What is normal birth?

[*Danni*]

I always say I had a natural birth - no drugs or intervention at all to assist my labour or getting bub out. I did have the shot to prevent bleeding when birthing the placenta as that is what my OB wanted - that was after i had a beautiful naturally delivered (big) baby in my arms and I really wouldn't not call my birth natural because I had the syntocin after the fact, nor would I not call it not natural if the cord was clamped early (i requested delayed but i honestly don't remember if that happened lol). Natural birth to me is about laboring and birthing the baby until it is in the outside world (and preferably on skin to skin with Mum). I worked really hard to have the birth I did and would feel sad if some didn't define it as natural, as it was to me - completely and beautifully. I loved my natural birth experience and truly believed I had one.


Sent from my iPhone, using Tapatalk

[forshelby]

I don't think anyone was judging anyone elses choice to birth in a hospital. It's just that some of us were so disrespected, so mistreated, so traumatized by our experiences, it's hard not to voice the impressions we were left with.

In saying that, my next baby will still be born in a hospital. I'm reasonably confident that things won't spiral out of control quite like last time, but am prepared to fight for my right to a dignified experience.

To answer the original question:
I believe a normal birth is vaginal. That is all. What happened to my family was so unnatural, anything short of a c/s would be satisfactory to me, in conjunction with feeling respected and in control. My CS could have been avoided. That eats me up inside. There is nothing normal about dangling a c/s in front of an exhausted, fearful, vulnerable first time mum. My definition of normal is simple, for very complicated reasons.

Thanks for a thought provoking thread!

And the standard disclaimer ***my views are my own and not intended to offend anyone***. I seem to upset someone every time I speak about my son's birth. If anyone has a problem with my participation in birth discussions, well, tough.

[Maruschke]

I personally feel we should do away with natural and normal and look at "optimal" for the circumstance.

There is no use talking about how unnatural a birth was, if the intervention saved the babies life and was the safest option and best available option.

Many optimal births won't measure up to the natural standard, but I will always opt for optimal rather than natural.

[PumpkinZulu]

I don't think people's *own* views or *own* standards are a judgement call So what if I hold my experiences to a standard others don't...who the heck am I to have other people want to measure up to what *I* think is normal, natural, red, boring etc. Not every positive opinion on natural birth is a judgement against those who didn't have one. Just as I hold myself to my own standards as a mother, a wife, a member of society. Some have higher expectations of themselves, some have lower. Doesn't male anyone better or worse, just different in their perceptions. For example, some people like internals and don't see them as harmful. I see them as a potential problem, in the way that a woman may hear she is 'only' 3cms and feel incredibly disheartened at that...and up go the mental blocks and barriers. Psychological impacts on labour can be just as jarring as physical ones.

As for optimal...I agree and I disagree. I transferred to hospital because DD's water was mec stained. So an optimal decision for her health, but I'm still allowed to feel and express a small sense of regret in not achieving my homebirth. To say that we should only focus on a healthy outcome takes away the emotional outcome of the mother, and the ramifications that holds. I'm not saying that is more important than the babies health, but it is valid and shouldn't be dismissed. An incredibly traumatic birth that results optimally (so an alive baby and mum?) I think is actually a really low standard and is unfortunately one that our medical system adopts regularly. And often unnecessarily. Which is why I think it's important to make our own calls as to what we hold as our 'golden' standard, and to strive for that.

And as always, that's just how *I* feel...I don't expect others to agree, and that's cool

[Novella]

I really like the idea of an 'optimal' birth!

I dont't know if I consider my DD's births as 'normal' becuase they were early but they were unassisted vaginal births. DD1 I had IV antibiotics and scalp monitoring due to prematurity and I had synto injection for delivering the placenta but no drugs, I dont know if this would be considered natural though. I enjoyed her birth but don't think it wasn't optimal but close to it

With DD2 she was earlier but I made an informed decision not to have antibiotics, I did have wireless CTG no pain relief and synto injection post as I tend to bleed. Hers was an optimal birth for me in our situation.

I think normal tends to reflect on how the majority of births are 'managed' and currently that is very different to what I would consider a 'natural' birth. I think the two most importnat things are the health of mother and baby and the families feelings towards their childs birth and that is different for everyone.

[Maruschke]

So an optimal decision for her health, but I'm still allowed to feel and express a small sense of regret in not achieving my homebirth. To say that we should only focus on a healthy outcome takes away the emotional outcome of the mother, and the ramifications that holds. I'm not saying that is more important than the babies health, but it is valid and shouldn't be dismissed.

I never touched on the topic of whether or not people can feel regret for not achieving what they consider to be natural/normal. I was only talking about the label / classification people want to give a particular birth. I didn't dismiss the emotional outcome of the mother. Quite obviously, a traumatic birth that resulting in a healthy mother/baby is not nice to experience and quite often is not the optimal that could have been achieved. The emotional health of the mother and her birthing desires should form part of what is considered optimal.

What I am saying is that we should focus on the best possible birth given the circumstance. If it is not possible for a particular mother/baby to achieve a drug free intervention free monitoring free vaginal birth... then that is not her golden standard, that is not her goal.

Unfortunately, for some women, an unnatural birth might be the best standard achievable. A vaginal birth for a woman placenta previa might result in a suboptimal outcome than a cs, for example.

I see a lot of people talk about the ideal natural birth, and feel awful if their own birth doesn't measure up to THAT standard. I can understand why they do it but I refuse. My golden standard is not a perfect natural unassisted unmedicated birth. My gold standard is the most natural, minimal interventionist birth possible for me and my baby and I outright refuse to feel any guilt because of the difference between my gold standard and the perfect natural unassisted unmedicated birth.

My opinion, of course .

[PumpkinZulu]

You absolutely should not feel any guilt! I think we're saying the same thing. Each individual women should set their own benchmarks and never feel like they didn't measure up to anyone bar themselves.

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

I dunno - my only benchmark was to be treated with respect and not have drugs pushed at me every two minutes. I didn't really have grand designs on birth. Sure, I'd be happier with fewer interventions, but sometimes they're necessary. And I was fine with that.

Now I'm not - and that's more to do with how I was treated than actual standards I hold for myself.

[*Danni*]

You absolutely should not feel any guilt! I think we're saying the same thing. Each individual women should set their own benchmarks and never feel like they didn't measure up to anyone bar themselves.

Well said & so very true!


Sent from my iPhone, using Tapatalk

[Jennifer13]

I think a normal birth is one where a mother is empowered and able to make decisions about what she would/wouldn't like to occur during her birth with the full knowledge of what each decision might bring about. A normal birth is one where the mother and baby's physical and emotional wellbeing take precedence. Only very, very few births if approached in a normal way would end up with an emergency outcome.

An abnormal birth is one where she is coerced, has information withheld from her (during pg and birth), is bullied, pressured to experience something that makes her uncomfortable, scared, or whatever situation she may find herself in that does not allow her to come to an informed and empowered choice. I also take this to mean information is not generally available in her culture (be it developed or developing!), so it may be superstition or medical in nature.

I do not think a normal birth needs to exclude medical assistance, just like helping someone who is sick doesn't mean the automatic inclusion or exclusion of medication, as well as natural remedies and helping your own body. But I think it's highly unlikely that most birth interventions are offered with the full knowledge of the mother as to all possible implications of those interventions. I don't think our culture is always conducive to having a birth that is not medical in any way.

[forshelby]

Yes! Optimal should be the way to describe it. I also had no grand plans for birth. I just wanted to be left alone. Due to the synto though, I had the monitors etc and was stuck on the bed. And we all know constant monitoring means the constant presence of a stranger. The MW on duty. There were many obstacles thrown in my path from the onset of labour. I don't feel I failed, but I do know in a moment of weakness., I dropped my guard and succumbed to their 'timeline'. I do remember feeling disheartened being told I was 'only' 5-6cm dialated after 12 hours of vicious contractions.

I would have been ok with the c/s without all the complications which arose as a result of the surgery. I'm still paying for it now.

I think I'm getting lost in my ramblings. My point is, we should have our own standards. What's ideal for one woman might be my worst nightmare. I don't understand all the judgement and smugness I see in conversations about birth. (not here, just in general) Maybe because of my particular experience, I'm more sensitive to that kind of thing. I think the fact that none of what happened to me was neccesary really is my issue. Neither of us were in danger. Until they intervened. How ironic. Even if I end up with another C/S, I think I can make peace with that, as long as my emotional wellbeing is protected, and I'm spared the agony of being mistreated by those I'm supposed to trust.

Rambling again. I hope I'm making sense.

[Floweryfields]

I like the word optimal too.

[HotI]

What is a normal birth?

What is a natural birth?

What is an optimal birth?

All 3 questions are asking different things, and the answers will be different to each question.

'Normal' is largely defined by culture and time. C sections or assisted vaginal birth are certainly 'normal' in Australia at this time.
e.g. it used to be accepted (i think in the 60s) that a birth lasting 48 hours was 'normal'. In the 70s, normal was redefined as a birth lasting up to 24 hours. Now, a labour over 12 hours is considered long and not 'normal'. (this last step was due to a Scottish dr at a very busy overcrowded hospital describing the 1cm dilation every hour rule to define normal).

And then there is 'normal physiological birth'...

I think 'natural birth' can be defined more concretely, but others may not agree. Not every woman wants a natural birth, even given the best circumstance not every woman will be able to safely achieve a natural birth.

Optimal birth is probably the most subjective term, what is optimal for me may not be optimal for you. What is optimal for the woman may not be optimal for society. What is optimal for me for this birth, may not be optimal for me next time.

[PumpkinZulu]

F'chug &l

[Maruschke]

F'chug &l

Que?

[Ilithyia]

there are differences between normal and natural birth. what has become normal in our society is not natural.

Thats just about it.

A normal birth to me is a vaginal birth without the intervention of any kind - as the OP has asked about "normal birth" and not natural birth.

The normal births that I see are those that progress normally with decent and dilation progressing as it should.

Everything else is a variation of normal.

I think as time goes on and women become more educated and more active in their own health care, variations to normal become normal. Things like posterior labours, VBAC's, epidurals etc.

So I guess its hard to pinpoint normal birth. It really all depends on your HCP, your own beliefs, your place of birth and the beliefs of those supporting you.

As for the article, I'm suprised it was even published given the lack of participants.

[LuluHB]

I consider the births of both my girls as normal, but only DD2 was natural.

I was however completely in control the entire way through. No one did anything to me I didn't want or approve of, so despite the less than natural progress of DD1's birth, I was still happy. The only thing I still wonder on occasion is what would her birth be like if she hadn't been induced, but given my health circumstances that resulted in the induction I can live with the wonder.

I like the idea of optimal too. If I have a third "optimal" birth I'll be a very happy mummy.

[PumpkinZulu]

F'chug &l

Uhhhhh....love Isla??