What's that thing called where people leave the placenta and cord attached to their baby for about 6 weeks?

[SpeedyGonzalez]

Am intrigued by it. Not in a 'hmm...maybe I'll try it out one day' sort of way; more in a 'Bloody hell that's bizarre! Must find out more' sense.

true.. I suppose if its a dead organ, then it won't be passing anything at all to the baby.

So why bother leaving it attached in that case?

Wonder if a proper study has been done on this.

i think it all sounds quite charming, tbh. i do like reading these people's blogs, they're such gorgeous nutters.

The most charming bit is the name "lotus birth", the charm wears off as soon as you learn the first fact about it.

really? why? it's not for me personally but i can't see what's to be so negative about. it's just a bit bonkers, hardly doing any harm. and the important thing is that they feel that they have somehow listened to their child. cute, i think. and i am somewhat drawn to the idea that the placenta has been the baby's constant companion until then...

Well now I'm even more confused. I'd thought they did it so the baby got the last remnants of goodness from it for the first few days after the birth, but if it's dead then that's not the case.
The blog also talked about the baby's relationship with something familiar to it from the womb - but it's out of the baby's way in a collander or crochet bag.

I'm not being negative, really. I should have for me the charm wears off quickly. I'm sure whoever does it has their reasons and have checked out the downsides re infection etc. Each to their own, but definitely not for me.
I don't know about it being the childs' companion, wouldn't it be outside the amniotic sac? The child wouldn't have any sense of it, would they?

It was me that suggested it was dead, paisleyleaf, I don't know for sure, just seems logical to me that it is - happy to be corrected though.

i dunno, the sac is a thin membrane isn't it, you'd be able to feel the pulse through it i'd have thought. plus... mine was bloody mahoosive so hard to avoid for dd. i mean personally i'd have thought it would get cold but presumably that would have squicked even the hippiest mum into getting rid of it.

why? i can see the danger of freebirth but what's the disadvantage of EC if you're up for it? my mum effectively did that with all four of us in the seventies, it was perfectly normal (hence the availability of teeny baby potties in mothercare). and what harm is leaving the baby attached to the placenta doing?

what if you have twins which share a placenta or the 2 have fused? that would complicate it even further.

it would, yes. presumably you would then decide whether to proceed or not.

Interesting statement www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-umbilical-non-se verance-or-?lotus-birth from RCOG.

I'm a bit lentilweavery and homebirthy and I can see a benefit in allowing the cord to finish pulsing. But I can't get my head around lotus birth. The benefits seem to be around 'auras' and 'energy' rather than any actual theorised medical benefits. My equally lentilweavery midwife said she had done one for a couple and supported their choice but couldn't see any particular benefits to this.

Oh bugger. Link here.

Here

That link makes it sound quite risky for the baby. No wonder the doctor in Darcymum's post cut the cord straight away.

how can the RCOG say in one breath there is no research on lotus birth and in the next breath start sputing guff about it being an infection risk?

simply by having an umbilical cord, stump or attatched to a placenta is an infection risk.

yes, that does read oddly, doesn't it? mind you, in practice both of my dds' cords fell off after about three days anyway, so i'm not convinced by the average seven days or whatever it was. is that detail recorded by the visiting midwife?

AM i wrong in thinking that the placenta stops working when it is detached anyway?

What zapostrophe said. It's enough to make you run screaming to the nearest McD's and give your newborn some coke in a bottle, a Happy Meal and the latest Grand Theft Auto release.

whyyyyy? i don't understand the animus here at all. it's unusual, certainly, but isn't that about all?

I read your link lou, I wonder if the baby I knew developed an infection from the placenta and thats why they had the rash?

Whilst I find this interesting, I wanted to add that for me the placenta has fulfilled it's role during the 9 month gestation period, and surely if it were designed to be 'of service' outside of the uterus it would not require herbs, salt etc?

Yes, it's a cute idea to consider it as your babies companion and plaything during that time, but to then prolong some kind of 'emotional connection' through what is effectively a rotting appendage just seems to me to be an unhealthy start for a newborn!

And let's face it, they are far from 'cute and cuddly' my previous two reminded me of a bag of chopped liver!

Not for me I am afraid! Oh, and I won't be making a pate or burying it under a rose bush either!

well yes, in my case with dd2 my placenta had clapped out entirely and that's why she stopped growing and had to be wheeched out. so i don't suppose she'd have been particularly fond of it.

One word: bleurgh