200 years ago would you have died during pregnancy/childbirth?

[LynetteScavo]

I had a kidney infection when pregnant with DC1, then a long and difficult birth, with a happy ending after a ventouse delivery. I've sometimes wondered if I would have lived through the kidney infection if I hadn't had IV antibiotics. I have no idea how the birth would have panned out.

I suspect an awful lot of us wouldn't be here now if we had babies 200 years ago.

Amazing to think that 200 years ago, one third of women died in childbirth!

DS - uncomplicated home birth, so no problems there

DD - induced for intrauterine death, so without the scans and help, not sure what would have happened there.

I've just been looking at the family tree my dad did on Geni. There are no details about how anyone died, but nearly 200 years ago on the paternal line (so my great, great, great grandad??) goes like this:

First wife died in 1826, the year after her third child was born when she was only 26 .

Married second wife a year later (1827) who produced 7 children over the course of 15 years. No date for her death, but last child was born 1843.

Third wife had two sons born 1845 and 1845 when she was age 45/46. She survived to the age of 66, outliving her husband by 6 years (he died aged 64).

I'm a descendent of the third wife who had her children at what must have been considered quite an old age in those days.

Both me and DS wouldn't have made it. He got stuck and needed forceps, then I lost 7.2 litres of blood, so probably would have died if I had a home birth but fortunately I was in a hospital

Having had pneumonia as a kid I'd have been one of those who didn't make it past the age of 5. However, had I got lucky, I'd have survived the births of my DSs, tho' DS2 would have succumbed to bronchiolitis (a week in PICU). A big hurrah for the NHS, as they told us a PICU bed costs £8000 a day.

Yes because I had placenta praevia

I wouldn't have survived passed 5 either, I would've died of Meningoccal Septicemia (I don't think I've spelled that right!).

I would've survived DS birth and so would he. He did have jaundice though, I don't know what would happen if that went untreated.

Yes I would have died and so would have ds1 who had to be delivered though emergency cesearean. We are alive and he has special needs.

It's sobering that in some parts of the world today the maternal mortality is just as bad now as it was 200 years ago for here. Despite the Millennium goal to reduce it. Sierra Leone in 2003 had mortality of one in 50. Per birth. Take ~10 births per woman and it becomes a one in five chance of dying before 50 just in childbirth, let alone all the other things that can get you in the tropics. Scary.

Maybe MN ought to shout about this!

www.mdgmonitor.org/goal5.cfm

We both would have died after many days of labour. He had hydrocephalus sp would never have got out.

Moon, I agree.

But there are some communities in this country where the maternal and neo natal stats are as bad as some ldcs. A sobering thought too.

I would have died from pph after my first miscarriage. With DS1 we would have both been fine. DS2 would have died, either at birth when the rhesus equipment wasn't there or from failure to thrive when he was a baby. DS3 and I would have survived the birth but without reflux meds he would have starved to death later on. With my 2nd miscarriage without an ERPC I would have died from either PPH again or an infection.

I would've def died, 2 cases of Pre eclampsia with kidney failure in 2009& liver failure in 2011. Was seriously ill and consultants thought I was def on way to eclampsia- fitting quite badly I'm 2nd pregnancy :-(
Labours were both fine (induced) and bf fine. But wouldn't have got that far!!

I would have survived I think as I had a very easy home birth and a pregnancy without complications. Was luckier than I realised.

Would have most likely made it to the pregnancy too as I've never even sprained anything, let alone been to hospital or needed stitches or anything.

This thread has made me realise I'm a bit weird actually

I doubt I would have made it to adulthood pre-modern medicine (asthma as a child then epilepsy as a teenager) but if I had an found a husband who was willing to over look those little 'faults' I think I would have survived quite well.

DD1 was induced due to a paternalistic obs. cons because I have epilepsy and her birth was hard but given how easily I had her two sisters if I had been left alone I think I would have had another pretty straight forward birth. I wouldn't be having a 4th DD though as I would have died multiple times from pancreatitis (or offed my self to escape from the pain!) that I had when DD3 was little.

Yes , of pre eclampsia, both times .

One the child survival front all of mine would have probably died before they were 2y though.

DD1 had her first asthma attack at 15m, DD2 had a chest infection that needed IV anti-biotics at 11m and DD3 had bronchiolitis multiple times in her first year and too many asthma attacks to count since. DD1 would have also died from cellulitis, DD2 would probably have wasted away when she has arthritis at 3y and DD3's infected eczema could have quite easily finished her off as well.

Thank heavens for nebulisers, inhalers and anti-biotics!

I'd have died of pneumonia when I was 15. But if I had survived to give birth I don't think we would have made it either. DD was breech and had her head jammed so hard into my ribs the anaesthetist had to push her head down with his whole body weight while the ob used forceps to get her out during my CS. Am not sure but I don't think contractions would have been enough to shift her. She was as wedged as a baby can be my whole pregnancy and not for turning!

Slightly OT, and anyone of a nervous disposition should move right along now... but if there's anyone on here who's a little haunted by what might have happened to them or their DC in the past and is interested in resource depletion/peak oil - if you have the time, knowledge or inclination it would be great if there were people working on preserving as much of the benefits of modern medicine in childbirth as possible. Including protecting it as much as possible for as long as possible from the consequences of the financial and economic messes. Modern medicine is incredibly resource and energy intensive and is a gain that we shouldn't take for granted if we want to be sure that our granddaughters won't tell similar stories to our grandmothers.

I'd have died first time around (I nearly did, and that was 2005), and at less than 30 weeks DD certainly wouldn't have made it.

This time, if I had miraculously survived the first time, I wouldn't have known to be taking the medication and probably would be in a similar situation (but thank God, and I am currently well at 36 weeks )

Maybe...I needed a CS, too much amino fluid, baby in breech, etc...without an op we could have been in major trouble! Even now we count out lucky stars that our consultant picked up the problems so quick & had me in surgery about 15hrs later!!

DD and I would have been fine, but there's a good chance neither of us would have existed anyway. DH would probably have died at birth, and MIL may well have died at birth too. My elder sister was a forceps delivery, so my mum might have died before I was ever conceived. Sobering thoughts.

The quick bit of googling I've done suggests that the maternal mortality rate in the late 18th century was between 5 in a 1000 and 29 in a 1000. Apparently the higher figures came from the records of doctors, who would have been involved only in the care of labours which had become extremely difficult. (and obviously in cases where the parents were rich enough to pay).

The figure drops to less than 5 in a 1000 in the 1950's, when the c/s rate was less than 2% in the UK.

Which suggests to me that speculating on this subject on the basis of our experience of modern obstetric care leads us to grossly over estimate our chances of having died in childbirth.

Particularly given that most mothers died from sepsis. And that many women who died in obstructed labour had malformed pelves from rickets and childhood malnutrition, or were weakened by pre-existing illness like TB.

My thoughts on this subject tend to revolve around the issue of why the buggery we've had to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to childbirth.

I suspect MOST women in the past would have had straightforward labours compared to most women today (given that about half of all women now have interventions in their labours - forceps, ventouse, augmentation, episiotomy).

But in identifying and saving the lives of those mothers and babies who would have died or experienced severe injury during birth, we've buggered things up for the rest of us.

I had a forceps birth. I suspect that two hundred years ago I wouldn't have been having my first at the age of 33, and my second at 37, when incipient GD resulted in me breeding large babies (9 and half and 11lbs). I wouldn't have been deprived of food for two days while in labour in the past (as I was with dd1), or have had an epidural, so may have had more strength to push her out. I may not have come away from the birth with an infection, if I hadn't had 30 people or so sticking their hands up me over the course of a long labour, as I had in an NHS hospital.

200 years ago I wouldn't even have got pregnant! Needed modern medicine just to get that far!

As for the actual birth though, I think we would both have made it. Midwife had to break my waters and push back the neck of the cervix manually, but all was OK otherwise. I also didn't have any painkillers, so that wouldn't have been different either. What might have been different is the recovery phase. Needed extensive stitching and suspect this may not have gone so well in less sanitary conditions.