Should this have been discussed-quick previous birth

[Mum22GTTC]

I'm expecting baby number 4 soon (37 weeks tomorrow), want a homebirth, but being advised against it as I have increased water around baby so there is an increased risk of cord prolapse.

Anyway, my last labour was very quick, 35mins active labour, 2 hours from when I first thought 'ow that was a proper contraction'.
The MW that delivered baby recorded labour as being 35 mins long.

Now, as I'm being told that I need to deliver in hospital - I'm suprised that no-one has thought to take into consideration how quick my last labour was. I mean if this one is as quick as the last, I may not even get to hospital in time (I have very different circumstances with child care this time, so getting to hospital quickly is going to be hard) - so my thinking is if I'm at that much of a risk of cord prolapse as they'd have me believe, why are they not considering how quick my last labour was?! Surely if cord prolapse is THAT much of a risk an induction or Csection would be needed?! Not that I want either, I want a HB, just thinking that their risks don't really add up!

Were your previous quick labours discussed with you? My green notes just say 3 normal vaginal deliveries. My big notes at the hospital have all the other details - but none of the midwives or consultants have mentioned a thing.

Hope that all makes sense, I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well!!

 

[pimento1979]

I've always heard the opposite- if you have quick labours, stay at home!! Who wants to risk having a baby in the car or parking lot??

 

[08marchbean]

i had a quick previous birth an its not written on my notes at all, which surprises me be oh well. it has been discussed with my MW but at me bringing it up

 

[Pixles]

my first labour was 4 hrs, well recorded as 3.59 mins, as i was 2cm when i went in, and 4hrs later gave birth, so they havent a clue! i was told to stay at home if i could this time as i proberly wont make it. and its safer to have a homebirth than a road birth.

 

[Mum22GTTC]

my first labour was 4 hrs, well recorded as 3.59 mins, as i was 2cm when i went in, and 4hrs later gave birth, so they havent a clue! i was told to stay at home if i could this time as i proberly wont make it. and its safer to have a homebirth than a road birth.

That's what I mean - my first was an induction, second baby was 4 hours, third was 2hours. Yet no-one has mentioned a thing about quick labours with me and considering they're saying I need to be in hospital, things just don't add up

 

[muddles]

My first labour was 3h 49m and we only just made it to the hospital-I was holding my baby 35 mins after we pulled up in the car park!

I don't have another midwife appointment unless I go overdue and not once has a homebirth been suggested. The only thing that was said (when I brought up my concern that I wouldn't make it to hospital) was that if that appears to be the case then I am to call 999 and also the labour ward and as well as paramedics being dispatched a community midwife will also be sent too. This makes me feel guilty though as surely ambulances are meant for proper emergencies and not just someone who can't make it to hospital in time!

I was told as I am deemed low risk I can go to the MLU rather than the consultant led bit and that's it! I am so going to be in the local papers for giving birth in the hospital car park/lobby.

 

[Pixles]

ahh! its your 4th, i asked me midwife how many i was allowed till i had to go to hospital, she said 3 then 4th ect in hospital. i said n if i refuse... she said.. Ill be retiring soon, lol