.


I wouldn't be surprised if you were right in that. My experiences
certainly point in that direction.


My experience doesn't really support my own theory, since I was induced with
#1 and only pushed for 30 minutes (though it certanily could have been as
long as an hour or more had my OB not used the vacuum when he did; I'm still
not sure whether to be grateful for or irritated by his impatience).
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant, Daddy."
Me (later)--"You should feel flattered."

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


  #37  
Old May 18th 04, 06:22 PM
Buzzy Bee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:21:10 +0100, Welches
wrote:


They'll wait 24-48 hours assuming there's no sign on infection (eg rise
in
temperature) here before inducing.


UK guidelines are up to 96 hours with regular monitoring of temperature,
though you have to fight to get that - most hospitals tend to want to
start within 48 hours.

Know of someone who went 13 days after SROM at term before spontaneous
active labour and of course with PROM some women last weeks, with
prophylactic antibiotics, because the risk of infection is lower than the
risks to the baby from prematurity.

Megan
  #38  
Old May 18th 04, 11:06 PM
Clisby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story



Circe wrote:
Ilse Witch wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:50:33 -0700, Circe wrote:

FWIW, though, I always wonder to what extent pitocin
augmentation/induction actually *leads* to long and difficult
pushing stages.


I wouldn't be surprised if you were right in that. My experiences
certainly point in that direction.



My experience doesn't really support my own theory, since I was induced with
#1 and only pushed for 30 minutes (though it certanily could have been as
long as an hour or more had my OB not used the vacuum when he did; I'm still
not sure whether to be grateful for or irritated by his impatience).


Oh, yeah, it might have gone on a lot longer. I pushed for over 3 hours
with #1 (she was posterior and never turned) before finally giving the
OK to call in the OB with the vacuum. (I didn't find pushing to be
particularly *hard* - I was just fed up with it after 3 hours.) Can't
remember with #2 except that it was well under 30 minutes.
(Non-posterior baby ranks way up there on the Good Things list.)

Clisby

  #39  
Old May 18th 04, 11:50 PM
Circe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

Clisby wrote:
Circe wrote:
Ilse Witch wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:50:33 -0700, Circe wrote:

FWIW, though, I always wonder to what extent pitocin
augmentation/induction actually *leads* to long and difficult
pushing stages.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were right in that. My experiences
certainly point in that direction.


My experience doesn't really support my own theory, since I was
induced with #1 and only pushed for 30 minutes (though it
certanily could have been as long as an hour or more had my OB not
used the vacuum when he did; I'm still not sure whether to be
grateful for or irritated by his impatience).


Oh, yeah, it might have gone on a lot longer. I pushed for over 3
hours with #1 (she was posterior and never turned) before finally
giving the OK to call in the OB with the vacuum.


Well, there was no condition like posteriority or even a funny head
presentation to account for my OB's grab for the vacuum. Julian had dropped
at 33 weeks and was a textbook presentation; I just couldn't feel a blessed
thing for the epidural and he had a pretty large head (15" circumference),
so he got right down to the vaginal outlet within about 10 minutes (and came
some way without any effort on my part at all) but then got no further in
the next 20 minutes. I have a feeling that, had they allowed the epidural to
wear off and wait for me to feel the urge to push, I could have done it
myself. OTOH, it was a full two hours after he was born before I had any
sensation to speak of, so we could have been waiting a long time (and longer
than I think would be considered safe when the baby's head is that far down
the birth canal).

(I didn't find pushing
to be particularly *hard* - I was just fed up with it after 3 hours.)


Heh, I don't blame you!

Can't remember with #2 except that it was well under 30 minutes.
(Non-posterior baby ranks way up there on the Good Things list.)

I've been lucky enough to have three babies who cooperated perfectly in the
presentation department and all were engaged when I went into labor. I
suspect that helps a lot.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant, Daddy."
Me (later)--"You should feel flattered."

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


  #40  
Old May 19th 04, 07:05 PM
PattyMomVA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Midwives and my birth/story

"Nikki" wrote in message
news
Circe wrote:

Just an observation, but I didn't find pushing to be "the hardest
bit" at all, at least not during my unmedicated labors. It was a bit
harder during the one when I had an epidural, but that was because I
couldn't feel what I was doing. Maybe I was just lucky and my babies
were in good positions, but pushing just didn't take much effort on
my part at all--certainly not nearly as much effort as *not* pushing
would have been!


The pushing just completely totally sucked with my #1 and was just peachy
with my #2. With #1 I started pushing when they told me to. *Don't do
that!!!*. It totally messed everything up and I never did get back on
track. Wait until you feel the urge to push even if you are at 10cm for

an
hour first! That is my theory anyway :-)


I've always wondered about something with regards to pushing. With both
babies, I felt the urge to push, as in I knew I was ready to, but I felt
like I preferred not to. At that point, the contractions became much less
painful. It felt like I wanted to just do nothing during a contraction and
feel a little relief from having to deal with them for hours. (BTW, I had
an epidural with DD and nothing with DS.) The nurse was telling me to push
when I felt a contraction. Instead, I felt a contraction and didn't push.
I just didn't want to. But, she figured this out by looking at the monitor,
knowing I was having a contraction, so told me to push. I still wonder to
this day if it might have been nicer to me and not unsafe for the baby to
rest through a few contractions at that point and then push when I wanted
to. Does this happen to other women?

Thanks,
-Patty, mom to Corinne (6y) and Nathan (nearly 4y!)
and stepmom to Victoria (14y)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'Midwives...encourage...semisitting' (Yale CNMwifery Prof. Helen Varney) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 April 29th 04 04:33 PM
Georgetown U. Hospital firing their midwives Alpha Pregnancy 2 April 8th 04 03:20 PM
Odent on forceps (also: midwives 'prisoners of protocol') Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 March 1st 04 06:59 AM
Midwives, Doulas, and Wal-mart zeldabee Pregnancy 5 August 2nd 03 10:47 PM
Midwives getting practical experience andrea Pregnancy 3 July 28th 03 06:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.