Is the 'natural' birth movement anti-science?

mickydcork · 13-02-2012 1:31pm #1

Childbirth and labour are extremely emotive subjects.

Myself and my wife are expecting our first at the moment and after having several arguments with my friends who have had or are having babies around this time also, I have noticed a worrying trend among many of them.

They are advocates of what they would describe as 'natural' birth. Where any medication or intervention is shunned and where homebirths are the ideal.

Part of this belief seems to involve extreme skepticism of medical personnel, hospitals and the hospital birth system.

For example the other night my friend stated that the only reason births are induced in hospital is so more women can be rushed through the system and to suit the medical personnel. She feels it is never done for the benefit of child and mother.

Surely this is an incorrect assumption? But it seems indicative of this 'natural' birth movement.

So I ask - is the 'natural' birth movement anti-science?

And if so, why?

kelle · 13-02-2012 2:03pm

Maybe it is anti-science, but it's much better to have a mother and baby that are alive and well at the end of the procedure!

I developed pre-eclampsia near the due date of my first pregnancy. It was detected when I went for a routine check-up at the hospital. I was kept in and induced. Then my baby's heartbeat started to slow down (cord wrapped around neck), so it was a crash Caesarean. My little boy had to be resuscitated then go into an incubator for a day. But all was fine, thank goodness and he is now a healthy, football-mad 11 year old.

I dread to think what would have happened had I insisted on a natural birth away from a hospital setting.

mickydcork wrote: »

For example the other night my friend stated that the only reason births are induced in hospital is so more women can be rushed through the system and to suit the medical personnel. She feels it is never done for the benefit of child and mother.

:rolleyes: (at your friend)

Icemancometh · 14-02-2012 12:03am

My own opinion would be that, for the vast majority, who would have an uncomplicated, straightforward birth, a home delivery, with a midwife, is preferable to hospital-based care.

But if you're in the minority of cases where something does go wrong, you want to be in the hospital. The problem obviously is, you can't tel what group you're going to be in.

Gourami · 14-02-2012 12:21am

Working directly in this area I cannot understand why people would risk both their own lives and their childs life for the sake of a so called 'natural' birth. Childbirth is one of the riskiest times for both mother and baby in their entire lives. When it goes wrong it goes VERY wrong and like the previous poster said we have often have no idea who it's going to go wrong for. Maybe I've seen too much working in the field but there is no way I would even consider having a home birth. What's the point on having a 'natural' delivery if mother and baby have to live with health consequences for the rest of their lives.
Also in regards to what that person said re inducing to suit medical personnel, that is complete rubbish. There are many graphs available that show the risk of intrauterine death rises sharply after 10-14 days post term so it's done very much for the sake of the baby. For every induction there's another 20 who went into labour naturally so it really doesn't change the workload at all.

lounakin · 13-03-2012 12:25pm

I cannot help but respark that thread...
I am myself an advocate of natural birth... The original poster mentions friends who are also into this "new" trend (which I would call old as the hills myself but hey...), and who seem to have a very strange view of the process which is both alien to me and my "friends" who are supportive of this view.
First of all, I don't consider the natural birth to be one that rejects science. It is merely a point of view that our bodies are made for birthing and that we should trust it. Knowing your own body is essential in many fields of health and to me this is in a way a scientific approach. My point of view is that if my pregnancy allows me to, I would as much as possible like to be in control of my child's birth. A natural birth doesn't mean a home birth. Yes, it would be nicer to be at home but I'm aware or the complications so I'm happy to be in hospital in case I need medical assistance.
I trust I have the tools to overcome the pain without having an epidural (which contains various risks and if you can avoid it, why not?), I trust I will know what I need to do and I trust my own body more than I trust the exterior point of view of a mid-wife or a doctor. This doesn't mean I shun them or their work. On the contrary.
I believe they are there to help us and make this experience as pleasant as possible. Everyone is different and some women do not feel up to the challenge and welcome any help they can get. Fair enough!
I also realise that I might need emergency help and procedures. Fair enough.
To the last poster who works in the "field", I find your point of view on home births quite ignorant and this is partly the reason why I want to educate myself as much as possible. Most births would happen perfectly well without any exterior help as possible and many women trust their body and know themselves -more than anyone ever will- what they need. The percentage of problems due to homebirths are probably comparable to those happening in hospitals.
Furthermore, it seems ireland has a more laissez-faire attitude towards birth but other countries (like france, where I'm from) do heavily push certain interventions purely to make the process go faster for themselves, not the woman/baby.
Did you know that back in the day when women often died of childbirth was mainly due to the lack of hygiene of the doctors? The notion of sterilising and avoiding infection wasn't invented that long ago (I must look up the name but it began as a medical thesis by a student). In this light, it strikes me that giving birth is a process that has and will happen with or without doctors and hospitals and it bugs me that people are trying to convince us otherwise and that we as women are unable to cope with it ourselves which for the most part, we are.
Also... Nature is science!

Icemancometh · 13-03-2012 4:15pm

lounakin wrote: »

I cannot help but respark that thread...
I am myself an advocate of natural birth... The original poster mentions friends who are also into this "new" trend (which I would call old as the hills myself but hey...), and who seem to have a very strange view of the process which is both alien to me and my "friends" who are supportive of this view.
First of all, I don't consider the natural birth to be one that rejects science. It is merely a point of view that our bodies are made for birthing and that we should trust it. Knowing your own body is essential in many fields of health and to me this is in a way a scientific approach. My point of view is that if my pregnancy allows me to, I would as much as possible like to be in control of my child's birth. A natural birth doesn't mean a home birth. Yes, it would be nicer to be at home but I'm aware or the complications so I'm happy to be in hospital in case I need medical assistance.
I trust I have the tools to overcome the pain without having an epidural (which contains various risks and if you can avoid it, why not?), I trust I will know what I need to do and I trust my own body more than I trust the exterior point of view of a mid-wife or a doctor. This doesn't mean I shun them or their work. On the contrary.
I believe they are there to help us and make this experience as pleasant as possible. Everyone is different and some women do not feel up to the challenge and welcome any help they can get. Fair enough!
I also realise that I might need emergency help and procedures. Fair enough.
To the last poster who works in the "field", I find your point of view on home births quite ignorant and this is partly the reason why I want to educate myself as much as possible. Most births would happen perfectly well without any exterior help as possible and many women trust their body and know themselves -more than anyone ever will- what they need. The percentage of problems due to homebirths are probably comparable to those happening in hospitals.
Furthermore, it seems ireland has a more laissez-faire attitude towards birth but other countries (like france, where I'm from) do heavily push certain interventions purely to make the process go faster for themselves, not the woman/baby.
Did you know that back in the day when women often died of childbirth was mainly due to the lack of hygiene of the doctors? The notion of sterilising and avoiding infection wasn't invented that long ago (I must look up the name but it began as a medical thesis by a student). In this light, it strikes me that giving birth is a process that has and will happen with or without doctors and hospitals and it bugs me that people are trying to convince us otherwise and that we as women are unable to cope with it ourselves which for the most part, we are.
Also... Nature is science!

What you're referring to at the end is the sad story of Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered a much higher mortality rate among mothers treated by doctors, than those treated by midwives. It was the introduction of "cadeverous particles" from the post-mortems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

And also, I agree completely.

mickydcork · 13-03-2012 7:31pm

lounakin wrote: »

Furthermore, it seems ireland has a more laissez-faire attitude towards birth but other countries (like france, where I'm from) do heavily push certain interventions purely to make the process go faster for themselves, not the woman/baby.

I think this is a point of view that reinforces what my original post was about. No medical personnel in France would undertake an intervention procedure that they didn't believe was for the benefit of the mother and child. (not if they were ethical anyway)

lounakin wrote: »

Did you know that back in the day when women often died of childbirth was mainly due to the lack of hygiene of the doctors? The notion of sterilising and avoiding infection wasn't invented that long ago (I must look up the name but it began as a medical thesis by a student).

It was science and the scientific method that identified the link between mortality at birth and hygiene.

lounakin wrote: »

In this light, it strikes me that giving birth is a process that has and will happen with or without doctors and hospitals and it bugs me that people are trying to convince us otherwise and that we as women are unable to cope with it ourselves which for the most part, we are.

Who is trying to convince women otherwise? I am certainly not. I am perfectly aware of women's ability in the birthing process.

If anyone is trying to convince people it is my friends who are trying to convince us that intervention is evil, that any intervention is done to suit medical personnel and not for the benefit of the mother and child, etc etc etc the anti-science ideas are endless.

lounakin wrote: »

Nature is science!

What does this even mean? Science and the scientific method is a set of techniques for understanding phenomena. Quite often these phenonmena occur in nature. Science is not nature.

GradMed · 13-03-2012 9:12pm

lounakin wrote: »

The percentage of problems due to homebirths are probably comparable to those happening in hospitals.

That's actually not the case. Neonatal mortality is three times higher in home compared to hospital birth.
This is apparently a conservative figure, we were told the figure was higher, six to nine times, during our Obs/Gynae rotation.
I believe this higher figure was due to the comparison of like vs like low risk pregnancy in both home and hospital birth groups whereas the three times higher figure came from homebirth neonatal mortality compared to all hospital births neonatal mortality.

Abstract 563.
Does planned home birth affect neonatal mortality? Joel Larma
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9378/PIIS0002937811018710.pdf
Not the article from which I got the three times figure from but the conclusions are the same. If you like I'll try and find that article.

lounakin wrote: »

In this light, it strikes me that giving birth is a process that has and will happen with or without doctors and hospitals and it bugs me that people are trying to convince us otherwise and that we as women are unable to cope with it ourselves which for the most part, we are.

Doctors are trying to advise you as to the best course of action, explaining the risks/benefits of interventions and non intervention. They are there to provide you with the best possible, evidence based information.
You are right in that for most women childbirth is an uncomplicated process but there is a percentage of women for whom it is not and sometimes it can be difficult or even impossible to distinguish the two groups until it is too late.

lounakin wrote: »

our bodies are made for birthing and that we should trust it.

our bodies are poorly designed, really terribly poorly designed. In the area of female reproductive organs alone, we have issues with:

Implantation outside the uterus.
Implantation within the uterus.
It's close proximity to waste excretion, increasing risk of infection and premature labour.
Pelvis width, needs to be wider.
Foetal compression the bladder and GI tract. Increased risk of unrinary incontinance post partum.
Foetal development itself, a mother's body is essentially at warfare war the developing foetus.
maternal changes during pregnancy, eg predisposition to clotting.
Periods, many mammals don't menstruate and, I'm only guessing, but most women would rather they didn't have to.
as an aside this is a discussion on a theory of why women menstruate, very interesting. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/why_do_women_menstruate.php

lounakin wrote: »

heavily push certain interventions purely to make the process go faster for themselves, not the woman/baby.

This is untrue. Interventions, such as induction or the acceleration of labour are only used for the benefit of mother and child, no one else.

lounakin wrote: »

Everyone is different and some women do not feel up to the challenge and welcome any help they can get.

Some may take offence at the phrasing of this. It could be seen to imply that those who require assistance are somehow lesser compared to those who don't.

Icemancometh · 14-03-2012 12:03am

GradMed wrote: »

That's actually not the case. Neonatal mortality is three times higher in home compared to hospital birth.
This is apparently a conservative figure, we were told the figure was higher, six to nine times, during our Obs/Gynae rotation.
I believe this higher figure was due to the comparison of like vs like low risk pregnancy in both home and hospital birth groups whereas the three times higher figure came from homebirth neonatal mortality compared to all hospital births neonatal mortality.

Abstract 563.
Does planned home birth affect neonatal mortality? Joel Larma
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9378/PIIS0002937811018710.pdf
Not the article from which I got the three times figure from but the conclusions are the same. If you like I'll try and find that article.

Doctors are trying to advise you as to the best course of action, explaining the risks/benefits of interventions and non intervention. They are there to provide you with the best possible, evidence based information.
You are right in that for most women childbirth is an uncomplicated process but there is a percentage of women for whom it is not and sometimes it can be difficult or even impossible to distinguish the two groups until it is too late.

our bodies are poorly designed, really terribly poorly designed. In the area of female reproductive organs alone, we have issues with:
Implantation outside the uterus.

Implantation within the uterus.

It's close proximity to waste excretion, increasing risk of infection and premature labour.

Pelvis width, needs to be wider.

Foetal compression the bladder and GI tract. Increased risk of unrinary incontinance post partum.

Foetal development itself, a mother's body is essentially at warfare war the developing foetus.

maternal changes during pregnancy, eg predisposition to clotting.

Periods, many mammals don't menstruate and, I'm only guessing, but most women would rather they didn't have to.
as an aside this is a discussion on a theory of why women menstruate, very interesting. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/why_do_women_menstruate.php

This is untrue. Interventions, such as induction or the acceleration of labour are only used for the benefit of mother and child, no one else.

Some may take offence at the phrasing of this. It could be seen to imply that those who require assistance are somehow lesser compared to those who don't.

The vast majority of this is sensible and accurate. However, certain interventions by medical staff are certainly unnecessary. It doesn't look like so on a case-by-case basis, but it's the only explanation for the difference in Caesarean sections between Western countries, and the difference in the rate between hospitals in those countries.

lonestargirl · 14-03-2012 7:26am

Icemancometh wrote: »

The vast majority of this is sensible and accurate. However, certain interventions by medical staff are certainly unnecessary. It doesn't look like so on a case-by-case basis, but it's the only explanation for the difference in Caesarean sections between Western countries, and the difference in the rate between hospitals in those countries.

It could also be explained by different attitudes among pregnant women. I, and many of my friends, had elective C Sections. I brought the issue up with my doctor it was certainly not driven by him.

Icemancometh · 14-03-2012 7:36am

lonestargirl wrote: »

It could also be explained by different attitudes among pregnant women. I, and many of my friends, had elective C Sections. I brought the issue up with my doctor it was certainly not driven by him.

True, I hadn't considered that.

How Strange · 14-03-2012 7:37am

This is an interesting subject and the OPs friends are correct to a degree that in Ireland interventions are used to facilitate the hospital and not the mother/child.

The active management of labour originated in Holles Street and for years was considered the model of managing labour in maternity hospitals. Even the words 'active management of labour' suggests that labouring and child birth is controlled by medical staff. There is now a move away from active management towards allowing the mother to labour as she wants while under medical supervision. If you speak to women who've given birth they will talk about having no say during labour and interventions happen without their knowledge or consent and how they can feel traumatised afterwards.

https://www.birthinternational.com/articles/birth-intervention/56-the-active-management-of-labour

Holles st give women 12 hours to deliver intervention free which isn't a lot of time in reality. The Coombe give 24 hours. If you want to labour intervention free beyond that time you'd better have an articulate and determined birthing partner

Monty Burnz · 14-03-2012 7:47am

kelle wrote: »

I dread to think what would have happened had I insisted on a natural birth away from a hospital setting.

I certainly wouldn't be here if my mother was not in hospital for the birth (umbilical cord issues, born 'dead', had to be resuscitated), and my older brother's survival would have been touch and go. I can understand why people like the notion of home births (lots of people hate hospitals) but I think a lot of this movement overlaps with the people who are involved with homeopathy/angel healing/reiki/auras/'mother nature knows best' and other flagrant scientific nonsense. It's not a coincidence that so many women died in childbirth in the days before modern medicine, or that the mortality rate for babies was so high.

lounakin · 14-03-2012 7:52am

to mickydcork
reinforces what my original post was about. No medical personnel in France would undertake an intervention procedure that they didn't believe was for the benefit of the mother and child. (not if they were ethical anyway)

I think you are totally misunderstanding me... i'm saying the way things are here are more free than France where I know for a FACT that many women are pushed to have interventions that make the whole process easier for doctors.

It was science and the scientific method that identified the link between mortality at birth and hygiene.
How does this contradict my point? It illustrates my point that mortality wasn't all due to women having no medical help but for other reasons too, in this case, doctors making it worse by sewing up corpses in the morning and then handling women's privates

Who is trying to convince women otherwise? I am certainly not. I am perfectly aware of women's ability in the birthing process.
You are again, not really getting me. It seemed you were asking a question, not stating that natural births are anti-scientific. And yes, you will here many many people who will tell you that giving birth without epidural is impossible, and that a woman cannot do it on her own. This is not necessarily the medical personnel's doing, but it's everything from the media to close friends. I cannot tell you how many people (most of them have never given birth) have tried to 'cure' me from the craziness that is my plan to use a natural birth (ie: no epidural, NOT a home birth). From the friend that tells you you are crazy, to the myriad of films depicting screaming roaring women giving birth...

If anyone is trying to convince people it is my friends who are trying to convince us that intervention is evil, that any intervention is done to suit medical personnel and not for the benefit of the mother and child, etc etc etc the anti-science ideas are endless.
As I stated, the tyranic point of view of your friends is not mine nor the one of my supportive "friends". I do not thing intervention is evil, I said it was helpful.

What does this even mean? Science and the scientific method is a set of techniques for understanding phenomena. Quite often these phenonmena occur in nature. Science is not nature.
What I meant by that is I find the natural birth 'scientific' because it is based on scientific studies that assess, for instance, the effect of epidurals on the baby or how the 'numbness' prolongs the last part of labour etc... these scientific findings are what is pushing me to consider this method.

lounakin · 14-03-2012 8:05am

To GradMed
That's actually not the case. Neonatal mortality is three times higher in home compared to hospital birth. [/QUOTE][/I]

You're probably right, and I should have looked it up, but it doesn't really concern my view as I wouldn't do a home-birth for security reasons. Part of my point was that a natural birth is not the same as a home birth.

our bodies are poorly designed, really terribly poorly designed. In the area of female reproductive organs alone, we have issues with:[/QUOTE]

Wow, it's a miracle population keeps growing like this especially in countries where a lot of women don't have access to medical care! Here again, I will have to disagree to a point. For most, it's working just fine.

This is untrue. Interventions, such as induction or the acceleration of labour are only used for the benefit of mother and child, no one else. [/QUOTE][/I]

So you are a specialist on how things are done in France? About 25 of my friends have given birth there in the last 3 years and one of them is a midwife. The 'pushiness' goes from suggesting elective C-section to forcing women to give birth in stir-ups lying on their back (one of the worse positions for the mother but so convenient for doctors, I haven't come across one hospital that lets you chose your position) and strongly suggesting an epidural. The rate of episiotomy is also quite high, higher than other european countries.

Some may take offence at the phrasing of this. It could be seen to imply that those who require assistance are somehow lesser compared to those who don't.[/QUOTE]

This is not what I meant at all but I see where you're coming from. I am in a way saying this because I would love to see women more empowered and there are too many around me who are already convinced they are not capable of handling the pain. I have a friend who asked for a c-section under general anaesthetics! (Don't know if she got the general A. but she got the c-section). But that said, the reality is many feel they can't handle the pain or don't see why they should have to and for them, imposing a natural birth would be absurd and dangerous.

GradMed · 14-03-2012 10:04pm

How Strange wrote: »

This is an interesting subject and the OPs friends are correct to a degree that in Ireland interventions are used to facilitate the hospital and not the mother/child.

This is untrue. Interventions are only used if they are of benefit to the mother or the child, no one else. Now that is not to say that interventions used can also be of benefit to the maternity service but these benefits to the service are a byproduct, they are a consequence of interventions deemed beneficial to the mother and child. It's described in the active management of labour as:

"where good medicine and sound economics compliment each other"

How Strange wrote: »

There is now a move away from active management towards allowing the mother to labour as she wants while under medical supervision.

The mother labouring as she wants is a core component of the active management of labour, until the duration of labour exceeds 12 hours. Is 12 hours too short?, perhaps it is. If people have links to any other studies I'd appreciate it.

How Strange wrote: »

If you speak to women who've given birth they will talk about having no say during labour and interventions happen without their knowledge or consent and how they can feel traumatised afterwards.

I have spoken to women before, during and after labour and while things can happen fast during labour interventions do not happen without the consent of the mother. Although one might argue that in such an emotionally charged environment, and if rapid decisions must be made, just how informed is the mother but from what I've experienced doctors do make the effort to gain informed consent from mothers.

How Strange wrote: »

https://www.birthinternational.com/articles/birth-intervention/56-the-active-management-of-labour

Here is an objective and peer reviewed critique of the active management of labour from 1994.

http://www.bmj.com/content/309/6951/366.full

I've read the active management of labour, it's superbly written and very accessible for students. I'd recommend students read it for the obs/gynae rotation and non medical people may find it informative too.

lounakin wrote: »

Wow, it's a miracle population keeps growing like this especially in countries where a lot of women don't have access to medical care! Here again, I will have to disagree to a point. For most, it's working just fine.

I had intended that to be a bit humourous but it is a valid point. Yes for most it works just fine but that's not good enough. With so many childbirths occurring even if it's only a small minority who experience difficulty that still leads to an unacceptable level of maternal and perinatal death.

lounakin wrote: »

So you are a specialist on how things are done in France?

I apologise I should have made it clear that I was referring to my own experience in Ireland, I'm a final year medical student and completed my rotation in obs/gynae last year. It's completely improper for any medical professional to suggest an intervention which is not primarily concerned with the health and wellbeing of the mother and child and that is true in any country.

lounakin wrote: »

This is not what I meant at all but I see where you're coming from. I am in a way saying this because I would love to see women more empowered and there are too many around me who are already convinced they are not capable of handling the pain.

When a person enters the delivery unit they have all the facilities there available to them if they so choose and I'd argue that women who can choose are are empowered.

In my opinion the issues around home/natural, as referred to by the original poster, vs hospital birth come down to the labour experience and the health and wellbeing of the mother and baby.
Home/natural birth advocates I believe place a greater emphasis on the experience of the pregnancy and delivery whereas the focus of the delivery unit is a healthy mum and healthy baby. A mother's "experience" of childbirth for a delivery unit is a secondary concern. That is not to say it is not important

The birth of a first child... is almost surely the most profound emotional experience , for good or ill, in a lifetime. The first experience of childbirth is of parmount importance becuase it determines the attitude to all subsequent births.
from the active management of labour

but mum and baby come first.

Lounakin, just to clarify in the last paragraph I'm discussing the original posters comments regarding home/natural births. I don't mean to attribute any of what I think home/natural birth advocates believe to you.

I also neglected to mention that Holles St do offer expectant mothers, who are low risk and live within a certain distance from the hospital, midwife assisted homebirth.

How Strange · 15-03-2012 2:00pm

Gradmed, hundreds if not thousands of women would disagree with your view that interventions are for the benefit of the mother and or child. The main problem with interventions is one leads to another so there is a cascade effect.

As for 12 hours being too short for labour; again ask the average woman. I went to the Coombe but if I'd been in Holles st I would've been induced rather than allow my body go into labour naturally. Thankfully I was in the Coombe and I delivered naturally, intervention and pain relief free within 24 hours.

The active management of labour without a doubt serves a greater benefit to a hospital schedule than to the mother and baby. As I said previously the title gives it away. Labour is being actively managed by medical staff. Why? Women's bodies are designed for childbirth so they should be allowed to labour naturally and for as long as they can if that's what they want. I'm not against medical interventions and births taking place within a medical environment. Medicine has saved thousands upon thousands of womens lives.

However I think you summed up when you said a mothers 'experience' is of a secondary concern to the delivery unit than a healthy baby and mother and by that I presume you mean physically healthy. Many women come out of childbirth traumatized because interventions were carried out on their bodies without their knowledge or consent.

Natural birth isn't anti-science but it shows a belief that we are designed to give birth and while medical intervention may be required from time to time they are not necessary for a success delivery. Interventions have now become so common place before and during labour and delivery to the point that natural labouring is being discouraged.

Monty Burnz · 15-03-2012 2:42pm

How Strange wrote: »

Women's bodies are designed for childbirth so they should be allowed to labour naturally and for as long as they can if that's what they want.

If they were designed for that, then it was a pretty poor job. I heard a statistic (although I haven't reliably sourced it yet) that 200 years ago, before modern medicine, 50% of births resulted in the death of the child, the mother, or both. Not the best bit of design, if that is the case.

mickydcork · 15-03-2012 3:32pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If they were designed for that, then it was a pretty poor job. I heard a statistic (although I haven't reliably sourced it yet) that 200 years ago, before modern medicine, 50% of births resulted in the death of the child, the mother, or both. Not the best bit of design, if that is the case.

In an evolutionary sense, it was the trade off that was made for baby humans having an unusually large brain.

Thankfully these days we make use of that brain and use science and medical science to ensure that the vast, vast majority of women and babies survive birth.

I for one am thankful that we live in our modern society where we can use intervention to reduce the mortality of birth to effectively zero.

Solair · 15-03-2012 3:35pm

I think there needs to be a bit of sense and balance with this kind of thing.

On the one hand you've got people who go too far with the idea of totally unassisted birth to the point it could be dangerous.

On the other hand you've got medical professionals who go too far trying to manage and induce things that don't really need help.

You need a combination of the two i.e. letting people get on with things at their own pace, in their own time, relaxed and in a nice environment without much medical intervention. But, you need the full high-tech cavalry on stand-by on the off chance it goes wrong or needs urgent assistance.

Also, you need plenty of ultra-sound equipment to make sure that natural's possible before you start!

lounakin · 15-03-2012 3:40pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If they were designed for that, then it was a pretty poor job. I heard a statistic (although I haven't reliably sourced it yet) that 200 years ago, before modern medicine, 50% of births resulted in the death of the child, the mother, or both. Not the best bit of design, if that is the case.

200 years ago, people died not just because of lack of modern medicine. As I said before, there was the issue of hygene, people simply didn't understand the concept of a sterile invironment and countless women died of infections solely due to this. Women had children at a younger age, their lifestyle was 1000 times more dangerous than now... there are many factors besides the lack of scan machines and epidurals!

To the Med student: our point of view is quite similar, I was saying that here they empower women more than in other countries and tend to let nature take its course, great. But I just wanted to make it clear that not all people who want a natural birth are hippy freaks who reject medicine!:D And I don't think my point of view is anti-science at all.

I would also like to point out that this conversation is very interesting and no one is getting carried away, it's amazing considering how people usually get so vicious over this subject!

cynder · 15-03-2012 3:50pm

I went with an open mind, what happens, happens as long as baby comes out safe, I know many on boards are all for natural (and boy do they like to think they are better than anyone else for doing it) but FFS im no martyr, If i need a section GIVE it to me, if i need an epidural GIVE it too me. They told me after 26 hours to have the epidural and it was bliss..... oh why, oh why didn't i do it sooner....

When my second guy came i told them to give me the epidural, and same with the 3rd guy. My main priority as a pregnant woman was that they get my baby out safe and sound. Having the epidural in place meant that if they needed to do an emergency c-section that they could it withing a few mins. Also being in hospital meant there was medical intervention there if I or the BABY needed it. Instead of a 30 min ambulance ride and then waiting for the ambulance to arrive and so on.

cynder · 15-03-2012 3:55pm

Solair wrote: »

I

Also, you need plenty of ultra-sound equipment to make sure that natural's possible before you start!

Things can go pear shaped in labour, my own sister in law had a home birth, well she didn't because at 9 cm dilated her cervix dropped to 4cm and they had to call an ambulance and she had an emergency c-section, the baby was in ICU for 2 weeks after swallowing his poop.

lounakin · 15-03-2012 4:34pm

Why do people keep saying natural birth is the rejection of medical attention? It's just avoiding unnecessary interventions where and if possible.
If i can do this naturally I will be happy but will not feel superior to anyone as we are all different. I'd just like to say that the epidural is designed as pain relief for mothers first, they are not there to aid the baby (unless the mother is in so much distress that labour becomes tedious and dangerous). And the epidural doesn't come without risk either so when you think about it, you are taking extra risks just to avoid pain. All in all, we all make choices that can have unexpected consequences.

How Strange · 15-03-2012 5:01pm

grindelwald I know a woman who had to use a catheter for 6 weeks after birth and had to have a bladder operation because she had the epidural. We all have horror stories about childbirth but just because my friend had complications doesn't mean no other woman should have An epidural. Similarly one home birth story gone wrong doesn't mean they're dangerous.

I'm not against interventions or a controlled delivery if the medical staff give real solid reasons why they're necessary. I was hooked up to a trace throughout labour and delivery and it was explained why it was necessary. I wouldn't have done anything to put my baby at risk even if it meant compromising on how I wanted to labour and deliver.

I tell my pregnant friends to temember they don't hand out medals for doing it all naturally so if you need pain relief take it but I also tell them to be very clear that they still have a right to be treated with dignity and respect. So if you wouldn't allow someone to perform a medical procedure without your consent outside of childbirth then you don't definitely have to accept it during labour and delivery. There's a huge difference between asking for an intervention and having it done to you.

lounakin · 15-03-2012 6:26pm

So basically most of us agree...
That said, when my daughter is born and gets older and asks about this, I'll make sure to tell her that there is no right or wrong way and that a delivery with no pain relief is not some sort of crazy unattainable thing.
I have been told all my life that childbirth is the worst pain you could imagine, that's it's shockingly attrocious and that no woman can get over it. So imagine my anxiety when I got pregnant and my surprise when I found out it doesn't have to be this way.
I also think the women who used the epidural are the ones spreading a lot of prejudice agains the others by saying natural birth women feel superior. This is again from experience and to quote How Strange above me, 4 friends have asked me what I intended to do, I did, and all four said something along the lines of: "you know you don't get a medal for it..." (and proceeded to be ever so slightly agressive) as though the "glory" of a natural birth was all I was interested in. It's ridiculous and I felt like these women in particular might have had a hint of regret or inadequacy because they used pain-relief (one of them actually stopped talking to me overy it... really). I certainly did not make them feel like that by saying: I want a natural birth. Sometimes people take issue because they have an issue.

locum-motion · 15-03-2012 6:50pm

lounakin wrote: »

Why do people keep saying natural birth is the rejection of medical attention? ...

In the two posts that there's been since you last posted, nobody said that. So why are you saying 'Why do people keep saying..?'

lounakin · 15-03-2012 9:02pm

locum-motion wrote: »

In the two posts that there's been since you last posted, nobody said that. So why are you saying 'Why do people keep saying..?'

Because within the last two one woman gave her experience with 'science's help' and opposed it to a natural birth. Even said at the end that it was for the baby's sake (capitalised baby) as though natural birth was putting babies at risk. And because of the subsequent message that says: 'you need a lot of scan to have a natural birth' therefore implying that you cannot have one without science, which not only is my point but implies that people who want a natural birth claim not to need any science, which obviously isn't true.
That answers your question?
There's also the fact that because I was at work it takes me a very very long while to finish writing my posts and sometimes by the time I do it, other posts appear that I didn't see and comment on... it makes the timeline confusing.

WildCatXX · 07-04-2012 5:29pm

http://aimsireland.com/files/Midwife-ledCare_EvidenceforChange_DDevane.pdf

http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol10No2/activeManagement.htm

https://www.birthinternational.com/articles/birth/18-fish-cant-see-water

http://www.bump2babe.ie/statistics/

In relation to the OP's question... no, natural birth is not anti science. There is plenty of evidence supporting midwifery led care (which is low intervention in nature) for low risk women. I implore anyone who is expecting a baby to read around the literature before submitting themselves to be chewed up and spat out by the active management system. Of course obstetricians excel at the care of high risk women but to put women with low risk pregnancy through Active Management results in more instrumental deliveries and ceasarian sections. I'm all for women's choice but most women (and men) are not fully informed.

eviltwin · 07-04-2012 5:37pm

The problem with hospitals births is that often you feel like you're part of a process rather than a patient who needs to be listened to and respected.

I had both my kids in hospital 12 yrs apart and cannot believe how much had changed in those years. I know a lot of that is down to money, lack of resources etc but I can understand completely why a mother would opt for a natural home birth instead. I really felt I wasn't being listened to at any stage of the labour, I was under pressure to have the baby quickly because of a queue, it wasn't how I would have wanted it to be but due to health issues a home birth would not be an option for me.

I think the best thing to do is do your research and find out what is out there and do that preferably before you get pregnant!

Is the 'natural' birth movement anti-science?

Comments