Is it a natural birth if you have "laughing gas" during labour?

[mommy22boys]

The tylenol question got me thinking about this but I didn't want to hijack the thread! So what do you all think, is some laughing gas during a few contractions still considered a natural birth? (FWIW it didn't relieve the pain at all, not even a tiny bit)

[philomom]

No.

[kittywitty]

They give laughing gas when you're in labor???? As much as I'd say tylenol and some other things still would make it a natural birth, not laughing gas.

[mommy22boys]

yeah they do. I really didn't want to do it, then for some reason I just did. I regretted it right after, it didn't help at all and now it makes me sad to think that wouldn't be considered a natural birth. It seemed like the least invasive thing that I was being offered... May I ask why you don't consider it natural?

[fruitfulmomma]

They give laughing gas when you're in labor????

It is big in England, even in home births, apparently. I've seen a lot of natural birthers jumping on the bandwagon and wanting it here too.

[fruitfulmomma]

May I ask why you don't consider it natural?

I'm not sure I like the term "natural birth" anyway and I don't think it should matter what the rest of us believe with regards to whether or not you had one. But your birth was not drug-free. Neither was the "tylenol birth". That doesn't invalidate your birth.

[mommy22boys]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma

I'm not sure I like the term "natural birth" anyway and I don't think it should matter what the rest of us believe with regards to whether or not you had one. But your birth was not drug-free. Neither was the "tylenol birth". That doesn't invalidate your birth.

Thats True. I still do actually consider my birth a "natural birth" just notdrug-free, like you said.
I'd still like to hear more opinions though.

[AlexisT]

There was a UK working statement (it was published by the NCT and both midwives and OBs were involved) that sought to define "normal birth" and their definition was a bit odd--it said Entonox (50/50 nitrous and air) and opioids were okay. Only epidural was out. This was in the context of trying to raise the "normal birth" rate, though, so they had to be careful not to make a definition so strict it defeated the purpose (eg. excluding managed 3rd stage, which some people wanted to do).

Personally? Natural (loaded term) tends to be equated with unmedicated, and Entonox (much less pethidine) is incompatible with that. I think the working group's definition was designed to get a decent and workable rate, because Entonox is so widely used there. It's piped into the delivery suite and homebirth midwives carry it.

There's a footnote on the statement: "Some MCWP members would like the Information Centre definition tightened in future to also exclude procedures like augmentation of labour, use of opioids drugs, artificial rupture of the membranes or managed third stage. This would depend on the necessary statistics being routinely collected. Alternatively, a tighter definition could lead to the establishment of a separate definition of ‘physiological’ or ‘natural’ birth."

Interestingly, they don't single out Entonox. Possibly because it lasts about a minute, from what I've heard (I gave birth in the UK but did not use Entonox--I always knew I didn't want to so I pretty much ignored it at the time.) All you need to do is quit breathing it in, and you're back where you started.

[kittywitty]

I suppose I don't because my sfather is addicted to nitrous and having seen people on it hundreds of times, I just can not fathom that as being natural by any means or much different than something like demerol given during labor.

But I do agree that it doesn't matter what *we* think, and don't feel like we're invalidating your birth. But you asked, so that's my thought on it.

[turnquia]

lol I guess again... like I said in the tylenol post.

Why does it matter if your birth was a "natural birth"? I know for me personally I care how my birth was, I just don't understand why others can put so much emphasis on it. (not saying that is the case here, because its not like a friend is teasing you about it).

Either way, yes it was a natural birth. No it wasn't drug free.

My birth will be a twin homebirth. It won't be natural, or drug free as we are doing a modified managed 3rd stage (due to increased risk of PPH with twins). There may be hands on required for birth of 2nd baby. lol and I will also be using artificial objects such as a birth ball, tennis balls, cold pop cans, wash clothes etc to help me achieve some comfort in labor. So nope.. lol not "natural"

But either way (hugs) no matter how your baby was born, I hope it was awesome and special and what you had hoped it to be with everyone safe and sound.

[mommy22boys]

Originally Posted by turnquia

But either way (hugs) no matter how your baby was born, I hope it was awesome and special and what you had hoped it to be with everyone safe and sound.

Thanks. It was perfect, I was so happy about how everything went at the time. It was over a year ago and I have never ever thought of this until today lol! So I'll just push it out of my mind and not worry about it!

[Smokering]

I mentioned this on the other thread. I "had" nitrous oxide. It didn't relieve the pain at all, because I'd take a "sip" and then (being sleep-deprived and kinda out of it) go "Ooh, it's making me feel a bit funny, I should stop".

After the birth my cervix clamped down on my placenta and doctors had to do something horrible with forceps to extract it, so my midwife was all "Suck on the gas. No, really, suck on it. Take a few more breaths, we'll wait". And then I experienced the way nitrous oxide is meant to work - it was surreal. It hurt like hell, but I kinda... didn't care? Very odd experience, but vastly preferable to feeling the pain properly... and I was all "Oh, I shoulda done that during labour".

So - was it natural? No. (It wasn't anyway, I was induced.) Did I use pain relief? Technically, yes, and it was probably a very good thing for my holier-than-thou wannabe-homebirthing ego. Did I experience pain relief? Not during labour. I got the full horror without the kudos.

Funnily enough, I mentioned the gas to Mum later - I was sort of afraid she'd be disappointed in me, having had five medication-free births (and an emergency C-section). She breezily said "Oh yes, I had that with [sister], it was lovely". I was a little staggered - she'd always made such a thing of not having had epidurals, but it seems she didn't think gas "counted"!

Anyway, I plan to use Hypnobabies next time, but I wouldn't mind having the gas again if necessary - even if I had a homebirth. Before I made my feeble attempt to use it during labour I had the mask in my hand for several contractions, and just knowing it was there actually got me through them. It was comforting to think that the pain could stop, and it was up to me - as unnatural as it was, it was kindasorta empowering.

So while I definitely don't think it's natural, I wouldn't put it in the same league as an epidural. It doesn't restrict movement to nearly the same degree as some epis; it doesn't cross the placental barrier, so the baby isn't born drugged up; it exits the system within seven breaths (or was it seven seconds? My midwife did tell me, but hey, I was in labour and that was 2.5 years ago!); it's user-directed, very much as-needed, and so on. It doesn't cause problems with pushing, there's no risk of spinal headache or permanent paralysis... I guess it's possible some people could be allergic to it (er, maybe?), but I'd peg it as a totally different level of risk and invasiveness. Cost-benefit-wise and all that, I'd WAY rather have gas than an epi.

[WifeofAnt]

I'd like a 'natural' birth but I wouldn't be against using it for a few contractions if I felt I needed to. Its not like 'a few contractions' is really very much in the bigger picture.

And its not like its a contest of how much pain we can put ourselves through. If that were the case the water-birthers might lose.

[MegBoz]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma

I'm not sure I like the term "natural birth" anyway and I don't think it should matter what the rest of us believe with regards to whether or not you had one.

Exactly. Who cares! I know some people use the term "natural birth" to mean "Vaginal birth" & include births with epidurals! What does it really matter?

I've read some posts on here who think my birth wasn't "natural" because I had a shot of pit after birthing the placenta & that makes my 3rd stage "managed." Whatever, I think that's silly. & technically that's not even "managed 3rd stage" anyway! "Managed" means actively, prophylactic-ally giving pit in EVER SINGLE CASE... whereas my MW inspected the amniotic sac, was concerned about some being retained, waited to see if my DS would BF (he wouldn't, we tried!) & then decided to give me pit.

That's not "active management" - that's good midwifery care. That's assessing a situation, deciding intervention is the best course of action based upon the situation at hand, trying the least-invasive, most natural method first (BFing), and then acting after obtaining patient consent (she even let me chose pit IM (intramusclar = shot) or IV since I already had a hep-lock in place.)

So, point being, people have their own wacky notions. Who really cares what others think?

Incidentally, is gas even available anywhere in the US? I don't think I've ever heard of it being used here in hospitals, or FSBCs or by HB MWs. Ever.

I think I once heard a reason that it's believed the nurses would be at risk of breathing it in so it would create a hazardous work environment. (Although that's apparently not true, it's a reason that's stated.) Knowing what I know about our atrocious maternity system, my guess is that it is opposed because it would take a LOT of REVENUE out of the pockets of anesthesiologists & hospitals since it would, no doubt, lead to a decline in epidurals. Yeah, that sounds so jaded, but it's an accurate reflection of our system.

Forgot I had also wanted to add:
I looked through paperwork to be a Bradley teacher. If you haven't had an un-medicated birth, they want you to jump through all these extra hoops to be a teacher. When they asked details about my birth, they asked if I had sutures & asked if I had meds for the sutures. Um, excuse me? WTF? What kinda barbaric sadist starts to sew up the skin of someone WITHOUT giving any degree of medication first?!? OF COURSE I had a shot of lidocaine! Is the Bradley organization actually implying I should not have? That kinda annoyed me a bit. Why would they even ASK that specific Q. I though lidocaine pre-suturing was a given.

I know I've heard some women are a bit numb down there post-birth without any meds, but, uh, yeah, I think most people DO have plenty of sensation! I know I felt it when I tore!! So I definitely would think it would have been both barbaric & sadistic of my MW to sew my flesh together with needles without local anesthetic! & I've read horror stories of sadistic HCPs starting to suture without meds "because you wanted to do this without pain meds" to punish a Mom who declined an epidural. So I made a point of including in my birth plan that I consented to lidocaine for suturing if necessary.

Again, just another point of view that being vehemently anti-med is wacky, in my opinion. Implying that a shot of lidocaine pre-suturing was a bad thing & a blight on my birth experience, making it less than "natural," is just idiotic.

[lizzylou]

Originally Posted by mommy22boys

Thanks. It was perfect, I was so happy about how everything went at the time.

That's all that really matters here. Your birth sounds pretty "natural" to me (I agree that is not always the best term to use!)

[NSmomtobe]

It didn't occur to me until reading some of these posts that some would consider me not to have had a "natural" birth. I'll admit that there was more intervention than I wanted, but it got to the point that I didn't care enough to argue.

I DID have an unmedicated birth but I had an actively managed third stage, not by my choice (I requested delayed cord clamping, no pitocin, and unassisted delivery of the placenta, but my requests were basically denied for one reason or another). I had a shot to numb me before stitches, but I was VERY upset about the tear, so they brought out the gas and kept trying to get me to take more--I think just to shut me up--but it didn't help at all, and my lungs ached the next day. Ugh.

[just_lily]

I had laughing gas, and it was awful. I was pain med-free when they were inserting an internal monitor and just about lost it. They were all "give her the gas!!" All it did was make my face numb, and then I threw up.

I'm in Canada, and I think it is standard at all hospitals here. It came right out of the wall behind the bed.

(And for the record, no I definitely do *not* think I had a natural birth. I had an induction for PIH and ended up with an epi not because I couldn't handle the labour, but because I couldn't handle all of the exams. My cervix was very anterior so nobody could get a good feel on it. My nurse would check, then she would get another nurse, then that nurse would get a resident, and then the resident got the OB. Seriously. And then 54 hours later I had a c-section for my troubles.)

[Mrs.Music]

I'm going to go with no. That being said, I imagine it's probably not as bad for the baby as other things. Or for mom for that matter. I don't think I'd like altering my state of mind though, even if I wasn't going for natural.