Mothering Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,599 Posts
It is not necessary to define something that is "physiologically normal", what gets defined is when it becomes "not normal".

Labor is a physiologically normal activity, like breathing.
Your body just does it, so it's all normal until it is not.

A Lot of people want alternative minded folks to define "normal" but that is not how medicine works. It gets defined when it does not work. So you can just turn it around.

WHO c/sec rate says 15%
so that would mean that 85% of labors should be "normal".
 

· Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by nashvillemidwife View Post
When you find a definition of "normal labor" please let me know.


Until then I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for.
haha I think you're right...there's not one definition...so I'm not having much luck on my search.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
14,037 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by dewi View Post
It is not necessary to define something that is "physiologically normal", what gets defined is when it becomes "not normal".
That should be true, but unfortunately it's not. The medical establishment has messed with labor so thoroughly for so long that "normal" rarely exists any more, and the average medical practitioner wouldn't know normal if it bit them. If you're looking for "normal", you're stuck looking at HB, BC or UC births for the most part, which leaves you with a very small sample size. That's part of why you will have great difficulty finding statistics.

And I seem to recall reading that the WHO originally wanted to place the number under 10%, but the advisers balked because they didn't think the medical establishment would even try to hit that number (not that they're trying to hit 15%). I think it would be more accurate to say that at least 85% of all labors should be normal, if the medical establishment would stop interfering.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
yes there is the WHO info and actually even Friedman would be useful, there are a couple of more recent reviews/ studies on average labor lenght and stuff like that- there is NO way that Friedman would agree that the numbers of routine interventions done are warranted- which was why he developed did his study to begin with, he wanted less interventions or more approprate intervention, I think that he was trying to define normal labor as a range -
it has been a year or 2 since I read the stuff but I think that in New Mexico was one of the studies showed average labor is a bit longer now....of course if you were thinking other interventions like pit for hemorrhage... the WHO is supportive of active management atleast for instutional settings.... so it can be a mixed bag
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,675 Posts
Normal birth is considered to be a labor that begins within what they determine to be an acceptable due range, each stage is of average length, does not require operative interventions like forceps or vacuum extraction, and has no significant morbidity such as severe laceration... As mwherbs says, the problem is every doctor is going to have their own idea of what's normal. Pain medication is absolutely considered normal. Some would tell you that pitocin or antibiotics are normal. Others would consider a non-complicated planned repeat cesarean to be perfectly normal.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,599 Posts
In some NYC teaching hospitals there are medical Residents that NEVER see a physiologically normal, unmedicated vaginal birth.

So to them normal is:
induction at 41 weeks, and if you happen to have a spontaneous onset of labor before 41 weeks pitocin to move labor along and/or epidurals are routine in almost all births in our local hospitals.

We had an OB medical Resident ask on our local doula list if she can shadow a doula or Midwife to see an unmedicated birth!!!!
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top