This is often the sort of information and opinion I like when making decisions as I think a good professional at grass roots level who has the best interest of the mother and the baby and has a 'heap' of hands on, up close experience is generally going to have a good idea of the reality.
However, it is a good idea to also have read widely and consider lots of different things when making a decision.
What jumps to mind for me is - why? Why is a natural process more likely to end in a potentially life threatening situation for the mother? Mother nature generally does not work that way and usually has incredible natural solutions for potential problems that come up.
So, my next question is, what things do we do in the modern hospital system which may interfere with Mother Natures natural safeguards?
The two things that jump to mind are
- not giving mothers enough time to have skin to skin contact directly after the bith and to establish that first latching on therby releasing a natural surge of oxytocin. The natural version of the drug used to contract the uterus. Modern birth demands that a baby is weighed measured and tested at birth and can be whisked away too early. This is thankfully becoming less the case as we have fought to keep our babies with us in those early minutes and the hospitals have heard and responded, but I still think there is a rush to move mums on and this interferes with the natural processes.
- Clamping the cord too early so the blood destined for the baby (that he/she is designed to have in the few minutes the cord continues to pulse) is left in the placenta. Therefore the placenta is heavier with blood than it is designed to be and is more difficult to expel.
I am not saying that the above experiences are everyones, I realise that there will be people who had plenty of time with their newborn and a delayed clamp and still had PPH. That is the nature of human beings - we always have exceptions to the rules! In these cases and in emergency cases, it is excellent that we have solutions such as drugs to inject to potentially save lives. Still, I think this all holds for a majority of people, and I personally prefer to try to give Mother Nature the benefit of the doubt.
Finally, in making my decision, I ask, what do the hospitals have to gain from following a managed vs physiological approach?
My answer to this (and other people may have other answers) is that although they undoubtedly have the mother and babies health and well-being as a high priority, I feel that they also have to answer to the bottom line. They need to move people on quickly and leaving a mother to appreciate the wonder of Mother Nature's plan does not make sense in that regard. Also, if there has already been a usurping of Mother Nature with early cord clamping, (or even a managed labour with the use of induction drugs) it may well be safer to have a managed third stage.
In saying all this, I am not wanting to judge anyone's choices by any means, I just want to share my thought process on the issue. I think everyone has a right to make their own mind up. For me, I am choosing a home birth this time so I don't have to be on the defensive when in birth asking for the right to birth my way rather than the hospital 'standard' and I'm going for delayed cord clamping and a natural third stage!


Reply With Quote


Bookmarks