I was in labor for 44 hours, 100% natural. Suck that, OB!

My mother birthed me without drugs, and apparently it was 48 hours.

Unmedicated births are for any woman who chooses that option, unless and until there is a compelling reason to change that decision (maternal choice, or medical emergency).

I know it’s hard to see a woman working hard in labor and not wanting to be “rescued” by pharmaceutical intervention in the natural process. But really, all it takes is “Wow, you are so strong, you are doing amazing. Let me know if you need anything.”

In 90+% of births, the MOTHER is the hero, not the anesthesiologist, nor the OB.

A 24+ hour labour here and all natural. Not even an IV, becuause it’s amazing how you can hydrate these days just by drinking water out of a cup. Who knew?

Kind of hard to know how that’s gonna go for a first time mom, huh doc?

True. They’re also for women who have long labors, and women who have medium-length labors. Really, they’re for anyone who WANTS a natural birth!

Yes– of course. Those are the only ones you see, because unless a woman comes into the hospital crowning or really close to it, you pit her, epi her, etc., etc., etc. The ones with short labors are the only ones whom you *can’t* push a ton of interventions on.

Or, alternatively…

In some respects, women who insist upon relatively few interventions are probably somewhat less likely to have extra-long labors. (The ones whose births end vaginally, anyway.) I guess I’m thinking particularly of the huge number of women who are induced for no compelling reason, and how it’s not surprising that many of them have long “unproductive” labors, a good chunk of which end in C/S. But I’m not certain of the stats on this one.

I had 25 hours of labor, which is by no means short. I thank goodness I decided on home birth because I’m pretty sure if I’d been at the hospital, they would have pushed me to get pit since I was stuck at a 3 for about 15 hours of my labor.

What I find funny about this comment is that generally (obviously there are exceptions, but *generally*) shorter labors are more intense, more painful. A lot more is happening in a shorter amount of time. Longer labors generally unfold gradually, slowly, and women tend to report them as being less painful than short labors. So this doc is talking out his/her ass on several levels (one being what you all have mentioned – not taking into account how long the woman labored before arriving at the hospital, the other being that shorter labors are, by and large, more painful, so one would think a woman would be *more* likely to request pain meds during a “short” labor). What a moron.

Reverse that, doc.
Short labors are for women who birth naturally.
Ok, I am by no means saying that all natural labors are shorter. I am saying, however, that many interventions can cause labor to linger, particularly the epidural.

I know this is late, but, with my second I labored and delivered in a free standing birth center. For both of my children I couldn’t keep ANYTHING down. I stalled at 7cm because I was so dehydrated my uterus couldn’t contract properly. I needed an iv and thank god I wasn’t in a hospital because my labor was just over 12 hours long, the baby was posterior, over 9 lbs, and had a nuchal hand. Women’s bodies know what to do. These doctors just don’t have the patience or the right knowledge about labor and birth. The mother needs strength in herself as well.

24 hours of every-2-minute contractions. And I’d do it again in a heartbeat for any future babies.