Talk:Childbirth/Archive 1

message: Is there some source to verify that circumcision rates went down as a direct result of increased fatherly presence in the delivery room?  Joyous 23:15, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have overstated.  I was referring to the overall empowerment of parents in the whole childbirth process, as opposed to the pure medicalization of childbirth.  I have adjusted my wording to reflect historical changes, including some links to articles regarding parental choice in the hospital-context changing over time.  DanP 00:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision: Fathers in the delivery room 

message: "any parents like to see and touch this mysterious organ. In some cultures, there is a custom to dig a hole and plant a tree along with the placenta on the child's first birthday -- in some populations, it is ceremonially eaten by the newborn's family."
Does somebody have a source to the fact that some cultures eat the placenta after birth? I find just the image of sitting around the dinner table eating a placenta, really kinda strange... It seems a bit unhygenic too, Anybody have any more info on this or if it's true?
:Unhygienic? Not if it's thoroughly cooked! Perhaps the WikiCookbook should include some placenta recipes. You're right, it sounds like an urban legend. JFW | T@lk 19:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm trying to come up with a suitable recipe. I have a couple weeks maybe before I'll need it, and of course I'll put it in the wikibooks cookbook. I've already tried stir-fry; it came out kind of like tough foam rubber. (maybe overcooked) Baking did the same, but I think I really overcooked it. Note that I don't care for onions, garlic, and peppers. (I tend to use rosemary, ginger, sage, thyme, basil, oregano, cumin...) Usually I'm a pretty good cook, but it's hard to tell what to do when cooking something I rarely get a chance to cook. Maybe I should mix the placenta into some scrambled eggs. I'd probably make tacos if I had a grinder, but I'm out of luck for that. Ideas? AlbertCahalan 15:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, we have a Spicy Australian Placenta recipe now. AlbertCahalan 19:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Please ask them for recipes. I need one, fast. Let me know if I can just copy it into the Wikibooks cookbook, and if I should give credit to someone. AlbertCahalan 15:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: A few years ago this actually happened on British TV in a program presented by a fairly well known professional food writer, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. A family and friends ate a placenta prepared  as a meal. It was a subject of a Broadcasting Standards Commission complaint, see here; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/101944.stm. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall talks about it himself here on his own website; http://www.rivercottage.net/askhugh/index.jsp. I don't know if it possible to obtain copy footage of the original program. --Ben Taylor 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eating the placenta 

message: Is there any connection between neo-natal alloimmune thrombocytopenia and Rh disease? My initial thought was that it sound like the same disease. Then on a second read on the article, i realised she have never had a life child before. That doesn't say much since an aborted child earlier in her life could also trigger Antibodies in her body. Anyway, a medical trained wikipedian would be more helpful since i am not even sure what i am even saying.  gathima 14:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth defects

message: Is anyone wedded to the photo?  I think it is awful.  It makes childbirth look high tch, impersonal and medical.  I'll look for something better.  It would be nice to have a photo of the Mum! --Maustrauser 13:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed too. That photo brings back horrid memories from before I learned about homebirth. There definitely needs to be a more reasonable photo, perhaps of a homebirth baby getting a chance to nurse before the cord is cut or the placenta is out. Keeping that awful hospital photo might be OK though, making for a rather dramatic comparison. Note that the placenta photo is similar, showing somebody with their sleeves tucked under latex gloves. You'd think the thing had Ebola! AlbertCahalan 14:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't call it awful, but I do think it's needlessly graphic, given that its the first thing that hits you upon opening this Childbirth article. Perhaps it might be good to move it down the page, and in its current position put something a little more personal, less blood-covered, and possibly including a mom as Maustrauser suggested. --Monger 3 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
I have removed the photo illustrating childbirth entitled 'Caesarean section'.  The vast majority (admittedly decreasing in Western Countries) of childbirth in the world is vaginally.  And yet we illustrate the article with a caesarean section.  I am now hunting for a decent photo. Maustrauser 07:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Do you like the one I put up? Medicobaby 11:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah - my upload! Maustrauser 12:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm concerned about the licensing on that new photo.  The upload note says "permission sought and received" from the owner, but has an "I, the creator of the work, release this picture into the public domain" tag on it.    While it's a great picture, you need to resolve the licensing issues correctly as soon as possible.  Please read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy carefully, and do so.  Thanks! Nandesuka 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed - I hope! Maustrauser 12:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nandesuka, what was wrong with the upload of that other photo of the physiological third stage?  Much nicer photo than the baby being treated as some sort of chicken having its legs ripped apart?  I can't see it being a POV edit?  And the comment about endorphins seemed OK too.  What are your objections?  Maustrauser 12:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was accidental - I didn't realize the image was replaced, I thought he just changed the description, which was what I meant to revert.  I reverted myself and went back and adjusted the descriptions accordingly. Nandesuka 15:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  No probs.  Thanks, it looks good. Maustrauser 00:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Nandesuka, I don't intend to get into a revert war over the placenta inspection description.  But I must say I am surprised by your claim that it is the obstetrician who delivers the placenta.  I was under the impression that it was the woman!
Are you Australian?  It is my experience in Australia that it is the midwife's job to inspect the placenta to ensure that it is intact.  Next to no obstetricians do this task.  How shall we manage these cultural differences? --Maustrauser 13:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third stage - placenta

message: Maustrauser, I thought your last edit (rewording the obstetrician section to parallel the midwife section) was very good.  Thanks.  The reason I had used the word "physician" rather than "surgeon" is that obstetricians are not necessarily surgeons (although many are).  See, e.g. http://www.abog.org/women/defs.html.   Nandesuka 13:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although obstetricians "are experts in dealing with abnormal births and pathological labour conditions", this is on top of understanding normal births, not instead of. They are also experts at spotting potential complications during labour, and can be present at a perfectly normal labour as a precaution. I'm planning to add something along these lines as it is not clear from the current section, which implies that they may be only present in difficult births. Stephen B Streater 08:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, they do understand normal births but they are not 'expert' in them.  They simply do not have the time to become expert in normal births.  They are experts in abnormal conditions.  Midwives are experts in normal birth.  I think the distinction has to be made clear.  Obstetricians in Australia do NOT need to attend any normal births in their training - if all the births they attend end up caesareans then that is OK.  Midwives have to attend 40 normal births (excluding caesareans etc) to qualify.  Also, in your edit, please ensure that obstetricians and midwives are seen as a team - not as competing professions.  Maustrauser 08:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK - I cut this down before adding it. Stephen B Streater 09:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obstetricians 

message: Dear interested folk, what do you think of the new graphic supplied by Stevertigo?  I must say it has some educative role and that's what I don't like about it.  It continues the old furphy (oz slang) that birth is done on the back.  Much evidence shows that giving birth on the back is the WORST way to give birth, as it closes (rather than opens) the vagina and it puts additional force on the coccyx, causing additional pain.  I am inclined to remove it, but before I do, I would like other comments.  Ta.  --Maustrauser 10:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly right about the positioning, but I think the image has a very good illustrative value and should remain.  The article needs to better discuss birthing positions, though I'm sure it was written somewhere around here.  violet/riga (t) 10:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Re-orienting the image to be vertical feels like a fine compromise.  Nandesuka 12:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maustrauser, I reverted the vertical image because it seems to be broken -- it won't display for me on two separate machines with different browser types. Nandesuka 14:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone else having any problems?  It works on my Mac running Safari and on my ancient work computer a - pentium thing with Explorer? --Maustrauser 06:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it possible that an older, working version is in your browsers' cache?  Nandesuka 11:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it could have been.  I hope I have now managed to fix it. --Maustrauser 12:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, looks great!  Thanks.  Nandesuka 12:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Graphic

message: Does the word "goo" really belong in an encyclopedia?  This is in the "second stage" small heading. Dawhitfield 20:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  The word is 'Vernix'.  Feel free to make the changes yourself next time! --Maustrauser 12:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Goo" is well-understood. I think the point of a good encyclopedia is to be informative, so "goo" is an excellent word to use. AlbertCahalan 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goo 

message: Am I being too parsimonious / grumpy about removing the links to "Lamaze Institute for Normal Birth" that User:68.48.134.184 keeps adding?  It probably wouldn't have even shown up on my radar but that she's adding them to every article that is even tangentially related.  My feeling is as follows: (1) the main lamaze site has a link to the Institute for Normal Birth right up top.  So I don't see the point in adding another link here where we're already linking to Lamaze.  (2) I can see linking to the institute from directly relevant articles, such as Natural childbirth.  (3) In other cases, I'd kind of like an explicit statement of the relevance of the link within the article, so that we have some reassurance that it's not just POV pushing.
What's the consensus here?  Am I being too prickly, or reasonable?  --Nandesuka 02:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that links added in a spamming spree may be removed without discussion. It can stay on pages like natural childbirth and pages on the Lamaze technique, but I generally penalise spammers by removing those as well. We're not a link repository. JFW | T@lk 02:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamaze Institute For Normal Birth links 

message: I have cleaned up a lot of wording - a lot still needs to be done. Almost everything should be written in Active voice ;-). Please watch for spelling problems, awkward wording, etc.. Also, I have moved "Professions associated with Childbirth" down below the actual childbirth (event) information. It makes no sense for that section to be above the stages of labor. It bothers me that so many edits can be made by so many active partisans on both sides, yet the writing does not improve. Please take the time to write well. If you are too rushed or flushed to write well and edit your writing, perhaps you should come back when you have more time to write. Danlovejoy 23:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I've read through this article and also the discussion and wish to point out some personal views. I am an anaesthetist (anesthesiologist if you prefer) who specialises in obstetric anaesthesia. I am also a parent.
(1) Some fortunate women find labour and delivery painless. Others prepare themselves to expect the pain of contractions and can manage these without any help except a supportive companion. I wish them nothing but success. Some women, on the other hand, cannot tolerate the pain of childbirth, and they ought to be free to request (and have provided) excellent analgesia without stigma.
(2) Childbirth may be perceived as "over-medicalised". I support women who wish to deliver at home or in another location of their choice, and I support their other choices (midwife-led care, freedom of mobility, labour in water, free access to food and drink, unhurried delivery of placenta, etc., etc.). On the other hand, I have been personally involved in life-saving care of women (and their babies) who have suffered from eclamptic disease, haemorrhagic disease, embolic disease, obstructed labour, cord prolapse, malpresentation, uterine rupture, puerperal sepsis and other diseases of pregnancy, who would probably have died outwith the hospital setting. On the third hand (!), there is a population of women who desire and embrace the convenience and comparative ease of a planned caesarean section. If we insist women must be free to deliver how they wish, surely the wishes of these women ought to be respected?
In my opinion, the essence of good maternity care is that the mother and the baby should both be alive and well at the end. We are so good at providing that now that maternal deaths are exceptionally rare in the UK (see the triennial reports of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists). The price we pay for that safety is the "medicalisation" of childbirth. It seems to be forgotten that childbirth is potentially lethal for mother and baby, and doctors are vilified for "interfering" with childbirth.
Do we do too many episiotomies? Almost certainly. Too many caesareans? No doubt about it. Too much augmented labour/ induction/ artificial rupture of membranes? Without question.
But some women need those procedures, and they need to not be made to feel a failure if they do. Equally important is that my patients not perceive me as a twisted doctor determined to intervene at every step in what is a "natural" process. Preacherdoc 05:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Preacherdoc.  You state that we have too many episiotomies and too many caesareans and basically too many interventions.  I think we all agree on that.  But then you also state: "there is a population of women who desire and embrace the convenience and comparative ease of a planned caesarean section. If we insist women must be free to deliver how they wish, surely the wishes of these women ought to be respected?"  Of course their wishes should be respected, but are they informed wishes?  Are they aware that the death rate for women is on the rise again (in Australia) at least because of the increase in caesarean?  Are they aware of the increased morbidity from interventions?  I suspect that many of the women supposedly chosing caesarean for 'convenience' are completely unaware of the risks of caesarean.  In Australia a caesarean section must be about the only type of medical procedure funded by the taxpayer that does not require a medical reason for it to be performed.  Of course caesarean sections and other interventions save lives, but they can also ruin lives when the procedure is not required.  Maustrauser 12:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maustrauser, thanks for your comments. First, I must say that I was not aware that the maternal death rate in Australia is increasing! The maternal death rate in the UK has risen very slightly over the last couple of triennial reports. This is well within the limits required to reach statistical significance. I would need to see convincing figures before I would accept this remark, and I would certainly hesitate to ascribe it to the "increase" in caesarean sections. Next, the convenient caesarean. I disagree with women who choose to have planned caesareans rather than attempt a vaginal delivery. However, I have a colleague who has recently taken this option (for the second time), and I assume she knows at least as much as any doctor about the risks involved. Of course, she is not typical of the "average" parturient, but it seems at best ingenuous of you to assert that just because a woman doesn't agree with what you would choose for her, she must be ill-informed. Finally, over-medicalisation. A close friend who is also an anaesthetist gives some of her free time to a charity, and has recently spent a month in West Africa anaesthetising women with rectovaginal fistulas created by perineal tearing in childbirth. Such women are considered unclean by their husbands and in some instances are forcibly removed from their family homes. Some women had walked over 100 miles to the hospital. The repairs were quick and overwhelmingly successful, but all of those women could have been spared this situation by an episiotomy and perineal repair at the time of childbirth. The women of West Africa have no choice, but if we abandon medicalised childbirth, this is just one scenario we will be potentially facing: we will have thrown out the baby (pardon the metaphor) with the bathwater.Preacherdoc 02:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Perinatal Statistics Unit at the University of New South Wales is currently crunching the data.  There is an increase in maternal mortality but I have to admit that it is uncertain whether it is attributable to the increased caesarean rate.  It is postulated that this is likely to be the reason given that it closely mirrors the dramatic increasae in caesareans.  30% in most private hospitals and some are nearing 60% in some which seems quite an indictment on the maternity profession - midwives and doctors!    We need to be careful using anecdotal evidence to support our views, but I am not certain that your colleagues choice of a caesar is based on information or based upon fear.  It is a well known phenomenon amongst midwives in Australia that they have 'harder' births than the average woman and it seems to be based upon  them having 'too much information' rather than too little.  So information is a fine balance and the labour progress relates to the amount of support the woman has from other women at the birth... I am NOT against the use of appropriate interventions at birth, just unnecessary ones when the evidence shows how quickly the wrong intervention leads to a cascade of interventions culminating in a caesarean.  What wonderful work your colleague is doing in West Africa.  However, I am not convinced that an episiotomy would solve their problem - I hazard to suggest it is caused by FGM in the first place.  Fix that and then I reckon the majority of fistulas would never happen.  Cheers Henry Maustrauser 04:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your "colleague who has recently taken this option" probably did so for reasons entirely unrelated to risk. (no matter if she admits it to herself of not) Some people feel a very strong need to be in control of their schedule. She obviously has a career. Though I detest the idea of a planned caesareans, I have to admit that being able to mark an X on the calendar is an upside to the matter. It would probably be embarrasing to go to some other hospital, and very embarrasing to labor and birth in front of all her colleagues. Birth in front of your colleagues probably ranks about the same as having your colleagues closely watch you poo, have sex (various types), pick a huge booger from your nose, etc. No wonder she planned a caesarean. AlbertCahalan 04:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Preacherdoc, thanks for eloquently summarizing a very interesting point of view.  Nandesuka 12:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anaesthetist's viewpoint 

message: what's the deal with the first image? is that a water birth or something? and the last one doesn't really work at all, it's hard to even see exactly what's going on. i know someone will rip my head off for this, but neither seem very representative or illustrative. at least one diagram would be better than some bizarre new age-y art photography. Joeyramoney 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is post waterbirth.  Perhaps you have better images that you wish to offer.  Ones that are illustrative and are also appropriate for an encyclopaedia.  Having attended no shortage of non-medical births, both images are representative of a successful natural birth.  Feel free to pop over to caesarean to see some more blood and guts photos. Mirasmus 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  photos 

message: Should there be a section on fictional explanations (perhaps by culture) for "where babies come from"? For example,
* Storks
* Pelican
* Cabbage Patch
* Watermelon seed
The stork is pretty easy, but the others would need good citations. --Goldfndr 02:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional explanations? 

message: Howdy, I'm an expecting father and I was very much looking forward to learning about the costs and benefits for various methods of birth and pain reduction.  How and to what degree does an opiate passing through the placenta harm my baby?  How and to what degree does an epideral reduce the likelihood my baby will breastfeed?  For some reason, trying to find answers to these simple questions is a minefield of weasel words.  All I want is to know what's best for my wife statistically, so we can be informed and she can make the best decision for herself.  207.172.172.221 03:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard stats on pain management? 

message: This tidbit is unsourced and to my mind irrelevant to an encyclopedia (not to a book of records, though).  I've cut it from the article but I'm leaving it here.  -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tidbit cut from article 

message: Look, I'm very much a fan of the birth movement, but this is going too far. Whilst it is fine to mention that some women find doulas useful during labour and birth, we have to remember that the large majority of human births do not happen in developed western countries and most often the non-medical people attending a birth are either female relatives or the baby's father. To suggest otherwise is simply parochial.
:: My understanding is that you're more likely to get a doula in developing countries and mid-wives in developed ones. Bear in mind that a doula doesn't need to have any training. The oldest grandmother in the village would likely perform the doula role in many third world births, is it not? Poweroid 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Mongo deleted the section mentioning doulas in the "professions associated with childbirth" section.  I've put it back with some modification.  I tried to discuss this with Mongo but his/her page is protected.  Certainly in Australia doulas are becoming more and more common and thus fit as a profession associated with childbirth. Maustrauser 00:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some parts read like a huge advert for doulas. 

message: It may need a few citations in places, but there is a long list of references in the article so I don't understand why the tag which says otherwise.  Professor marginalia 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this article twice tagged?

message: You have probably had it up to your ears of this, but I think it's important. You have ONE link in the external links page, to a very large, US, commercial site Baby Center. I have suggested my Australian site, which is one of the top family websites in Australia, is not owned by any organisations or corporations (i.e. Media companies) and is heavily geared towards birth - and it's very balanced. It would be great to see a site with information not biased due to corporate affiliations and run by a mother with no employees, who is heavily involved in the site, to ensure all get the support during pregnancy and birth that they need. BellyBelly is well known for being extremely supportive and there are none of those fighting matches going on online as I moderate it particularly well. Articles are compiled and written by not only myself as a birth attendant, but also people cited in Wikipedia, like David Vernon, Janet Balaskas and more. Please consider. I don't make profits from the site to live an extravagant lifestyle, it all goes back into my site and running it - as I say on my own. Please add a very supportive, comprehensive and highly supportive Australian site, www.bellybelly.com.au - take a look and see for yourself. KellyBZ 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eloquently put.  I think Baby Center has now been deleted.  Please have a look at WP:EL for Wikipedia policies regarding external links and that will explain why your site is removed.  If you consider adding it again, please be aware of WP:COI.  Also be aware that WP is written from a neutral point of view and thus we try not to 'push' any one view, but provide evidence for all our claims.  Happy editing. Gillyweed 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I am sorry to see that you did not agree with my edit that had changed the definition of midwives.
From "Midwives are experts in normal birth." 
To: "Midwives are professionals who attend normal birth." 
Why? This is not an insult to midwives, just a recognition of the reality that midwives themselves espouse. The following sentences convey this well.  "Midwives believe that childbirth is a normal process that is best accomplished with as little interference as possible. Midwives are trained to assist at birth..."
I noted in my edit that mothers themselves are the TRUE experts in normal birth. Do you disagree? I think it is vastly unfair and misleading to call anyone else an expert. PomegranateMary 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough question.  1. Midwives are professionals who attend normal births AND abnormal births.  Midwives are there at Caesarean sections.  Midwives are there when the ventouse is used.  Midwives are there at still births.    However, as a profession they claim to be experts in normal birth and not experts in abnormal birth - that is the role of obstetricians.  Midwifery training is all about 'normal birth' and observing when it is no longer normal and requires expert assistance.  2. The view that mothers are the TRUE experts in normal birth is accurate to a degree - when the mother is well read, well supported, emotionally balanced and understands the sheer variety of experiences that birth may bring.  Very few mothers are like that, unfortunately.  Most mothers from my observation are anxious and more than happy to hand their power over to the 'medical fraternity' to manage their birth as a medical crisis.  How you describe mothers is a wish, not a reality.  Sadly. Gillyweed 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. So if midwives CLAIM that they are the experts at normal birth then they are? Don't OB's claim to be experts in normal birth also? And what's normal, anyhow? Actually, it is the midwives job to be on the look-out for what's considered "abnormal."   2. Mothers do NOT need to be well read, well supported, emotionally balanced and highly experienced to be the true expert for birth. Her body was designed to give birth. It's that simple. Everyone else only learns by watching and learning from HER. This article ought to reflect that. PomegranateMary 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe that many Obs consider themselves experts at normal birth.  They can't be.  Few ever sit through an entire labour and birth and see a 'normal birth'.  They see themselves as experts at dealing with things when they 'go wrong'.  As for remark (2), I still believe what you are claiming is a wish and not a reality.  Whilst I agree that women's bodies are well evolved to give birth, even the WHO considers that 10% of women will require a C-Section.  I'd be delighted if your view was reality.  But sadly it isn't. Gillyweed 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reality is, as you stated, that, "Most mothers from my observation are anxious and more than happy to hand their power over to the 'medical fraternity' to manage their birth as a medical crisis." However, you can not assume that the practice of these mothers is one based on true necessity. If it were, then in the absence of midwives, doctors, and hospitals the human race would be on the verge of extinction within a few generations. You have no reason to say that my view is a wish and not a reality. The history of mankind is based on the fact that women were giving birth long before there were midwives. Midwives know what they do ONLY by observing women give birth. So how can the student know more than the master? Further, my own experience has been proof that women can give birth easily and well without any experts even in this age and Western culture. Personally, I am not interested in supporting the status quo that expects women to hand over their power. Are you? Wouldn't it be better if we simply stated the way things are- instead of furthering the lines that some professions use as advertisements? Mothers are the experts of normal, natural, spontaneous birth- Not midwives. PomegranateMary 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we agree more than we disagree.  I agree that 'inherent' in women is an ability to give birth, and (if they look deep enough and can ignore the fear-mongering of the media), birth is an eminently achievable and empowering event.  BUT, to paraphrase, no woman is an island.  They live within a society that believes that birth is fraught and difficult AND we know that at least ten percent of births need assistance of some kind.  Women are inculcated from an early age that birth is dangerous.  And for ten percent it perhaps is. It is these ten percent that I am particularly interested in.  I believe underlying your view of birth (given your edits on the unassisted childbirth article) is that if we stop meddling in birth then women will be fine.  I disagree.  There are a range of pathologies that the birthing woman cannot deal with and no matter how 'expert' she sees her role, requires someone with greater expertise than she.  She needs someone who has seen a cord prolapse before, someone who knows how to deal with PPH, someone who can cut an abdomen.  She needs an expert and for the vast majority of births, that expert will be a midwife and for a smaller number, the midwife will hand call in a specialist obstetrician to handle the most complex stuff.   An expert midwife will do nothing and sit in the corner of the birth room and wait and let the woman do what she can.  She will not interfere or intervene except when required.  This is a partnership.  If you can gain consensus from the other regular editors of this page that a woman is "the expert" on birth, then I will accept your change.  Gillyweed 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth "experts" 

message: A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 16:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: I just read through the article and was curious. What is the current standard birth position? Contrary to what television would have us believe, lying flat on her back is more difficult for the mother but easier for the doctor, and sitting down is impossible. What is the actual posture used to give birth? 84.63.68.198 19:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no standard birth position.  Active birth suggests being vertical, on your hands and knees, squatting, or sitting on a birth stool.  Sitting down is not impossible on a birth stool.  The woman should give birth in the position that best suits her needs. Gillyweed 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard birth position