> it’s not a “natural birth” if you get an epidural
I never really understood this. It wasn't natural for me to have surgery less than a month after I was born, either, but without it I'd be dead now.
I never really understood this. It wasn't natural for me to have surgery less than a month after I was born, either, but without it I'd be dead now.
1. The baby is affected by the epidural, which can result in several days of grogginess, increased difficulty in establishing breast feeding, etc.
2. There is a natural amnesia for the pain of childbirth. If you get an epidural that effect gets dropped. So there may be less pain, but the woman tends to remember it more clearly.
3. An epidural greatly limits the mother's range of possible positions and activities. For example squatting in a shower can be great for progress, but you can't do it if your legs don't work properly.
4. One intervention leads to another. An epidural slows the birthing process, and massively increases your likelihood of further interventions. In the linked article, the woman wound up with a C-section. The odds of that happening would have been considerably less if there had not been an epidural. (Even so, if there is no fetal distress, why the hurry to have a C-section if that had not been discussed? Before the childbirth they should have had a birthing plan, and the doula should have known the mother's wishes and defended them. That's what she's there for...)
That said, natural childbirth is incredibly difficult and not always possible. If a woman wants and is capable of having a natural childbirth, my hat is off to her. But women shouldn't be pushed to do that if they don't want to.
People just refuse to realize that so-called complications that were not pre-screened by a midwife or doctor happen BECAUSE you have a hospital birth. We then get told "my friend just gave birth and the baby was not breathing, thank god they were at the hospital!". Of course these mothers usually get epidural, which shut down their body, leading to prolonged births (doctors LOVE to wait for you to push:), suctions, etc. Impatient doctors cause far more complications and put more babies in danger than a midwife assisting a true home birth.
I do have strong opinions on people who try to encourage others to have home births without having those people screened for risk factors that indicate that a hospital is needed. Because when things go wrong in childbirth, they tend to go wrong fast. Historically a lot of women died that way. In today's world where many women have children late, have complicating conditions like diabetes, etc, there are a lot of potentially valid reasons to not give birth at home.
(My wife had two natural births in a hospital setting. As an MD who had done her research, she felt strongly about the advantages of natural childbirth. Again as an MD, she was well aware that her risk factors meant that she needed a hospital.)
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Book-Birth-Erica-Lyon/dp/0452287685
As the reviews suggest she tries to present all of the information objectively, leaving the reader to make their own decisions.
My wife credits this book with helping to convince her that she could give birth without an epidural.
I'm also confused. Is this a decision that is made as a couple?
Haha, I've never heard such a notion, that pain relief should be co-decided by the woman's partner. I certainly never presumed to have any input in that.