Why you should not give birth underwater

[Yin Yang]

I was browsing something on the internet and came across this article. What do you all think of this? Just wondering....

Are you an expectant parent who is considering giving birth to your baby underwater? I urge you, please, think again! 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?


What are my credentials for offering you advice? I've been a midwife specializing in home births for more than twenty-four years. In that time I've never lost a baby during labour or birth, or lost a baby to a birth injury. And I have given birth to five children--4 at home, 1 in the hospital.

See full article: http://coco.essortment.com/underwaterbirth_rbfe.htm

edited by mod for copyright concerns

[sophmama]

Wow! Some real concerns raised there! :exclaim :bigeyes :dropjaw

[etoilech]

I think it's going to take a lot more than one person's opinion on the subject to change my mind about water birth.

I notice this article is without references, so basically an unsourced opinion.

You know what they about opinions...

[Ruthla]

I have a problem with the entire article, particularly the tone in which it's been written.

First of all, I don't beleive that a doctor/nurse/midwife "NEEDS" to monitor everything from the baby's color to the amount and smell of the amniotic fluid. The birth process usually works just fine with NO interventions whatsoever, regardless of any external observations.

Everything I've read about water birth talks about babies taking their first breath when their faces hit the air, NOT when their faces exit the birth canal. The baby's first breath is delayed by MAYBE a minute, and the umbilical cord is still attached and pulsating during this time.

I find it hard to beleive that a little bit of maternal poop is dangerous for a newborn. How is it "unhygienic" if you don't have a midwife there to wipe your butt before the baby comes out? In a water birth, any bacteria is diluted by the water, and it's quick and easy to wash off anything that might be in the baby's face BEFORE he or she takes that first breath.

I've had three home births, including one UC,and I'm a firm beleiver in listening to your body during labor. If it feels right to labor in the water, then labor in the water. If if feels right to get out before pushing, then get out- but if it feels right to stay, then stay in! I don't think that this kind of fear-mongering articles do pregnant women any good!

[selazenby]

I'm not sure how I feel about the article as a whole - although I have read in several other places that it isn't "natural" to birth in water - that our natural instincts would have us birthing on dry land.

I do have to take issue with the whole "if it feels right to you, do it" thing. For many (most) women, being pumped full of drugs during labor and birth "feels right" - that doesn't make it a wise decision. Of course I'm not missing the huge distinction between choosing drugs and choosing natural pain relief methods - but as we all know, there are some very unsafe "natural" things out there.

For me, my first was born at home - and my second will be also. I was open to water birth the first time and did spend a good deal of time in the water during the really hard part but suddenly had a huge desire to get out when it was time to push. I'm quite sure I'll use water again this time during labor but I just feel in my gut that I again won't want to push in water.

I am NOT saying that women should not birth in water - just that I do think some interesting points were raised.

[CarolynnMarilynn]

I can only leave a short response at this time -- but I wanted to say that not only are his/her points not substantiated by research, the writer is wrong on almost all the arguments.

Water births, for women experiencing a normal healthy birth, are as safe as land births, and women report more satisfaction with their experience.

More later,

Carolynn

[jenoline]

Would you please post a link to the site? Thanks!

[elvispupy]

What are my credentials for offering you advice? I've been a midwife specializing in home births for more than twenty-four years. In that time I've never lost a baby during labour or birth, or lost a baby to a birth injury. And I have given birth to five children--4 at home, 1 in the hospital.

never lost a single one in over 24 years?!?! that's amazing :rolleyes 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

Here are five of the reasons why I believe, fervently, women should NOT give birth underwater.


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.)

interesting... let's equate sitting in a warm tub of water with pumping mom full of narcotics


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.

I seem to remember reading some instance of it, but I don't remember where, or in what context. I suppose she could be right about that, but I rather doubt it

Even in the animal world, every air-breathing creature gives birth or lays eggs on land whenever possible. Even sea turtles and seals, who live happily in the sea, take great pains to deliver their young safely on land. The few air-breathing creatures who can't, such as whales & dolphins, compensate by giving birth to their babies tail-first to minimize the risk of drowning. A few years ago a Beluga whale at the Vancouver Aquarium (Vancouver B.C.) died during delivery because it was born (abnormally, for a whale) head first.


even if they are born tail first, they have to surface to take their first breath. I don't think you can always equate the way humans give birth to the way animals do. Things can be just way different, even among mammals

Human babies born underwater face unnatural health risks no baby should have to face. And their mothers face unnecessary risks, too.


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. BOTH ARGUMENTS ARE SIMPLY UNTRUE. Babies often breathe when they are half-in, half-out and waiting for a final push to deliver them into the world. Babies sometimes breathe the moment their head delivers. I once caught a baby who poked his head out of his mama, promptly breathed in, then sneezed loudly. Fortunately he had good clean air available.

here's a good explanation of what prevents a water birthed baby from breathing until he hits air http://www.waterbirth.org/spa/content/view/34/40/


When a baby needs oxygen, s/he will breathe in reflexively, whether or not air is available. Some babies even breathe before birth, inhaling amniotic fluid and their own fecal matter (meconium). This is life-threatening and usually can't be prevented. But once a baby delivers, it's both commonsense and kindness to make air available immediately!

FWIU, a baby that is in the situation above, is going to show signs of disstress and a competent midwife is going to move a mom from the water (and probably transport) I once asked a midwife friend how often she sees fetal distress and meconium aspiration or has babies that require a lot of resusitation and she told me it is very rare because the situations that cause the fetal distress in the first place are usually from medical interventions and being a homebirth midwife, she just doesn't do a lot of interventions, and of course, she has low risk clients


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.


For example,(no one wants to talk about this outloud, but it's true,) when a woman pushes out her baby, it is more common than not that she will also push out a bit of fecal matter. Sometimes more than a bit. Even if she's in one of those retro-hospitals where pre-delivery enemas are still common, she's likely to push out the last of the enema--which is especially messy.


In a normal delivery this really is no big deal when one delivers with a competent midwife or doctor. Any fecal matter is easily wiped away before the baby delivers, and usually no one in the room even notices.


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.



So I suppose she has someone with her at her mom's births on poop patrol at all times to wipe every little bit off mom before any has a chance to touch baby. Unless mom has some kind of infection that could be dangerous to baby (I'm thinking like active herpes or something similar) is it really a problem if baby gets a little poop on it?

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.

I don't know about sniffing amniotic fluid, but if it's the SMALLEST trace of meconium or blood, not some sizeable amount, is it really a big issue?


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).

well, it's not like they stick a measuring cup under you if you're birthing on dry land, it's a guesstimation too and an experienced midwife knows when the water's bloody enough for it to be a concern


Underwater birth may relieve some of the pain, but ask yourself, in light of the health considerations, is it worth it?

seems the risks are a lot less than more conventional methods of pain relief, I'd certainly try it before narcotics or an epidural

[Yin Yang]

Would you please post a link to the site? Thanks!

It's not really a site. I was looking for a birth photographer and it just came up as a text of some sort.....


http://coco.essortment.com/underwaterbirth_rbfe.htm

[2+twins]

I'm sorry, but :Puke This "article" is ridiculous and totally unsubstantiated.

[pamamidwife]

this is a very old article written by a midwife that didn't know anything about the true risks/benefits of waterbirth.

You should probably provide the author's name as well as a link to the article in order to not break copyright rules here. ;)

[alegna]

:blah

Another comment of- hey, no research here, just some lady droning on. On the other hand all the actual research I've read shows waterbirth to be safe.

-Angela

[boston]

I think that she makes some good points.
I don't think I'd have a waterbirth, although I almost did with dd.

[dancindoula]

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.)


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.


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. :bag:

Blessings,
Aron

[MamaFern]

whales are mammals and they give birth in water :love

i think that these facts are unfounded.. many woman give birth in water safely and happily and i think there are risks to any birth..on land or in water..

[Rach]

Interesting points were brought up in the article, but even more interesting points and reassurances were brought up in the thread. I love this board.

My midwife specializes in waterbirths. I chose her because I really felt she and I just clicked. I used to be afraid of waterbirths for many of the reasons posted in the article, but since actually researching the topic, other online articles and my midwife have calmed my fears.
I am going to go ahead and have my waterbirth. [Unless of course, as others have said, I don't feel like it at the time. :P]

[AmandaBL]

Oh whatever. I wouldn't use that article to make any decisions.

[MamaFern]

:thumb

i planned a waterbirth with my first but it didnt happen ( because of problems with the tub) i plan to birth in water this time..

[jplain]

I think the article is pretty ridiculous. No statistics to back up arguments, arguments that grasp at semi-logical straws, etc.

But the one point I somewhat agree with is the part about it being unnatural for human women to birth in water. This is a reasonable point to make and it is probably true. Anecdotes about a rare society here or there don't make a compelling argument for "naturalness". However, saying it is unnatural doesn't necessarily mean that it is unsafe.

I believe many common birth practices among humans, especially those delivering in hospitals, are far more unnatural and unsafe than waterbirth! ;)

:) Carolyn

[Eman'smom]

Lets see, my land birth baby: suctioned/stimulated/poor color, o2 mask next to his face, had a hard time maintaining body temperature, trouble nursing, had some serious newborn health issues. Doesn't seem to me that "land birth" helped him all that much


My water baby: no suctioning (not even bulb syringe), came out starting "talking" right away awsome color, great temperature control, awesome breastfeeder from the start. One of the healthiest babies around.


As for me, I did have narcotics at ds's birth (maybe that was part of his problem hmmmmmm) I felt every bit of pain was totally out of control begging for help. With dd she was totally posterior, born face up, yet in the tub I was able to control my pain enough to focus and do the job that needed to be done.

[boston]

the one point I somewhat agree with is the part about it being unnatural for human women to birth in water. This is a reasonable point to make and it is probably true.

I agree.

And yes, hospitals are unnatural too. Good point.

[Raven]

this is a very old article written by a midwife that didn't know anything about the true risks/benefits of waterbirth.

You should probably provide the author's name as well as a link to the article in order to not break copyright rules here. ;)
:yeah:

:)

[lilsishomemade]

Ummm, there is a very long history of Hawaiian women and other Polynesian women (I'm sorry if I misspelled that) giving birth in the ocean. That's a tradition. Saying there is no history or prehistoric tradition is absolutely false.

As far as sea turles, etc giving birth on land, well, it's safer for their young that way. Sea turtles lay eggs!!!!! How do we compare?

Our babes take "breaths" in utero, while in amniotic fluid. They have fluid in their systems. It is now believed that it is when a baby hits air that it takes a breath. Some believe it's when cool air hits the roof of the mouth. The midwives I've talked to say that they keep the water warm, so the "shock" of going from warm to cool won't cause any problem with breathing. The baby can continue to get oxygen the same way it has been, as long as the placenta is still attached.

[indie]

I feel like its unnatural which is one of the reasons I'm not doing it, but I did do research and it was contradictory to what this woman is saying. She doesn't cite any sources so its not really convincing.

[pamamidwife]

never lost a single one in over 24 years?!?! that's amazing :rolleyes 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.

My preceptor practiced for over 20 years and never had a stillbirth or a baby loss.

BUT

losing a baby has little to do with wrongdoing on the part of a midwife or provider. Many times, it's unexplainable or unavoidable. Not losing a baby is nothing really to tout - or to think that a midwife is in CONTROL of. It places blame on those who have lost babies - as a definition to who they are as a midwife. In my eyes, her statement of never having lost a baby is arrogant, in the way that medical doctors are sometimes arrogant. It assumes that SHE is responsible for EVERY outcome, not her client, not God/Universe. I take serious issue with that!

[alegna]

losing a baby has little to do with wrongdoing on the part of a midwife or provider. Many times, it's unexplainable or unavoidable. Not losing a baby is nothing really to tout - or to think that a midwife is in CONTROL of. It places blame on those who have lost babies - as a definition to who they are as a midwife. In my eyes, her statement of never having lost a baby is arrogant, in the way that medical doctors are sometimes arrogant. It assumes that SHE is responsible for EVERY outcome, not her client, not God/Universe. I take serious issue with that!

:clap exactly, thank you. It's like a mom saying- all my kids are still alive so I must be doing a good job. How hurtful to moms who have lost children.

A good midwife realizes that most of the time they don't need to be there.

-Angela

[elvispupy]

My preceptor practiced for over 20 years and never had a stillbirth or a baby loss.

BUT

losing a baby has little to do with wrongdoing on the part of a midwife or provider. Many times, it's unexplainable or unavoidable. Not losing a baby is nothing really to tout - or to think that a midwife is in CONTROL of. It places blame on those who have lost babies - as a definition to who they are as a midwife. In my eyes, her statement of never having lost a baby is arrogant, in the way that medical doctors are sometimes arrogant. It assumes that SHE is responsible for EVERY outcome, not her client, not God/Universe. I take serious issue with that!

that's what I was trying to say, there are things out of control of the care provider, they can still do everything "right" and still have a bad outcome and I do think it was arrogant and a bit too OB-like for my taste :gross lol. And I agree that a good midwife realizes that most of the time she doesn't need to be there.

[pamamidwife]

I got ya, Laura. I was mostly commenting on what the author had said. :) :thumb

[applejuice]

I have read about those concerns before...as what would keep an apgar 10 baby from gulping in that dirty water...?

Has it been a concern in real life though?

[MamaTaraX]

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.

That's the only thing I can remotely "agree" with, and I put agree in quotes because I odn't necessarily agree with it but close enough. Yes, there area few societiesthat practice waterbirth, but they are very few and far between, which is why I wouldn't call it unnatural but wouldn't call it natural either.

I don't particularly care for the tone of the article. She makes a lot of points that any person who's not pro-waterbirth would make, so it's not too shocking.

Namaste, Tara
mama to Doodle (7), Butterfly (2), and Rythm (due at home 1/06)

[Delacroix]

Wow! I was seriously planning to deliver my next child underwater, but now I have to rethink everything! :(

[because]

I totally agree that this article lacks sources, etc. but I have to admit the bit about it being unnatural has been in the back of my head since we were planning DD's birth. I labored in the water but delivered on land. It felt right to me to be out of the tub. I plan to labor in water again with this one. I'm not committing to a water birth or "dry" birth this time - we'll see how I feel at the time.

It's food for thought anyway. Hearing the devil's advocate makes us all more honest in our own position, I think. Even if it's wrong, at least we don't get too comfortable.

[ABand3]

Wow! I was seriously planning to deliver my next child underwater, but now I have to rethink everything! :(

There's nothing wrong with (re)thinking, and certainly everyone should birth where they feel most comfortable, but please, please don't make any decisions based on this article alone. There are no studies cited, no references.

If it peaked your interest and you want to do more research on waterbirth, here is an extensive list of resources:

http://www.waterbirth.org/store/catalog/images/Documents/Bibliography2004.pdf

or just google waterbirth and see what you find. I've read a lot on the web about it and most is in support of safety and effectiveness.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to have a waterbirth, just very annoyed whenever information posted on the web sounds authoritative -- but if there are no references, then it is just opinion (imho ;) ).

BTW, one of my three was born in water, and I'd do it again without worries.

[WinterBaby]

Blah, the "natural" vs "unnatural" stuff makes me crazy. I can't even grasp the confines of the argument which is maybe what frustrates me. Define natural, define unnatural. I might think walking around with a hole in the head is unnatural, but if someone has skull bones that never fused, well, is it natural? I think birth is "natural" and I think water is "natural," but is waterbirth "unnatural"? Because all people everywhere didn't give birth there? But some people some places may have. So they're unnatural? What makes the land birthers natural? Is giving birth standing on one's head natural or unnatural? What if it feels like the right thing to do at the time? Water birth is low tech, does that make a difference? But if humans are inherently innovators, is technology necessarily "unnatural" - and at what point? Anyway, defining things as inherently unnatural just makes me want to scream when I don't really grasp a solid definition for "natural" and any attempt at one involves a hearty amount of circular philosophical debate. So, sorry for that. But I wouldn't in my lifetime give up an idea of water birth (should it ever strike me) on notions of whether or not it were "natural" enough. Bah, I'll go cover my head for a while til the natural vs unnatural philosophical maelstrom dies down in my head ;) And the article? When there are real studies and numbers out there, it doesn't even make sense to give wait to an opinion piece that masquerades as research.

[FreeRangeMama]

:truedat:

[Sagesgirl]

Well, I do think she makes some excellent points. Too bad they're all asinine and have zero basis in reality. :LOL

[busybusymomma]

Well, I do think she makes some excellent points. Too bad they're all asinine and have zero basis in reality. :LOL
:yeah:

It's food for thought, but obviously just her opinion and not based on experience or research. I'm still planning another :aqua: next spring. :thumb

[slowjig]

Blah, the "natural" vs "unnatural" stuff makes me crazy. I can't even grasp the confines of the argument which is maybe what frustrates me. Define natural, define unnatural. I might think walking around with a hole in the head is unnatural, but if someone has skull bones that never fused, well, is it natural? I think birth is "natural" and I think water is "natural," but is waterbirth "unnatural"? Because all people everywhere didn't give birth there? But some people some places may have. So they're unnatural? What makes the land birthers natural? Is giving birth standing on one's head natural or unnatural? What if it feels like the right thing to do at the time? Water birth is low tech, does that make a difference? But if humans are inherently innovators, is technology necessarily "unnatural" - and at what point? Anyway, defining things as inherently unnatural just makes me want to scream when I don't really grasp a solid definition for "natural" and any attempt at one involves a hearty amount of circular philosophical debate. So, sorry for that. But I wouldn't in my lifetime give up an idea of water birth (should it ever strike me) on notions of whether or not it were "natural" enough. Bah, I'll go cover my head for a while til the natural vs unnatural philosophical maelstrom dies down in my head ;) And the article? When there are real studies and numbers out there, it doesn't even make sense to give wait to an opinion piece that masquerades as research.

Understood. But if anything can be considered "natural" because people practice it, then why can births in hospitals not be considered natural for the very same reason?

[WinterBaby]

Understood. But if anything can be considered "natural" because people practice it, then why can births in hospitals not be considered natural for the very same reason?


Exactly :D

[Persephone]

Natural is in the eye of the beholder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_Ape_Theory

[catballou24]

i had dd in a birthing tub and it was wonderful. i did alot of research beforehand and came to the conclusion that it was something i at least wanted to try. i labored for 3.5 hours total (about 45 mins of it in the water) and she was born in 2 mins. of pushing. i didn't tear, didn't even have a nik. she was alert and a really healthy color right away. i think it is important to do your own research, but if an author doesn't cite sources then i have to take it as opinion. there are militant midwives out there who think their way is the only way..;)

i do believe that a baby born in water needs to come out of the water right away. i'm not one to let the baby "swim". but that's just my own gut feeling on it. we are planning another home/waterbirth anyday now so hopefully it will all be as smooth as it was with my dd..:)

excellent points made by all with this thread...

[Boobiemama]

I think that was a silly article and the author was grasping at straws trying to come up with risks. I had a waterbirth for my last baby, and my DOCTOR who caught Jack didnt inform me of any risks! I loved finding an OB who believes in natural birth and waterbirths, what a guy to get down on his knees and get his shirt sleeves wet to catch a baby!

[huggerwocky]

I think it's been used for years in other countries and that it's safe.