A recent study implies that the Baby is responsible for starting spontaneous labour! “Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and supported by the National Instituted of Health and a Prematurity Research Initiative grant from the March of Dimes, the study expanded on former research that had suggested signals from the fetus are actually responsible for the initiation of birth,” (Growingyourbaby.com reports). UT Southwestern Medical Center researchers have identified two proteins in a mouse fetus’ lungs that initiates labour. The proteins SRC-1 and SRC-2 activate genes inside baby’s lungs near full term, “resulting in an increased production of surfactant components, surfactant protein A (SP-A), and platelet-activating factor (PAF). Both SP-A and PAF are then secreted by the fetus’ lungs into the amniotic fluid, leading to an inflammatory response in the mother’s uterus that initiates labor,” (Sciencedaily reports). Continue reading
Several weeks ago, I came across a claim that Induction reduces the risk of C-section! I sincerely thought, this must be a joke; however, it was referencing an actual journal publication. You can find the actual publication here.
Since I’ve always heard people say, “I had to be induced, and then it ended in c-section,” I thought I would do a series of polls to see if there was any indication that induction REDUCED the number of c-sections.
First, I did a poll directed to those mothers who ended up with emergency c-sections to see how many of them received drugs to induce. You can find the results here. “If your birth ended in an emergency c-section, were you given any drugs to start labour or speed up labour prior to the need for a c-section?” Results: 68% Yes to 32% No. Continue reading
I apologise for posting these results so late. With 203 votes, the voting results were a landslide for Vaginal Only 85%! See below for the results:
If you just split the results into two categories: Vaginal versus C-Section, 93% were delivered vaginally whereas only 7% were delivered via c-section. This is a SIGNIFICANT difference! Following this post, I will discuss what implications this may have regarding induction and c-section.
Check out the results from this week’s poll about drugs and delivery method! 47% ended delivering vaginally, 26% delivered with forceps or vacuum extraction, and 26% had an emergency c-section. None had a schedule c-section after receiving drugs and there was one vote that entered a different answer. She entered, “Vaginal birth with manual assistance whilst being prepped for an emergency c/s” which would go into the category of “Vaginal with forceps or vacuum extraction.”
Therefore, the results would have been: 47% vaginal only, 27% vaginal with manual assistance, 26% emergency c-section.
What does this poll mean? I can’t make any conclusions from this data since I don’t know the background information from the voters. It does show that if you receive drugs to start or speed up labour, that your chance of having an emergency c-section is 26%. However, this sampling is small with only 152 votes. Some could be multigravida and others primigravida. It also shows that if you choose to use drugs to induce, you still have almost a 50/50 chance to birth vaginally without assistance. This is great news! In order to conclude that receiving drugs to start or speed up labour increases or decreases your likelihood of having a c-section, I would have to know what is the likelihood of c-section from mothers who did not receive drugs to induce labour. This is my next poll.
Last week’s Poll: “If your birth ended in an emergency c-section, were you given any drugs to start labour or speed up labour prior to the need for a c-section?”
Results: 205 votes, 68% Yes (140 votes), 32% NO (65 votes). There is an overwhelming majority of votes that indicated usage of drugs that ended in c-section. The next step is to try out a poll for people who received any form of induction so see if there is a significant increase in method of delivery.
Why Natural Childbirth?
Reposted from givingbirthnaturally.com
Choosing natural childbirth is choosing to trust your body. Even more than that, it’s knowing that you already possess all the tools you need to give birth.
Having a natural birth doesn’t mean choosing pain. There are a wide variety of natural comfort measures that can be employed. Women who choose natural childbirth realize that any artificial interruption in birthing, even for the best of intentions, adds risks. Whenever we interfere with the normal process of birthing, we increase the risks to both the mother and her child. None of these natural techniques carry risks.
Ditch that 40-week estimated due date that you were given, even if they measured using an ultrasound! A study that came out in June of 2013 showed that the gestation period for normal, unassisted pregnancy through birth can vary up to five weeks. If this is the case, why aren’t more midwives and consultants giving ‘overdue’ mothers more information?
The study found that though the average length of pregnancy for these 125 mothers was 38 weeks and 2 days, the range of the data has a variance of 5 weeks (to be exact, 37 days). This study included 6 preterm births and 1 scheduled cesarean section, so the data is still not as untouched as I would like to find; but even with these few outliers, the conclusion showed that normal pregnancies are not limited to the 40-week gestation that we’re all used to.