Not only was giving birth to my
daughter in water comforting to me, my baby was in bliss herself. My naked hands were her first real contact with
the world, unlike others who have gloves touching them, as I pulled her up out
of the water.
“There’s no count of how many
babies in the U.S. are delivered in water,” writes Lauran Neergaard in this ABC
article. When I registered my daughter’s
birth, the paperwork asked where she was born and if it was accidental. I could only answer “home.” It is too bad I couldn’t say “in water.” If the Powers That Be can’t say for certain
how many babies are born into water, how can they possibly make a case against
water birth?
The report which ABC is reporting
on supposedly says the “potential risks of underwater delivery include
infection, difficulty regulating the baby’s body temperature and respiratory
distress if the baby inhales water.”
Firstly, hospital births in general pose a higher risk to a newborn and
mother than water births do. My home,
for example, had only the germs and such with which I, the mother, was already
familiar. The water and tub were clean. Mothers-to-be who plan to birth at home,
whether or not in water, educate themselves on the matter and are prepared for
many scenarios. Both partners are empowered,
which empowers the child, but unlike a hospital birth, these parents can
control bacterial and viral risks better than a simple patient in a hospital
can.
Secondly, midwives monitor the
temperature of the water. Believe me, it
is way too hot for the mother due to the workout she is getting, but it is
maintained at a temperature to keep the baby safe. I have only visited people in hospitals, so
am unable to report on a delivery room itself, but can say the air conditioning
was uncomfortable for me. I highly doubt
the air temperature in the room is as hot as the water in my tub was. Just who is it who cannot regulate the
temperature of the baby, especially as it first comes out of the mother?
Lastly, babies are attached to the placenta,
which is attached to the mother, and the babies are not breathing, yet. My baby had such a gentle birth, on some
level she must have believed she was still at the stage where no-one expected
her to breath. I rubbed her feet and
spoke to her. She was happily gazing at
me and at others when they came closer to her.
These babies are not as a kid in a pool who might panic and inhale
water. They move from a confined
environment of water to a bigger area.
Air has not been introduced to them.
They do not know to inhale water.
Also, whatever babies do within the womb is what they would
instinctively do just outside; although, they are busy getting squished and
having their organs strongly massaged.
Surely, when they gulp in the water when inutero, they are at rest. Gulping water would most likely not be done
when something is clearly going on. I
know plenty of youngsters who were born in respiratory distress and all of them
were air births in a hospital.
The Academy of Pediatrics should
gather numbers, perhaps from midwives, publish the percentage of respiratory
distress from water babies and next to it, reveal the percentage of dry birth
babies with respiratory distress. This
report seems to be very lacking in hard core facts and blatantly ignores the
dangers of medically managing births in general.
The ABC article even quotes a
nurse, Cathy Emeis, of Caughey, a hospital in Oregon, if anything, stating the
case for water births. She said that although
the numbers are low, “several dozen” per year, water births “don’t show
increased risks.” Several dozen can
equal thirty-six. For all we know, thirty-six
over an unspecified time period may be 360 plus. If none of these births had any
complications, why are the Powers That Be using such lousy evidence to scare
women away from birthing in this manner?
Are they testing how asleep we really are? Are water birth babies too independent and do
not fit in with the Agenda 21 mold?
