or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Is a vaginal delivery w/ drugs still "natural"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is a vaginal delivery w/ drugs still "natural"

Poll Results: Is having a vaginal delivery w/ drugs still a "natural birth"?

 
  • 6% (17)
    Yes, I believe it is.
  • 93% (226)
    No, for a natural birth you need to have been drug free.
243 Total Votes  
post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
I vote for no.

What does everyone else think?
post #2 of 62
Absolutely not. There's not just a choice between a vaginal birth and a c-section, with one being natural and the other not.
post #3 of 62
No, but I do recognize that some people use the terms "natural" and "vaginal" synonymously - especially in mainstream circles. I always ask for clarification ("by 'natural' do you mean 'vaginal' or do you mean 'drug-free'?" and I specify when I'm discussing birth.
post #4 of 62
Of course not. There's nothing natural about spinal anesthesia or IV narcotics. I find it sad that "natural" has become synonimous with "vaginal".
post #5 of 62
I know I'm in the minority here and do not mean to offend, but I do believe that a vaginal birth, even with drugs, is a natural birth. If speaking of giving birth without the intervention of drugs, I specify "drug-free natural birth."
post #6 of 62
I think it's a specrum, a woman laboring alone doing exactly what she instinctually needs to being the most natural, a C-Section with the mom knocked out being the least. My labor was mostly natural but I received vaginal exams and antibiotics and had a few people I didn't want coming in and out of the room and such, so it wasn't completely so. For definition purposes I'd draw the line at no pain meds (-cain drugs OR narcotics) and possibly include no chemical induction.
post #7 of 62
I tend to think no. However, there are lots of things done that aren't "natural" during many births. For instance, my last birth I had my water broken, so that wasn't natural, but my baby was born with no meds at all and through my vagina.... I call it a natural childbirth, but I am sure some would argue that it isn't, techinically.
post #8 of 62
And just an afterthought.... I think lots of people use the word "natural" when refering to a vaginal birth because they don't want to say "vagina" or "vaginal"
post #9 of 62
No, I think just as a previous poster did that "natural" has become to mean born through the mother's body as opposed to a c-section.
post #10 of 62
I don't think an epidural falls under 'natural' birth but there are other interventions that are much more mild - heck would one say that a woman who happened to have tylenol in her system didn't have a natural birth? And some herbs and things are chemicals as well so... I think there is some grey area.
post #11 of 62
Well, "natural" and "vaginal" are not synonyms, and there is nothing remotely natural about having drugs in labor. So, no, a vaginal delivery with drugs is not natural.
post #12 of 62
i said 'no' as well. natural means without interventions in my book.
post #13 of 62
I voted yes, mostly because I don't like the survey. I think the idea of the survey is great. But in its current form, it is completely black and white. Life, mothers, babies and births are all grey (or green, orange, red...).

What if a mom tries for natural, and then right before she delivers the placenta some medical person gives her pit in the thigh without asking because it is "routine"? What if she is 43 weeks and tried sex, nipple stimulation.... and nothing works, but then she gets a bit of cervidil, and goes on to have a completely natural labor from that point on? What if she had stop and start labor for a few days, and opted for a big glass of red wine and a sleeping pill, so she could get some rest? What if she didn't have morphine or pit, but took a couple of tylenol?

Well, you get the idea. Life is to colorful for Yes and No. Is there a way to make this survey a little more flexible?
post #14 of 62
I think that when most people say "natural" they think drug-free, at least most people who I talk to. Then again, they are those that will say, no I had him/her naturally, as in, no, I didn't have a c-section. It's a matter of perception. What "natural" means to one person doesn't mean the same to another. I think when talking about "natural" it's probably wise to specify whether you mean drug-free or vaginal. So really, I think it depends on how you define "natural".
post #15 of 62
I hate that it seems so black and white. I guess my birth wasn't natural because of the 1/4 shot of Nubain, and the AROM, and the membrane stripping. But, I still say I had a natural birth. Did I have a TOTALLY natural, intervention free birth, no, but I'm not willing to give up the hard work that I did for the sake of fitting into someone else's definition of natural.
post #16 of 62
Thread Starter 
But perhaps I was curious if people had to pick one answer, what they would pick. That's just what I wanted to know. If you don't like that type of survey, you're free to start your own, I'd be curious about those answers too.
post #17 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkg View Post
I know I'm in the minority here and do not mean to offend, but I do believe that a vaginal birth, even with drugs, is a natural birth. If speaking of giving birth without the intervention of drugs, I specify "drug-free natural birth."
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotwings640 View Post
I tend to think no. However, there are lots of things done that aren't "natural" during many births. For instance, my last birth I had my water broken, so that wasn't natural, but my baby was born with no meds at all and through my vagina.... I call it a natural childbirth, but I am sure some would argue that it isn't, techinically.
I think these are valid points.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hotwings640 View Post
And just an afterthought.... I think lots of people use the word "natural" when refering to a vaginal birth because they don't want to say "vagina" or "vaginal"
I think this is just really funny!

I voted "no", tho.
post #18 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllisonR View Post
What if a mom tries for natural, and then right before she delivers the placenta some medical person gives her pit in the thigh without asking because it is "routine"?
This happened to me, although when they told me they "needed" to do it, I resisted a little by saying, "do you really HAVE TO?" and they said yes. Then, immediately after the shot the Dr says "sometimes massaging helps as well". And we're like, so why didn't you try that FIRST!!!??

Couple other comments. When I mean "vaginal" but don't want to say it, I say "normal", instead of "natural". Mine was drug-free but I hesitate to say "natural" b/c it was in a hospital.

Re: induced labors that are otherwise natural, I was sitting having lunch w/ 3 moms from a new mommy group and 2 of them had induced labors that were otherwise drug-free. I was totally amazed, not only at this accomplishment but also just the odds that we all sat together coincidentally. As an aside, after hearing their stories I believe they both would have given birth at the exact same time had they NOT been given pitocin...
post #19 of 62
I think this is more a reflection on the increased rate of cesarean births...that a baby that comes out of your vagina is natural.

Sad.
post #20 of 62
I think that any woman who has gone through birth has the right to call it whatever she wants.

Personally, anyone I really *care* to know how they had their baby will have clarified if it was natural/unmedicated vaginal or natural/medicated vaginal.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Is a vaginal delivery w/ drugs still "natural"