First labour was speedy, what are the chances 2nd one will be faster?

[GColdtimer]

first time around I was induced at 42 weeks and DD was back to back. It took a while to get started but established labour was recorded as 5 hours with a 17 minute second stage.

MW really thinks this one will be quicker, especially if DC2 isn't back to back.

I really am considering a home birth and one of my arguements to DH is that I don't want to end up giving birth in the car! What is the liklihood that this birth will be quicker?

Anecdotal or more academic responses welcome!

my second birth was very fast - 7 hours from start to finish

second stage was 3 mins - 2 pushes and DD popped out

DS - was very slooooooooooooow (2 days of slow labour and a 10 hour active labour)

aLL 3 OF MINE HAVE BEEN ROUGHLY 6 HOURS, INCLUDING MY FIST WHICH WAS AN INDUCTION AT 42 WEEKS.

Damn caps, sorry

Blimey ruby, 3 minutes

I wondered why you were shouting at me Disenchanged

Sorry, Disenchanted!

Both mine were 4.5 hours.
In fact I had DS at home because dd nearly arrived in the car on the way to hospital

My first labour was 3hrs 40 mins or there abouts, 2nd stage 18 minutes. Second labour was 1hr 22 mins with a 7 minute 2nd stage, dd born at home. It was planned that way but tbh I doubt I would have made it to hospital if it wasn't.

i was

i got the urge to push at 8 pm, waters went around 10 mins later, i started to push at 8.15 pm and she was born at 8.18 pm

i was still the next day

I am not surprised! Especially after your first epic experience.

DC1 was long and drawn out.

DC2 about 2 hours established labour.

DC3 no established labour.

Had mild contractions for about an hour when I got to hospital and was apparently only 3 cm dil (given how quick it was before thought it was better to be safe give birth in the car). 10 mins later (with no m/w) waters broke and baby popped out to be caught by unsuspecting dh!!

I often think that if you had a fast but not ridiculous first labour you don't go much faster with subsequent births. No evidence for that though! Only lots of my friends had very long drawn out labours with DC1 then 2hour sprints with DC2, whereas I did a 6-7 hour established labour with DD1 and 4-5 hours with DD2. So a sample of one for my theory. I went for a HB just in case and was glad I did. Perhaps request Domino but remain flexible on MWs advice on the day?

DS1 - was in active labour for about 9 hours before I ended up with an emerg csection.

DS2 - labour was 4 hours from start to finish with only a 30 min second stage. Quite short considering I hadn't got to the 2nd stage first time around.

I think 2nd labours are always expected to be a lot quicker than the 1st. A rule of thumb I have heard (so it may be an oldwives tale!) is your labour will be half the duration.

If you only had a very short second stage the 1st time, you'll only have to cough this time

If you dh is a bit unsure about a hb, there are books on hb written for men.

My 2nd labour was a LOT faster and the 3rd was stupidly fast. Don't dare do it again!

hello again moveit (do you get the impression I am thinking a lot about birth at the moment )

DH knows all the facts and we have talked about it a lot, he is just ridiculously cautious having been on the receiving end of a fair bit of bad luck. I might get him a book though.....

I love the thought of just having to cough

DD1 was 4 1/2 hours from first twinge to delivery. I went from 2cm dilated to pushing very quickly

DD2 was just over 2 hours from first twinge to delivery.

DS1 was about 3 hours, second stage 50 mins. DS2 was about 6 hours, second stage 15 mins. I was worried about my second labour being fast, esp as I was GBS+ so had to have antibiotics. It turned out to be a far more relaxing experience (and much less pushing which was GREAT).

Yes, wouldn't just coughing be great

Tis is a big decision to make.

hi twofalls.
I was induced with my first. From first contraction to arrival was 1hr 45 mins. My midwife told me that the second one would most likely be very quick, however my doctor said as I was induced it would be difficult to know if labour/delivery would be as fast because it may just be that my body reacted too well to the chemicals for induction.
I am due in January with my second so I'm afraid i can't tell you what happened second time round yet!
Good luck, let us know what happens!

DD1 was 2 hours 20mins start to finish. Community midwife said I'd be an ideal candidate for homebirth for the next one.

With DD2 I planned a homebirth but she went back to back as soon as labour started and I ended up transferring in for pain relief. Labour was 19 hours (20 if you include delivering the placenta). However that said, it was under 30 mins from when she turned...so I think if she hadn't been back-to-back then it would have been very quick.

I had much less pushing on dd2 too.

With dd1 the midwife said 'we see the head' several times but as each contraction ended dd seemed to retreat.

When the midwife said 'I can see the head' with dd2 I thought 'here we go again' and it took a moment to register that she was here.

Reading this thread with interest. Expecting dc2. With ds1 contractions started at 1am and I had him at 5.55am, which I know for a first labour is quite quick. Hoping it means this one will be over and done with relatively quickly.

Because of my problem-free labour with ds1 I would love a homebirth. The midwives at the time also said that I should definitely think about it in future pregnancies. I have visions of labour coming on quickly this time round and not getting to the hospital in time.... However, dh dead-set against homebirths and won't even countenance the idea, won't even countenance researching the idea. He wants me in hospital where everything is on hand. Such a shame as I really feel it would be the for the best. I did most of my labouring at home with ds1 and had a little gas and air once at hospital. Concerned that if I laboured at hospital this time round I'd give in to temptation of pain-relief, which I really don't want unless absolutely necessary. Sorry, I'm rambling!! Will respect dh's wishes.

1st labour 8 hours - 2nd stage 1 hour.

2nd labour 2.5 hours - less than 1 minute second stage (no pushing, just a squeeze and she was out). We didn't make it to the hospital 2nd time around, it was all far too quick, ended up being a surprise in the downstairs toilet with DH doing a great baby catch. I say 2.5 hours, but it was all very mild. Rang the hospital 30 mins before I gave birth to say I thought I was in labour and when to come in, only to be told to take some paracetamol and have a bath. Glad I didn't as it would have ended up a home water birth all by ourselves - eek.

So yes, 2nd births can be alot quicker.

I had a friend whos first labour was 3 hours, 2nd was 1.5 hours.

brokelybelle, with all due respect, it really isn't your DH's decision is it? It is a decision for both of you but as YOU are the one having the baby then really, he should be respecting YOUR wishes. To not even want to research the idea is a bit dismissive of your feelings IMHO.

sorry, but I just feel bad for you if it is something you really want and you are low risk, ideal candidate.

munchmummy, I think you posted on my other thread about where you gave birth. Still can't believe it was in the downstairs loo!

Happybump, will be interested to know what happens this time around

DS1 was 5 hours and DS2 45 mins - didn't make it to hospital and had him on the bedroom floor - very scary at the time just glad hubby was home. Very worried about having a third, I had nightmares about having number 2 at work!