RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [People] >> Women Only >> Maternity Ward



Message

JoyfulWife -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/11/2008 2:42:56 PM)

What interests you about natural childbirth?

Like everyone else who has answered so far, I find pregnancy and birth to be an absolutely amazing and intriguing process. I think it's incredible that God created a woman's body with the ability to carry life and bring it forth. The way He designed the body and the process is amazing. Unless in an emergency situation, I truly believe we were created to be able to do this naturally and on our own. It is an incredibly empowering experience, and I feel that a lot of women get conned out of it by all the unnecessary interventions that are pushed on them.

If it's very important to you, why?

Several reasons:

1. I believe that we were created to be able to birth this way on the whole, and unless in a high-risk situation, I think it's the best way to go. I don't like messing around with something if it works fine in the first place.

2. On the whole, we (my husband and I) keep a very natural lifestyle. Natural childbirth is just an extension of the way we already live our life.

3. I strongly believe in being informed and educated on issues. I don't mean this in a "school" sense of educated, but in an education of the self by reading, researching, learning from those who have gone before us or are knowledgeable on the subject. I think it is our responsibility.

4. Like Kim, I am an active participant in my health care and am definitely a minimal interventionist. That, and I don't like people telling me what to do [8D], j/k!!



Royal.Fortress -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/11/2008 2:48:07 PM)

Well spoken, Joyful!



JoyfulWife -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/11/2008 3:00:36 PM)

quote:

I WOULD have had another c-section if I had been laboring in the hospital, but in reality nothing was wrong...just a 10 pound baby sunny-side-up who took his time.


Exactly - I would have ended up with an unnecessary c-section too. There was absolutely nothing wrong during my daughter's birth. And since I wasn't constantly being checked internally, we didn't have to worry about infection. She just took a very l o o o o g time. Sometimes I wonder if it has to do with her personality - she's still like that. Mealtimes last an hour here because she is such a sloooow eater! Lol!

Here is the birth story from August of 2006. I remember posting here on Crosswalk during my labor when I was at 7 cm. I think I posted something about being almost done, but little did I know! [:)] :

"On Tuesday the 1st of August (two days after the estimated due date), at my appointment with the midwife, I found out that Hannah was in a posterior postion. She was lying with her back facing my back - not a good position for birth. Because of this, my midwife suggested seeing a chiropractor once I was 41 weeks. The chiropractor would be able to perform the Webster technique, which is usually used to turn a breech baby, but can also work for a posterior position. The next Tuesday (the 8th) I went to the chiropractor since Hannah still had not arrived yet and we were pretty sure she was still posterior. The next afternoon, I noticed that I was having braxton-hicks contractions (they are practice contractions). I was really excited because I hadn't experienced any kind of labor signs and we were already eight days past the due date. Labor started early Thursday morning somewhere around 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. I was able to sleep until about 5:30, and then was too distracted by the contractions to sleep any longer. I stayed in contact with my midwife throughout the day. We made another visit to the chiropractor, and spent the day relaxing. Thursday night was passed with me sleeping for eight minutes, then having a contraction, sleeping for eight minutes, having another, etc. The next morning (Friday) I called the midwife, told her what was going on, and she said she'd be over in about an hour. Once she arrived here, she checked to see how dilated I was, and we found out I was already at 7 cm. We figured labor would pick up soon, and the baby would be here after lunch. After lunch, she checked again, and I was at 10 cm at that point. The only hold up though was that a small part of the cervix was not totally effaced and her head was not coming straight on, and that was keeping the baby from being able to descend. At this point the contractions were getting much more intense - up until that point they hadn't been all that terrible. By 9:00 that night, the contractions were just terrible. I had tried laboring in the birthing pool, standing up, sitting down, laying on my side, in the tub - just about every position possible. The midwife checked again, and I was still exactly where I was after lunch - 10 cm, but the lip on the cervix was still there. At that point I was feeling exhausted, but we kept trying different positions hoping that something would work and we could begin the pushing stage soon. By midnight things were still the same, no change, and the contractions were very intense with some of them coming three or four in a row with no rest time in between. We continued laboring - Sam was the most wonderful encouragement, without him I don't think I would have been able to keep going. And the midwives did an incredible job of helping me to focus and encouraging me on. At 2 am the midwife checked once again to see if any progress had been made. The cervix was still the same, but Hannah had descended a little bit. About thirty minutes later, all of a sudden, I finally had the urge to push! The lip was still on the cervix, but Hannah was definitely coming out no matter what! Pushing was not the relief I thought it would be, but I was so glad to finally be at that point. Sam sat behind me while I pushed with me leaning against him, and we were able to see the progress made in a mirror at the foot of the bed. Towards the end of pushing though, Hannah's heartbeat began to drop, so the midwives had me stand to push so that we could get her out quicker. Sam had to support me, but pushing went a lot quicker in the stand/half squat position. Soon after that, at 5:06, Hannah was out and in our arms! Her skin pinked up very fast and she had her eyes opened wide right away! She is absolutely beautiful and Sam and I can't believe how blessed we are. We know God was working incredibly during the labor, and He answered so many prayers! It was only possible through Him!! Even though it was hard, it was definitely worth it!"



EmilyAnn -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/11/2008 3:24:17 PM)

Thank you for posting that again. I can't believe it has been over a year since your little Hannah was born. Reading birth stories always makes me cry, but I love it. Birth is such a beautiful and wonderful thing. What an amazing gift God has given us!



clag4christ -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/11/2008 4:39:54 PM)

quote:

First off, a laboring woman is in no position to defend herself. I mean, I hate to break it to you, but you are overwhelmed when you are in labor, you generally (not always but generally) ARE in pain, exhausted, and unsure of things because you are NOT in control of your body. This is why I like to have a doula on hand for hospital births-so that someone can defend you-because usually husbands are too scared to defy a doctor!


I've found this to be true in my case with Hannah's labor and birth. I didn't even research induction methods/practices because that wasn't on my radar. I thought I'll go naturally or at least start off that way. The only thing I was able to stand up for myself on in Hannah's labor was my water not being broken. I kept being asked and asked again (at least 4 times) by the one doctor from my practice that I found to be horrid and unfeeling (a lady ob). I was I think between 6-8 cm when I finally relented in them breaking my water. I'm so grateful that I stuck to my guns on that or I would surely have ended in a c-section. Not because anything was wrong with Hannah...she was tolerating the induction beautifully...but because I wasn't progressing 'fast enough' and they were on the max level of pitocin allowed by law.



Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/11/2008 5:01:02 PM)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Doula's I know say that they don't run interference between the Doc and patient, they are only there to support the mother and father.



PrudentWife -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/11/2008 5:07:36 PM)

That is what I thought too, Ryanne. In fact, when you go into a hospital in the US, you have to specifically sign off that your husband is authorized to make medical decisions/requests on your behalf. I don't think a 3rd party can make demands unless you sign a release form empowering them to do so.



3cappuccinosmom -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/11/2008 8:51:45 PM)

Joyful, thanks for posting your birth story again. I know I have really lucked out with having *really* short labors, but you really inspired me.

I would also have ended up with unneccesary c-sections if I hadn't educated myself. Even at 39 weeks, with nothing other than "possible big baby" the backup doctors for our midwives immediately went to "your only choice is induction or c-section". They really, really pushed section as "safer" and definately more convenient. I have had two really great, little/no intervention births, but I had to fight hard for them. A massively pregnant woman shouldn't have to be in that position--there's enough stress already.



paulsbride -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/12/2008 3:18:50 PM)

Ryanne - mine said the same thing, she said if Paul isn't able to be there she will say to the medical staff "remember Jessica told you ..." but she said I need to have verbalized things first, then she'll do the reminders.



Royal.Fortress -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/12/2008 3:53:48 PM)

Joyful - how long was your labour in total, then?? It's such a beautiful story - thanks for sharing again!



TammyIsBlessed -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/12/2008 5:38:07 PM)

With my first baby my water broke and nothing happened. They induced me with pitocin after about 8 hrs. How long would it be safe for me to insist they do nothing?

With my others my water leaked and nothing happened. Again I was induced. After hours of that, once my water fully broke, I went from 3 - 10 cm within an hour.

So, my question is - if I end up having to be induced again - would I be better off getting pitocin? Slowing down the pitocin to see if my body can go on on it's own? And if things slow down, asking them to break my water (with the history of my 2 previous labours?).



Jenny-Fair -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/12/2008 5:48:16 PM)

You can go 24 hours with your waters broken, but after that you should have antibiotics if people are doing vaginal exams. If they would leave your birth canal alone, there wouldn't be much risk of infection[:@]



3cappuccinosmom -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/12/2008 7:01:08 PM)

I have no personal experience, but from everything I've read, 8 hours is hardly even giving your body a chance to start up on it's own. Women's bodies are soooo different. My water never breaks 'til I'm pushing. Others can go for a day or even two with the water broken/leaking.

I imagine it would be a real pain walking around leaking [8D] but it doesn't mean your body won't ever go into labor.



Sideways -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/12/2008 7:38:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jenny-Fair

You can go 24 hours with your waters broken, but after that you should have antibiotics if people are doing vaginal exams. If they would leave your birth canal alone, there wouldn't be much risk of infection[:@]


I had Group B strep, so I was getting antibiotics either way, but my midwife had to keep putting my husband off when he repeatedly asked that I be checked, as he wanted to know how far along I was! She kept telling him they don't like to go in there to many times. [8D] I don't remember the number of times I was checked, but it was quite minimal.

I was admitted in the evening and checked, checked again first thing in the morning and maybe checked two more times (if that) by the next night before my midnight c-section.

My baby never engaged in the birth canal - hard to push him out if he won't go into the chute!



PrudentWife -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/13/2008 8:20:42 AM)

Sideways, I kept asking to be checked too. They checked me at 8PM when I got to the hospital, and not until 10AM the next morning. I had only progressed 1cm, but I was so sure they would tell me I was at 7cm. I was only checked a couple times too and I had a long labor like you.



TammyIsBlessed -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/13/2008 5:34:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom

I have no personal experience, but from everything I've read, 8 hours is hardly even giving your body a chance to start up on it's own. Women's bodies are soooo different. My water never breaks 'til I'm pushing. Others can go for a day or even two with the water broken/leaking.

I imagine it would be a real pain walking around leaking [8D] but it doesn't mean your body won't ever go into labor.


The thing my dr is concerned about with water breaking is checking for cord prolapse - which can be very dangerous. This is more of a danger when the head is not engaged of course - and with subsequent labours, the head does not usually engage until labour begins. So, that's why she's concerned about me coming in right away if my water breaks. This does make sense to me. Any thoughts? And of course, in order to check for cord prolapse they'd have to go "in there", which means the need for antibiotics and the whole clock thing kicks in.

Would a leak be better? Less chance of cord prolapse than a full break?



clag4christ -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/13/2008 5:45:27 PM)

quote:

The thing my dr is concerned about with water breaking is checking for cord prolapse - which can be very dangerous. This is more of a danger when the head is not engaged of course - and with subsequent labours, the head does not usually engage until labour begins. So, that's why she's concerned about me coming in right away if my water breaks. This does make sense to me. Any thoughts? And of course, in order to check for cord prolapse they'd have to go "in there", which means the need for antibiotics and the whole clock thing kicks in.

Would a leak be better? Less chance of cord prolapse than a full break?


My water broke with Jael and I wasn't worried about cord prolapse at all. She wasn't fully engaged until later in my labor either. I personally wish that I would have labored at home longer with Jael's birth. My 'real contractions' didn't start as soon as my water broke so I could have relaxed at home at least until morning and then gone into the hospital.

Why would they have to put you on anti-biotics just because they're checking for a cord prolapse? Your 'clock' is usually 24 hours from the time of your water breaking...regardless of how many 'checks' you have.

IMO, they wouldn't actually have to even check for a cord prolapse internally if you were monitored some they could get a good estimation through the baby's heart rate.



peculiar_lady2 -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/13/2008 6:45:27 PM)

quote:

The thing my dr is concerned about with water breaking is checking for cord prolapse - which can be very dangerous. This is more of a danger when the head is not engaged of course - and with subsequent labours, the head does not usually engage until labour begins.

very true...I can see how your dr would be a little antsy about that possibility. Have you had ultrasounds that look at the positioning and length of the cord to see if it would really pose a threat (as far as can be told at this time). I know with me, the more kids I have the higher the baby stays for much longer. My fourth baby didn't engage and move down into the correct position until literally minutes (like 15 or so) before he was born. So I can see how that could be a real problem.



JoyfulWife -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/13/2008 7:36:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Royal.Fortress
Joyful - how long was your labour in total, then??


It was 50 hours in total - 48 laboring and 2 hours of pushing.

I thought that was pretty long until I recently read an article about pregnancy and belly dancing. On of the ladies interviewed was planning, and did have, a homebirth. Her labor was 91 hours long [sm=icon_smile_yikes.gif][sm=icon_smile_faint.gif]

quote:

The thing my dr is concerned about with water breaking is checking for cord prolapse - which can be very dangerous.


That is something to worry about - but only if the baby's head is not engaged. If it's engaged, then it's most likely not going to happen. But if the baby's not engaged and your water breaks, I personally would immediately have it checked out. If the cord prolapses, it's terribly dangerous for the baby to engage after the cord is already out - the cord would be caught between the baby's head and your cervix, and there is the potential of the baby cutting off it's own oxygen supply because of the pressure from it's head engaged on top of the cord [:(]



TammyIsBlessed -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/13/2008 10:54:49 PM)

With my first my water broke and the baby was not engaged so I am a little concerned about that happening again.

That would be interesting if they could detect it at a fetal assessment - if I go overdue and need to get one done I'll definitely ask about that.

If it's just a leak do you have to worry about cord prolapse?



peculiar_lady2 -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/14/2008 10:21:15 AM)

quote:

If it's just a leak do you have to worry about cord prolapse?

I would say yes, simply because that leak could become a gush at any time...much easier for that to happen if it's already leaking. In that case of a possible gush it *could* be a huge problem for the baby.



TammyIsBlessed -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/14/2008 11:22:56 AM)

Well then we'll just have to pray that my water doesn't break/leak and that I go into labour on my own for the first time!



paulsbride -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/14/2008 11:24:27 AM)

Question: can transvaginal ultra sounds throughout the pregnancy encourage/contribute towards pre-term labor?

For some reason I always thought so, but the doctor I saw today said there is no data to prove that.

Any thoughts? Thanks.



Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/14/2008 11:35:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulsbride

Question: can transvaginal ultra sounds throughout the pregnancy encourage/contribute towards pre-term labor?

For some reason I always thought so, but the doctor I saw today said there is no data to prove that.

Any thoughts? Thanks.


I don't think so, otherwise I don't they would use them to check cervical length in PTL patients.



PrincessDonna -> RE: Natural Childbirth-support and discussion (1/14/2008 11:39:20 AM)

I suppose you could say that it is riskier if you looked at the research wrong. I mean...if more are done on patients at risk for pre-term labor, it could look like it can increase the risk of early labor, but that wouldn't be true.

I think in your case, it is safer to know if/when your cervix is shortening. If you know, you can be on increased bedrest, you can be given shots to speed lung development, etc. Better to know than not know, IMO.

I don't remember...when you went into labor with Judah, didn't your water break first? Had you started dilating at all yet? How long after they took the cerclage out did you have him?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI