With my first child, I had a non-medicated birth in a birthing center. It was a great experience! The only intervention I had is that the OB broke my water. I was 9 cm dialated and 90% effaced. She said that once she did that, the contractions would get stronger. They didn't, so that implied to me that I was already very much in transition and getting close to pushing.
My question is... was the OB breaking my water a bad thing? I understand it may not have been necessary, but did it really matter since I was so close to pushing anyway?
I'm pregnant with my 2nd, and I'm just trying to prep myself for this next round of labor. Thanks!
Married to DH
SAHM to DS4 and DD1.5
Expecting #3 January 2014!
I don't know what you mean by the word "bad". It's so subjective. Yes, personally I think it was 'bad'. It was invasive, unnecessary, didn't help or have the OB's intended effect, and was an intervention that didn't need to happen. Emotionally speaking, it was an implication that your body wasn't doing it's job efficiently enough that it needed the OB's "assistance" which can hinder a woman in labor and make her doubt her capabilities.
If you and your baby are healthy and you have a positive feeling about the whole thing I guess one could say it really didn't "matter"...but if it didn't matter, maybe it shouldn't have been done lol .
Then again, I'm pretty hardcore about such things. It's my firm belief that a woman should be left completely free during the process of labor to let it unfold 100% naturally, honoring her instincts to move about and do exactly what she feels in the moment and honoring her body's ability to birth effectively and that intervention should *only* be a consideration if there is a medical emergency OR if a woman is specifically seeking emotional support.
Christ-centered loving wife & mama to 2 unschooled miracles! One & one . We live simply and mindfully. Expecting another blessing Feb 2015 Praying for another
I agree with the PP. "Bad" is so subjective. Everything has risks and benefits. I asked for my water to be broken when I "stalled" at 6-7 cm. It worked--I quickly became a 10 and was done sooner than I probably would have been if we'd waited. What is more important is whether you felt that the OB gave you any say in the matter. I knew the risks and asked for it, which makes me feel very empowered and happy with the way my labor went. If during a check, my midwife had suddenly said, "Oh, and I just ruptured your bag of waters." I might feel differently.
Mama to P. born at home 10/09, and W. born in the hospital 2/13
This is my take on it as well. But on the upside, it sounds like it didn't cause any of the common problems that can happen. So I think the better question is, how do you feel about it?
I feel okay with what happened. My OB did ask and explain why she suggested it. But I was already in transition and didn't have the mind to ask what would happen otherwise, and I just agreed. I had prepped myself for avoiding unnecessary medication, but apparently not other interventions.
Again, I'm okay that it happened, but I think that if the procedure HAD changed things a lot I might not be.
Just today I read a homebirth story about a woman who had started pushing and her water hadn't broken yet. But then of course it did, and the baby came shortly thereafter. I guess I just didn't think you could get to the pushing point without your water breaking. Though, apparently the midwife had just suggested she break the water and it just happened to break before she got the chance.
Tumble Bumbles, I LOVE how you worded this! Makes me feel confident. :)
Married to DH
SAHM to DS4 and DD1.5
Expecting #3 January 2014!
My experience with my last birth: I was 9cm and 95% effaced. The midwife said my bag of waters was SUPER thick and buldging through my cervix. I'd been in labor for several hours and she said to me, "It may not break on its own because its so thick. That's not a problem. You and the baby are doing great. I can break your water and you can have this baby in the next hour (I was really that close) or you can labor on your own and it might take a few more hours. It's totally your call." I elected to do it because I was DONE. Sure enough, baby 20mins later.
I had a similar experience as AFWife. With #1 I had gone through transition and was fully dilated and effaced, but contractions were pretty weak and after a long time, not sure how long, I still didn't have any urge to push. My midwife asked if she could break my water, she did, with much difficulty as my membranes were very thick and tough, and I immediately felt the urge to push. It still took 2.5 hours to push her out though.
With #2 when I was fully dilated I told the same midwife to go ahead and break my water, she said it was very thick and tough again. DD#2 was born within a few minutes.
I have in my birth plan for #3 that I would consent to having my water broken again if in the same situation, but not before. I really didn't feel like it was a big intervention, and my body's reaction to it told me that it was the right thing to do, but with all the risks I would probably avoid doing it before being at least very close to fully dilated and effaced.
That being said, I have been having very strong, frustrating, and tiring prodromal labor and have been considering getting my water broken if I am pretty far along and it seems like contractions are dying down again... But have not made any decisions about this, and hoping I won't have to! I've been reading up on membrane rupture and what I have read makes me nervous about doing it early.
Mama to 3 awesome girls: DD1 born 2001, DD2 born 2002, DD3 born March 2011
I do not think it was bad. We aren't discussing rupturing you at 4cm, putting you on the proverbial clock, etc. By 9cm many, many membranes have already broken spontaneously.
But I don't find avoiding any and every type of help, 'intervention,' adjustment, no matter how harmless (or helpful) etc to be valuable in and of itself.
Its only bad if you wanted your baby born in the caul.
Mother to R- 2/09, & C- 5/11
Really, if you feel ok about it, that's the main thing, right?
My dd and my younger ds were both born in the caul, though, and I must say... it was pretty cool! And wet.
J, partner-in-crime to D, mama to 4, including our brand new , missing my 7-wk-er
With my third child I requested my membranes to be broke. I had been pushing for about an hour at that point and just wanted her out!! LOL No going back get her out. I pushed for another 1.5 hrs. There was no rushing her then nor now. She was 14/15 days past due date also.
Some interventions are ok or prefered sometimes.
I agree that "bad" is subjective. I think to routinely break someones water, especially the earlier you do it in labor is more likely to be "bad" than breaking it for someone who is almost or completely dilated. I think if you trust your care provider and understand the risks of breaking the bag of water that it can be very helpful in certain situations like some pp mentioned. In my case, I had been having contractions for over 30 hours when I agreed do have my water broken at six centimeters. My baby was born about eight hours later. Looking back I'm a little sad I needed it done, but it did seem to help speed up and intensify my contractions and that probably helped me avoid interventions such as pit and an epidural. I think my midwife was right in suggesting it, as I was still tolerating contractions and making progress, but I don't think I could have done another 12-24 hours of labor without becoming completely exhausted.
Bad is probably too strong a word, but it was an unnecessary intervention in a normal process. I am inclined to think of any birth intervention as "guilty until proven innocent." It should not be done without a good reason, and "probably useless but unlikely to cause real harm" is not a good enough justification for even a minor intervention.
If you were that near delivery, this probably wouldn't have been a concern, but rupture of membranes can lead to cord prolapse if baby isn't well engaged in the pelvis and moving downward.
In your situation it probably wasn't "bad" as in dangerous or damaging.
I think it may have been "bad" as in silly, non-effective, doing-something-for-the-sake-of-doing-something.