Would you have survived? PP Poll

kelly321 · March 2013

It annoys me that I still can't make the clicky polls work. I thought I saw one on another board a couple of weeks ago, but when I click on the option, it doesn't do anything. Oh well.

So a non-clicky poll. Warning: For those who have not yet given birth, you might not want to read this yet.

My question: If you had given birth 100 years ago, would you have survived?

In a clicky poll I would have given the options:

- Yes, definitely, as I had no interventions / complications.

- Probably yes, but I'm not certain since I had interventions/complications

- Really no clue since my interventions/complications could have gone either way

- Probably not, but I might have had a fighting chance

- Definitely not. Without modern medicine, I couldn't have survived.

- SS

kelly321 · March 2013

Short answer: Probably not.

Longer answer:

First off, I wouldn't have been alive to even have DD2 because with DD1 I'm about 99.9% sure I would have died. I had HELLP and my body showed no signs of getting DD1 out on its own. My BP was sky high as were my liver enzymes, and without a diagnosis and c/s, there's no way I would have made it. My symptoms were also very vague, and honestly I only think it's because I went to a great university clinic that they recognized it as quickly as they did even in this day and age.

But let's pretend I did survive the first birth, I'm guessing I probably wouldn't have survived this one, although I would have had a fighting chance, at least. Since my uterus started to rupture during prodromal labor, I cannot imagine it would have held up for active labor. If it had ruptured back then, I doubt I would have lived, although I supposed there would have been a chance.

ashbasler · March 2013

I would have to say I would probably fall into the
Really no clue since my interventions/complications could have gone either way
category.
I had a c/s since she was breech and I don't know if I would've went into labor on my own. Also I had to have a blood transfusion afterwards. The OB said I could've recovered without one but it would've taken 23 months for my iron to level out to normal levels.

2 to 3 months not 23.

holly321 · March 2013

With dd, I don't think she would have survived. She was a csection due to being breech. She was a very tiny baby, with a very large head. and breech vaginal births are safer when the baby is larger, at least that is my understanding.

With DS, we would have probably have been fine. My water broke, and I didn't go into labor right away, but I went to the hospital right away. I was already y over 3cm dilated, and had been having ad contractions the last few nights. With dd, I was 6 cm dilated not in labor.... So I was a bit nervous that I could have been really dilated, and had my baby on the side of the road. Glad I went in, once I started contracting, he was here in less than an hor. Anyways, long story short, while I got pitocin, it probably wouldn't have been necessary and labor would have probably started sooner or later.

ericalee27 · March 2013

Probably not with either

mishka29 · March 2013

Yes. I had no intervention, unless you count being gbs positive and getting antibiotics

Runaway22 · March 2013

Whether I would have survived is debatable, but I don't think LO would have made it. Not something I like to think about!

yeladim · March 2013

Yes. This time around I had no interventions.

With DS1 I was induced only because I was 2 weeks late. So without intervention he would have been a post-term baby and perhaps may have had some of those complications.

alitria · March 2013

I think I would have survived the birth, though I had a bad cases of pneumonia while I was pregnant that might very well have killed me. During birth I did have very high blood pressure but they were able to bring it down as soon as my son was born. So, probably, but not 100% certain.

However, my son was a preemie and I'm really not sure if he would have made it or not. I've actually thought of that a number of times and realized how blessed I am to live in a time AND a place where I had access to a NICU. It's not just women a 100 years ago, it's still a huge percentage of women living in third world conditions NOW.

Reyka9 · March 2013

Yes, definitely, as I had no interventions / complications.

MalRiggs · March 2013

Yes, I had no interventions (and I mean none, not even an iv, or blood pressure cuff, heart rate etc.)

ATLdesi · March 2013

I would have survived - med/intervention-free birth, short (under 5 hr. labor) and easy recovery. I feel fortunate!

singingsea · March 2013

No clue. I was induced for blood pressure issues and toxemia. Then had a 30 hour induction. Guess it could have gone either way.

marionravenwood · March 2013

DH and I had this same conversation after watching season 3 of Downton Abbey last week. I would have survived because I had no intervention. Holy smokes I wouldn't have wanted to do that without an epi though!!!!

pitterpatter129 · March 2013

Maybe, with good help from other women...

I had two OP babies, one ended in csection and one with forceps. However, with a longer allowance for pushing and a skilled midwife, I'd probably have survived. The interventions I had were more about hospital preferences than about me and baby.

wifeofadam · March 2013

Yes. I had a homebirth with absolutely no intervention. I didn't even have an ultrasound.

I think this poll is hard for the average woman to answer. There are legitimate cases where women would have died in childbirth, but (please don't flame me) I don't feel all of the emergencies we have now that end up in c/s are actually emergencies. I think that some doctors don't have the knowledge to birth a breech baby or a large baby (they aren't willing to allow a woman to move around in different positions to help the baby move down, etc.). I also think that the interventions we choose can cause some of the complications during delivery. It's just hard to say how differently many of our births would have turned out if we didn't have the interventions.

ETA - I would have survived my other three births too - and two were OP, one delivered at home. A skilled midwife makes all the difference.

WinterBenson · March 2013

Probably, but I would have a mangled vagina.

kelly321 · March 2013

+adamwife+:
Yes. I had a homebirth with absolutely no intervention. I didn't even have an ultrasound.
I think this poll is hard for the average woman to answer. There are legitimate cases where women would have died in childbirth, but (please don't flame me) I don't feel all of the emergencies we have now that end up in c/s are actually emergencies. I think that some doctors don't have the knowledge to birth a breech baby or a large baby (they aren't willing to allow a woman to move around in different positions to help the baby move down, etc.). I also think that the interventions we choose can cause some of the complications during delivery. It's just hard to say how differently many of our births would have turned out if we didn't have the interventions.
ETA - I would have survived my other three births too - and two were OP, one delivered at home. A skilled midwife makes all the difference.

I think for some it's hard to answer, which is why I had the middle 3 categories, but looking at the answers given so far, it looks like there are plenty of us who are pretty certain one way or the other (obviously there's no way to know for sure). Although I think you're right that some emergencies are brought about by interventions or lack of knowledge / fear of lawsuits on the part of the doctors, I think there are plenty of real emergencies. Childbirth wasn't considered risky for nothing.

ETA: I know that my perception on the risks of childbirth are colored by my experiences, both of which were caught in time but would have been medical emergencies if nothing had been done (although if I hadn't had the first c/s, I wouldn't have had the scar to start rupturing this time, so really this second risky birth was precipitated by the first).

tdmd09 · March 2013

I would have but I don't know that DS would have because his heart rate kept dropping with contractions and dropped at one point for over 2 minutes while I wasn't contracting. I don't think he would have tolerated a full labor and delivery.

nlp1990 · March 2013

Yes, definitely, as I had no interventions / complications.

wifeofadam · March 2013

kelly321:
Although I think you're right that some emergencies are brought about by interventions or lack of knowledge / fear of lawsuits on the part of the doctors, I think there are plenty of real emergencies. Childbirth wasn't considered risky for nothing.
ETA: I know that my perception on the risks of childbirth are colored by my experiences, both of which were caught in time but would have been medical emergencies if nothing had been done (although if I hadn't had the first c/s, I wouldn't have had the scar to start rupturing this time, so really this second risky birth was precipitated by the first).

ITA.

There are so many other things that would have been different for us 100 years ago too though. First, our diets. For many of us, our diets would have been better, as we wouldn't have been eating processed foods our entire lives. Perhaps that would have made us healthier overall and contributed to a better outcome. For some of us, our diets would have been worse 100 years ago because we wouldn't have had access to a wide variety of vitamins and minerals. Perhaps some of us wouldn't have had certain autoimmune issues or other problems that only seem to have become widespread in the last few decades. Or maybe others of us would have had other diseases in childhood that would have made things more complicated.

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that 100 years ago we all would have been more likely to be more active during pregnancy. For those of us working hard laboring jobs, that would have been a bad thing. For the others of us who simply walked more or did more chores around the house due to the lack of technology, it probably would have given us better outcomes.

With decades of increases in intervention, monitoring, increased c/s rates, etc., we aren't seeing better maternal and infant mortality rates in America. So I'm not sure it's the interventions that make a difference for MOST women.

adamsabigail14 · March 2013

mishka29:
Yes. I had no intervention, unless you count being gbs positive and getting antibiotics

This

adamsabigail14 · March 2013

adamwife:
Yes.nbsp; I had a homebirth with absolutely no intervention.nbsp; I didn't even have an ultrasound.I think this poll is hard for the average woman to answer.nbsp; There are legitimate cases where women would have died in childbirth, but please don't flame me I don't feel all of the emergencies we have now that end up in c/s are actually emergencies.nbsp; I think that some doctors don't have the knowledge to birth a breech baby or a large baby they aren't willing to allow a woman to move around in different positions to help the baby move down, etc..nbsp; I also think that the interventions we choose can cause some of the complications during delivery.nbsp; It's just hard to say how differently many of our births would have turned out if we didn't have the interventions. ETA I would have survived my other three births too and two were OP, one delivered at home.nbsp; A skilled midwife makes all the difference.

I couldn't agree more!

kleigh926 · March 2013

Yes, definitely. I had no problems at all with my pregnancy or birth. In fact, the doctors and nurses were all talking about how it was such a good birth. I have a low pain tolerance though, so without my epi I probably would have thought I wouldn't survive, ha.

IncogNeato · March 2013

DD1- probably, but she might have been in trouble. My water broke without a hint of a contraction after 14 hours, so it depends on how long it would have taken for labor to progress and whether I would have gotten an infection.

DD2- yes. Her labor went just fine although I did stall at 7cm for about 4 hours and my epidural got things going again. I would imagine that if I had been walking around the hut for a few more hours things would have eventually moved past the plateau.

LadyMadrid08 · March 2013

Yes, definitely both times. This time the only intervention was that my midwife broke my water near the end.

wifeofadam · March 2013

PeanutR1:
I think that SOME c section moms really struggle with what happened, especially if it wasn't planned. I know that it was only in my plan as a last resort. The way I see it, I made the ultimate sacrifice for my child. I sacrificed my body, potentially my life, and relinquished all control to save the life of my child. To me, that means even more than doing it "naturally"

I hope that you didn't take what I said to mean that I believe c/s moms did something wrong. I do not believe that at all. And I would definitely get a c/s to save my child's life - I'm not anti-intervention at all. I just think there is a time and place for it. In your case, the c/s was obviously very necessary and I am so glad that you were able to get a c/s to save your child's life.

Like I said, I do believe there are legitimate emergencies. Your situation is very different from a situation where the doctor simply said the mom was "failing to progress" because she didn't fit the hospital standard of 1 cm every two hours or whatever they decide is "normal" and rush her off to a c/s because he or she wasn't willing to wait to see what would happen. And in the end that doctor will talk about how the c/s saved her life because her body just wouldn't dilate. But we don't really know if her body would have dilated or not because she wasn't given enough time.

I apologize if what I said offended you. I did not mean to blame mothers. I blame the system.

holly321 · March 2013

Not saying anything really against what you are saying, but it some cases, it is easy to feel you didn't birth your child. I was not in labor with dd, while breaking my water, we were surprised to find her breech. So csection time. I had to get knocked out since my spinal didn't work. I in no way feel like I gave birth to my dd.

Puck1182 · March 2013

I'd probably have survived, although it might have been a longer labor since I did end up with some pitocin to keep things moving toward the end. But then, maybe not - if I hadn't been hooked up to a monitor I'd probably have been on my feet, moving around more, so perhaps gravity would have helped more. When I was laboring at home I found that contractions were more bearable when I was on my feet, but once I got to the hospital I spent more time in bed. Need to remember that for when I do this again. ;-)

AimnJus917 · March 2013

Yes, both times. First was in hospital with hardly any interventions, natural birth. This time was in a birth center with no interventions unless the pitocin shot afterwards counts and ibuprofen to help with pain afterwards.

joecubed · March 2013

Yes. All three deliveries have been routine. DS1 involved an epidural because he was OP and I was unprepared. DD involved antibiotics because I was GBS positive, but the risk to her without them would have been minimal. Her birth was otherwise intervention and medicine free. DS2 involved no intervention except a quick help from the OB to move his shoulder around my pelvic bone. I have every confidence that any midwife would have done the same very simply, or that he would have turned or come through on his own with a positional change because I was pushing on my back.

tamarar5 · March 2013

Despite high bp, i probably would have survived E's birth, but that would have been moot because I probably would have died from dd1 C's birth. Labor quit and was only continued through pit.

tiffanyp · March 2013

Yes, I would have survived both births since they were very straighforward. However, had my second daughter been born only 50 years ago, she likely would have died a few weeks after birth since she inherited a rare metabolic disorder that was caught on the newborn screening test.

kelly321 · March 2013

+adamwife+:
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that 100 years ago we all would have been more likely to be more active during pregnancy. For those of us working hard laboring jobs, that would have been a bad thing. For the others of us who simply walked more or did more chores around the house due to the lack of technology, it probably would have given us better outcomes.

Speak for yourself! I would have been an aristocrat and only gotten exercise dancing at balls Wink

holly321:
Not saying anything really against what you are saying, but it some cases, it is easy to feel you didn't birth your child. I was not in labor with dd, while breaking my water, we were surprised to find her breech. So csection time. I had to get knocked out since my spinal didn't work. I in no way feel like I gave birth to my dd.

I completely agree with this, holly. I have never been in labor, and the fact that I will never experience it makes me feel like I've missed out on the initiation ritual of motherhood. I had a spinal for both of my c/s, but I honestly still don't feel like I "birthed" my girls. Even though in retrospect I would have made the same decision both times because that was the safest option for me and my babies (and not just because of FTP), I'm still sad that I won't ever get to see how I am during labor, how I handle it, or feel that sense of accomplishment that I assume one has when one successfully births vaginally. :-/

mamasmurf12 · March 2013

I would say "yes" b/c I didn't have any pain relieving interventions. However, I did have pitocin to induce. This most likely made my labor more painful...but it may have made it faster too. DD was born 4 hours after I was hooked up, so I don't know if I could have handled that level of pain for a longer period of time!!