Talk:Lotus birth

message: "Late clamping (or not clamping at all) is the physiological way of treating the cord, and early clamping is an intervention that needs justification.” - I don't think this is relevant as clamping and cutting the cord are different things. In any case the WHO article appears to support cutting the cord (well kind-of). Anyway I think including the quote gives the false impression that the WHO supports Lotus births. 
Chemical Ace (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Google returns over 1,500 hits for "Lotus Birth". There are even books about Lotus Birth, i.e.  (Search Amazon or Campusi). Whether or not Lotus Birth has a medical term, it's hard to say the factuality that this happens or has happened can be brought into question. I think it's fair to say that if someone can think of a birth ritual that is documented or mentioned in thousands of places, then it's happened somewhere and is therefore factual. Removing dispute-of-factuality notice. Ayeroxor 20:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
::I have to partly agree with Joseph regarding this article. The claims made below are unreferenced and read a bit like "Acme's Patent Medicine - Everything healed and wait there's more!" Such significant claims for the efficacy of lotus birth requires significant evidence. However, with regards to Joseph's scepticism about the existence of Lotus Birth, I can say that it is reasonably common within the homebirth movement in Australia. Either way, before any of the material below can go back, it needs more evidence.--Maustrauser 4 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
Hardly quackery! Show me the (credible) research on cord clamping/cord cutting! If you can find any... It is a bit like circumcision; it was considered "necessary" based on custom instead of research. With respect to the claims listed below, I understand a certain reluctance to believe some of them, but "reduced risk of infection" seems like a gimme (if you don't have a gaping wound, bad bugs are less likely to get in) and increased blood volume, also a gimme (logically, if they can bank the blood, there must still be blood in there, right?). As much as we are inclined to believe that what we saw last night on ER is the way things should be, that isn't always the case. No other mammal clamps their umbilical cords... They can't all be nuts, can they?
csp
: Er, surely you're kidding. Nearly all other mammals bite their umbilical cords and eat the placenta immediately after the birth, not leave it attached to the newborn. Would you prefer to advocate that just because 'other mammals do it'? 
: "Lotus birth reduces the risk of infection as there is no open wound."- Surely a claim like this warrants a reference to a reputable study?; 
: "Some people like the child to have the placenta so that it can be buried with the child at the end of his or her life"- Who are these 'some people'?; 
: "Although it is common practice to clamp and cut the cord as soon as the baby is born there is little research to support this practice"- aside from extremely low maternal and newborn death rates in developed countries that practice this under modern, hygenic conditions of course. More to the point, where is any evidence against the prevailing practice? Gamsarah 13:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement with KellyPhD with reference to the use of a non-medical term in addition to a medical one. Although a medical term is in existence (Umbilical Nonseverence), referring to child birth as a medical practice must surely be noted as in dispute. Birth is no more a medical practice than "ageing", "digestion" or the usual "development" of neonate to young adult. The fact that medical intervention may be necessary or "usually practised" does indicate that a process is, by nature, a medical one. The existence of Lotus Birth cannot be questioned as the process is widely documented with first hand experience in addition to the historical texts already mentioned. I understand that there is pressure to note that this process is controversial but then the same must be said of ANY "medical" practise from the surgical removal of a tumour to the usual treatment of symptoms rather than causes. The advocacy of "modern, hygenic conditions" by Gamsarah indicates that this is a desired condition and does not address the accompanying drop in human immunity, the proliferation of resistant strains or the management of instinctive maternal acts. Rufus Duffin (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I fully agree with Kelly's view. We get many reports of this practice among homebirthers in France. None of them claims that it is medically beneficial! Their initial motivation came from the question: is it at all necessary to cut the umbilical chord? Which may be a stressing one when no doc or midwife is around… So the general turn of mind is: why do more if it is doesn't prove necessary beneficial? This article should therefore document historical/cultural aspects of this practice in the broadest manner. Leave out the medical stuff (or treat it as part of the folklore) because childbirth is a social fact, not a medical act! -- Bernard Bel (talk)
I have a couple of issues with this article. 1, using primates (who's young very VERY frequently die in childbirth or directly thereafter) as a positive example is not good. 2, it is stated that the placenta detaches due to necrosis. . . that's bad . . .very bad, look a baby (read weak immune system) being attached to a tissue undergoing necrosis introduces all kinds of risks of infection and sepsis as well as adding the risk of a thrown clot into the baby's bloodstream . This procedure should not be recommended for medical merits unless someone is willing to edit for potential medical risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.36.110 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Google search

message: * completely natural, intervention free childbirth.
* baby receives full benefits from the placental blood including platelets that clot the blood, plasma (proteins of the blood), white cells to fight infections, red cells that have iron and carry oxygen to all cells, stem cells that replace worn out cells, hormones and enzymes and iron reserves. 
* less Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS), especially in premature infants.
* less chance of infant brain damage (i.e., cerebral palsy, autism, schizophrenia).
* more maternal antibodies received by infant.
* higher infant blood pressure.
* less need for blood transfusions for premature infants.
* less chance of organ damage from schema in premature babies.
* improved infant renal (kidney) function.
* the baby is spared of unnecessary risks of cord infection.
* the umbilicus heals faster than a cut cord.
* improved breastfeeding success rate.
* lower medical bills, especially for premature babies
(This bullet list was unsigned. The commentary from me, Triangular, starts here) Where's this information from?
Especially, what's your source for schizophrenia being caused by infant brain damage? A diagnosis of schizophrenia generally requires typical development up through at least adolescence. As far as I know, there aren't any types of birth trauma that wait 10+ years to show up. I've not seen any literature exploring a link between birth trauma and schizophrenia. Triangular 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits of Lotus Birth 

message: I'm not debating the merits of this practice. But reading the very first paragraph which uses emotive language (I have added bolding) to present a biased view, "Lotus Birth is the practice of leaving the umbilical cord uncut after childbirth, so that the infant is left attached to its placenta until the cord naturally separates at the umbilicus, generally 1–3 days after birth (as compared to approximately 5-18 minutes when the cord is clamped and medically cut leaving a stump with a plastic clip). This prolonged contact can be seen as a time of transition, allowing the baby to slowly and gently let go of his or her attachment to the mother's body." I have included my proposed change. You will see that I have removed all of the "can be seen as" as it refers to oppinion without reference (ie: stated as fact). Lotus birth could be seen as a lot of things, but this only presents one side of what seems to be a debate. 
Proposed change:
"Lotus Birth is the practice of leaving the umbilical cord intact following birth, until it detaches from naturally from the umbilicus. Detachment usually occurs 1-3 days after birth, whereas in most conventional births, the cord is clamped and cut minutes after birth." Tinkstar1985 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good change. Go for it! Maustrauser 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias 

message: The address 72.177.62.117 and others have gratitiously removes the POV tag from the article twice without contributing to the POV debate and without making any kind on effort to reduce this article's overwhelming POV inf avour of the practice. This is considered vandalism (see WP:Vandalism) and will not be tolerated. Vandalims warnings were left on the according IP page. If this situation continues, I will request an IP block. --69.140.153.50 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Vandalism 

message: The article contains a highly erroneous statement and provides no citation. The paragraph below displays a very obscure interpretation of the passage in Ezekiel, which can easily be shown as erroneous by reading the verse before and after.
Religious Jews and Christians who choose umbilical nonseverance see it relevant to the strength of Ezekiel who was cast out of his tribe but became a divine visionary, or prophet. Ezekiel 16:4 of the Bible, "As for your birth, the day you were born your navel cord was not cut."
The verse before, Ezekiel 16:3, identifies the one born as "Jerusalem"--and most would see Jerusalem in this context as representative of the entire nation of Israel. In the rest of the chapter, it describes the city in terms of a woman who was saved from death as a baby, nurtured through her maturing, and became beautiful, but unfaithful. It is clearly not talking about the prophet Ezekiel, and certainly has nothing to do with his strength. 
It is also not true that Ezekiel was cast out of his tribe. Rather, it was the nation of Israel whose life was threatened at birth. This probably refers to Israel's slavery in Egypt and pursuit by Pharaoh into the Red Sea. In the verse following, Ezekiel 16:5, it is clear that all of the descriptions from verse 4, including umbilical nonseverance, are descriptions of a newborn that has been abandoned and not cared for, but rather abhorred. Obviously this would have quite the opposite implication for religious Jews and Christians. This verse would be an argument against Lotus birth, rather than for it.
In light of these things, I do not feel that the paragraph belongs in the article at all, but should be removed. If there are other reasons why religious Jews or Christians opt for Lotus birth, that could be presented with a valid citation or reference.--98.214.67.48 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributors originally had a fair, encyclopedic comment on this verse, but one contributor has continually changed it back to the language mentioned above, despite its being her own unverifiable statement. I agree, leaving it as above is not an option. It is simply a false statement. Just deleting it would be better. --173.15.117.21 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ezekiel Reference 

message: List here what needs to be done to get the 21 May 2014‎ full article up to Wikipedia standards. I'm of the mind that the original full article should be visible but with the {Multiple Issue} tag because 1. despite it's bias, it gives more information and 2. since there will be expert and knowledgeable editors heading here soon to start working on updating the page. The Thorned Rose (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with addition of material, that is appropriately weighted and reliable sourced.  The "original" article is in the article history and is available for anyone to see and mine for sources.  We should describe the views of proponents without giving undue weight/credence that their views are correct. Yobol (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do / Consensus for

message: I have greatly updated the article and removed some copyrighted images (though some may still remain, but I haven't found information on that yet). I placed better citations and information surrounding lotus births. Sources say that the practice is spiritual rather than medical, so I provided two sections for those topics. Much of the information surrounding cord blood, as well as other promotional and unsourced information was WP:SYNTH as the sources had no relation to "lotus births" in particular.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit: March 2017 

message: According to the section "History" / subsection Lotus birth #Modern practice it seems that the practice is named after the book of the same title.
But after which lotus was this practice named ? The disambiguation page Lotus offers quite a few options.
Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Named after ''which'' lotus?