Please help me make a decision on this. I am finding it impossible!
My instincts are that if I have had an intervention free labour and birth I would prefer to remain intervention free and have delayed cord clamping and a natural 3rd stage. But then I think is it really sensible to demand to go against about 30 years of standard practice, when there is good evidence that it does reduce post partum haemorrage here and BMJ 1988 and lancet 1998.
But then I read things like this(bottom right of page) which make me wonder about all those other studies and whether the conditions they were conducted in would be different to mine. A natural 3rd stage seems to cause less nausea and vomiting, less neonatal jaundice, and less chance of retained placenta. But am I just looking for evidence to support this because I am generally anti-intervention? Do these things outweigh the increased risk of PPH? If I do manage to have an intervention free labour and manage to start breast feeding quickly (big ifs I know) then does that put me into a very low risk group and therefore make the above PPH studies less applicable?
I really need to discuss this with you all to get my head straight!