Med-free labor trend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nuchal cord article:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/765837/is_the_cord_around_the_babys_neck_really.html?cat=52

The infant with the tight cord or a short cord before the birth can suffer hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) if it is so tight, or so compressed, as to cause decelerations in the fetal heart. Providers can observe certain fetal heart rate decelerations which indicate cord problems. Delivery may be hastened or a cesarean may be done if the pattern looks ominous or is occurring over too long a time.

Some babies who are born with a tight nuchal cord (around the neck) can be "plethoric" or very red at birth, but this usually will resolve over the first few days of life.

When the cord compression is severe or long standing, the baby may have low Apgars and suffer brain damage, which could result in a degree of mental retardation or cerebral palsy. If the compression is severe enough and labor has not yet begun, the baby can die in utero and be stillborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this topic has been done to death, dug up and done again...

I had two med-free births because I wanted to experience labor/delivery fully (yes, even the pain) and have the best shot at avoiding a C-section. The first labor was great, the second was much harder, but I'd still skip the epidural if I had another one. I really don't care what anybody else does, as long as they are making an educated decision rather than just being terrified by people going "IT HURTS SO MUCH, YOU *NEED* AN EPIDURAL." If you want one, have one, but don't tell other people *they* can't do it without one. Clearly the experience is different for different people. To each her own.

Again, you are not responding with factual information, refusing an epidural does not decrease nor increase the chance of a C-section. The educated decision is that there is a safe prudent medical solution to the pain of child birth. Refusing to use it is pure ignorance and has been perpetuated by a community of ignorant people who don't have the education, knowledge or capacity to even speak or talk about childbirth. yes this is america and there is freedom of speach but when it jepordizes or harms people it needs to be addressed and stopped.

This is the stupidness of the natural birth crowd. Part of the problem is the naming, it shouldn't be called "natural" it should be called
"Primitive" or "Refuse modern medicine" crowd. What if you started bleeding out and needed a doctor would you just let it run it's course because it's natural? Please say yes so that there is one less of you spreading false information and fear into community.

Actually, it is YOU who is not responding with factual information. There is research suggesting that getting an epi before 5 cm increases the odds of needing a c-section. Getting an epi at 2 cm gives a woman a 50/50 chance.

You are mistaken. Do not spread false and dangerous information. You are not certified, trained or studied to even analyze sources of data and studies. It's one thing to cherry pick 1 study out of hundreds of opposing studies by credidble medical organizations.

The researchers found that there was no difference in the rate of Cesarean section between the before and after groups. Nor was there a difference in the incidence of difficult vaginal births requiring forceps or vacuum instruments. On average, however, the women in the after group experienced an increase in labor duration of 25 minutes as compared to the before group. The increase in labor duration was confined to the second stage of labor, from the time when the woman's cervix is completely dilated until the baby is actively expelled from the birth canal. The length of the first stage of labor, during which the cervix dilates, did not differ between the two groups.

Dr. Zhang said that this prolongation of labor did not appear to have a negative impact on either mothers or infants.

The two groups also differed in the timing of when their infants required assistance from medical instruments. The need for use of forceps or vacuum extraction to assist the baby through the birth canal appeared later in the after group than in the before group. Dr. Zhang explained that, in the before group, these extraction procedures were more often used when the baby was higher up in the birth canal. For the after group, the procedures were used when the baby was much farther along in the birth canal.

This shift in the timing of the procedures meant that, in general, less force was needed for the after group to aid in the delivery of the infant from the birth canal. Dr. Zhang explained that this translates into a reduced risk for infants and mothers needing the extraction procedure. Extraction by forceps carries a slight risk of injury to the muscles surrounding the birth canal and temporary bruising or nerve damage to the infant's face. Vacuum extraction carries a small risk of bleeding or bruising on the infant's scalp.

The researchers concluded that their findings indicated that labor epidural analgesia does not increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery. "The length of active phase of labor appeared unchanged; however, labor epidural analgesia likely prolongs the second stage of labor."

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/epidural.cfm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nuchal cord article:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/765837/is_the_cord_around_the_babys_neck_really.html?cat=52

The infant with the tight cord or a short cord before the birth can suffer hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) if it is so tight, or so compressed, as to cause decelerations in the fetal heart. Providers can observe certain fetal heart rate decelerations which indicate cord problems. Delivery may be hastened or a cesarean may be done if the pattern looks ominous or is occurring over too long a time.

Some babies who are born with a tight nuchal cord (around the neck) can be "plethoric" or very red at birth, but this usually will resolve over the first few days of life.

When the cord compression is severe or long standing, the baby may have low Apgars and suffer brain damage, which could result in a degree of mental retardation or cerebral palsy. If the compression is severe enough and labor has not yet begun, the baby can die in utero and be stillborn.

I'm the one who had to have a c-section because of the umbilical cord issue. I couldn't give rats ass whether I'd feel the process of birthing was beautiful at that point. I wanted my baby out and healthy and that's what I got. I also trusted my doctor to make that call (she knew a c-section was not my first choice and i pushed for a while). I think if I had to do this 300 years ago one of three things would have happened: 1) son seriously damaged during labor 2) son dead 3) me dead. I didn't want to chance any of those. So get off your high horse and make decisions that YOU can live with. Leave the rest of us alone.

[Anonymous]

oh the one directly above me: I thank you for posting this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this topic has been done to death, dug up and done again...

I had two med-free births because I wanted to experience labor/delivery fully (yes, even the pain) and have the best shot at avoiding a C-section. The first labor was great, the second was much harder, but I'd still skip the epidural if I had another one. I really don't care what anybody else does, as long as they are making an educated decision rather than just being terrified by people going "IT HURTS SO MUCH, YOU *NEED* AN EPIDURAL." If you want one, have one, but don't tell other people *they* can't do it without one. Clearly the experience is different for different people. To each her own.

Again, you are not responding with factual information, refusing an epidural does not decrease nor increase the chance of a C-section. The educated decision is that there is a safe prudent medical solution to the pain of child birth. Refusing to use it is pure ignorance and has been perpetuated by a community of ignorant people who don't have the education, knowledge or capacity to even speak or talk about childbirth. yes this is america and there is freedom of speach but when it jepordizes or harms people it needs to be addressed and stopped.

This is the stupidness of the natural birth crowd. Part of the problem is the naming, it shouldn't be called "natural" it should be called
"Primitive" or "Refuse modern medicine" crowd. What if you started bleeding out and needed a doctor would you just let it run it's course because it's natural? Please say yes so that there is one less of you spreading false information and fear into community.

Wow, PP, you have a LOT of anger. That's not healthy for you. My natural childbirth was not painful at all. I had a hospital birth, prepared for it well, but kept an open mind about pain medication since I had never actually felt labor before. At no point did I feel like I needed it. I talked to my OB about the epidural thing, and he told me his expert opinion that having an early epidural absolutely can slow down labor. He also told me about scenarios in which he felt an epidural saved a mom from a c-section (in instances where she was simply exhausted and where the epi allowed her to regain her energy and push when the time came. I think my decision, which was to use natural and effective methods of pain medication first, was an educated one. I did my own research but worked with an OB who supported me every step of the way. It's very sad that you, PP, are so insecure and angry about someone else's choice that you wish somebody would die. I mean, really? Or that you want women talking about natural childbirth to be "addressed and stopped." That's just crazy talk. If I "needed" a doctor for bleeding, yes, I would absolutely take help. My point is that I did not want or "need" an epidural, so I labored without one. It's really insane that you somehow think that was *riskier* than taking the drugs. Just...wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does a mother with a large litter of children find all this time to post on this site? I'm truly curious.

I'm curious too.

[Anonymous]

I labored for 28 hours with my first. Water had broken, given pit to start ctx, and about 18 hours later the ctx were right on top of each other and I couldn't even catch my breath. The epi only took on one side which made the pain worse. When they reinserted the epi, it worked but I ended up with a severe headache, the pressure during pushing felt like a brick was trying to come out sideways, I couldn't feel my legs or push effectively, my milk didn't come in right away, and recovery seemed lengthy.

Second baby and I sat up during the entire labor which was induced with pit (due to having really large babies) and watched movies, laughed, and played games with my DH. I would stop and breathe through ctx, but the nurse and I were joking and laughing between ctx all the way to 10cm. The only reason she knew I was ready to push was that I asked to use the bathroom for a bowel movement. My recovery was much quicker, I bonded with my baby much faster, and the pressure and labor was actually less uncomfortable/painful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this topic has been done to death, dug up and done again...

I had two med-free births because I wanted to experience labor/delivery fully (yes, even the pain) and have the best shot at avoiding a C-section. The first labor was great, the second was much harder, but I'd still skip the epidural if I had another one. I really don't care what anybody else does, as long as they are making an educated decision rather than just being terrified by people going "IT HURTS SO MUCH, YOU *NEED* AN EPIDURAL." If you want one, have one, but don't tell other people *they* can't do it without one. Clearly the experience is different for different people. To each her own.

Again, you are not responding with factual information, refusing an epidural does not decrease nor increase the chance of a C-section. The educated decision is that there is a safe prudent medical solution to the pain of child birth. Refusing to use it is pure ignorance and has been perpetuated by a community of ignorant people who don't have the education, knowledge or capacity to even speak or talk about childbirth. yes this is america and there is freedom of speach but when it jepordizes or harms people it needs to be addressed and stopped.

This is the stupidness of the natural birth crowd. Part of the problem is the naming, it shouldn't be called "natural" it should be called
"Primitive" or "Refuse modern medicine" crowd. What if you started bleeding out and needed a doctor would you just let it run it's course because it's natural? Please say yes so that there is one less of you spreading false information and fear into community.

Actually, it is YOU who is not responding with factual information. There is research suggesting that getting an epi before 5 cm increases the odds of needing a c-section. Getting an epi at 2 cm gives a woman a 50/50 chance.

You are mistaken. Do not spread false and dangerous information. You are not certified, trained or studied to even analyze sources of data and studies. It's one thing to cherry pick 1 study out of hundreds of opposing studies by credidble medical organizations.

The researchers found that there was no difference in the rate of Cesarean section between the before and after groups. Nor was there a difference in the incidence of difficult vaginal births requiring forceps or vacuum instruments. On average, however, the women in the after group experienced an increase in labor duration of 25 minutes as compared to the before group. The increase in labor duration was confined to the second stage of labor, from the time when the woman's cervix is completely dilated until the baby is actively expelled from the birth canal. The length of the first stage of labor, during which the cervix dilates, did not differ between the two groups.

Dr. Zhang said that this prolongation of labor did not appear to have a negative impact on either mothers or infants.

The two groups also differed in the timing of when their infants required assistance from medical instruments. The need for use of forceps or vacuum extraction to assist the baby through the birth canal appeared later in the after group than in the before group. Dr. Zhang explained that, in the before group, these extraction procedures were more often used when the baby was higher up in the birth canal. For the after group, the procedures were used when the baby was much farther along in the birth canal.

This shift in the timing of the procedures meant that, in general, less force was needed for the after group to aid in the delivery of the infant from the birth canal. Dr. Zhang explained that this translates into a reduced risk for infants and mothers needing the extraction procedure. Extraction by forceps carries a slight risk of injury to the muscles surrounding the birth canal and temporary bruising or nerve damage to the infant's face. Vacuum extraction carries a small risk of bleeding or bruising on the infant's scalp.

The researchers concluded that their findings indicated that labor epidural analgesia does not increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery. "The length of active phase of labor appeared unchanged; however, labor epidural analgesia likely prolongs the second stage of labor."

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/epidural.cfm

Did you not "cherry pick" a single study yourself?

The study that I quoted was a randomized trial. And FYI, I have been trained to analyze sources of data and studies. Made a nice living at it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doctors really hate the non medical crowd. Why not just squat over a diry hut floor and shoot the baby out that way? Disregard all of our medical progress and first world healthcare. You don't get a special prize for not using medicine, you actually will suffer more and age yourself.

Hahahahhahahahahhaaahha!

Seriously, thanks for the laugh. I needed it after all the Penn State stuff this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this topic has been done to death, dug up and done again...

I had two med-free births because I wanted to experience labor/delivery fully (yes, even the pain) and have the best shot at avoiding a C-section. The first labor was great, the second was much harder, but I'd still skip the epidural if I had another one. I really don't care what anybody else does, as long as they are making an educated decision rather than just being terrified by people going "IT HURTS SO MUCH, YOU *NEED* AN EPIDURAL." If you want one, have one, but don't tell other people *they* can't do it without one. Clearly the experience is different for different people. To each her own.

Again, you are not responding with factual information, refusing an epidural does not decrease nor increase the chance of a C-section. The educated decision is that there is a safe prudent medical solution to the pain of child birth. Refusing to use it is pure ignorance and has been perpetuated by a community of ignorant people who don't have the education, knowledge or capacity to even speak or talk about childbirth. yes this is america and there is freedom of speach but when it jepordizes or harms people it needs to be addressed and stopped.

This is the stupidness of the natural birth crowd. Part of the problem is the naming, it shouldn't be called "natural" it should be called
"Primitive" or "Refuse modern medicine" crowd. What if you started bleeding out and needed a doctor would you just let it run it's course because it's natural? Please say yes so that there is one less of you spreading false information and fear into community.

Actually, it is YOU who is not responding with factual information. There is research suggesting that getting an epi before 5 cm increases the odds of needing a c-section. Getting an epi at 2 cm gives a woman a 50/50 chance.

You are mistaken. Do not spread false and dangerous information. You are not certified, trained or studied to even analyze sources of data and studies. It's one thing to cherry pick 1 study out of hundreds of opposing studies by credidble medical organizations.

The researchers found that there was no difference in the rate of Cesarean section between the before and after groups. Nor was there a difference in the incidence of difficult vaginal births requiring forceps or vacuum instruments. On average, however, the women in the after group experienced an increase in labor duration of 25 minutes as compared to the before group. The increase in labor duration was confined to the second stage of labor, from the time when the woman's cervix is completely dilated until the baby is actively expelled from the birth canal. The length of the first stage of labor, during which the cervix dilates, did not differ between the two groups.

Dr. Zhang said that this prolongation of labor did not appear to have a negative impact on either mothers or infants.

The two groups also differed in the timing of when their infants required assistance from medical instruments. The need for use of forceps or vacuum extraction to assist the baby through the birth canal appeared later in the after group than in the before group. Dr. Zhang explained that, in the before group, these extraction procedures were more often used when the baby was higher up in the birth canal. For the after group, the procedures were used when the baby was much farther along in the birth canal.

This shift in the timing of the procedures meant that, in general, less force was needed for the after group to aid in the delivery of the infant from the birth canal. Dr. Zhang explained that this translates into a reduced risk for infants and mothers needing the extraction procedure. Extraction by forceps carries a slight risk of injury to the muscles surrounding the birth canal and temporary bruising or nerve damage to the infant's face. Vacuum extraction carries a small risk of bleeding or bruising on the infant's scalp.

The researchers concluded that their findings indicated that labor epidural analgesia does not increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery. "The length of active phase of labor appeared unchanged; however, labor epidural analgesia likely prolongs the second stage of labor."

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/epidural.cfm

Did you not "cherry pick" a single study yourself?

The study that I quoted was a randomized trial. And FYI, I have been trained to analyze sources of data and studies. Made a nice living at it too.

STOP saying natural birth, it is a lie, call it PRIMITIVE birthing. Are you a doctor? if not STFU about your irrelevant analysis skills. I can analyze data in other aspects bit I am not as idiotic as you to claim I can analyze EVERYTHING.

I don't come to your fucking job and knock the squeegee out of your hand. Stop claiming to be an expert at mine with the continual flow of diarrhea coming out of your mouth in regards to your ignorant and FALSE knowledge of child birthing and modern medicine YOU KNOW NOTHING. You aren't trained, you didn't study this topic for a decade, you DON'T KNOW HOW to analyze medical reports or findings. STFU. People like you spread the lies about vaccines and autism resulting in helpless children contracting viruses and putting the entire public at risk. If you were in a public place with a crowd of common decent people and started spewing this crap every single person would line up and bitch slap you one by one until you STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this topic has been done to death, dug up and done again...

I had two med-free births because I wanted to experience labor/delivery fully (yes, even the pain) and have the best shot at avoiding a C-section. The first labor was great, the second was much harder, but I'd still skip the epidural if I had another one. I really don't care what anybody else does, as long as they are making an educated decision rather than just being terrified by people going "IT HURTS SO MUCH, YOU *NEED* AN EPIDURAL." If you want one, have one, but don't tell other people *they* can't do it without one. Clearly the experience is different for different people. To each her own.

Again, you are not responding with factual information, refusing an epidural does not decrease nor increase the chance of a C-section. The educated decision is that there is a safe prudent medical solution to the pain of child birth. Refusing to use it is pure ignorance and has been perpetuated by a community of ignorant people who don't have the education, knowledge or capacity to even speak or talk about childbirth. yes this is america and there is freedom of speach but when it jepordizes or harms people it needs to be addressed and stopped.

This is the stupidness of the natural birth crowd. Part of the problem is the naming, it shouldn't be called "natural" it should be called
"Primitive" or "Refuse modern medicine" crowd. What if you started bleeding out and needed a doctor would you just let it run it's course because it's natural? Please say yes so that there is one less of you spreading false information and fear into community.

Actually, it is YOU who is not responding with factual information. There is research suggesting that getting an epi before 5 cm increases the odds of needing a c-section. Getting an epi at 2 cm gives a woman a 50/50 chance.

You are mistaken. Do not spread false and dangerous information. You are not certified, trained or studied to even analyze sources of data and studies. It's one thing to cherry pick 1 study out of hundreds of opposing studies by credidble medical organizations.

The researchers found that there was no difference in the rate of Cesarean section between the before and after groups. Nor was there a difference in the incidence of difficult vaginal births requiring forceps or vacuum instruments. On average, however, the women in the after group experienced an increase in labor duration of 25 minutes as compared to the before group. The increase in labor duration was confined to the second stage of labor, from the time when the woman's cervix is completely dilated until the baby is actively expelled from the birth canal. The length of the first stage of labor, during which the cervix dilates, did not differ between the two groups.

Dr. Zhang said that this prolongation of labor did not appear to have a negative impact on either mothers or infants.

The two groups also differed in the timing of when their infants required assistance from medical instruments. The need for use of forceps or vacuum extraction to assist the baby through the birth canal appeared later in the after group than in the before group. Dr. Zhang explained that, in the before group, these extraction procedures were more often used when the baby was higher up in the birth canal. For the after group, the procedures were used when the baby was much farther along in the birth canal.

This shift in the timing of the procedures meant that, in general, less force was needed for the after group to aid in the delivery of the infant from the birth canal. Dr. Zhang explained that this translates into a reduced risk for infants and mothers needing the extraction procedure. Extraction by forceps carries a slight risk of injury to the muscles surrounding the birth canal and temporary bruising or nerve damage to the infant's face. Vacuum extraction carries a small risk of bleeding or bruising on the infant's scalp.

The researchers concluded that their findings indicated that labor epidural analgesia does not increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery. "The length of active phase of labor appeared unchanged; however, labor epidural analgesia likely prolongs the second stage of labor."

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/epidural.cfm

Did you not "cherry pick" a single study yourself?

The study that I quoted was a randomized trial. And FYI, I have been trained to analyze sources of data and studies. Made a nice living at it too.

STOP saying natural birth, it is a lie, call it PRIMITIVE birthing. Are you a doctor? if not STFU about your irrelevant analysis skills. I can analyze data in other aspects bit I am not as idiotic as you to claim I can analyze EVERYTHING.

I don't come to your fucking job and knock the squeegee out of your hand. Stop claiming to be an expert at mine with the continual flow of diarrhea coming out of your mouth in regards to your ignorant and FALSE knowledge of child birthing and modern medicine YOU KNOW NOTHING. You aren't trained, you didn't study this topic for a decade, you DON'T KNOW HOW to analyze medical reports or findings. STFU. People like you spread the lies about vaccines and autism resulting in helpless children contracting viruses and putting the entire public at risk. If you were in a public place with a crowd of common decent people and started spewing this crap every single person would line up and bitch slap you one by one until you STFU.

Right... because I said that I could do all those things in bold. I'm going to go out on a limb here [not really] and say that you need therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
STOP saying natural birth, it is a lie, call it PRIMITIVE birthing. Are you a doctor? if not STFU about your irrelevant analysis skills. I can analyze data in other aspects bit I am not as idiotic as you to claim I can analyze EVERYTHING.

I don't come to your fucking job and knock the squeegee out of your hand. Stop claiming to be an expert at mine with the continual flow of diarrhea coming out of your mouth in regards to your ignorant and FALSE knowledge of child birthing and modern medicine YOU KNOW NOTHING. You aren't trained, you didn't study this topic for a decade, you DON'T KNOW HOW to analyze medical reports or findings. STFU. People like you spread the lies about vaccines and autism resulting in helpless children contracting viruses and putting the entire public at risk. If you were in a public place with a crowd of common decent people and started spewing this crap every single person would line up and bitch slap you one by one until you STFU.

Ooooh, let me guess. This is "MD" again, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this topic has been done to death, dug up and done again...

I had two med-free births because I wanted to experience labor/delivery fully (yes, even the pain) and have the best shot at avoiding a C-section. The first labor was great, the second was much harder, but I'd still skip the epidural if I had another one. I really don't care what anybody else does, as long as they are making an educated decision rather than just being terrified by people going "IT HURTS SO MUCH, YOU *NEED* AN EPIDURAL." If you want one, have one, but don't tell other people *they* can't do it without one. Clearly the experience is different for different people. To each her own.

Again, you are not responding with factual information, refusing an epidural does not decrease nor increase the chance of a C-section. The educated decision is that there is a safe prudent medical solution to the pain of child birth. Refusing to use it is pure ignorance and has been perpetuated by a community of ignorant people who don't have the education, knowledge or capacity to even speak or talk about childbirth. yes this is america and there is freedom of speach but when it jepordizes or harms people it needs to be addressed and stopped.

This is the stupidness of the natural birth crowd. Part of the problem is the naming, it shouldn't be called "natural" it should be called
"Primitive" or "Refuse modern medicine" crowd. What if you started bleeding out and needed a doctor would you just let it run it's course because it's natural? Please say yes so that there is one less of you spreading false information and fear into community.

Actually, it is YOU who is not responding with factual information. There is research suggesting that getting an epi before 5 cm increases the odds of needing a c-section. Getting an epi at 2 cm gives a woman a 50/50 chance.

You are mistaken. Do not spread false and dangerous information. You are not certified, trained or studied to even analyze sources of data and studies. It's one thing to cherry pick 1 study out of hundreds of opposing studies by credidble medical organizations.

The researchers found that there was no difference in the rate of Cesarean section between the before and after groups. Nor was there a difference in the incidence of difficult vaginal births requiring forceps or vacuum instruments. On average, however, the women in the after group experienced an increase in labor duration of 25 minutes as compared to the before group. The increase in labor duration was confined to the second stage of labor, from the time when the woman's cervix is completely dilated until the baby is actively expelled from the birth canal. The length of the first stage of labor, during which the cervix dilates, did not differ between the two groups.

Dr. Zhang said that this prolongation of labor did not appear to have a negative impact on either mothers or infants.

The two groups also differed in the timing of when their infants required assistance from medical instruments. The need for use of forceps or vacuum extraction to assist the baby through the birth canal appeared later in the after group than in the before group. Dr. Zhang explained that, in the before group, these extraction procedures were more often used when the baby was higher up in the birth canal. For the after group, the procedures were used when the baby was much farther along in the birth canal.

This shift in the timing of the procedures meant that, in general, less force was needed for the after group to aid in the delivery of the infant from the birth canal. Dr. Zhang explained that this translates into a reduced risk for infants and mothers needing the extraction procedure. Extraction by forceps carries a slight risk of injury to the muscles surrounding the birth canal and temporary bruising or nerve damage to the infant's face. Vacuum extraction carries a small risk of bleeding or bruising on the infant's scalp.

The researchers concluded that their findings indicated that labor epidural analgesia does not increase the likelihood of cesarean delivery. "The length of active phase of labor appeared unchanged; however, labor epidural analgesia likely prolongs the second stage of labor."

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/epidural.cfm

Did you not "cherry pick" a single study yourself?

The study that I quoted was a randomized trial. And FYI, I have been trained to analyze sources of data and studies. Made a nice living at it too.

STOP saying natural birth, it is a lie, call it PRIMITIVE birthing. Are you a doctor? if not STFU about your irrelevant analysis skills. I can analyze data in other aspects bit I am not as idiotic as you to claim I can analyze EVERYTHING.

I don't come to your fucking job and knock the squeegee out of your hand. Stop claiming to be an expert at mine with the continual flow of diarrhea coming out of your mouth in regards to your ignorant and FALSE knowledge of child birthing and modern medicine YOU KNOW NOTHING. You aren't trained, you didn't study this topic for a decade, you DON'T KNOW HOW to analyze medical reports or findings. STFU. People like you spread the lies about vaccines and autism resulting in helpless children contracting viruses and putting the entire public at risk. If you were in a public place with a crowd of common decent people and started spewing this crap every single person would line up and bitch slap you one by one until you STFU.

Right... because I said that I could do all those things in bold. I'm going to go out on a limb here [not really] and say that you need therapy.

Someone needs to take a stand. I see people die every day because of bad medical information given from ignorant people. This new natural lifestyle phenomenon is not only harming that said person and family but also killing and harming bystanders including innocent children.

There is nothing wrong with choosing the natural route but there are increased risks and spitting out FALSE information to hide the risks and also claim the risks are greater with the use of modern medicine IS THE PROBLEM.

[Anonymous]

Riiiight, "the doctor" sees women die every day because they choose not to have an epidural.

Some of us just didn't feel we needed them. I don't like needles and didn't especially want one in my spine. Only the last 15 min or so were extremely painful to me and I chose that over an epi twice. I liked being immediately able to move around afterwards and dislike feeling numb.

I truly hope you are not really a physician. Frightening if you are.

[Anonymous]

"I see people die every day because of bad medical information given from ignorant people."

Really? You witness death everyday? What is your profession?