the midwife at our antenatal class told all the ladies to check with their mums to find out how long their labour was with us and siblings. They said that at the hospital they like to know this as it can be hereditary therefore our labour length will be similar. Anyone know how accurate this is or comments on it? I think they mainly want to know of quick labours in the family so they are prepared.
I don't know about this one. My mums labours were 19 hours, 10 hours, then 2 hours.
My first labour was 9 hours. So a bit of a difference between 19 & 9.
I hope so! I was mum's only full-term baby, and was 3hrs from go to woe. So I'm hoping this 2nd one will be nice and quick! heh.
DS was born after 5hrs labour. I had a couple of days of prelabour with him tho, and was augmented with the drip - so could have been faster coz of the drip.
My mum's labours were both relatively quick (I think about 7 hours from go to woe for her first) so I asked my ob if this was an indication that I would have a relatively easy time of it.
He knocked that one on the head and said definitely not hereditary unfortunately. But I'm still secretly hoping (due in a few days).
My mum told me her second stage was always barely existent. In my antenatal classes they said most first time mums have to push for about an hour. Mum said she always gave one push and the baby just slipped out. So I decided mine was going to be the same...
I can very clearly remember feeling ripped off half way through my second stage - I ended up pushing for 56 minutes. So I guess I lucked out on those genes!! LOL
Although, I think Mum had pretty uncomplicated labours (she had 5 kids) and mine was 9 hours from go to wo with no complications at all so maybe I do owe her some thanks??!
Thanks everyone. Seems to somewhat dispel that myth. I am going to ask my ob on Wednesday what he thinks. I think it might be so that the midwives just have it in the back of their minds. i can only hope mine is as short as my mums.
My mum had really short labours with barely any pain, and I was pretty much the same. I too didn't find it that difficult and i had a 5hr 40 min from start to finish.
My Mum was in labour with me for 7 hours, and 9 with my sister. I was in labour for 24 hours with my DS though! Hoping that this time around is a little nicer on me!!
I dont really believe there is much truth in the 'hereditary' myth.
I think there are so many other variables that have more of an influence on the progress of labour than heredity. Such as your age versus your mother's age when you first give birth. My mum was 25, I was 30. Women of our mother's generation were often made to labour on a bed; women these days are more free to be vertical and active.
These are the factors I think affect length of labour more than heredity:
* gravity
* freedom of movement
* privacy and a supportive, respectful atmosphere
* the position of the baby - anterior is optimal
* calmness & confidence of the mother, as opposed to fear, tension, stress (e.g. if her social situation is stressful)
* general health of the mother, nutrition, fitness, other health issues or complications
* attitude of caregivers and supporters to birth and towards the birthing woman
* warmth
* dimmed lights (bright lights & cold can trigger stress hormones that inhibit labour progress)
* minimal interruptions and monitoring
* good sounds - music of choice and gentle voices, not thoughtless chatter or scary comments
I do think that it's worth checking out your "birth heritage" with mothers, grandmothers, aunties, cousins etc. If they could do it, it's encouraging for you - that you can walk in their steps too! But I think when it comes to the actual length of labour, there's too many other personal factors that are likely to over-ride any familial pattern.
That was the case with me, anyway. My mum had 4 babies in hospital and I had 3 at home, so our births were quite different. One thing was similar tho - she did it. And I did it. But we think mine were less traumatic because I had the luxury of giving birth in a nicer, more supportive environment. I won the record for the longest labour in three generations in my family with baby #1 (it was only 24 hours!?) but then I blasted the records again by having the quickest labour next time round: 3 hours.
LOL, this made me laugh because my mums labours we...well:
#1 DS, 7 hours in a nursing home
#2 DS, 8 hours in a bursing home
#3 DS, 6 hours at home
#1 DD, 93 hours at home (she just DID NOT want to come out!)
#4 DS, 30 minutes, emergency c-section, placenta praevia at 31 weeks
#2 DD, (ME!) no labour, elective c-section (no VBAC in those days, single-layer suture) at 38 weeks.
My labour was 14 hours 20 mins from waters breaking to birth but actually under 4hours if you count from when i was in "real" labour - before that was pre-labour even though my waters had gone.
My mum was in labour for 36hrs with me, ended in c-section
With my sister, her water broke at 34weeks, ended in emergency c-section
Me
DS#1 induced 10 days overdue laboured for 7hours,(emergency c-section fetal distress)
DS#2 pre labour 4 days, (c-section 38 weeks)
DS#3 spontaneous labour 9hrs (c-section 36 weeks)
Hmm I wished I took after mum. Well in some ways. Apart from her first labour, mum apparently has no labour pains. The only way she knows she is in labour is by the hardneing and softening of her stomach !!
Her first labour 36 hours, ended with epidural and forceps
2nd (me) 15 minutes
3rd 15 minutes
4th too fast - they stopped the lift to deliver him, but the cord was pulling him back, ended up emer c section.
My first 2 1/2 hours
Second nearly 2 hours
Third - c section
Forth - 10 hours
Number 5 better go back to being a nice quick labour for me.
Reply With Quote
Registered User
How hereditary is labour length????
Bookmarks