I never understood why they snipped the cord so fast either. In all the pamphlets about what to do if you give birth before making it to a hospital (speaking of accidental home births), they instruct you NOT to cut the cord.

My baby passed a lot of meconium before birth, so she was not able to breathe. They were in a rush to cut the cord, and THEN they started clearing her airways. I always wondered why they didn't clear the airways first. Why not make sure the baby is getting oxygen from Mom as long as possible? Why cut off their oxygen supply before establishing the new one? I'm not a medical professional. But on the home birth tapes I've seen, they don't cut the cord for a long time. I had complications that prevented a home birth, but I don't understand why hospital policy differs so greatly.

Never heard the jaundice reason. Perhaps it has merit.

I don't understand why hospital policy differs so greatly.

It pretty much boils down to "time is money." The longer doctors have to "wait" the less money they make. It's easier and more beneficial for them to quickly cut the cord, hand the baby off to the nurses, and move on to the next one.

The Business of Being Born is a great documentary that brings to light some interesting issues with parents wanting natural births and hospitals/medical professionals getting in the way.

I'm glad I was snipped. Have you seen a natural penis? I would have even more trouble getting a lady!

I agree! It is a barbaric practice. When else is it appropriate to remove normal, healthy tissue that has a purpose?? Leave the babies alone!!!

Circumcision, or as you said, "forced genital mutilation on male babies," is not mandated by law. Every parent, except in cases of religious custom, makes the choice for him/herself.

I know someone who was circumcised at age 22. He did it because his fiance demended it. He said it was horrible in the short term and in the long term, the dumbest thing he's ever done.

That was 26 years ago and he maintains today that it was the dumbest thing he's ever done and claims it greatly reduced his ability to enjoy sex. This was a part of why I chose not to have my son circumcised.

On the lighter side, he and his wife are still together.

Yeah, I'd force my fiance to get himself circumsized too, if he wasn't already. There have been studies done that say that an uncircumsized male has a higher risk of Urinary Tract Infection, Penile Cancer, and a higher risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease during unprotected sex. Oh, and an uncircumsized male has a higher chance of acquiring and transmitting the human papillomavirus that is responsible for most cervical cancers. You never know what little nasties are hiding under that flap of skin. Ew. She was a smart girl for getting him to do that. He should be thanking her, I think.

You GENITAL MUTILATION advocates are missing the point. There are 170 types of bacteria that live on the skin. So you're telling me a parent should have the right to permanently disfigure their child for a very slight reduction in bacteria. That's stupid.

I guess I need to use capitals to emphasize, because you don't understand that circumcision leaves every male who went through the painful procedure with a SCARRED PENIS.

Please, by all means go ahead and give me your justification for giving men a scarred penis for life. Tell me about your idiotic 3% reduction of some statistic. Oh, and that "little flap of skin" is a double layered piece of skin with many nerves, blood vessels, and muscles... not that circ advocates have the mental capacity to understand that. You can't give any logical justification - it isn't possible.

I'm glad I was snipped. Have you seen a natural penis? I would have even more trouble getting a lady!

Funny how Austin-1241982 referred to it as a "natural" penis. Doesn't that mean something "unnatural" was done to you?

Think about it.

It is beyond me to imagine why it takes an obstetrician (a skilled surgeon) to clamp and cut an umbilical cord--any five-year-old can use a pair of scissors! Aside from the slim possibility that the parents will feel that their doctor has not earned their exhorbitant fee for showing up when the baby is crowning by not participating fully in the separation of baby's body from mother's, why on earth can't the L&D RN place the clamps and allow father (or other family member) to cut the cord, having waited until mother and baby are ready for them to do so (what a concept!) This has the double advantage of forcing any resuscitative efforts (less likely with an intact cord) to take place with baby on or close to mother and keeping baby in the place most effective in assuring her/his well-being and encouraging breast crawl and breastfeeding.

I'm guessing you've never had a baby, Jane. Both of my children were placed immediately on their mothers chest after emerging into the world. I cut the cord myself while they were on her chest.

Unless there is a problem with the child at birth i.e. difficulty breathing, bad color, abnormal heart rate etc, there is no reason the child cannot remain on their mother until the cord is cut.

Both my daughters where handed to me after birth and I placed them in their mother's arms. Maybe I got them first because I was the Director of the ER. Never really thought about it. Circumcision I have no thoughts either way other then an uncircumcised man has extra cleaning issues. I am one who believes why interfere with nature it usual right. I had daughters and this was never an issue. I will say if it improves sex life then if I was uncircumcised I would died from a heart attack 1,000 times over.

My daughter was born in the birthing tub and they handed her to me...she layed on my chest with a warm towel on her and half in the warm water until the cord stopped pulsing and after the placenta was delivered from me.

One of my kids was rushed off for emergency care after birth, and I didn't see her for almost an hour. She arrived clean and swaddled. But the other was placed on my chest immediately after birth. The cord was cut right after that, while he was still on my chest. He had not been cleaned up, and was still messy and slimy when I got him. It's not necessary to hand Mom a clean baby. Really, after nine months inside and who-know-how-long in labor, she really doesn't care if he's a little gooey and still attached.

Thanks everyone for your responses. No, I haven't had kids yet. And no offense, but holding a baby right after it has been born and not been cleaned, etc. sounds gross. I know, I know, you'll say I'll think differently when I have my own kids, but believe me I'm hard-headed and will not. As long as I know the baby is OK, there is no reason to hold him/her right after he/she comes out. I can wait a few minutes until they at least clean her! Then again, hearing more and more about the birth process makes adoption look better and better. :)

Hey child birth is natural. Everything that is on the baby comes from you. Are you dirty, nasty, or gross? Then how could what is on your child be? The first couple days after birth the baby passes greenish brown material that they should use as an industrial adhesive or biological weapon it called meconium. That is memorable. Back to the first subject as a nurse it did not bother me and my wife was raised on a farm so it was not gross to her. Just be thankful that humans don't consume their placenta like animals do.

And yet... some do now!

Nature's intricate design for survival and well-being of babies after birth includes a role for the fluids on the baby's body. A research study showed that if they wiped off a baby's hands and/or the mother's nipples, and placed the baby on her belly, the baby was unable to find its way to her breast, latch on and begin to nurse. The smell and taste of amniotic fluid on baby's hands is apparently similar to the fragrance of mother's nipples (or to the breastmilk therein) and babies use these smells to help them find the breast and latch on. Meanwhile, the little stepping movements their feet make on mother's abdomen help the uterus to contract and heal the place where the placenta detached, preventing hemorrhaging. Many mothers virtually swoon over the smell of their newborn baby's head and I think these smells contribute to the falling-in-love that happens immediately after birth. Also, mother and baby's oxytocin peaks at delivery and gradually subsides over the next hour, so the time immediately after birth is optimal for bonding and attachment between them--you wouldn't want to waste that precious oxytocin peak (higher than at any other time in life) have all the cueing smells washed off the baby by a stranger. Rightfully, the first person to touch a newborn should be the mother, or at least the father, and many midwives and OBs allow father to catch the baby and give it to the mother, symbolically repeating the sequence that brought the baby into being nine months previously. The first person touching a baby with their skin should be the mother, because she will immediately begin colonizing the baby with her healthy bacteria, providing much-needed immunity. Research recently showed that babies born by cesarean are colonized by completely different (and therefore less friendly) bacteria than babies born vaginally. So, JanieJane, the doctor should not be holding your baby, you should. And those first moments after birth allow mother and baby to catch their breath after the momentous event that just took place, and to begin gazing at each other and discovering this person they have known so intimately for the last nine months. The time should allow everyone to slow down to the baby's pace, while baby's physiology has time to transition from pre-birth to breathing separately. In fact, the extra blood transfused to the baby by waiting for the cord to stop pulsating is thought to help the baby's lungs expand in readiness for that transition.

I'd rather have a C-section than a natural stillbirth. There are plenty of times when C-sections are better, even though vaginal delivery is best for uncomplicated births. Doctors know this and advise what is best. Natural isn't always best. And what do you care if Mom wants an epidural? Those are bad recommendations to unilaterally demand from OBs. Luckily they are moving away from actual bad practices, like episiotomies and supine positions for delivery. They aren't indiscriminately stopping C-sections or epidurals because there's no reason for it.

There are plenty of times when C-sections are better, even though vaginal delivery is best for uncomplicated births.

C-sections started out as emergency/last resort procedures and have unfortunately become a matter of convenience (elective Cs). Many women don't realize that a C is a MAJOR surgery that comes with HUGE risks, not only to the mother but to the baby.

Doctors know this and advise what is best.

Unfortunately many doctors usually advise what is best for THEM, not what is best for the parents. Studies have shown that most C-sections are done at certain times of the day usually right before work shifts end. Why, you ask? Because doctors want to go home. Tell me how that benefits the parents or the child.

Natural isn't always best. ... They aren't indiscriminately stopping C-sections or epidurals because there's no reason for it.

I trust millions of years of evolution more than I trust the recommendation of an intervention-happy doctor. Perhaps the practices should not be completely stopped, but they shouldn't be used as frequently and arbitrarily as they are now.

Uh... "millions of years of evolution" included regular stillbirths and maternal deaths. That's not the experience I want out of childbirth. If "natural" isn't going as planned, I stop trusting it.

My doctors were very hesitant to perform C-sections. My first doctor only performed them as emergencies, or if the placenta was blocking the cervix (delivering the placenta first is a guaranteed stillbirth). My second doctor also offered them to women whose babies were breech, citing studies that suggested IQ was lower in 5-year-olds who were born breech. I've never encountered the "rush" mentality. My first doctor refused to induce labor even though my child was 2 weeks overdue, because she said natural labor was easier on mom and baby. She didn't induce labor until 18 hours after my water broke and the baby was showing signs of distress. (She was right... induced labor was he11, as I discovered after having a much easier natural birth with my second child. But in this case, it was necessary.)

I'm not surprised that most C-sections occur at specific times of day. Labor inductions are usually scheduled at 6:00 a.m., so that moms can labor during the day and deliver at the end of the day. C-section schedules probably use a similar logic, aiming for moms to give birth at the end of the day. Why not? What's the harm? Unless, of course, you are suggesting that emergency C-sections are performed just before clock-out time. Crucial difference.

Usually when "natural" doesn't go as planned, it's because doctors are rushing things. Inducing early, breaking the bag of waters early, stripping the membranes -- these rush women down the intervention and c-section path. Oh, but thank GOODNESS the doctors were there or else the woman and child may not have survived! *sarcasm* The truth of the matter is that if doctors just let nature take its course more often, there wouldn't be as many issues with labor complications. There's an old saying that goes: it's better to "go WITH the stream, not AGAINST the stream." Well doctors like to go "against" the stream of nature.

I'm glad to hear that your doctors were not c-section happy. Unfortunately many doctors are. I'm not referring to c-sections that are scheduled. I am indeed suggesting that many "emergency" c-sections are performed at the convenience of the doctors, not for the safety or benefit of mother and child.

The Business of Being Born is a great documentary that describes the battles between women wanting a natural birth and doctors and the medical industry fighting to keep it "clinical." There are also other great resources and books out there if you're interested in the subject. Obstetric Myths Versus Research Realities is a good one.

Interesting. I encountered the opposite with both childbirths. The water broke naturally, at home, with my first child and I waited around in the hospital for 18 hours requesting labor induction, but the doctor refused until it became obsolutely necessary. I had an epidural after 4 excruciating hours on Pitocin.

My second labor progressed naturally, and I hit 9 cm before I got to the hospital. I asked for the epidural, since it was such a relief with my first labor, but my doctor refused because I was "so close" to delivery this time. Well, 10 hours later, I was just exhausted and he still wasn't born. It wasn't as bad as Pitocin-induced labor, but it was still horrible. I had several nurses examine me and confirm that I was actually at 9 cm, but the bag of waters was holding things up. I asked them to break the waters, but they refused for 6 hours!! Finally my doctor gave in and broke the waters, and I was ready to push immediately. He was born 20 minutes later. I spent 6 hours laboring at 9 cm just for the sake of doing things "naturally."

Sounds like your doctor was not at all compassionate. There are good doctors and bad doctors. My first born was delivered by doctor and my wife while not having a difficult labor had a prolonged one. The second one was done by a certified midwife. The amniotic sack ruptured just before the baby crowned. This is not at all uncommon. The best advice I can offer is know your doctor or midwife. Ask questions. If the least thing feels uncomfortable find a new provider. Make a plan with you professional before delivery. And above trust your gut.

Mom has been transferring cord blood to baby for nine months. You really think a few minutes after birth will suddenly cause rejection?

Blood type differences don't impact the baby, just Rh factor. They have Rogam for that now.

this issue in the news may be just one more thing to stress them out.

Interestingly enough, when there is delayed cord clamping/cutting, the parents and the babies are actually considerably less stressed out. The baby's oxygen supply is not suddenly cut off forcing him to use 100% of his lungs immediately, it's more of a gradual process. Plus, babies have to be placed in their mother's arms or on her chest which also calms them down considerably (compared to what has been done in the past -- cord cut immediately and the babies are whisked away to a tub under a heat lamp).

If you ask your doctor to wait for it to stop pulsing before cutting, he or she will likely do that. Just ask!

We asked our doctor about it, and although she was willing to wait, we still received resistance. She tried convincing us that it's not worth it, that it can cause jaundice, and even when she was waiting for it to stop pulsing, she still seemed to rush us.

But if there's a problem during or after delivery, or if the situation is emergent, they may not be able to wait.

I completely agree. In emergency cases where they need to immediately attend to the baby, waiting wouldn't be an option, and I believe most people accept that.

Waiting to cut the cord is NOT a big deal or something to stress out about if it can't be done. I hope parents reading this don't add waiting to cut the cord to their freak out list. I also was a labor and delivery nurse and saw countless beautiful healthy screaming babies whose cords were cut right away.

I have also heard of babies whose cords were cut too early that came down with complications and had to be sent to the NICU. The doctors said themselves it was because the cord was cut too early. This can be particularly traumatic to premature babies as well.

I strongly believe there are many unseen detriments to immediate cord cutting. Perhaps the babies look fine, but I can imagine that there are probably many underlying issues that don't surface until later on, and unfortunately at that point no correlation can be made to the instance of cord cutting.

I wholeheartedly agree. I've been studying midwifery and birth since my first pregnancy in 2006. I've noticed a very disturbing trend. Mainstream medicine (OB), is woefully behind more natural approaches. When they finally do catch on ( classic DUH moment), they hail their research as some sort of amazing discovery. From what I've read, midwives have known this for DECADES! And unlike what Julie says, many doctor's do give resistance to very simple requests. It's all about CYB, instead of the mother. The more I understand about the physiology of birth, the more disgusted I am at current medical practice. The entire system should be ashamed of the way they operate (no pun intended).

Wow. Thanks for sharing your story. I've heard that preemies can benefit the MOST from delayed clamping/cutting. Unfortunately there are still lots of old school doctors and nurses out there that like to do things the old fashioned way: Cut the cord ASAP, wipe the kid down, place under heat lamp or in nursery, forget about Mom. Luckily our hospital was pretty progressive and had changed their ways within the last 5 years or so. They realize that natural is better and having the child on Mom's chest with the cord intact eases the transition considerably from the womb to the world. Natural is always better and we as parents need to learn to trust our instincts more than old generation doctors that don't want to change their ways.

What a sweet story. Poor little baby needed his mom already, and they whisked him off to a nursery!