How long was i in labour?

[JeremyVile]

My contractions started at 8am on the tuesday. I went to hospital on the wednesday at 4pm, gave birth that night just after 11pm.
The timings wavered mostly between 5&8 mins (slowing for a period of 2 hours on tuesday night to 10 to 15 mins).

Anyway, the point is, i was out for a meal the other night with friends one of them is pg with dc2 so we were discussing childbirth and dp said something about my labour lasting 38 hours.
This friend said that thats not how it works, my labour clearly wasn't established until i went to hospital and therefore i had a reasonably quick labour.

So my question is, was i really only in labour for 7 hours?

39?

As in starting from the first contraction then? Not when i went to hospital?

Established labour usually begins at 3cm dilatation or when the contractions are coming about 3 in every 10 mins. So, for example my induction with dd1 started at 12.00noon Wed and I gave birth at 3.45 am Thurs but my labour was only 8 (officially)hours long.

I was admitted to hospital at 4cm but had a sleep for a couple of hours (through the contractions with the help of tens machine). They can't admit you until you are in active labour. But then on my notes they put that I started labour at the time I woke up after my nap.

Put it this way, hospitals all have different conventions about when you are in labour, but you don't need a hospital to tell you when you are in labour. If you had painful contractions that were dilated your cervix you were in labour even if you were at home most of the time.

I had contractions for 18 hours

but my established labour is recorded as 3 hours 15 minutes, as up until that point i was not 3 cm dilated

hospitals tend to note established labour as 3 cm onwards, but you might have been at 3 cm for hours, you don;t know , so it could well have been 38 hours, but hospital will record it from 3 cm

DH always thought that this was really unfair, but it's true that labour only starts from a medical point of view when the contractions are regular and 2 or 3 minutes apart.
So my first contraction was Friday lunchtime, but my labour officially started at 2am Monday morning, and DD was born at 7.25pm (ie 15.5 hours). I always tell everyone about the pre-labour to though, I missed out on all that sleep and it still hurt!

Ok thanks everyone.

So i def wasn't in established labour for the whole time!!
Bloody well felt like it though

But when people tell you how long they were in labour, they generally don't mean established labour.

Oh really?

Its funny, its one of those things i never really thought about til it came up the other night.

When anyone asks about the labour i just say well the contractions started at....blablaa.

Hmmmm interesting!!

That would mean mine was about 90 minutes then. I'd personally include all the time the ctx were recognisable and regular.

I find the whole established labour thing a load of old balls tbh ...
I had strong, regular contractions from between 5 and 3 minutes apart for 55 hours but I didn't progress.
I only got to 3cm at 45 hours and then in the next 10 hours only went 2cm (with the tremendous help of the old syntocinon drip)

If it wasn't for a c/section I reckon I would still be in labour now.

(My DS is now 7 years old )

My contractions lasted for four days - it was hell! They would go from 15 minutes apart down to 5 minutes and get really strong and then start phasing out. because my cervix was posterior they could not check how far along I was and I was sent home from hospital. I went back in and had my first internal at 10cm dilated and it still took another 4 hours to get her out. Its funny, it is like a badge of honour I would not say that my labour lasted 4 hours (unless it was to a terrfieid expectant 1st time mum!)because the bit before bloody hurtand was so upsetting beacuse I kept thing my baby was about to come and then I would have to start again

p.s. it was all worth it of course!

Counting only from when it is 'established' according to some arbitrary line drawn by the medical establishment is not very woman-friendly IMO. It treats us like silly little girls who don't even know when we're in labour and need a medical expert to tell us.
And assumes our subjective experience of the whole thing (eg the hours of fucking agony before, according to them, our labour had even started) is trivial and irrelevant.

(Gosh, didn't realise I felt so strongly )

My waters broke at 6am and I gave birth 48hrs & 15 mins later. I was in farking agony the whole time .. a wall of contractions that didn't stop.

I went to the hospital three times .. I could barely walk, and three times they send me away saying I wasn't dilated enough. They finally accepted me, then crawling on my knees, when I was 8cm dilated.

It may not have been 'labour', but it was darned unpleasant!

Couldn't agree more Kathy. It is very patronising. They could say 'you are not far enough along in your labour for us to admit you' which would at least be the truth.

Another vote for Kathy here. After all what do they think got me to the 5.5cm dilation that allowed me to be admitted if not "labour"?
Mind you, I'm currently going through the "failure to progress" issues in counselling, so I'm not so hot on medical terminology at the moment!

problem is, there needs to be a cut off, no matter how arbitary or unfair it seems, as labour wards not big enough and not enough midwives

and yes, it is the labouring woman who gets the short straw

being sent away from labour ward, being told not in labour, when you in pain, with strong contractions is horrible

home birth could be the answer ! cannot get turned away from your own house !

I don't have a problem with "I'm sorry, we can't admit you until you've laboured at home and are 5cm dilated" though. In fact, I didn't go in when my contractions were 2 mins apart and regular, but waited another 3 hours, because of that.

Gosh! some horror stories!

I would love to have a homebirth next time
......now just need to convince dp there will be a next time