This is a looong post!
Quote:
I think that she makes some good points.
I don't think I'd have a waterbirth, although I almost did with dd. |
She doesn't make good points at all, and that's the problem. In fact she is absolutely incorrect on almost every point she makes. I would be highly concerned to hear of a friend of mine being given care from someone with this amount of incompitence and fear - even for a "land" birth, much of what she says is simply incorrect.
Quote:
| Perhaps delivering underwater may provide some pain relief for some mothers. So do narcotics and other drugs. But is partial pain relief worth the risks to mother and baby? |
One of the PP's already mentioned it, but I find it really strange that a homebirth midwife with 24 years experience would imply a reccomendation for narcotics as risk-free pain management, or even compare them on an equal basis.
Quote:
| Number One: In our society, we tend to overlook an obvious truth: NO MOTHER OR BABY HAS EVER DIED OR SUFFERED BRAIN DAMAGE FROM THE PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH. But mothers and babies have been damaged and killed by analgesic drugs--including those touted as being "perfectly safe for mother & baby." And there is a real physical potential for babies and mothers to be injured and killed by this so-called "natural" method of pain relief (more on this later.) |
She doesn't provide any backup or research for either claim (that no one has ever died from pain alone - not true anyway - or that mothers or babies have died solely from water immersion. Since she was comparing the two scenarios, she should have made them equivilant.
Quote:
| Number Two: UNDERWATER DELIVERY IS ABSOLUTELY UNNATURAL. A basic inherent part of the normal birth process is the baby's slipping out of the mother's body directly into the air and taking that vital first breath. Delivering underwater--deliberately delaying the natural transition of birth--is found nowhere in human history or prehistorical traditions. There's nothing natural about it. |
Actually there are indiginous cultures that practice water birth - few, but in existence. Just as there are a handful of mammals that choose to birth in water. Head or tail first makes no difference in regard to air contact.
Quote:
| Number Three: Underwater advocates often argue that drowning isn't a risk because "babies don't breathe at the moment of birth" or "babies don't breathe in until they are exposed to the air....Babies often breathe when they are half-in, half-out and waiting for a final push to deliver them into the world....Some babies even breathe before birth, inhaling amniotic fluid and their own fecal matter (meconium). |
Even if a baby is "half-in, half-out" he still has air contact stimulating him to breathe. Babies breathe when they feel air. Period. In the seconds after birth on the journey from vagina to water surface, the umbilical cord is still providing vital oxygen for that baby's survival. ALL babies "breathe" amniotic fluid in and out of their lungs before birth! It's part of their basic physiology to practice these movements before needing them to survive! (Any midwife ought to know that.)
Quote:
| Number Four: UNDERWATER, POTENTIALLY INFECTIOUS MATTER CAN EASILY FLOAT INTO VULNERABLE AREAS. In a natural birth, the uterus and birth canal are flushed out by amniotic fluid, the passage of the baby and finally the placenta. Any foreign material is naturally washed away from the body....Underwater, though, bacteria-laden material (such as maternal feces) can float freely into vulnerable areas--mother's vagina, lacerations, baby's eyes. This won't cause infection in every case, but it certainly poses a risk that can easily be avoided by simply delivering in the air. Poop doesn't float on air. |
All fluids in the uterus are naturally being flushed OUT of mom - after the baby is born, the vagina closes. It's not that simple for water to back-flow. Poop in and of itself is no more a problem in a healthy (read non-infectious) woman than pee/cervical fluid or wind for a "land-birthing" mom. Unless she is advocating a return to the blue-sheet-draped-iodine-prepped-sterile-field style vaginal birth, one has to wonder how she deals with these more realistic situations.
Quote:
| Number Five: WATER MAY MASK ESSENTIAL SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS. Evaluating the color, amount and odor of amniotic fluid gives midwives, nurses and doctors vital information about an unborn baby's well-being and about what on-going healthcare is appropriate for that mother and baby. Evaluating amniotic fluid is easy when it drips onto a towel or underpad. You can smell the slightest odor of infection and see the smallest trace of meconium or blood. These can easily go undetected underwater....Also it's vital to keep track of maternal blood loss, and there's simply no way to do this accurately when the blood is diluted in a pool full of water (and people). |
There are many ways to keep track of maternal/fetal well-being. Many women release their waters before going to the hospital or before the midwife arrives. What then? Some babes are born in the caul. What then? I personally know of many midwives who practice dumping fake blood onto and into many mediums to learn how to estimate blood loss in as many situations as possible. Besides, there are other highly obvious signs of pph in a woman who is bleeding too much. As far as meconium staining goes, it's my understanding that it is not the "tiniest" "least little" amount that is a danger, it is an abundance of mec that poses the risk. This is easily recognized. In fact the water washes the mec out and away from the baby's emerging face as opposed to a dry birth where the stuff is likely to drip or splash onto her face.
Ultimately, there are hosts of studies documenting that water birth is a safe and practical option for most women who are inclined to use it. No evidence exists to back up the claims this author makes. Most of her reasoning is illogical and the rest is circular! (She contradicts herself more than once.) So it is of concern to me that someone would be swayed by such an emotion-based, fact-hollow diatribe. Reminds me of the main-stream reasoning being pounded into women's heads against the idea of VBAC - lots of groundless, reactionary scare tactics, few well-researched, evidence-based endorsements.
Anyway, sorry to be so extremely long winded. This one just really got to me. We now return you to your previously scheduled surfing.
:
Blessings,
Aron
I find that really hard to believe. There's always the chance of stillbirth or congenital anomalies or something happening. I'm not a midwife, but after reading books like Baby Catcher and Spiritual Midwifery and talking to a midwife friend of mine, I'd say that it's almost impossible that a midwife practicing that long wouldn't have lost a baby at some point
Carolyn
