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 went into labour with in the early hours of the morning so the drs gave her meds to stop it til the morning shift came on....
Perhaps unsurprisingly I went Into distress and she had to be transferred from the nursing home to the local hospital.
Not uncommon practise at the time I believe.

My mum had 5 kids and tells me her longest labour was 3 hours and she only had gas & air with two of us. Home with baby same day.

I was extremely disappointed mine was more like 48hrs, induction, G&A, diamorphine, 6 x attempts at epidural and finally emcs under general anaesthetic. Home with baby 6 days later.

She is slightly smug about her ability to birth children and I hate her a tiny tiny little bit for it

My GM had 14 children. all at home. Normal deliveries.
My mum had 3 children. all at hosptial. Normal deliveries.
I had 2 children at hosptial. Normal deliveries.
My sister had 2 children at hosptial. 1. Emcs due to pre eclampsia. Eldest nephew 27 week preemie. They both nearly died. 2. Planned cs.
No idea what any of that means other than paternal genes must also play a part?

"Labour though the years - has it changed?"

Tony Blair has a heck of a lot to answer for...

boysclothes I think this is what I'm getting at....so according to your experience these women are having easier, less complex and shorter labours!
Having a strong fit body seems to make a difference. ....I've heard it to be common for women to give birth whilst working on the fields back in the day!
Gosh it really makes you wonder....I mean if birth really really was so terrible would we keep doing it....until we suffered so much or died? My instinct says this must be the minority of cases. Here in the uk we also have less children per capita.....isn't it 1.5? Perhaps it's getting harder for more women than previously?
Anyone have any data on labour lengths and interventions through the ages?

herecomesthesun "Labour though the years - has it changed?" Is this an article or book?

emons it is the tag on Discussions of the day*

Yes. Women have become less active and birth more medicalised

....I've heard it to be common for women to give birth whilst working on the fields back in the day!

As I mentioned before... as someone of mixed heritage I find this a bit of a Western "myth of the noble savage" and complete bollocks if you'll pardon my language.
Most - if not all- societies and cultures have had a tradition (pre modern medical care) of women birthing with experienced women (who might not be called midwives but act in that role), in a separate area often with some element of ritual on the part of the community and awareness that it is risky.
There really aren't any real places where people squat in the corner of a field. IMHO that is part of a 'simpler life' fetishised stereotype which is really quite patronising and very much over-simplifies the skills and social structures of non European cultures.

I mean if birth really really was so terrible would we keep doing it....until we suffered so much or died?

Why stay married in the days your husband could beat you provided the stick was the width of his thumb? Why bother doing anything if you cannot vote or own property? Why not just not have sex... oh because that was actually illegal, rather than marital rape. ...I'm not sure women in the past had a lot of choice about having loads of kids. Jobs, education, money, emancipation contraception ... these have lowered the birth rate more than just birth stories. It's not the day(s) of pain or the 9 months that most women think about: it's the providing 'well' (with no need for extra kids in case some got cholera, and the ability to have sex without falling pregnant) for x number of kids for 18 years!!

Women have become less active

The peak of this was the 60s-70s? Actually since the invention of forceps about 250 years ago there has been a general movement towards birthing on the back (initially it meant you could afford a Dr!).
In the last 35 years -much more so in the last 15/20- people have gradually moved back towards more active birth- it's a newish movement.

Both my grandma's gave birth in hospital in the 1950s/60s. My dad nearly died due to lack of oxygen during a very long labour, my mum (born in India) was slightly early and a very low birth weight and not expected to survive. One grandma remembers having to lie on her stomach for two weeks after the birth 'to get her womb back'.

Mum's births in the late70s/early 80s were hospital, fairly fast gas and air labours (8 and 2hrs). No interventions. She was kept in for 5 days and told by a mw to stop trying to breast feed because it would give the baby brain damage!

My first birth was a forceps delivery, around 8hrs. I had lots of interventions - was on a drip due to vomiting and had to stay my back due to baby's heart rate dropping in any other position, my second was born by elective section due to the damage the forceps did.

MIL was the fourth of twelve and the only one born in a hospital (1929 so I guess they had to pay for it). The rest, including twins, were born at home (only one twin survived). Her mother had a pretty tough life and died aged 60. MIL says that they were all 'beer babies' her mum loved them all dearly, but their dad was a bit of a bugger and money was always tight.

DH and his brother were born at home in the 1960s, with relative ease and just the local doctor and midwife in attendance.

My GM had three children in the 1930s, all at home with no problems.

I find my DM's story of having me in the mid-60s quite shocking, as it is so different to how the same situation would be managed today. DM was told I was a breech baby (I think she had an x-ray to confirm it) and that she had to go to a hospital 20 miles away when she went into labour, not the local hospital. She wasn't told why, and it didn't occur to her to ask questions. When she went into labour, on her due date, she went to the hospital as instructed and was immediately whisked into theatre and given a caesarian section under general anaesthetic. The doctors knew she'd need a c-section but hadn't told her. The reason she was told to go to the more distant hospital was because the local one was not equipped for surgery. After I was delivered I was in an incubator in special care & DM wasn't able to see me for three days. Also, her c-section scar is vertical on her belly, not a bikini incision as is done these days. I think she found the whole experience quite traumatic.

My brother was a VBAC a few years later. DM was induced two days before her due date. She says she doesn't remember it being painful, just hard work.

By contrast, I had two straightforward hospital births in the early 90s followed by a home birth. At all times I felt fully informed and in control and they were all good experiences.

Am posting without reading other responses- so apologies if I'm repeating.
The number of women dying in labour would suggest that birth wasn't easier in days gone by. Also, availability (and possibility once NHS was free) of doctors and medical care , plus medical advances and research must make labours more understood and in turn aided? Interestingly, I was encouraged to give birth kneeling for B2B DS3 and the gravity helped him turn and labour was quicker. When I had DS1 (also B2B), I was laying and needed episiotomy and venthose (sp?). Will never know if I would always have needed those interventions, but kneeling felt more natural- primal even. Perhaps because more women had greater number of labours the later ones were quicker?

My great grandmas was 43 and convinced that her lack of periods was down to the menopause. 6 months later she was massive and the doc confirmed that she was pg with her 6th child. My grandma, her eldest was 15. This was in 1936.

She gave birth at home with no pain relief and is reported to have said "thats it, no more babies!"* when my great uncle emerged. 15 minutes later his twin brother came out! She had no idea it was twins and neither did the midwife, mother and babies were all well.

3 years later her daughter, my grandma had her eldest at home, 4 months after her wedding to my grandad Sadly he was in the forces and spent the next 8 years away from them with 1 or 2 weekends at home a year (his war ended in 1947 as he was sent to India on peacekeeping duties).

There is an amazing book published some years ago by the NCT about how pg, labour, birth and the early days have changed during the NCT's lifetime. I found it at a car boot sale and I cant think of the title right now. I will look in the morning and post it as I am sure it could be found online, it is fascinating, well worth a read if only so we all count our blessings.

• My grandma told me this, her dementia meant that is may or may not be strictly accurate.

I also recommend this book

www.amazon.co.uk/Eve-Childbirth-Motherhood-Through-Ages/dp/1840243783

Eve by Petrina Brown. Frightening, eye watering and moving. It shows how women went from revered life creators to subjugated daughters of Eve who deserve to suffer.

Looks intresting bogeyface.....think I will have a read...

bogeyface I would be intrested if you did find the title of the book, there are so many factors which play into birth. It's fascinating seeing how things have changed through time.

My mother gVe birth in 1970 to my sister. Nobody realised she was in a full breech position, until it was too late. My mum had to go through the whole thing with gas and air and pethidine. I cannot imagine his hard that was. I was straight forward normal birth. The repercussions of that first birth are that she had a uterine prolapse, her pelvic floor is shot and she has a "kink" in her rectum which means she is not entirely faecally continent. This would not happen now. I dread to think what would have happened if she had birthed at home, as would have been in the past.

Sorry breastfeeding and typing at the same time =terrible grammar and spelling.

Iwillorderthefood My mum knew someone who was a natural birth pioneer and had similar, with similar issues who turned down interventions flat. Sadly, she was/is so 'for the cause' she sees these injuries as a good thing.
Makes me a little concerned for her in term of common sense v idealism.

I just cannot imagine being that anti-medical that you'd opt for fecal incontinence. Talking of which - my mum's GP was talking to her about how the 'generation of old women who smell of pee and have issues' is dying out. To put it bluntly, women were botched or prolapsed so much after big families pre-60s, and there was no after care for them... they just had to suck it up and wear Tena Lady (or just rags before that) because Drs didn't care to fix them. That's where the idea of the old lady who smells of pee comes from.
THANKFULLY now treatments are available/more commonplace. It is accepted that if you don't want to pee yourself, they should treat you (albeit with a long waiting list if you're not BUPA).

My mum birthed twins - had to have shallow forceps (in the 70s). Also had PE so had an epidural to stop her blood pressure killing us (that was how it was treated then).
She got loads of stick off some of her NCT buddies for that. Going as natural as possible but using medical help when the babies' lives were at stake.

I guess back then it was SUCH a battle people became polarised.
She mentions that at the time, they wanted to say no to the 'on a bed' stuff but actually, nothing to replace that (e.g. yoga, positions, hypnosis, birth skills, water...) was fully known yet: so if you were a pioneer, you were absolutely taking a full on pain bullet so future generations could choose their care!

Both my grandmothers had large families (9-10 children) all born at home. Both only lost 1 child each.

Mine & my mothers births were similar- straightforward & natural. I had reasonably active births in a hosp (standing up for delivery cos that's what I felt like I needed to do), whereas DM was on her back...

My sister had 1 cs due to breach, and 1 vaginal with complications as the cord delivered before baby- obv this was an emergency as baby could be deprived of oxygen. All was well though.

My paternal GM had a spinster sister that always lived with them. My GM was a tiny lady with a bit of a hump, whereas my Grandaunt was tall, straight & striking. They'd lived in the same home all their lives, same diet, etc. When we were cleaning out the house we found an old picture of GMs wedding day... They were the same height as young women, but when she died, GM was at least 6 inches shorter. Just makes me wonder at the toll 11 pregnancies took on her...

Maternal GM died in her 60s of 'high blood pressure' (stroke?)

So in general I think our generation are the 'luckiest'. Most likely to survive birth, least likely to have birth injuries, and thanks to birth control, unlikely to have endless pregnancies...