Talk:Natural childbirth

message: There is a pro vs con style in this article that I am partly responsible for. I believe that this is bad encyclopedic style, and I am going to work at fixing it. I have rewritten the first section "Opposition to anaesthetics and medical intervention" in a more condensed and unified way. I will slowly work through the other sections.
Attilitus (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, can you respond to my query at the bottom of the page please.  You might wish to note that WP style is that you put new comments at the bottom of the page rather than the top.  You will notice that there is a tab at the top of your browser that states "new section".  This puts your comments at the bottom of the talk page.  It is a lot clearer that way.  Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensing the article, and removing pro vs con sentiments

message: Natural childbirth is a "movement" that is counter to the mainstream culture of educated medical professionals. The topic should be approached with more skepticism than I am seeing in this article. I have opted not to change some of the material of questionable neutrality. However, I have added a small section on the Marketing of Natural childbirth which is more critical of its philosophies.
Attilitus (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic of the article is "Natural Childbirth." The goal of wikipedia is to provide information. Therefore, this article should describe what natural childbirth is - giving birth without or with a minimum of medical intervention, and maybe reasons for why people may or may not choose to do so. Period. Appropriate links can be provided to the childbirth, epidural, Caesarean section pages as needed rather than repeating what is already handled well on other pages. Lcwilsie (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Countercultural movement

message: I am unable to find the reason on this page for the NPOV tag and therefore have removed it. Maustrauser 10:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag

message: Though some have portrayed natural birth as merely a "technique," or even "martyrdom," advocates dispute this characterization. Some have also criticized natural childbirth as a fad, and point out that medical advances have significantly decreased the incidence of maternal death during childbirth and infant mortality. This last point fails to consider that maternal and child deaths in the past were caused mostly by poor nutrition and hygiene, and that the dramatic improvement in maternal and child health has not been caused by the medicalization of birth, but by improved nutrition and medicine's understanding of the germ theory of disease.  In Western Countries where medicalization of birth is greatest, there has been a gradual increase in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality as interventions in birth, such as caesarean sections, have increased.
This is wholly unreferenced and must qualify as OR. I have moved it here pending sourcing. TerriersFan 15:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I saw you reverted the tags I added to the natural childbirth article.  I believe my criticisms are valid.
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  Providing how-to advice is not congruent with the wikipedia style.  There are many occurrences of "you should" that you added throughout the article.  This is good information, but the style should be more in the order of "X million Americans participate in Lamaze classes each year in order to prepare for natural childbirth." 
The "How Medicalizing Childbirth Results in Profit" section is particularly non-neutral.  This is a controversial subject and it would be best to change it to say that medical interventions have increased by X % over Y time period and that some natural birth advocates attribute the change to a profit-based American health care system.  Some research into the topic from an international perspective would be a great contribution as well.
I don't have the expertise to make the changes involved, but from what you've contributed, I would bet you do. Stevotower (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag revert by Darcnb66 

message: G'day.  I have a problem with the introduction to this article.  It suggests that "Natural Childbirth" is a philosophy that is 'against' medical intervention.  I'd like to suggest that is actually a positive philosophy rather than a negative one.  That is, proponents of natural childbirth believe that childbirth is an physiological and psychological experience that for the vast majority of women requires no intervention (whether it be medical or 'alternative' such as homeopathic remedies, acupuncture etc).  At present this article focusses on the negatives of intervention as though they define the philosophy.
Could I suggest the following revision to the introduction:
:: Natural Childbirth is a philosophy of childbirth that is based on the notion that women, who are adequately prepared, are innately able to give birth to their chlld, without external intervention.  
If this is agreed we could then scope out that the philosophy has a variety of adherents, from those who are proponents of unassisted childbirth, to those who promote continuity of midwifery care.  
I currently think that the focus on interventions as the main component of the philosophy is unhelpful. Gillyweed (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good starting point. I think it's important to include the range of what "natural" is, so that we don't only include the extreme of unassisted birth, or the idea that every intervention would be precluded, but also the women/practitioners in between. The article has taken on a much more pro/con stance due to certain recent additions. It also has taken on a much more radical sentiment (with some attributions to proponents of natural childbirth that are exagerated, inaccurate, and uncited), painting those who are proponents of natural childbirth as "wild". When I'm able, I'll try to read through some texts I have for useful material to add. Lcwilsie (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is a while since I have looked at this article and sadly it seems to be worse now that it was in the past, which is quite unusual for a WP article.  I wonder if we really should start again?   Just joking!  I'll look forward to your contributions.  Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: How does this sound:
Introduction Gillyweed's proposal, or similar
History 
Preparation Birth prep classes with emphasis on natural birth, books
Pain management for natural chilbirth As written or similar
Physical Aspects	Research re: frequency of birth intervention and women's experiences (LMII study)
Psychological Aspects As written or similar
See Also Internal links
External Links
References
I think we need to drop the "proponents of" approach of this page and instead focus on facts, publications, and quotes as much as possible. Lcwilsie (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a history section, but it still is mostly focused on medical intervention - I'd like to see more on the philosphy of natural childbirth rather than just what I have written. Lcwilsie (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I like this.  It's a good structure.  I'll try to find additional references too.  I do believe that we need to have a Criticisms of Natural Birth section (perhaps this can go after the Psychological aspects).   Whether we like it or not there are critics.  We seem to have a large number of them in Australia and they too (the critics...not necessarily the Australians) need to be quoted for this to be a balanced article.  Some of the current headings proposed suggest this might end up a "How to" article.  We will need to avoid that.  Thanks for the good work. Gillyweed (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed outline 

message: If this is going to have a criticism section, it needs to be well written rather than attacking people who promote natural childbirth. The first statement in the current section implies that natural birth advocates are by definition never obstetricians. What are the objections to minimizing medical intervention? The one I've heard is that some women might not be able to have an epidural if they try for a natural birth and later change their mind. What else? Lcwilsie (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Goodness!  I've just re-read the current criticism section and it is a load of nonsense.  It certainly isn't true that obstetricians are against natural birth.  Take Michel Odent for example.  I have a copy of David Vernon's book Having a Great Birth in Australia and the afterword for that book is written by Andrew Bisits, a prominent natural birth advocate and obstetrician at Newcastle University.  The general criticisms against 'natural birth' are: (1) birth is inherently risky and thus having medical equipment/personnel available reduces the likelihood of catastrophic outcome [ignoring that unnecessary intervention leads to catastrophic outcomes - see the work of Professor Sally Tracy] (2) Death rates for mothers and babies have fallen as obstetric interventions have increased [ignoring that the lowering of death rates over the 20th Century was caused by the introduction of hygiene in childbirth and the improved nutritional status of mothers - Oh in Australia maternal death and injury rates are on the increase again as the caesarean rate rockets above 30%].  Sadly, I'm really hard pressed to find arguments against natural childbirth, which can be backed up by evidence.  There is no shortage of critics of natural childbirth but when you ask them for evidence for their claims they base their views on anecdotal evidence and expert opinion.  Not RCTs.  I proposed the criticism section originally but if we can't have any decent criticism then perhaps we remove it? Gillyweed (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better to remove what is there (as it is not appropriate and doesn't really add any information) and perhaps wait for someone to write something legitimate. I'm sure someone will insist that the article needs "balance" and will add something. As this article isn't about homebirth, the argument about lack of medical equipment/personnel doesn't always apply. Natural childbirth isn't about refusing treatment in the face of catastrophe, but about minimizing intervention - right? Likewise, I think the medical intervention stats should come down (maybe add them to childbirth or work them into the history section) as it creates the appearance of an anti-obstetrics standpoint. Lcwilsie (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add a "To Do" list to the top of the discussion page one of these days Lcwilsie (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree.  thanks Gillyweed (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: This article reads like a promotional pamphlet for "Natural Birthing", there seems to be no criticism of the fact that Natural Childbirth has very little credible research to back it up as significantly better than childbirth in a hospital. It goes on and on about how it increases chance of healthy post-natal recovery, better bonding between infant and mother, quicker recovery, etc, without citing credible and unbiased sources for any of the claims.
The only alleged benefit that is both logically and medically conceivable is slightly better bonding between mother and child, the rest make no sense. Why would your chance of a successful birthing be more likely without medical intervention? I find that highly unlikely, since medical science has drastically increased successful birthing rates compared to "back in the old days". During Medieval and Ancient history, when "natural" births were commonplace, it wasn't considered out of the ordinary for a mother to die due to childbirth complications. In developed countries today, death during childbirth is much less common, I'd even go as far as to say rare.
Basically, this article needs a re-write, as currently, "Natural Childbirth" is not advised by medical practitioners, as the mother could succumb to complications during the birth before she could be taken to a hospital on time. I'm not saying the article should be rewritten in the opposite manner (attacking Natural Childbirth), but it definitely must be written in a much more neutral manner, and potential risks should be made clear. It's completely one sided, lacking any criticism, or even warnings of risks towards the infant and/or the mother. LiamSP (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree - I'm shocked at what looks to me like advocacy for anti-medical stances on wikipedia.  Since I'm not a doctor and don't have citations to hand, I shan't edit this page, but I will pass it on to people who do. 7daysahead (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I concur.  This is pretty dire.  I'm re-adding the NPOV tag.  Let's get this article some attention. Nandesuka (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made a first cut.  There was some unsourced stuff about the history of birth attendants that certainly we could actually source - I'll hit the library this weekend, but if anyone else wants to jump in, be my guest. Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree this article needs some attention. However, it is extremely misguided to portray "Natural Childbirth" as a movement that "is not advised by medical practitioners." Certified nurse midwives (CNMs) - and many midwives with advanced medical training, knowledge, and degrees - tend to approach labor and delivery with a "natural" philosophy of birth. Many midwives are partnered with or backed by supportive obstetricians. Natural childbirth does concern itself with the safety and well-being of mother and child: it relies on scientific research as well as the woman's innate ability to birth (her natural instincts as a biological being). It must also be clear that most natural childbirth advocates are not opposed to medical intervention (such as C-sections or drugs) in the rare event that such intervention is deemed necessary for ensuring safety. There are, of course, conflicts and controversies surrounding some research, especially concerning home births. vs. hospital births. However, we should make sure that natural childbirth is defined by the setting of the home. Although many proponents of natural childbirth maintain that the home is the natural place for most births, natural childbirth is not the same as home birth. This is an important distinction. There is already a section on home birth, and a link can be provided since it is surely related to natural childbirth, but we shouldn't be redundant. I am also willing to provide substantial research backing up some claims of natural childbirth, if any specific concerns about references are presented on the talk page. (Robellina (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly Biased 

message: I don't see its contextual relevance, and the study cited makes no conclusions, so as a reference we need to make a logical step to interpret the data.  That is borderline WP:OR, more so as confounding is not addressed in the data analysis, and it is clear from what is given that the two populations are very different (e.g age and number of post terms).  I've clarified terms used in the initial edit, and will delete if no objections are raised.Millionmice (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete new paragraph on Medicaid vs private? 

message: I came to this article as a mildly interested male, having read some newspaper controversies.  I am surprised to find little or no discussion of a subject I would expect to be prominently covered:  pain.  While obviously I don't speak from first-hand knowledge, I have seen childbirth credibly described as one of the most painful human experiences. Anesthesia in childbirth was introduced in Victorian times precisely for this reason.  It was opposed by conservative doctors and theologians who thought that pain was natural or divinely prescribed (perhaps as a punishment for Eve's sin).  Progressive Victorians, from Charles Darwin (who administered the anesthetic to his own wife) to Queen Victoria herself, greeted anesthesia with enthusiasm as a triumph of modern science.  I would like to see what advocates of natural childbirth say about this.  Do they claim that natural childbirth methods eliminate pain, and if so what is the evidence?  86.144.117.33 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain 

message: The lede on this page is woefully inadequate and reeks of someone's personal project.  I think that, at a basic level, more substance to the initial definition is required. Meg from Toronto (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  As has been alluded to in the above paragraphs, there are substantial semantic problems with the phrase "natural birth".  The current article title "natural birth" appears to lack even a rough consensus definition, while "normal birth" does have a reasonably well documented set of similar definitions, some of which break up 'normal' into various domains of intervention.  I think a renaming of the article to "normal birth" is appropriate, as a split into 'normal' and 'natural' would further muddy things, and would not be supportable on references.  However, I would like some input on this from others before I put up a flag to change it.  If no reply is given I'll just be bold and do it.  Millionmice (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: Article lacks:
1. Detail about how women went from having predominantly natural childbriths to medicalized births. 
2. Definition of natural and medicalized childbirth.  Ideally don't say definition is individual.
3. Comparison of intention/plan to give normal birth on infant and maternal mortality rate. 
4. Summary of process of natural birth and statistics on number intending to and actually giving birth 'naturally'
5. Caution regarding generalisations regarding what women want
6. Global context
The above is a restatement of a wall of text I was tired of reading written by unsigned.  It contains some rephrasing, and is now a good set of goals.  Millionmice (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of misplaced textblock by unsigned 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Disappointed in the quality of this article; it's full of outdated information, as well as inaccurate information. For example, it contradicts itself when talking about the role of feminism (one section claiming early feminists were proponents of pain-free birth, and another claiming feminists were proponents of natural labor)… and there are not proper citations in the article to support statements. One particularly problematic section asserts that "some research" shows natural labor to be harmful… but the citation links to an opinion piece in The Guardian from almost a decade ago (*eye roll*). I tried to make a few minor edits to the article to correct these things (especially that last statement because jfc)… and someone almost immediately hopped on and reverted my changes! Super irritated with this whole, crap article now. Cultlikeminds (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate and outdated