Lotus Birth has Become a Trend, But is it Risky?

Lotus births, also known as umbilical non-severance, have gained popularity over recent years.

For many moms, delivering the placenta is the last part of the birthing process, often occurring after the cutting of the umbilical cord. However, some parents are forgoing the cutting of the cord altogether and opting to keep the placenta attached to baby– often for several days — in what is called a Lotus birth.

Lotus births, also known as umbilical non-severance, have gained popularity over recent years.  In a Lotus birth, the baby remains attached via the umbilical cord to the placenta until the cord breaks naturally, which can take anywhere from 3-10 days.  Parents who choose a Lotus birth carry the placenta around, often in a pouch or a cloth bag, so that it remains with the baby. Often, the placenta is sprinkled with pleasant smelling herbs or essential oils, as the decaying process creates an odor if untreated.

Related: American Afterbirth: New Documentary to Cover Placenta Consumption

The Lotus birth is an important part of the pregnancy process for many cultures and countries. The origins of the Lotus birth in the Western world began in the early 1970s when a woman named Clair Lotus Day began to question the procedure of cutting the cord.  After observing that a mother Chimpanzee left the cord attached until it dropped off, she decided to try that with her son.

The are many reasons that parents choose a Lotus birth.  Some moms, like this British mom, believe that a Lotus birth has physical benefits, such as ensuring that the baby receives all of their blood supply. Others state that it reduces the risk of infection that occasionally occurs during the cutting of the cord.

While physical benefits are noted, many more moms practice Lotus births for the spiritual aspect.  As the placenta plays such an important role in the development of the baby inside the womb, many mothers believe that keeping it attached allows the infant to better acclimate to life outside the womb. “The placenta, cord, and baby are one. Cutting it is artificially breaking this unity”, says Clara Riba in an interview with the Daily Mail.

Related: Placenta Encapsulation: Crazy or Helpful for New Moms?

Many midwives have touted the benefits of delayed cord clamping for years. In 2017, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released new recommendations that the umbilical cord remained unclamped for 30-60 seconds after birth.

However, an article in Live Science states that there is a significant difference between delayed cord clamping and a Lotus Birth. Many experts believe that once the cord stops pulsating, there remains no benefit.

In an email interview with Live Science, Dr. William Schwiezer said: “There is significant risk associated with keeping a newborn connected to what is essentially a dead and decaying organ.”  He says there is a risk of infection due to bacterial overgrowth within the dead placental tissue.

Although there is a huge lack of evidence on either side of the debate, at least one published case study did infer a link between a Lotus birth and neonatal hepatitis.

While Lotus births are controversial, most moms believe that the right to choose should be left up to the individual.

3 thoughts on “Lotus Birth has Become a Trend, But is it Risky?”

  1. The World Health Organization, has in the past 1998, declared 500,000 babies die each year of an infected cut umbilical cord. I am assuming this is no exagerations, then ir now. They also declare that the cut cord takes 7 to 15 says to heal.

    And 30 to 60 second cord clamping delay is equal to sharing the baby’s deprived whole placental blood with the greedy youthful baby blood seekers who sell its suspensions to private and public blood banks and science research labs.

    The no clamped and cut cord take from 3 to five days to fall away. And no cut cord infections, to my knowledge.


    The unclamped baby gets all their created whole blood and not the cord blood banks.

    The only harm of no clamping or cutting the cord for over one hour and reviving all babies on the unclamped and uncut cord is to the pocket books of those who seek baby’s blood.

    They fear a profit youthful blood loss. The extracted placental stem cells, alone, may sell for $30,000 USA. The other blood suspensions are profitable to in plasna, platelets, red cells, and white cells, or hormones. Even a sick baby’s virus, like HIV, are of marketable value to disease research labs.

    Early cord clamping, rather than no cord clamping/tying, before the placenta is birthed and all pulsation ceases in the cord, and both must happen, is best described as PUCC, Premature Umbilical Cord Clamping, and it has been known to weaken the babies since and before 1801, to the present day.

    This is because more baby’s blood remains in the placenta and the cord (up to 60 % blood, denied the children, per the Lippincott Nursing Practice Manual) that is best be infused inside the baby, or babies.

    More or all placental bllod infusions is necessary to prevent lung and heart problems, brain cell injury, central nervous system injury, CP, and low blood volime pressure and testable blood cell anemic conditions.

    All the published medical studies were done to set a local or State clinical policy, or an optimal cord clamping standard under 90 seconds, certainly not even a five minutes delay, are for imposing PUCK, for youthful placental blood seeking.

    This is or was with no true informed consent and all used studies were all absent of a control group of babies never ever cord clamped or then cut from the cord.

    The first APGAR test score was not given the parents, at one minute, the baby generally already clamped and cut from the cord. The parents do not know to ask for the medical records and results, and if they do ask, they are given the revived APGAR test score which may be now over 6.

    Any early clamped baby, a revived baby, will not fair as good in competitions later in life to the stronger child, never cord clamped and then cut fom their cord, the quality of life line. And all life is competative.

    The doctors promoting PUCC and midwives, doulas, medics, police, and firemen, are fools or are being used as trolls following a State or a local policy. But they exploit the children on behalf of the baby blood banks.

    The human baby cell tissue collectors, often the recepients of the plcental blood, get extra money for the largest amount of placental blood they send in, and even if it is now contaminated, they still get a perk, of some kind.

    The published medical studies, absent of no cord clamped babies, did not want to reveal the stronger babies, to the revived babies, who were clamped and then cut from the cord prematurely, and who while yet living, were often sent home on feeding tubes and with oxygen tanks. Especiialy the premature babies.

    And the PuCC babies are more likely to die of Sudden Infant Death, and a reaction from early vacinnation. And not so the babies who go home with having full placental and cord blood infusion, allowing a time period of a quality life by waiting one hour before severing the cord for merely costmeic appearances.

    Shame on the World policy seeking youthful baby’s blood for greedy blood profits. But, If you are over 90 pounds, are in tested to be in good health, and are an adult and can give informed consent, do give your own blood, and do not take blood from babies, who do not truly qualify to donate blood to science or stem cell research projects.

  2. Cord clamping and then cutting off the cord causes a violent after birth care.
    A moral and ethical medical person would also not do placenta or umbilical cord blood syringing for any amount of blood samples, but would allow the baby or babies a gentle after birth carr.
    This is by allowing the child to recieve full placental blood infusion, as would be the situation for an accidental birth, and as is seen full placental blood infusion into the expanding lungs as the design of Mother Nature for all mammal creatures born in the wild.
    A moral and ethical medical person would also endorse this Petition and give comments, too. See No. 3 comments. Thank you for your consideraion to recant from any further participation in PUCC, Premature Umbilical Cord Clamping, that may deprive the infant/s up to 60 percent of their youthful blood and stem cells.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *