Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Fortunately sex doesn't do the same thing, otherwise it would be a most unpleasurable experience. with a sweep the aim is to separate the membranes around the baby from your cervix. i had a sweep with my first when my induction was failing to progress, it definitely did the trick, although it does make your eyes water a bit. worth it though, especially if you're keen to get the baby out.

My friend had gas and air with her sweeps, but I don't think it is needed, personally.


If you can't get through a sweep without pain relief, you haven't got a hope of even getting through early labour without drugs. Obviously, if you are a drugs all the way type of person, then by all means get the gas and air for the sweep!!


new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there any pain relief given/ recommended? If

> not, why not?

Hmmmm.... sorry trinity, wasn't meaning to sound insensitive. The midwife did say that if your cervix is in a certain position it can be quite uncomfortable (mine obv wasn't!)


Kalamiphile - you may be interested to know that the midwives sometimes offer to do sweeps during established labour to keep things moving forward.

littleEDfamily Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmmmm.... sorry trinity, wasn't meaning to sound

> insensitive. The midwife did say that if your

> cervix is in a certain position it can be quite

> uncomfortable (mine obv wasn't!)

>

no problem. Clearly there are a wide range of experiences here. As a comparison I felt nothing with a smear and was in agony with the sweep. Perhaps it was also because I had it 10 days before my due date or perhaps just a very rough nurse.

I had 5, would say about same discomfort level as a smear, which I count as not nice but not really painful either. did not work. had pessary thing to start induction that did not work either. Had waters broken in the end - ahh the rfelief of getting going finally!

Good luck to your daughter.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
    • It's not magistrates that are needed, it's judges and they will rattle through these cases whether the loos are working or not. Barristers get a brief fee and a day rate. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...