I'll never forget when, nine years ago, I
met a woman who spoke very proudly of her "radically" natural
childbirth. This wasn't a midwife-attended drug-free labor in a hospital or
birthing center or even a house-- she gave birth in the woods with only her
husband assisting. Her commitment to the all-natural experience didn't stop
there. After her daughter's delivery, she practiced "lotus birth,"
meaning that instead of cutting the umbilical cord and safely disposing of the
placenta, she left it attached to her daughter's body until it rotted off
several days later. It's uncommon, it's mostly unheard-of, and I admit that I
think it's kind of gross, but is there any benefit to lotus birth?
That, of course, depends who you ask.
Proponents of lotus birth claim that the practice has benefits for the baby and
mother. In 2013, midwife consultant Mary Ceallaigh told the New York Post that lotus birth benefits the baby by
lowering the risk of infection (since there's no wound or cut created by
severing the cord) and by boosting the amount of iron and nutrition that the
baby gets in its first days of life. Ceallaigh also compares cutting the cord
to female genital mutilation and claims that that lotus birth spiritually
healthier for mom, since nature, instead of a pair of scissors, gets the
privilege of severing the maternal bond.
All of these benefits sound great in
principle, but there's little to no scientific evidence backing the claims made
by Ms. Ceallaigh and other proponents of lotus birth-- and the claims defy
logic. TheRoyal College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists notes
that there's no reason to believe that lotus birth could reduce the risk of
infection; in fact, it may raise it. RCOG states, "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. The placenta is particularly prone to
infection as it contains blood."
That blood is also of little to no use
after the baby's birth. While there's fairly sound scientific evidence for the
increasingly common practice of "delayed cord clamping"-- allowing a
cord to stop pulsating before cutting it-- there's no evidence that the
placenta continues providing blood or nutrients to the baby after that point.
After it stops pulsing and is expelled from the mother's body, the placenta
becomes dead tissue. It does not pump oxygen, iron, immune factors, or
nutrients to the baby's body. It simply rots. Once the baby is born, the placenta's
important job is already done.
The spiritual and emotional benefits of
lotus birth also seem rather unfounded. The claim that lotus birth is
inherently more "natural" runs in contradiction to patterns seen
throughout nature. Almost all human cultures have regularly chosen to sever the
umbilical cord rather than allowing it to rot. Absolutely all placental mammals
do the same, using their teeth to cut the cord (and sometimes even consume the
afterbirth). Cutting the cord is as natural a part of life as childbirth
itself; it isn't a modern or even uniquely human intervention. There's also no
evidence that moms who choose lotus birth have better emotional health,
stronger bonds with their babies, or lower rates of postpartum depression than
moms who have the umbilical cords cut after childbirth.
Despite
the supposed benefits touted by extreme proponents of natural birth, there's no
plausible reason to promote lotus birth as a practice. It not only has no known
or likely benefits, but it may actually endanger babies by increasing the risk
of infection-- not to mention the inconvenience of carrying around a rotting
human organ for as long as two weeks. While natural birth and delayed cord
clamping are a reasonable, safe, and healthy option for the majority of women,
there's no good reason to practice lotus birth. If you're interested in lotus
birth, talk to your doctor or midwife about other ways to improve your baby's
health and promote postpartum bonding.
No comments:
Post a Comment