Natural Birth? You can do it!

I wonder if there is any evidence of damage to bonding in women who were forced to have an unmedicated birth against their will? Going through something you have chosen is quite different to enduring something you really don't want to happen to your body. Unplanned babies are b/f less often than planned ones (though of course, this is all statistics and the vast majority of unplanned babies are adored) so maybe it is the element of lack of choice that is the problem not the drugs/cs or whatever. I know that there are women on this site still struggling with the physical and emotional after effects of natural birth - some of whom sound like they had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. That can't help bonding, surely?

I remember watching a giraffe give birth on TV once - it seemed to walk about with baby giraffe feet sticking out of its nether regions for quite some time! Made my eyes water.

Sorry, a bit off topic there but it just sprang to mind when thinking about how easily animals give birth compared to us poor humans. I'll go now...

Absolutely nothing. Well about as much as wild animals responses to ether has to do with human beings abilities to breastfeed!
Just saying that if this was a scientifically randomised trial of mothers ability to bond post drug-managed childbirth, various questions would have been asked of the participants to see whether any failure to bond could have any explanation other than the use of those drugs. I presume those questions were not asked of the animals!

obviously that should be "abused as a child" and not "abused by a child", although I suppose if a baby bick-let had given them a really hard time in the past they might not be too interested in developing a relationship with a new one.....!!!!

I must say, with all respect to Michel Odent, having to use the example of 60 birthing Kaffir bucks to try and scientifically prove your point about human childbirth seems to do the entire opposite. ie he could get no data from human births (or hell, even closely related mammals like chimpanzees or monkeys) to back up his claims.
Do you think he disqualified certain of the birthing Kaffir bucks based on circumstances like you would do in a normal randomised trial - eg "were you seriously abused by a child which may impair your ability to bond with your buck-let? yes? sorry, can't use you in the trial even if you fancy a whiff of ether". Do you think the fact that he anaesthetised wild animals (must have been fairly traumatic for them) without fully explaining the risks and getting an informed consent, may have affected their view of birth and adversely affected their bonding with the baby bucks? What the hell is a Kaffir buck anyway?

Sorry, slightly tongue in cheek response (can't get away from those years of legal training), but I think some valid points here perhaps?!!

Think I should start teaching ds (six months but he's obviously dead clever) italian so he can read that he's not supposed to be addicted to my milk and can therefore stop waking up every two hours at night for a hit! Sorry to be so chippy - it must be sleep deprivation - I think this thread is absolutely fascinating.

BTW, I don't feel guilty a bit! And I gave my son solids at 4 and a bit months, and don't even feel guilty about that, just a bit stupid for caving in under MIL pressure (and the hope it might make him sleep longer, which it didn't).

But we are totally different to animals. We have very different brains, and our bonding with our babies is very different because of that IMO (and because of my scientific reading about maternal instinct). We relate entirely differently to our babies than bucks do. I just don't believe these animal studies are relevant to humans and their offspring. Anyway, human women give birth every single day in their millions, why on earth is Odent relying on animal-based studies? Not enough human case studies???
Yes, I know that individual cases do not prove a general point, BUT my friend who had two chosen c-sections b-fed both her babies from the first minute and has just finished feeding her second child who is over two. All my friends who had c-s b-fed their babies successfully. I b/f my own son until 13months. I would be interested if you could find one single study (as I have been unable to) that shows that women who choose c/s for non-medical reasons are different in their b/feeding patterns to the general population. The problem with c/s & b/feeding stats is that the vast, vast, vast majority of women who have a c-s, and that obviously includes electives, do so because there is a problem with the baby or the mother - pre-eclampsia, placenta praevia, multiple births, small babies, babies with neural tube defects, baby in distress etc etc. I think it is highly likely that babies in these circumstances would be more likely to have b/f difficulties through ill, weak having to be tube fed or due to the mother being ill or exhausted. I have not seen any studies that take this into consideration, and believe me, I have looked, as I am very interested in the politics of birth. I am not 'against' natural birth. I am not against choice in this matter. But I also have found no studies showing any long-term ill effects of c/s birth on babies. Indeed some studies show that c/s babies feel pain less intensely and are easier to settle. Not the case with my bubba, but, as I said, individual cases don't prove anything scientifically!

I did hesitate to post the M. Odent quote because I knew some people would not like it. We are all entitled to our opinion... M. Odent is also regularely published in the BMJ and Lancet so he must not always seen to be mad
He is regularely invited to be a speaker at proper medical conventions.... still now at 73. And regardeless of his views he is still a scientist and - believe me - will only use proper scientific data. So for ex. he will refuse to draw conclusions from studies which are note from controlled randomized studies.

I am afraid we've been through the "made me feel guilty" debate several times recently. I am sorry if you feel this way but it's like for women who say the BF brigade make them feel guilty for bottle feeding.... so should society say... breast is not best? Pain relief in chilbirth is better for baby and mother....in neither case this is the true BUT that does not mean that you are a 2nd rate woman/mother for bottle feeding or having an epidural.... we all make decisions based on many things which are not simply "what's best physiologically" but also waht is best "psychologically".

KS you asked what I meant by :
There are complex connections between birth physiology and the physiology of lactation.

M. Odent said that, I didn't and while it isn't my statement.... here is what I believe he means....
It is the oxytocyn release which helps lactation (releases prolactin) so for example when one has an elective cesarean the mother does not produce natural oxytocyn (which is the hormone you release when you contract).
Also when you have analgesia again you do not produce natural endorphins. These endorphins are an opiate. They have now demonstarted that elective cesarean mothers do not have that opiate in the colostrum which would explain why their babies (generally) are not as hooked on the breast milk as others and tend to bf for not as many weeks. This was demonstrated a few years ago and published. I am about to go out so I can't search the web for the study... but it's an Itlaian study if you want to search.

to go back to something Jude said about induction andlength of term all my babes were 42 weeks and the last was 43. I had 2 and 3 at home but I was bullied by the hospital consultant and told I was endangering my childs life as I refused induction on the grounds that I wanted the baby at home. The midwives supported me> I asked for a risk comparison on induction leading to intervention leading to c-section and the threat that that might pose to my child versus the risk of going to 43 weeks and having a home birth. No one could give me one.

However I have to say I tried Raspberry leaf tea homeopathy curry castor oil and champagne as alternative and often unpleasant methods of home start. None of which worked . I can also say that a posterior birth is the most painful thing I have ever had to endure in my life,.Long and painful. I was deeply distressed and in shock for a long time after and very very glad that I was in my house with my family looking after me and loving me. I still spontaneously shake now if i think abut it in too much detail. Thus the poor typing

Pupuce, that just makes people like me, who were practically forced to have an epidural, feel even guiltier! As I said before, there is nothing you can do right as a mother, from birth control during labour, to discipline! Everyone has their own opinions, but reminding people of how damaging an epidural can be surely just upsets mothers like me who had them? We can't change the past sadly. Although I have to say that neither me nor my dd suffered any kind of side-effects due to the epidural.

Pupuce

I, too, have had communications with Michel Odent for work and I have to say that at all times (and I KNOW he's done lots of wonderful work) he came across as mad as a hatter. I'm afraid that quote didn't convince me otherwise.

Sorry if this is blasphemy to some.

sorry - meant ds obviously!!

oh well pupuce, now at least I feel my incredibly b***y painful recovery from a c section was actually helping me bond with dh

hi willow2, I'm ok now - lucky that dp was supportive through and after and my daughter is perfect (excuse any mistakes she's feedingv at the mo). physically i still feel drained- par for the course i assume, stiches got a little infected but lavender, tea tree oil and homeopathic remedies have solved that. at least that pain meant i never noticed sore breasts ! I'M LUCKY that breast feeding is going really well and i have my baby in cloth nappies - 2 things that werereally important to me. i still have odd tearful moments when i think about the experience, but even just writing it down here hs helped so much. as i say my so beautiful ds is just the most important thing.

I see what you mean....

Not having a laugh at all. I am deadly earnest.

The point I was making was at the point in labour you feel you can take no more ( and ask for an epi) all the stuff about cascade of interventions, possible bonding problems you might have read about go right out the window.

All you care about AT THAT POINT is that the pain is too much and you want it to go away.

You don't give birth in theory, you give it in practice, minute by minute.

Jasper - are you having a laugh??????
It's not the length of the labour that is the issue of the epidural.... it's the fact that it leads to further interventions which are not always successful either... not to mention that in some cases epidural CAN leave you with problems short and long terms. At a recent labour I was very surprised to hear the aneasthetist LIST all the risks of the epidural. It was the first time I heard the whole list actually.

And at the risk of annoying some.... epidural stops your body from making endorphins which are important hormones for both mother and baby, they play an important role in bonding and breastfeeding. And before I 10 of you tell me they had no problem bonding and BF.... let me add that we are human being and we have "intelligence" which helps us bond and BF... but for some this is an issue (it is one in the animal kingdom where animals reject their off-springs born by ceasarean).

Let me share with you the answer to 2 questions I have asked Dr Michel Odent in a recent interview :

The pain of childbirth may be described as 'positive pain' in that it is a means to an end, a process that a woman endures in order to meet her baby face to face.
Do you consider (if at all) that experiencing the pain of labour is a necessary part of the rite of passage of childbirth, and in what way (if any) would you say that experiencing the pain can contribute to a woman's spiritual growth?
In the middle of the 20th century it wasn?t politically correct to raise this point. Natural childbirth movements were denying the concept of physiological pain in labour. According to French and Russian schools of psycho-prophylaxis, pain was reflexo-conditional, and therefore cultural. So we had to recondition women to make childbirth painless.
In Britain, G.D Read was saying that there is no example of a physiological process which is painful; so labour must not be painful.
In fact the connections between the pain of labour and maternal love had been intuitively understood in many cultural milieus. As early as a century ago, Eugene Marais, in South Africa, gave a few puffs of chloroform and ether to sixty birthing Kaffir bucks. The mothers did not take care of their babies. Such observations were confirmed in other species. Krehbiel and Poindron showed that ewes who have given birth with an epidural don?t take care of their lambs. In the current scientific context it is possible to interpret these connections between pain in childbirth and maternal love. It is the physiological system of protection against pain that participate in the induction of maternal behaviour. This system of protection is complex. It includes the system of endorphins.
One knows that beta-endorphin is a releaser of prolactin, the typical motherhood hormone.
Also the reduction of the activity of the neocortex is a protection against pain on the one hand, and on the other hand a way to make humans as instinctive as other mammals. Let us add that oxytocin is a depressor of memory (protection against pain) and also the main ?hormone of love?..

Some studies have made the point that labours with pain relief or labour augmentation may lead to greater difficulty in breastfeeding and bonding. Do you not feel that this argument is another one to make women feel guilty about the intervention they agreed to have during their labour?
This question must be raised in terms of whole populations: forget individuals. Effects of birth are detected at a cultural level. There are good reasons why, in our society, breastfeeding is shorter than many women would like. There are complex connections between birth physiology and the physiology of lactation.
In a sense lactation starts before the baby is born.

LadyP - it is usually too late when fully dilated. It depends though what other factors there are though.

LadyP - I SCRRRRRREAMED for an epidural for an hour or 2 and when they eventually said ok.... they checked how many cm's dilated I was and said it was too late. I was just about ready to push though.