Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Childbirth

Share experiences and get support around labour, birth and recovery.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

fast labour a danger to the baby?

40 replies

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 19:40

DS1 appeared quite quickly. He was born at 36 weeks, 2 hours after I was told my cervix was closed - luckily I'd been put in a side ward, and not sent home! Cue exciting dash to delivery suite in a wheelchair.

I'm now expecting baby number 2 and saw a consultant today who said I should think about being induced, because "rapid labour can shock the baby" and have lasting effects of days to weeks.

Not really keen on induction, and I only live 10 mins from the hospital. I did have quite a few hours of regular 'period pain' type contractions before going to hospital last time.

Has anyone heard of this shock to the baby thing? Gut feel is to turn the induction down but don't want to put the baby at risk.

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

emsyj · 17/01/2011 19:44

Hmm, interesting - will watch this thread if you don't mind, DD was born by crash section after my waters broke and a fast labour left me fully dilated after 4.5 hours of more or less constant contractions. DD was very distressed hence the speedy wheel straight to theatre when I got to hospital, but nobody said it might be due to fast labour - would be interested to know if the two may have been related.

Original poster

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 19:48

more the merrier emsyj! Sounds like a scary experience. Was she OK after delivery?

OP posts:

PorkChopSter · 17/01/2011 19:50

Did you ask why he thought an induced labour would be slower than a naturally starting labour?

lostinwales · 17/01/2011 19:54

DS2 was born after a 45 min labour (yes really! I was strapped to a monitor at the time, went from no contractions, waters broken, close contractions, baby) and he didn't feed for the first 24 hours and was very sleepy. I remeber one midwife saying he might be shocked by the speed of his arrival. As this was an induced labour though it's not a helpful post at all

OmicronPersei8 · 17/01/2011 19:54

You can still have a quick labour with an induction - I had a pessary and 3 and a bit hours later (1.5 hour established labour + 5 mins pushing), DS appeared. How would an induction slow things down? Once my body was started, it was started, iyswim.

I was more concerned about not giving birth in a car (quick first birth too) so had planned a homebirth (any option OP?) and as I was overdue induction was fine and meant I had no rushed journey to hospital. Although I also had a rushed wheelchair trip.

DS wasn't shocked. Well, not beyond the shock that birth is for the baby anyway. I wonder where s/he got this from?

Original poster

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 19:58

thanks for the replies.

Consultant's view was that induction was safer as I'd be in hospital with midwives ready (rather than in the car like Omnicron feared).

HB not an option because I had a retained placenta last time. Which was nice.

I guess the possibility of baby not feeding would be a worry if I have another prem baby though.

OP posts:

thisisyesterday · 17/01/2011 20:03

i've never heard that.

and agree with other posters... why would being induced slow it down???

ds3 was born in 48 minutes from first contraction and was absolutely fine! fed within 20 mins of being born and was an absolute star.

i know that's only anecdotal though

lostinwales · 17/01/2011 20:05

Yes I can see the point of actually being in the hospital, not sure I would have made it in if I'd gone into a labour that speedy at home. It was an amazing adventure, quite exhilarating, to deliver a child so quickly, which would not have been the case in a car!

I had retained placenta the first time too. I think I was equally as proud at delivering DS2 as I was at delivering the placenta second time round!

JetSetWilly · 17/01/2011 20:08

DS was born in three hours, DD was born in two hours. both were good labours (second was more intense) and babies were born fine and healthy.

The only thing the affected them because of the speed of labour, I think, is they both had bloodshot eyes (think I read that on here) that lasted three weeks

good luck :)

Original poster

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 20:09

Oh glad to hear that lostinwales. Didn't much enjoy being the 'Orville' to the consultant's Keith Harris.

OP posts:

IAmReallyFabNow · 17/01/2011 20:10

My baby was pushed out in 7 minutes and it was too much for him really with everything else he had been through. He is 99% okay now though .

SherbetDibDab · 17/01/2011 20:10

I've had 3 stupidly fast labours, number 2 was delivered by my dh. None of my babies had any issues at birth.

I've never been told anything like that - although I was told by my midwife that if you have 2 unassisted labours, then they like to induce you. This was purely to make sure you received medical assistant, nothing to do with additional risk to the baby.
Personally, I really didn't want induction when I knew my labours progressed so smoothly naturally when it was ready to happen.

Original poster

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 20:10

Thanks JetSetWilly. Looks like the MN consensus is that the consultant is talking drivel.

Must admit it's a nicer problem to have than worrying about another 36 hour marathon labour.

OP posts:

SarahScot · 17/01/2011 20:16

I was induced and DS was birn 3.5 hrs after the first contractions. He was fine apart from he would't feed for a day because the mucus hadn't been squeezed out of his throat. Not sure if that had anything to do with the speed of his arrival though.

peppapighastakenovermylife · 17/01/2011 20:16

DS2 was less than 2 hours and only a few pushes. He was shocked at birth and very sleepy - didnt want to 'wake up' when he was born.

lou33 · 17/01/2011 20:18

my births took 2 hrs 20, 1 hr 40, 1 hr 11 and 22 minutes, and it was the last one which was induced 4 weeks early, that took the least time

there is a theory that precipitous labours can be more of a shock to the baby because of the speed it happens, but i have never heard of using induction as a method to ensure a slower delivery

i was induced for a few reasons, but one of them being the fact that i had my kids early and fast, and the consultant was worried i would end up with an unattended delivery

emsyj · 17/01/2011 20:20

Yes thanks DD was ok, just sleepy from general anaesthetic and a bit small as she was a 37 week-er.

I have heard of one friend being offered induction so that it was certain she'd be in hospital for the birth as she had a history of precipitous labour and as a result one of her births was unattended.

lostinwales · 17/01/2011 20:27

'Orville' brilliant!

Original poster

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 20:29

I think that was what she was suggesting, but I think I'm unlikely to be so fast it would be an unattended birth. First stage labour was a few hours, just second stage that was the quick bit!

OP posts:

OmicronPersei8 · 17/01/2011 20:29

I was dreading being induced (not exactly a homebirth!) but actually it was fine: nice and quick and didn't stay in too long afterwards.

I can see the sense in making sure there's no rush to hospital/unplanned homebirth/in the backseat of a car etc. From that point of view I can see why an induction might be suggested. Based on my incredibly limited experience, I'd say a speedy labour isn't always a shock to the baby as DS was fine afterwards.

Original poster

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 20:32

Peppapig and iamreallyfabnow, what happened with your LOs? Did they have to be assisted to feed? Did you have to stay in hospital for a while?

OP posts:

Lulumaam · 17/01/2011 20:32

the idea of induction is not to slow the labour but to ensure when it happens (fast) there are MWs /paeds etc on hand to deliver, and help the baby if necessary, rather than a precipitous labour and birth before a MW /paramedic can get to you at home or somewhere else

i would go for a home birth in your shoes, or go to hospital at the first twinge with big red letters on your notes saying you have v fast labour

Original poster

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 20:33

Peppapig and iamreallyfabnow, what happened with your LOs? Did they have to be assisted to feed? Did you have to stay in hospital for a while?

OP posts:

taffetacat · 17/01/2011 20:34

DD was 1 hour 12 min from first contraction to birth.

She was absolutely fine, a dream, breastfed within 10 mins. It took me 6 months to stop processing it in my head, though.

Original poster

faffmaff · 17/01/2011 20:35

Oops sorry for the echo, site's fault not mine!

OP posts:

Flip

1 2