Join Date: Jan 2007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have always read that the baby is still getting blood and oxygen until the cord stops pulsating and never questioned that.
But what is generally believed is that the baby no longer gets blood or oxygen after it starts breathing on its own. Even my midwife with my current pregnancy (a CPM) said this.
Does someone have a link or can explain exactly how this whole cord thing works? (I'm a CBE in training by the way.)
Actually there is a reason they cut the cord quickly, because MD's believe it prevents jaundice. It is believed but not evidenced based, that waiting too long could allow an excess of red blood cells to thicken a baby's blood, possibly stressing the newborn's heart and breathing or even prompting jaundice or brain damage.
That's not true, but it's still deeply ingrained in medical academia and transferred to hospital culture. So they still do this, i don't think it's any big conspiracy, it's just routine as most care is done to a newborn in a hosptial. When parents ask they almost universally allow you to wait.
Lindsay: DS#1 (06/06) DD#1 (09/07) DS#2 (10/08) DD#2 (06/09). AND A BABY DUE NOVEMBER 2013
Ummm, yes, it **IS** evidence-based. Hopefully anyone working in the birth world is familiar with the Cochrane Database:
Now whether or not the bilirubin levels they consider to be clinically significant really ARE clinically significant, or merely skewed by decades of cord clamping and resulting skewed numbers, that's another matter. And certainly most people I work tend to err on the side of allowing the cord to fully pulsate. But the jaundice issue isn't just pulled from nowhere.
I'd also like to see some research on the bilirubin levels of babies born after unmedicated births with fully-pulsed cords, vs. the bilirubin levels of those who had epidurals/narcotics and allowed the cord to pulsate. So much of our research is skewed by studying ABNORMAL birth.