Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Anyone had a natural labour and been induced for other babies?

11 replies

LDNlady · 17/05/2011 10:20

I keep hearing that being induced is more painful than going into labour naturally. Anyone who has had experience of both able to enlighten me any? Is it more painful or is it one of those things where it just depends? TIA x

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Fresh01 · 17/05/2011 10:37

I have. I went into labour naturally with DD1 and had a 9.5 hour labour. With DD2 I had my water manually broken (was already 4 cm dilated but not in labour) by my OB 4 days over my due date and had a 4 hour labour. With DS (3rd pregnancy) my water broke naturally at home a week before my due date and had a 3.5 hour labour. I wouldn't say DD2's labour was any more painful than DD1 or DS. DS's labour was hardest physically as I had gone to bed shattered for an early night (a week before he was due) but he had other ideas and my waters broke at 11.45pm!

All 3 deliveries I have got by with only gas and air and I don't actually have that good a pain threshold.

Think like all deliveries there can be so many factors affecting the situation.

harassedinherpants · 17/05/2011 10:38

I've had a natural (forceps), then induced and last one was completely natural.

The inductions was different to the first one, but I think in the intensity of the contractions. I had gel which didn't work, but the drip did. Tbh my first labour was very long and forceps wasn't great......so anything else was better! With the induction I had gas and air only and a great bit tbh.

The scariest birth was the last one because it was so quick and I felt out of control.

QueenOfFeckingEverything · 17/05/2011 10:45

I have.

I had my first baby at home with no pain relief, then my second was 3 weeks late and induced.

My first labour was long-ish (16 hrs) but manageable.

My second was 3hrs 40minutes and excruciating, I thought I was going to die tbh - however DS was back-to-back and 10lbs. So I suspect it would have been excruciating even if not for the induction - though the contractions had double peaks iyswim and that was down to the drugs. But that was manageable once I started to anticipate it and deal with it better, just a shock at first.

izzybiz · 17/05/2011 10:46

My first started naturally and my 2nd was by artifical rupture of membranes, the difference was with my first the contractions built up slowly and with the second it was like being thrown in at the deep end!
1st labour from first pains was roughly 40 odd hours, 2nd was 2 and a half!

amberleaf · 17/05/2011 10:49

My first was normal, then 2nd induced.

It was quicker and more intense [less time between contractions] but i remember it as my best experience as it was so quick! [under 2 hrs]

If i had any more and was facing an induction i wouldnt be worried.

doodledee · 17/05/2011 12:00

First normal, 2nd induced due to pre-eclampsia. Contractions with 1st started suddenly and very strong 5 mins apart - no build up- delivered 3 hours later. Induction similar to this (no gel or pessary - straight to drip) contractions built up quickly and delivered in 3 hours. Pain no worse managed on gas and air with both

thegingerone · 17/05/2011 12:10

I have. i had ruptured membranes but labour didn't start. the thing about my 2nd labour that made it more painful was that "everyone" said a 2nd baby would pop out no probs, short labour and I wouldn't need any pain relief. (I'd had an epidural with ds1).

My labour was shorter (9 hours compared to 16-24 depending on who's counting) but I was knackered as I been up all previous night having contractions that started and then stopped. I also delayed having an epidural (I have a low pain threshold!) because I thought I couldn't have one. (2nd baby, slow down what should be an hour long labour, blah blah blah)

Also for info,I thought that the induction would start off as soon as I got to hospital for my 8am appointment. I had tea, toast , bit of banter with midwife before getting "drugged". It took a while (couple of hours) to get going and it prob was a bit more intense. My main issue is always getting too tired during labour so a bit more intense=bit quiker=no prob. Unfortunately it was still longer than I was mentally prepped for.

Not sure what the plan will be for my current bun. See the counsultant in a month or so. I'd have another induction though if that was recommended.

buttonmoon78 · 17/05/2011 12:11

DC3 was induced. It wasn't more painful because he was induced but because he was OP.

IMO the pain is directly related to how quickly they expect you to dilate. Mine were v relaxed about it so the drip was on quite a low setting.

G&A through the whole thing.

OxyMoron · 17/05/2011 12:18

1st: natural, spontaneous, 2hr labour.

2nd: induced with sintocynon (sp?) drip after prolonged SROM. 2.5hr labour almost identical to my first.

No more painful, same level of intensity, slightly more controlled 2nd time around as it was just that bit slower.

thehiddenpaw · 18/05/2011 21:17

my first was natural and all a blur. I do remember bits and telling a girlfriend 'whoever says they will have another one tomorow is mad'. Number 2 was induced and it was all very quick (too quick like harassed.... it was 42 mins). Am 32 weeks with number 3 and perfectly happy to be induced again. it was all fine.

wigglesrock · 18/05/2011 22:03

My first was spontaneous - long, baby back to back,

2nd - induced, took 2 gels packs, was great, able to keep active, very little monitoring, labour was 2.5 hours , no forceps etc, g&a for pain,

3rd (13 weeks ago) would have been happy to be induced but she came a day early (my babies never come early, was a bit of a shock)

Out of the three I think the "induction birth" was the easiest, well lets be honest not easy but better than the other two. Good luck

New posts on this thread. Refresh page