Anyone with interventive/augmented labors who had a subsequent natural labor...

• 07-04-2009 9:59 AM

  Mom~of~Munchkins Joined on 09-14-2005 Posts 236

  Anyone with interventive/augmented labors who had a subsequent natural labor... Reply Contact What all can you say is different between the two types? For both you and your baby. I can say that I experienced a TON of differences, and am finding that some of them are related to the drugs. For example: Baby: No reflux (1st baby out of the 4 that has not had any neonatal reflux) No jaundice (1st of all 4 to not have even a smidge of jaundice) Nursed VERY strongly immediately after birth (very different than the other 3) Only wakes once at night starting at 1 wk old (it took the other three at least a month to get to this point) Had his first on-cue smile at just a week old (the other three were at least 1 month old for their first) Me: No need for stool softeners to make the first BM. I had a comfortable BM the morning after he was born; the other three (with epidurals) took me a week to have my first BM. No nipple trauma from breastfeeding...even with bad latches! With the other three, I had massive blistering, mastitis, and pain for a month. I was very surprised to not experience any of that this time around. I was able to shower within an hour after thenatural birth. I was outside playing with my children within 12 hrs after the natural birth. My afterpains actually weren't as bad as when my labors were pit-induced. My bleeding has lasted a little longer, though. Not more blood...just more time to get it out. No back pain (from epidural). And no bruises on my arms from IVs all over the place! But that one is just a nice effect of homebirth.   I thought it was very interesting that my biggest baby was actually the only one of my children who never had even a touch of jaundice, given that bigger babies tend to be more susceptible to it. So I did some digging. Did you guys know that pitocin can actually suppress hepatic function in both mother and baby? And that a known "side-effect" is neonatal jaundice? I got that from a drug information website...not a natural birth site. That's an interesting fact I didn't know.

• 07-06-2009 8:55 AM

  In reply to

  NoLongerDesolate Joined on 02-23-2005 North LA Posts 527

  Re: Anyone with interventive/augmented labors who had a subsequent natural labor... Reply Contact I totally believe you. While I've never had a labor with lots of interventions to compare, I do think it makes a difference. My first baby had jaundice and I do believe the contributor to that was the IV. No pit, just simple saline. My second baby (who was a pound bigger) did not have jaundice. Guess what? I had refused IV with that labor. Did just a simple IV intervention make that difference? I guess there's no way to know for sure but you can bet I won't be having an IV with this labor either. Also, I've NEVER had latch/nipple trauma problems. My babies immediately latched and nursed well from the 1st introduction to the breast. There's no doubt, in my mind at least, that natural labors contribute to a much healthier and happier mom and baby. Sure, I had to deal with work and pain of labor but the tradeoffs are worth it. I could have had labor that was induced with pit and I could have laid up the entire time with no pain because of the epi. But what would have been the consequences of that? Like you said, jaundice would have been one of those consequences as well as many others. Being induced alone leads to a rough percentage rate of 50% winding up with an c-sec. No thank you. Bring on the uncomfortable work of labor any day for me!