Natural Birth? You can do it!

I really enjoy hearing about peoples positive birth stories, I makes me feel stronger about giving birth this time round. Last time I ended up being induced at 11 days over which led to an epidural (although off it for 2nd stage) and monitoring. I have no regrets about my birth as the second stage was how I imagined it, dd was delivered onto my tummy and I fed her straight away for a good 40 mins so in all I actually enjoyed the experience, although maybe it was the drugs
But I would definately be stronger this time about refusing to be induced so early and that is due to reading more about the effects of induction, threads like this on mumsnet and obviously having been there I don't want to do it again that way. I do feel cheated that I didn't get to feel the natural start of labour.
So in all I love reading all the information that Pupuce and others put on here and rather than be offended by Boogs post I find it more inspirational. I do think I need telling that you can trust your body to do it!
BTW what is the longest you can go over your due date without worry?

No I don't
Yes I do

Rhubarb - I've known you a long time... so I don't get upset but

1. I am damned stubborn and far too passionate
2. I want to fight for the right of woman to have good births (what ever that means to one woman)
3. I am very tolerant of other people's choice but I do have to say what I believe in....I think ! And like others who do not agree with me - I think they are misguided

Pupuce, have you got the AIMS journal? It lists 14 studies.

It also refers readers to Primal Health Research Centre which I bet you are familiar with

Pupuce, I'm glad you didn't leave the conversation! We're not always going to agree, and please don't take personally anything I say, sometimes I just want to put another side across. That's not to say I think you are completely wrong, far from it, I just know that there will be other Drs with equally strong opinions on the subject. After all, what kind of discussion would it be if we all agreed!

SueW - interesting that Aims list those studies too (there are quite a few!).... I was chatting about this whole topic with DH and I was saying that "I" don't understand why so many people feel that there would be no consequence to a mother or her baby with any form of medical intervention. Again not saying you should not have any, just suggesting that telling a woman "Oh i'll just sweep your membranes or rupture them" - and then telling her there is no risk - is simply not true.
But why would "we" feel that these interventions are not going to be meddling with nature's way? Same is true for women who are fed up (and we've all been there ) of being pregnant and either look at alternative ways of inducing themselves or request (or accept) an early - 40 weeks - medical induction...

Just been with a woman who was sweeped without consent - she had a very very strong labour from the start... all MW agree to say was : it would not have worked if your body was not ready.... WHEN WHY ON EARTH DID YOU DO A SWEEP AT 38 WEEKS?
BTW - it all ended in section.

Eulalia - I am surpirsed and not surprised that you were not told about the difficulty in BF a child who has had aneasthetic or an instrumental delivery. I find these babies (inclduing ceasarean ones) do take much longer to properly get BF going... and sometimes they do latch on immediatley after birth only to refuse BF for 2 days... now depending on the hospital you may be left alone to persevere (letting you and baby settle).... and with others after 6 hours a bottle of formula will be shoved in your/baby's face (and I am not joking!) - and you have everything else in-between... no wonder many women have left feeling inadequate, fed-up, tired,....

Did I say I'd stay out of this discussion???? I lied

Eulalia, have a look at some AIMS journals. I've just received that latest one this morning which has an article 'The trauma of being born' which examines some studies which have shown links between method of delivery/interventions and asthma, violent suicide in later life, drug addiction, anorexia, autism, etc.

pupuce again, just looked at those abstracts. It reminded me about the discussion of pain relief in our ante-natal classes. We talked about the different methods in depth. However at NO point was anything mentioned about the effect on breastfeeding straight after birth. My ds was quite small at birth and despite being put straight on my tummy he had difficulties latching on. I had only one morphine injection but I think this was enough to make him sleepy. It seems obvious to me now that this may affect his breastfeeding but I didn't think of it at the time and no-one said anything.

Obviousy some may not be able to have a lot of choice or the pain may be really bad but at least then you have prior knowledge and perhaps not get so wound up if things go badly with breastfeeding at the start.

pupuce - I thought the info you posted very interesting. It got me thinking about pain in other contexts. We feel pain because it is a signal telling our body that something is wrong. To mask it too much can be dangerous. As in the case of taking too many painkillers if you have a sore back for instance and perhaps injuring yourself even more.

However I do think that us humans are unfortunate that we feel so much pain in childbirth due to our odd shapes and large babies so perhaps we could be excused for a bit of pain relief. It seems that most of us take the mimimum necessary as we seem to want to be in control as much as poss. I would like to hear more about the implications of interventions, epidurals, c/s etc. I know it can annoy some but if there are risks or complications then these should be made known for those yet to give birth. So please don't go away from this thread if you have anything to share.

Oh, and I would hate a homebirth but I wouldn't look down on anyone who had one.

I tend to agree with Milch. I would choose a c/s but would also choose to b/f for at least a year. I am a very easygoing mum, but would not like the lack of control that goes with a natural birth (or the pain, no matter how therapeutic). I think we divide women into two camps far too quickly. I know some really hippy mums who have chosen epidurals and the other way round.

I agree with milch, I'm not an earth-mother type, but I had a homebirth with ds2 (but absolutely no whale music or incense anywhere.) I chose a hb to avoid all the unnecessary interventions which happened during my first labour - not so I could ritually bury the placenta in the garden afterwards.

Going back to what boogs, the orginal poster was saying, it's about informed choice. Yes, you might not be able to give birth naturally, due to circumstances beyond your control, circumstances that,in a bygone age, might have led to yours and your baby's deaths. But equally modern childbirth practices (in this country at least) are not conducive to a natural birth. Induction, continual fetal monitoring, lying flat in bed, epidurals etc all interfere with the body's ability to give birth naturally.

I found boogs post very positive, an affirmation of a woman's natural ability to give birth. Too often we are almost discouraged from trusting our bodies. In my first labour, I found I was looking at the damn machine to tell me when I was having a contraction! I know interventions are sometimes necessary, life-saving, even, but they are over-used and often completely avoidable.

You might not be able to give birth naturally, but you stand a much better chance if you are fully informed of your choices. How many women (particularly first-timers) know that they are within their rights to refuse an induction if they go overdue and instead insist on monitoring? How many know that having continual fetal monitoring or an epidural makes it much more likely that they will require further intervention, and possibly even a c/s? I certainly didn't first time around.

Boogs, your motives for posting were pure. You just wanted to present natural birth as a viable alternative - something which, all too often alas, the health professionals do not.

I was open to whatever pain relief or level of intervention necessary to get my precious bundle into the world as healthily as possibly for us both.

It just so happened that my birth was 2.5 hours from start to finish and there was no time for any pain-relief really. I shouted for an epidural at 8cms but dd was crowning when the anaesthetist put his head round the delivery room door. I could be heard apologising for 'wasting his time' - who says you need drugs to be delirious ??!!

Somehow it feels that if you want a naatural birth then you have to be an 'earth mother' type, and if you want a caesarian or high-tech birth then you're a coward or un-natural. DON'T BITE MY HEAD OFF YET! But what about those of us who want to give birth naturally and aren't into whale music and insence, or those of us who choose (or are persuaded to choose) an epidural or caesarian but do want the whale music etc. What I'm try to say in my garbbled and sleep-deprived way is that natrual childbirth has become a label and a bit of a burdensome one too. My first baby was born high-tech with epidural, my second low-tech natural with no drugs. I very much resent the assumption from others who assume that the second birth was mmore satisfying or 'better'.

Funnily enough, i was ecstatic after birth of my ds by c/s. In photos I'm just grinning and looking all soupy at ds. I couldn't sleep for excitement and went a bit loopy - I remember thinking, "oh my god, I've clearly had the most beautiful child that ever existed. Obviously now the model scouts will be after him, but I'm not sure I want him to go down this route so early. How will I protect him from his adoring fans?" And, no, I'm not entirely joking. Even though he had one eye firmly shut during his first two days of life. Something odd kicked in that was nothing to do with the birth process. there is evidence that there is priming of the body for love during pregnancy, and most of the rest is done by close contact after birth (I don't mean just immediately after, I mean during the first days, weeks and months). Babies make you love them, I think.

Pupuce: I'm really glad you did post the stuff up as it opened up the debate again and made for interesting reading. Natural birth and bf seem to be the most emotive topics by far - as all the women on here have lived them in such a heightened way. I initially bristled at the concept of 'positive pain' as mine wasn't and gave me a sort of mild version of post traumatic stress disorder for a long time afterwards. But my best friend talks about her births in such a way and of bliss hormones (didn't get those either!). In fact our opposite birth/bf experiences have led to completely different approaches to motherhood (and yes, we still get on!!).

The enthusiastic promotion of bf and natural birth can absolutely feel like an attack against others' less ideal experiences (I know about the choosing thing - but it just does affect a great many people that way and so should be acknowledged). But, as you say, how can you get around that without undermining the 'breast is best' message across society as a whole? I dunno, but it would make a good thesis...

I agree, excellent book by an anthropologist and mother which gives a very clear-eyed and unsentimental view of what the maternal instinct is - and isn't.

I knew I'd regret posting

This debate is the same as the BF debate.... you can never win... you will always upset some... make some feel guilty, etc

The point I was trying to make is that as an individual you make the choices you make from the information and the beliefs you have... As a society we notice things that change or stats like cesarean babies have a lower rate of succes at breastfeeding ... and I also have friends who have had sections and BF very long as well as vaginally delivered baby who never BF.

For those of you interested here are some studies you can look into (all abstracts).... it is NOT intended to make anyone feel guilty... (sorry I can't do links!)
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8842644&dopt=Abstract

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2378525&dopt=Abstract

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2363774&dopt=Abstract

Aloha, you say : "But we are totally different to animals. We have very different brains, and our bonding with our babies is very different because of that" - I totally agree and so does Michel Odent... he goes on and on about the activity of our neo-coprtex which animals do not have and which help us bond and which also make our labours harder....

Rhubarb - Let's not talk individuals but society... And of course Michel Odent will have a different opinion from another Dr who will himself have a different opinion to another Dr....

More generally I do wonder why in some countries we have a MUCH lower rate of epidural, cesarean section,... and others where it is much higher (and even hospitals WITHIN 1 county have very different results!)....

There are studies that links c-sections with health problems... but if you need a section, you need a section.... there isn't two ways about it! And it's not because your child was born healthy that it proves that there are no issue with cesareans ! You can also have a poorly child born vaginally.
Also I do not think that forcing a woman to deliver vaginally if she wants a section is anybody's business.

Anyway... I thought this nice thread was about discussing natural childbirth.... maybe I should stay out of this one

The point is, humans aren't like ducks (or sheep). The bond between parent and child is much more complicated - a mixture of chemistry and psychology maybe? - but as the anecdotes here indicate, certainly not dependent on immediate skin-to-skin contact post-birth. I recommend "Mother Nature" by Sarah Hrdy - really worth reading!

KS - that is funny! It took me a whole week to learn how to latch dd onto the nipple! She just wouldn't open her mouth wide enough! I would say that if it wasn't for the help and support I got from the midwives in latching her on at every feed, I would have given up straight away!

Before hospital intervention and pain-relief, the death rates for mothers and babies during birth were much higher. So whilst we can all agree that in an ideal world a mother should be allowed to give birth naturally and without intervention, it is not always that simple. It is easy to say that many sections are not necessary and that women over-dramatise when they say that the surgeon saved theirs and their baby's lives. But the fact is that no doubt lots of women's and babies lives are being saved during childbirth. These days it is very rare for a mother to die in this way, but go back 100 years and it wasn't, go back 200 years and it was fairly common!

I do think that women should be encouraged to have natural births wherever possible, but ultimately it should be the woman's decision to make.

And as for feeling guilty, yes there are breastfeeding organisations out there who will make you feel a failure for choosing the bottle, I remember a nasty incident with a friend and La Leche. You're also frowned upon if you start weaning early. In my first experience as a mum, I found people were very unwilling to give me constructive advice such as when to start solids, when to put the baby to bed, when to wean off the breast, but as soon as I made a decision about something, they were practically queuing up to tell me how I should have done it. There is so much conflicting advice around about what is best for both mother and baby, that you are bound to get it wrong somewhere. And when you are a first-time mother you are very vulnerable to people's criticisms.

For example Pupuce, I am sure there are many other Doctors out there who disagree with Michel Odent and can back their arguments up with just as many observations and impressive looking statistics - how are we supposed to know who is right and who is wrong? And what the hell does it matter anyway?

Aloha - I heard that's why human babies are so dependent on their mothers for so long. If they were born with their brains fully developed, we'd never get them out!

Message withdrawn

Yes, as I understand it, we are not designed that well for birth as our offspring have huge heads for our massive brains (comparatively) and we have narrower pelvises for standing upright. If we were still on all fours with smaller brains birth would be a lot easier and less painful, but there has been a compromise in evolutionary terms which has made us clever and upright, but not so good at reproducing. Compare the shape of a baby sheeps had with a baby human's head - one seems a lot more 'tunnel-friendly' than the other!