Common childbirth procedures are NOT supported by scientific evidence

via: NaturalNews
Thursday, July 12, 2012
By: Victoria Moore

[NaturalNews] Many commonplace procedures that are practiced during routine, low risk, deliveries have no scientific evidence to back them up. These unnecessary medical processes can actually increase many risks in the mother and child. Many women are following the Midwife of Modern Midwifery, Ina May Gaskin, in a push to educate national policy makers and the public about reduced costs and improved outcomes associated with alternatives to hospital-based care. In an effort to educate on the need for maternity reform in the United States it is important for people to understand how these practices have no scientific baring.

Elective Inductions:

These are typically done due to the mother experiencing discomfort from the growing baby and the doctor feeling that the baby is large enough to be brought into the world. This can be done using drugs such as Pitocin to bring on labor, or through a scheduled C-section. The problem is that when doctors estimate the weight of the baby inside of the womb, they have no accurate way to determine the size of the baby. The newborns may seem mature but are at greater risk for short and long-term problems. Recent research is indicating the potential for neurological problems and learning disabilities that may not show up for years.

Cesarean surgery

C-Sections are usually the result of failed interventions. As reported on NaturalNews, C-sections are on the rise by 53 percent due to the casual attitude around the surgery and using the option out of convenience. C-section increases the risk of death by three times compared with vaginal delivery, and four times as much if it is done in the case of an emergency.

Continuous electronic fetal monitoring

This method is used in the majority of births in the U.S., although it is only shown to be beneficial to women in high-risk pregnancies or who have used labor-inducing drugs. In low risk pregnancies it has been shown to increase the chances of intervention due to misinterpreting the monitor and jumping to intervene, instead of trying to improve the birthing conditions. Women with low risk pregnancies should request to have intermittent monitoring during and after contractions.

Amniotomy (Breaking of membranes)

A common misconception is that breaking the water will help to progress labor. This intervention has shown to include risks such as infection, heart rate and umbilical cord problems.

Episiotomy

The myth about this procedure is that it can shorten the pushing stage of labor. Recent studies by the Journal of American Medical Association states that this type of severe trauma can pose more problems with increased risks of infection, swelling, incontinence and decreased sexual function.

Immediate cord clamping

Studies show that delaying cord clamping, if even by only thirty seconds, can be beneficial. Many physicians will agree that there are benefits for delayed clamping, but that it can be a hassle and takes longer. Delayed cord clamping allows fetal blood from the placenta to transfuse back into the baby, which can result in higher iron levels, increased tissue oxygenation and reduced incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage.

These methods make it easy to cause complications by causing the mother to be uncomfortable; therefore, making it difficult for the body to progress during labor towards a sound birth. The result is that women have come to believe that their bodies are ill equipped to handle birth and that interventions are in the best interest of mother and child. The truth is that most hospitals spend more money on the appearance of its maternity facility than making sure its delivery practices are based on strong scientific evidence. The public needs to be aware that these procedures are NOT shown to have positive medical benefits, and should be denied unless necessary.

Sources for this article include

http://www.babble.com

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/433/oh_baby

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=297&issue=11&page=1241

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948093/

http://academicobgyn.com

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Advertisements

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: