OK, dh and I are pretty sure 2 kids is not all, and I know it's WAY early, but I'm working through my second c-birth and wondering how I could ever do this again.
Short stories - I went into labor on my own for both. My water broke early in labor (like around 2cm) during both labors. With ds, I was very ill, flu-like symptoms and he was posterior with his forehead (brow) presenting; when my fever climbed over 103 and I had been at 5-6cm for over 6 hours and him not turning, we did the section. With dd I was healthy, got to 8cm in the whirlpool then got out and had a bulging bag that I allowed my midwife to break, it was heavily meconium stained, but I felt the urge to push within 30 minutes; pushed for 2 hours in vaious positions, but I only made progress sitting up holding my legs up; at one point I could a quarter-sized bit of baby head in the mirror, then she went up and never descended again, when midwife checked she felt the side of dds head, and I was 8cm with a swollen cervix; my contrax had slowed and lost intensity and I agreed to pit only with an epi (at this point I was resigning myself to a c - and heck, I was tired after pushing for 2 hours) after 8 hours I was 9cm and dd was still malpositioned so I agreed to c.
So, on to the question! I have mild scoliosis (curvature of the spine). The ob who birthed dd via c suggested that my pelvic inlet is either small or misshapen causing the malpositions (my pelvic outlet is "generous" according to him and the midwives). After dd's birth, the ob, midwife and my doula, were in agreement that future babies should be planned c-births. I am SO upset by this
and am considering not getting pg again to avoid it. Are two malpositoned babies enough to make that decision on? Anyone have any insight?
Short stories - I went into labor on my own for both. My water broke early in labor (like around 2cm) during both labors. With ds, I was very ill, flu-like symptoms and he was posterior with his forehead (brow) presenting; when my fever climbed over 103 and I had been at 5-6cm for over 6 hours and him not turning, we did the section. With dd I was healthy, got to 8cm in the whirlpool then got out and had a bulging bag that I allowed my midwife to break, it was heavily meconium stained, but I felt the urge to push within 30 minutes; pushed for 2 hours in vaious positions, but I only made progress sitting up holding my legs up; at one point I could a quarter-sized bit of baby head in the mirror, then she went up and never descended again, when midwife checked she felt the side of dds head, and I was 8cm with a swollen cervix; my contrax had slowed and lost intensity and I agreed to pit only with an epi (at this point I was resigning myself to a c - and heck, I was tired after pushing for 2 hours) after 8 hours I was 9cm and dd was still malpositioned so I agreed to c.
So, on to the question! I have mild scoliosis (curvature of the spine). The ob who birthed dd via c suggested that my pelvic inlet is either small or misshapen causing the malpositions (my pelvic outlet is "generous" according to him and the midwives). After dd's birth, the ob, midwife and my doula, were in agreement that future babies should be planned c-births. I am SO upset by this
and am considering not getting pg again to avoid it. Are two malpositoned babies enough to make that decision on? Anyone have any insight?






