Has birthing gotten longer and harder over the decades?

[emonslemons]

Do you have any stories of mothers, aunties, grandmothers and how their births went.......I don't know how true it is but many of the women I have spoken to from the last generation say they had much quicker and easier births!
This has always fascinated me! And I wonder why their experiences seem so different......admittedly most women I talk to have been middle eastern although my own mother had a much quicker first birth than me and she's English.

My mum had two long labours, two emergency c-sections. I had two long labours but slightly better, one forceps and one out on his own. So not the case that it got easier in my family.

Eauneau In which case how did your mum, gran, great-gran come to be born IYSWIM? The genetic issue falls flat because the DNA needs to have come from somewhere! No doubt previously women just told no one when they had awful painful births and crossed their legs after enough children to carry on the family were born. :(

My grandmothers generation gave birth at home. Gp in attendance too for the last bit!
My mums generation were routinely given enemas and shaved.
When mum had me (1972) she was in hospital for 10 days!
I think a major issue now is that women seem to think they can have a labour and birth "to order" and it just doesn't work like that

Birth has always been dreadful (in fact, isn't it still the biggest killer of women world wide?)

In the 1800s women were massacred in their thousands by make docs flitting between doing post-mortems and childbirth. Poor old Ignasz Semmelwies was convinced that there was a link between these two things and high maternal death but everyone ignored him and he was eventually driven mad by it - he used to go up to young couples in the street and IMPLORE them, should they ever have a baby, to make sure their doctors washed their hands. Poor old chap. I teach the story every year and always raise a glass to the him and the women he tried to help :(

I had very similar experiences to DM in terms of labour. Both of us had quick labours and births of under 5 hours. I was induced for both of mine however. Both of us had G&a only.

I also had DH there throughout whereas my DF had to keep phoning the hospital for news. There was no phone in the house in those days (1963) so he had to walk to the phone box in the next street.

What was very different was the aftercare. DM was kept in hospital for two weeks (normal in those days) and was told off by the doctor after a month for being outside(in her own front garden). Care was very local too. The hospital was a small cottage type hospital in the middle of the community she lived in whereas I gave birth in a large hospital that serves a radius of 60 miles.

I was home the morning after having DS and was in Tesco the following day(probably not a good idea though)

he used to go up to young couples in the street and IMPLORE them, should they ever have a baby, to make sure their doctors washed their hands. Poor old chap. I teach the story every year and always raise a glass to the him and the women he tried to help

So sad. :(

I think the fact that there are more inductions now ( some areas induce at 41 weeks) follows on to mean more assisted deliveries. 42 and 43/44 week pregnancies are normal. Induction carries risk. I think women are really pressured into induction and they are then more likely to have a c- section or assisted delivery.

My mum had 5 children, one in the 50's, 2 in the 60's and 2 in the 70's. Her first was 2 months premature and there were not the drugs or means to stop her delivering him then and though he survived and was absolutely fine, the chances of him doing so were a lot less than they would be now. All were home births, she had gas and air and it was midwives who delivered us with the Dr popping in if need be. As for length and difficulty, I'd say her next four were pretty comparable with my four. Neither of us laboured over 8 hours, I had 2 big babies with complications and lots of stitches, she had a significant amount of damage with the prem baby and a big baby; we both just got on with it and were up and about within two days. Maybe it's partly what you learn about birth and labour because we do know more now but I don't think it was actually easier.

True squitza, I guess the DNA has to come from somewhere. Although interestingly, my mum is an only child.......!

evolution means that the tendency to be unable to bear a child easily is more likely to be genetically passed on.

This is true, however because not enough generation have passed, this can not possibly be proven. (Not to mention, do the records exist still to reflect this).

The research that has been done, which looks at whether there is a relationship between the experiences of your mother and yourself, has so far not found any correlation between the two either. The consensus is that the position of the baby and the position you give birth in, has far more importance.

On top of this the reasons recorded / given for treatment have also changed which make modern and old records difficult to compare.

For example, my mother had an EMCS with me on the grounds that I was distressed because of cephalopelvic disproportion. These days, this is regarded as exceptionally rare and that in the past it was over diagnosed. My mum was told that the size of her feet, were a reflection of this - again something that has been debunked by more recent research.

It's hard to find out because it just wasn't talked about. I found out my nan had a stillborn baby only after I had dc1, and also that my mum had a pph and tore with all 4 babies when discussing my experience.
I reckon care now is better than in the past, it's good to have the options you want and issues are more openly discussed. I'd be dead if I'd had my baby outside of a hospital and I am very grateful I live in the UK.

On top of this the reasons recorded / given for treatment have also changed which make modern and old records difficult to compare.
Yep.
My Grandmother's MCs and stillbirth were put down to not eating enough (she wasn't starving at all!) and walking too much. They assumed that kind of thing was what a pregnant woman 'shouldn't do'.
It is highly likely she had Hughes Syndrome.
Her successful birth was pretty textbook.
My mum is/was like a baby factory: gestated and laboured incredibly healthily over and again, including multiples.

So it's not as simple as a direct DNA link from mum to daughter.

My grandmother, in a very active job all her life, had a long 24 hour birth, left all alone in hospital. My mother's experience in the 70s was probably the worst; I have actually had reasonably positive experiences.

My great great grandmother died in childbirth, my great grandmother, who I knew as a child, survived. She had an older sister. When my great grandmother married her husband agreed she would only have one child, my grandmother. My mother had a week's rest in hospital after I was born, I think it is considered easier now or we wouldn't be pushed out of hospital so fast.

My Mum (1960s) had straightforward births - my younger sister was born in 2 hours. She didn't appreciate the shaving and enema she had with me though! My gggg grandmother died as a result of childbirth -probably infection.

Thinking of todays generation my aunt had both her children by CS (1960s) as her pelvis was too narrow. I imagine she would have died in earlier eras.

My ancestor was a doctor on a ship taking convicts to Tasmania in the 1840s. His journal records that he was unable to save a woman in childbirth as he did not have the right instruments/pelvis too narrow and both died. Horrifying to imagine that woman's agony.

Of course not everyone with bad birth experiences would have died in childbirth, or had their baby die, so if there is a genetic element to difficult births, it would still have been passed on. It makes sense to me that it's still here, it's just that the evolution situation could mean that it is getting worse, as C-sections remove a particular selection pressure. But, if there is no genetic element to difficult births at all, it's irrelevant.

(I find that hard to believe though, surely bone structure, muscle tone, cervix and womb shape etc has something to do with it? But I'm not a biologist)

It's also true hospital/doctor-acquired infection was a big cause of death soon after childbirth and poor Semmelweis did help to change that - though they only realised he was right after his death in an asylum, it's such an awful story. So that's a separate issue and not to do with how hard birth is, in itself.

Something I wondered about - my grandmother although apparently had a straight forward birth (doctor at cottage hospital) was never able to get pregnant a second time. Likewise my mother, I think she had forceps then an infection / scar tissue in her Fallopian tubes, wondering now if it's just a coincidence or not.

My grandmother had a baby in 1917 who died in utero at term. She always said that the doctor came and pulled the dead baby out with no pain relief.
I had relatively straightforward labours in the early seventies, but suffered with my first baby from the fact that OH was refused admittance, I was left alone in labour for hours, episiotomy was done without anaesthetic and my son was taken away to the nursery for five days and only given to me for feeding.
I was lucky though, lots of my friends were slapped for making a noise.
This was in North Wales. When I read Lorna Sage's book Bad Blood, the awful memories flooded back.
I shouldn't think that the birth process has changed, but the treatment certainly has.

DM had three births I think the first was 12 hours and I'm the youngest and took 7 hours. DM came to a couple of my midwife check ups and also was with DH & I for DS's birth (5.5 hours).

DM said she thought she had had straightforward births albeit with some stitches required afterwards and for me the doctor broke her waters, but she said it was really empowering to see DS being born. She thinks things are much better now that we're encouraged to move around whilst we're in labour and she thinks birthing pools are brilliant after being a bit unsure at first.

I think DM missed out on all of the information we have now at antenatal classes e.g. She didn't realise how DS could 'breath' whilst being underwater in the birthing pool.

The only thing I think she prefers about the old way is the mum and baby staying in hospital for 10 days after the birth to rest and recover.

Genetics are fascinating. Not all genes are passed on though. Your baby is half your genetic material and half your partners and it's how these combine that determine things. For certain things (recessive genes), you may need a gene from both parents in order for the offspring to express it. Sometimes the offspring may just carry a gene, where it is not expressed. For example you may carry a gene for ginger hair, but have brown hair. If your partner also has brown hair but carries a gene for ginger hair, your baby is likely to have brown hair, but if the ginger hair gene combine, your baby may have ginger hair. Your baby may also have brown hair and carry a ginger hair gene. Therefore the ginger hair can skip generations.
I wonder if babies have got bigger over the years since diet has improved, and if this could cause increased assisted births. I'd be interested to hear from any midwives.

Everyone I know who had births from the late 1960s onwards, when people were expected to go into hospital, until about 1985, had a terrible time. Everyone else didn't think it was too bad, all things considered. Opted for home births on the basis of that and it worked out very well (I have always lived near hospitals, though).

"I would be very interested to know if any research has been done in this area"

The books by Christina Hardyment might be something that would interest you. It's probably more collection of anecdote and published account, but a start point.

Those who delivered without too much trouble may have contributed to the idea that it was "easier", simply because those who had difficulty died (as did many if their babies) and their voices were lost. The death rate was (IIRC what I read somewhere) was 5x what it is now.

AuntieStella Juju Sundan mentions in her book how birth skills to help those of us for whom birth bloody well hurts may be lost because of the 'gap' when we were forced to be silent in hospital.
I also wonder if they were 'lost' because those who needed/used them lived shorter lives (in combination with that 20-30 year gap) as death during labour aside, many women were 'worn out' by birth and died earlier. Not to mention injuries and so forth. I know someone in my family tree 'crippled' by birth certainly. Now if there's continuity of home birth, the coping skills would get passed on.
If, quite naturally, as soon as someone mentions these new maternity hospitals everyone jumps up for them without ironing out the flaws for 3 decades, all the skills are lost as the 'chunk' of that generation with those skills/memories die out - all you will be left with when natural birth comes back into society is the mistaken idea that everyone can breathe out a baby without suffering (and if they do, they've either done it wrong or it's the HCP's fault).

My mind boggles when I think of those brave women in the 1970s who first said 'no' to on-their-back hospital birthing... but hadn't developed new skills instead. Although some almost too far and make me (such as my mum's acquaintance who ended up with a dangerously ill child and longterm fecal incontinence because she refused the MW's pleading to allow intervention ... and then called out others as quitters because they accepted minor interventions after starting naturally e.g. blood transfusions or small cuts).

Though I think those who bury their heads and blithely say 'birth isn't painful' (because it isn't for them) today perpetuate a myth which does women, and non-over-medicalised birth a disservice. Because afterwards so many say 'that did hurt: I failed' or 'it's my fault I needed medical care'.

In the past and in other cultures they wouldn't have had epidurals but worldwide birth is revered, feared, praised and prepared for as a massive and risky thing with skills passed down. The 'break' in those skills when ONLY hospital births happened led to the ones for those of us who might feel more pain being lost temporarily.

Some births do hurt more than others, even with the same woman, so we need to recognise that.