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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |