The Importance of Waiting before cutting the umbilical cord!!!

[LovePrevails]

Hi people, we've talked already of the importance of breast feeding, here is another thing that could make all the difference. Waiting a few minutes before cutting the umbilical cord. Please share this interview far and wide this is critical information that could potentially help lots of people.

[brucethecollie]

I asked for this at the hospital where i gave birth by emergency c-section to my twins and they disregarded it, probably because they deemed it a risk to me but I've certainly been convinced it's the best thing to do if at all possible.  Thanks for sharing.

[LovePrevails]

I asked for this at the hospital where i gave birth by emergency c-section to my twins and they disregarded it, probably because they deemed it a risk to me but I've certainly been convinced it's the best thing to do if at all possible.  Thanks for sharing.

 

thanks for listening, sorry to hear of your sad story - so sad they disregarded your requests.

[Frederik]

Please provide the reasons to cut the cord in the first place. It naturally dries out and falls off after a few days or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_birth

[Frederik]

The argument is that there is no evidence to back up the practice to clamp the umbilical cord [immediately].

There is no argument provided for clamping the umbilical cord at all.

Still, she goes on to recommend to clamp the umbilical cord [after waiting].

 

Where is the logical consistency in that?

 

I think it is relevant to point out her conflict of interest, which is that the less intervention is applied in childbirth, the more her market value will decrease until mothers don't need any support in childbirth just like all the billions of animals who give birth successfully without support.

 

"Nature isn't stupid. It isn't silly"

[AccuTron]

. I also consumed bits of the placenta, as most mammals do this instinctively. They eat the whole thing immediately, which of course I did not do, but tried to gain at least a little of the nutritional value.

How'd that go?  Chewy?  Did you feel a response, or was it too little?  I get the huge amount of nutrition in any mass of tissue, yet I also note the value in simply cleaning up a now-messy nest, which would otherwise become an infected disaster; wondering if that's part of the evolutionary imperative.

[algernon]

It totally makes sense to wait until the cord is no longer pulsing and transferring blood, once all activity has ceased, why wait for it to fall off.... while carrying a placenta around with you? It's not doing anything. Our midwife made sure to wait with our daughter, as standard practice with them which we found out after we mentioned we wanted to wait. I think it took about 15 to 20 minutes or so.

[Mister Mister]

I swallowed frozen chunks like a pill, and tried to take a few each day for about a month. It was hard. There are better ways to do it. Hard to say if I felt a response, because I didn't go through the exact same experience minus the placenta. Yes I'm sure it's a cleaning-up thing in the wild, but even so, the body will co-evolve with the practice of eating the placenta, such that it actually becomes a requirement. 

My instinct would be to stir fry it, thinly sliced, with some bok choi and garlic

[Frederik]

I swallowed frozen chunks like a pill, and tried to take a few each day for about a month. It was hard. There are better ways to do it. Hard to say if I felt a response, because I didn't go through the exact same experience minus the placenta. Yes I'm sure it's a cleaning-up thing in the wild, but even so, the body will co-evolve with the practice of eating the placenta, such that it actually becomes a requirement. 

You said you were eating the placenta because most mammals do that instinctively. I don't understand why you did it despite not feeling a natural instinct, and even aversion.

[LovePrevails]

I never heard of a lotus birth before

 

It totally makes sense to wait until the cord is no longer pulsing and transferring blood, once all activity has ceased, why wait for it to fall off.... while carrying a placenta around with you? It's not doing anything. Our midwife made sure to wait with our daughter, as standard practice with them which we found out after we mentioned we wanted to wait. I think it took about 15 to 20 minutes or so.

 

kind of agree with that ^^^

[Jaeger]

I never thought about this.  Now it make sense why our midwife waited to have me cut the umbilical cord until 20-30 minutes after the baby was born.  In fact she would insist on my wife birthing the placenta too, which sometimes was 10 minutes after the baby came.  She also offered my wife the option to eat the placenta but my wife refused.

[Frederik]

It totally makes sense to wait until the cord is no longer pulsing and transferring blood, once all activity has ceased, why wait for it to fall off.... while carrying a placenta around with you? It's not doing anything.

 

How do you know? If you know what activities are going on, what are they? I would love to know more about what is going on in the umbilical cord.

 

I never heard of a lotus birth before

 

 

kind of agree with that ^^^

 

I appreciate your response but you have not refuted my argument. Where is the evidence that it is favorable to cut the umbilical cord after 5 / 20 / whatever minutes, or that it doesn't matter after x amount of time?

I should mention the core principle that I presume being at the heart of the issue, which is that I consider favorable that which is in the best interest to the health of the child.

 

Good question. I guess I chalked it up to an ego/culturally-conditioned aversion. Pretty much anything can be conditioned into being considered a delicacy or something that repulses you, depending on what you're surrounded with culturally. So that was my reasoning: my body wanted it, even if my mind didn't. I mean, sex was even gross at some point, right?

 

Yes, from what I know the conditioning is indeed true. Although I very much doubt that humans are at all meat-eaters, I understand why you did it. I don't think sex ever was gross to me, though ^.^

[LovePrevails]

I don't have a horse in the race I don't feel the need to engage in a rousing debate with you

it seems clear that the majority of harm comes from cutting the cord ahead of it ceasing to pulse and then going white.

[algernon]

How do you know? If you know what activities are going on, what are they? I would love to know more about what is going on in the umbilical cord.

 

 

 

Well it contains two arteries and one vein, surrounded by Wharton's Jelly. The logical conclusion we must come to is once a vein/artery no longer transfers blood it's job is done. Once being exposed to the cooler temperature of the environment it collapses on itself after a short period of time as well.  It's essentially a few pipes that carry blood and empty out, there is no apparent logical conclusion to leaving it attached, neither does any other animal in the wild do such a thing.

 

I would be happy to hear an argument for leaving it attached, but at this point - "well since we don't know we should", doesn't make logical sense to me.

[Frederik]

Well it contains two arteries and one vein, surrounded by Wharton's Jelly. The logical conclusion we must come to is once a vein/artery no longer transfers blood it's job is done. Once being exposed to the cooler temperature of the environment it collapses on itself after a short period of time as well.  It's essentially a few pipes that carry blood and empty out, there is no apparent logical conclusion to leaving it attached, neither does any other animal in the wild do such a thing.

 

I would be happy to hear an argument for leaving it attached, but at this point - "well since we don't know we should", doesn't make logical sense to me.

 

Right, I have researched to topic in the meantime.

 

One thought that contributed to my skepticism about cutting the cord is that I heard that the umbilical cord contains stem cells (which then can be monetized by the health industry

From what you wrote and I saw the umbilical cord is indeed nothing more than three blood vessels and the jelly, for the blood contains everything that the baby needs.

 

> If transfer of matter through the umbilical cord has 100 % stopped, we can say with near certainty that cutting it will do no harm.

> Not feeling a pulse does not mean transfer completely stopped.

 

Now, I think it is very important to point out that cutting the umbilical cord is actively altering the course of a natural birth through the application of tools. Therefore, the burden of proof lies onto those who proclaim cutting the cord. It is invalid to say "Since we don't know if we should leave it attached, we don't", because that would be like cutting off boy's foreskins because of "not knowing why to leave it attached".

 

Unfortunately, I have not come across one actual argument for cutting the cord. What are they?

[LovePrevails]

Right, I have researched to topic in the meantime.

 

One thought that contributed to my skepticism about cutting the cord is that I heard that the umbilical cord contains stem cells (which then can be monetized by the health industry

From what you wrote and I saw the umbilical cord is indeed nothing more than three blood vessels and the jelly, for the blood contains everything that the baby needs.

 

> If transfer of matter through the umbilical cord has 100 % stopped, we can say with near certainty that cutting it will do no harm.

> Not feeling a pulse does not mean transfer completely stopped.

 

 

well, thanks for your diligence 

[shirgall]

Unfortunately, I have not come across one actual argument for cutting the cord. What are they?

 

One I've seen is for the specific instance of the cord being wrapped around the baby's neck, which is a risk for strangulation. Another I just saw was an increased risk of jaundice when I was searching around.

 

Otherwise, there's this: http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/Timing-of-Umbilical-Cord-Clamping-After-Birth

[algernon]

> If transfer of matter through the umbilical cord has 100 % stopped, we can say with near certainty that cutting it will do no harm.

> Not feeling a pulse does not mean transfer completely stopped.

 

Now, I think it is very important to point out that cutting the umbilical cord is actively altering the course of a natural birth through the application of tools. Therefore, the burden of proof lies onto those who proclaim cutting the cord. It is invalid to say "Since we don't know if we should leave it attached, we don't", because that would be like cutting off boy's foreskins because of "not knowing why to leave it attached".

 

Unfortunately, I have not come across one actual argument for cutting the cord. What are they?

 

You cannot compare the two because a boy's foreskin doesn't shrivel up and fall off after a few days.

 

Here's a reason, it makes handling and taking care of the baby more difficult, I would imagine a risk would be there of pulling and forcefully detaching the cord causing bleeding. The placenta starts to decompose and stink after a couple days. And you have this one -

 

Experts have also argued though that leaving the umbilical cord to fall off on its own is not without risk. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG) released a statement outlining some concerns in 2008, after a small number of women in the United Kingdom started practicing lotus births.

“If left for a period of time after the birth, there is a risk of infection in the placenta which can consequently spread to the baby," Patrick O'Brien, an RCOG spokesperson, said at the time. "The placenta is particularly prone to infection as it contains blood. At the post-delivery stage, it has no circulation and is essentially dead tissue."

 

 

 

If you don't want to alter the natural birth through the application of tools, bite it off like every other animal does. Do you think monkeys wrap it up and somehow attach it to the child, and sprinkles herbs and flowers on it to try and disguise the smell? And what point in the evolution of humans did it become more natural to stop biting it off, and start wrapping it up and attaching it to the baby for a few days to a week?

 

Here is an excerpt from a lotus birth website -

 

The implications of Lotus Birth are best approached through the perspective of the ancient mystery traditions, developed in places as diverse as India, China, and Egypt. Through disciplines of contemplation and meditation, these traditions have developed an understanding of the totality of a human being that is still absent from Western medical science. Generally, they articulate dimensions across which human beings live simultaneously. and how disharmony or trauma in one effects the others.

 

 

The lotus birth tradition is surrounded in mysticism. The logical case they make for it is the additional blood flow and nutrients, which is achieved through delayed clamping and cutting. They also say it forces the mother to stay in the house and bond with the baby, since you can't take baby and placenta with you easily to the store. That can easily be achieved by... stay with the baby and bonding, without the placenta attached.

[Frederik]

well, thanks for your diligence 

 

I get the strong impression that you don't like to discuss this issue at all with me? Why is that?

 

I would like to let you know how I percieve this discussion, which is that your behaviour does not make much sense to me.

 

You interview a nurse who proposes delayed cord clamping instead of immediate clamping based on personal experience and scientific data.

You do not ask her the essential questions "Why do you actually clamp at all? Why is that necessary? What is behind that practice?"

I point out the fundamental lack of consistency in her reasoning, but you don't respond to it.

Then I prove that the burden of proof lies onto you to show that clamping is good / necessary.

Now you quote that which in part supports your view, but delete the crucial last part, just thanking me for doing my work.

 

Where is yours?

 

 

One I've seen is for the specific instance of the cord being wrapped around the baby's neck, which is a risk for strangulation. Another I just saw was an increased risk of jaundice when I was searching around.

 

Otherwise, there's this: http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/Timing-of-Umbilical-Cord-Clamping-After-Birth

 

Thanks!

 

Since strangulation is a complication I don't think anyone would question cutting the cord in those cases, if it is necessary.

I wonder - doesn't the actual strangulation happen during birth? Plus, doesn't the baby start to breathe sometime after birth? Lastly, the umbilical cord still contains oxygen to support the child for a while.

If that is true I would assume that the child can be detangled without any substantial risk, while still keeping the umbilical cord intact.

 

I read about the higher risk of jaundice, too. I don't know much about it (here is the one study that is cited on Wikipedia). In the same study the early clamped children are twice as likely to develop iron deficiency, their birth weight is significantly lower. They only write "fewer" of the earlier clamped children got treated for jaundice.

I have trouble accepting this as an argument because the evidence is scarce, plus the benefits of delayed clamping seem to be significant.

 

I don't understand at all what you wanted to point out with the study you linked to. I only read the abstract.

Could you please explain?

[shirgall]

I don't understand at all what you wanted to point out with the study you linked to. I only read the abstract.

Could you please explain?

 

What I liked about that study was that it was a decent summary and it had references to a lot of other studies for people to dig into. It was a jumping off point.

[shirgall]

The problem is that it frames "immediate cord clamping" as the norm, and "delayed cord clamping" as the deviation from that norm that needs proven benefits in order to be recommended. This is similar to studying formula-fed or circumcised babies as the default, and having to prove that breastfeeding or leaving the baby intact have demonstrable benefits. So that's why I stopped reading the study.

 

Normative or not, even in the abstract they said "Several systematic reviews have suggested that clamping the umbilical cord in all births should be delayed for at least 30–60 seconds, with the infant maintained at or below the level of the placenta because of the associated neonatal benefits, including increased blood volume, reduced need for blood transfusion, decreased incidence of intracranial hemorrhage in preterm infants, and lower frequency of iron deficiency anemia in term infants."

 

That's hardly damning with faint praise.

[Frederik]

You cannot compare the two because a boy's foreskin doesn't shrivel up and fall off after a few days.

Yes, I see that the analogy is too far away from the issue to be helpful. Hey, I thought of another one:

Hair falls out. Let's cut all hair for as long as we don't know why we shouldn't

Do you see the false reasoning?

 

Here's a reason, it makes handling and taking care of the baby more difficult, I would imagine a risk would be there of pulling and forcefully detaching the cord causing bleeding.

 

Surely handling would be more difficult, although this is not an argument concerning the health of the child. (I think handling is a crucial aspect for the hospitals because otherwise they can't take your baby away and do all those bloody testing procedures!)

Pulling and forcefully detaching only happens if parents are not careful, which we practically cannot take into account, right?

 

The placenta starts to decompose and stink after a couple days.

 

If you don't want to alter the natural birth through the application of tools, bite it off like every other animal does.

 

Now, I have not mentioned it so far because I didn't consider it fitting, but this is what I believe is the right thing to do as a healthy mother considering everything so far:

Default: Leave it attached. Bite it if you are fully convinced that it is the right time for it.

 

 

Do you think monkeys wrap it up and somehow attach it to the child, and sprinkles herbs and flowers on it to try and disguise the smell?

 

There is no need to turn snarky with me. I find it quite sad that you wrote this.

 

And what point in the evolution of humans did it become more natural to stop biting it off, and start wrapping it up and attaching it to the baby for a few days to a week?

 

We were not discussing biting it off, but clamping. I never argued against biting it off. Nor did I mention "wrapping it up and attaching it to the baby".

As far as I understand it, the cord will become dry very quick. No need or even ability to wrap, I would assume.

 

The lotus birth tradition is surrounded in mysticism. The logical case they make for it is the additional blood flow and nutrients, which is achieved through delayed clamping and cutting. They also say it forces the mother to stay in the house and bond with the baby, since you can't take baby and placenta with you easily to the store. That can easily be achieved by... stay with the baby and bonding, without the placenta attached.

 

Neither did I know about the mysticism, nor did I mean to refer to it. I used the term Lotus birth merely as a means to give 'not cutting the umbilical cord' a name.

 

 

As Antony said in the podcast: Nature isn't stupid. That is why I am always sceptical towards artificial means to alter the natural flow of things.

There is really no need to become condescending just because I ask fundamental questions which you might find unnerving, algernon.

[shirgall]

I don't understand. To say 'clamping after 30-60 seconds is better than "immediate" clamping' has what to do with 'no clamping vs clamping at any interval shorter than none'?

 

I don't think it was clamping in 30-60 seconds, it was delaying for at least 30-60 seconds more than the current norm of one minute.

[LovePrevails]

 

I get the strong impression that you don't like to discuss this issue at all with me? Why is that?

 

It's not that I don't like it it's just not a high priority subject to me. If you get some conclusive answers I'll be very interested in them but I'm not particularly engaged in the investigation. I'm working hard on other resources at the moment.

[algernon]

As Antony said in the podcast: Nature isn't stupid. That is why I am always sceptical towards artificial means to alter the natural flow of things.

There is really no need to become condescending just because I ask fundamental questions which you might find unnerving, algernon.

 

You're accusing me of being condescending and somehow losing confidence or courage, yet you appear to be changing your argument mid sentence without admitting to it.

 

 

There is no need to turn snarky with me. I find it quite sad that you wrote this.

 

 

The intention of the monkey comment was not to sound snarky or insult you, it was simply a comparison by how the lotus birth is treated by humans, it starts to rot and smell, they disguise the smell. An animal would just eat it and be done with it.

 

 

We were not discussing biting it off, but clamping. I never argued against biting it off. Nor did I mention "wrapping it up and attaching it to the baby".

As far as I understand it, the cord will become dry very quick. No need or even ability to wrap, I would assume.

 

 

Were you not arguing for a lotus birth, and the natural detachment of the placenta? It can take up to ten days for the cord to naturally detach from the baby, as far as I can tell your argument has been to leave the cord and placenta attached to the baby until it dries up and falls off. In order to handle the baby and move it around you will have to wrap up the placenta and somehow carry it around with you. They make placenta bags.

 

 

Now, I have not mentioned it so far because I didn't consider it fitting, but this is what I believe is the right thing to do as a healthy mother considering everything so far:

Default: Leave it attached. Bite it if you are fully convinced that it is the right time for it.

 

 

Did you not find it fitting to mention because it completely changes the argument?

[Frederik]

Right, I see that I did in fact change the argument, without making that clear. I did not do that consciously. Indeed the more I thought about it, I gravitated towards to what conclusions I would come up to based on one of the core principles which I always find most helpful in these fields, which is that to assume nature has figured out an excellent way anyway.

 

I apologize for not making that clear earlier.

 

Unfortunately I don't enjoy this discussion much at all anymore. It is clear to me that we are not on the same page when it comes to creating an inviting atmosphere for a discussion. I don't work with the principle of "If you accuse me of X, you are being unreasonable because you did Y." Yes, I did change the argument, and you take that as a justification to not be bothered by my negative impressions. Alright, I get it!

Also, I always deliberately discuss all and accept other people's arguments if they were true, but unfortunately I don't see that this practice is shared.

 

What I personally take away from this discussion is that there is no evidence that I know of for clamping the cord after a schedule of some sort instead of leaving it completely up to the mother.

Of course, I don't think there is anything wrong with cutting the cord if the mothers specifically asks for it, although I highly doubt that mothers in general are confident enough to trust their instinct and intution (enough) when it comes to their body (as is true for men) so that they will make those choices wisely.

There is strong evidence that immediate cord clamping is very detrimental to the health of the baby.

There is no sufficient evidence to support the view that delayed clamping is detrimental to the health of the baby.

[tasmlab]

I asked for this at the hospital where i gave birth by emergency c-section to my twins and they disregarded it, probably because they deemed it a risk to me but I've certainly been convinced it's the best thing to do if at all possible.  Thanks for sharing.

 

FWIW, my wife had three c-sections and an emergency hysterectomy and spent weeks in the hospital with infections.  A c-section is a bloody affair.  I can see why a doctor would want to close up the incision as soon as possible, just to minimize it being open to the elements. More for the mother's safety than the child's.

 

IMO.