Hacker News Reader

Comment by fishnchips | Hacker News Reader

As long as it's a choice it's OK. But if it is forced onto women by circumstances or even propaganda then it would be a huge step back. I witnessed my son's birth (5 hours with no complications) and I could see how much suffering was saved by an epidural - which would not be an option with a home birth.

View on HN

I agree that it should definitely be a choice.

That being said, a significant portion of the pain is from giving birth on a hospital bed - or just lying flat in general. It is said (as a man, I have never given birth) that it is less painful, and therefore less in need of an epidural, if the birthing is done in a upright or crouching position. Like how an orangutan does it : http://youtu.be/JfVnFJDjUyQ?t=30s

The very idea of lying down for a birth dates back to the 18th century, when some French king wanted to see the birth of his heir. Of course men were not allowed in the birthing room, so he had to peek through a hole in the wall - or something like that. And the queen had to be in a position that allowed the king to see, so she was lying down facing so the king could see what was going on.

Having witnessed the process, something tells me that a significant portion of the pain is not caused by laying down. So, citation please.

I would like to cite Newton here. Specifically his work on gravity as it applies to motion.

I believe parent meant that position doesn't change size. It may be faster, but one way or another the pain does come from pushing the baby out and potentially making lots of damage to someone's crotch in the process.

You don't have to lie on a bed in the hospital. You can still use a birthing stool or something (assuming the hospital has them, but they're cheap, so there's no reason not to).

5 hours is very fast - did they use pitocin (Oxytocin)? Without pitocin, and without breaking the bag of waters, labor takes much longer (so Dr's hate it), but it hurts much less.

It varies widely.

My wife had two pregnancies: one was 52 hours (with five hours of pushing!). The second was about 2 hours total.

Neither involved pitocin.

5 hours of pushing? Not to mention the 47 hours of labour? That can't be right. Is that really normal? My impression is that after 2 hours, artificial methods get used (pump, caesarean). And that's in Netherland, the country of natural home births.

There are a lot of variabilities in labour.

Labour, yes, but pushing shouldn't take nearly that long.

Yep. Normally doesn't. She made slow but steady progress the whole time, so they never resorted to any other means (besides the aforementioned suction device in the end).

It's right. But it's not normal! After 5 hours we employed a suction device (and would have gone to emergency c-section if that failed after 3 pushes).

Baby was 9 lbs, 9 oz (4.3 kg).

No oxitocin, no breaking of waters, first birth. Of course, YMMV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com