Reasons to reconsider water birth due to toxins found in birthing pools and destruction of beneficial flora in the birth canal and vernix caseosa that can compromise proper seeding of baby’s immune system.
Waterbirth has become an established practice in parts of the United States where midwifery is strong and natural childbirth is popular. It is also gaining momentum in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Germany.
Advocates of water birth say that it is safe, offering Mom drug-free pain relief, better oxygenation during labor and a calm, peaceful entrance into the world for baby as the warm water simulates the intrauterine environment.
In addition, the umbilical cord pulsates longer after water birth, helping to remove damaged red blood cells from the baby’s circulation which reduces the risk of neonatal jaundice.
I birthed all three of my children naturally in a birth center with only a midwife and a birthing assistant in attendance. I chose to use a birthing tub briefly during labor with my first child.
I did experience some pain relief from the experience. I was particularly grateful to have the birthing tub available as an option during the challenging transition phase.
The decision to give birth in a tub is a lot more significant than the decision to labor in one, however.
Alarming Effects of Water Birth Few Mothers Are Told
The decision to labor or give birth in the water should be approached with extreme caution, and it is disturbing that the very real health risks of water birth are not typically discussed in prenatal examination rooms.
Not a single one of my prenatal exams over the span of three full-term pregnancies ever covered the risks discussed below nor were they even mentioned in passing.
A concern rarely if ever mentioned about water birth is the significant chlorine exposure that both mother and baby experience during the labor and delivery process.
Many mothers who are careful to filter their drinking water during pregnancy to remove chlorine and other toxins seem to give little to no thought about soaking for hours in the very same water or giving birth to their precious newborn in it.
Bathing or showering in tap water is known to expose a person to a significant amount of outgassed chlorine that is absorbed via inhalation and the skin.
For example, taking a seven-minute shower in treated city tap water (pool water would be much worse) exposes a person to more chlorine, disinfection byproducts (DPBs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) than by drinking a gallon of tap water. (1)
This absorption happens in two ways according to Dr. Mercola:
- The chlorine that enters your lungs is in the form of chloroform, a carcinogen, and chlorite, a byproduct of chlorine dioxide. These forms of chlorine hit your bloodstream instantly before they have a chance to be removed by your organs of detoxification.
- The DBPs that enter your body through your skin also go directly into your bloodstream. And the warmer the water, the more the absorption of toxins is maximized by the skin.
Chlorinated Water Harms Birth Microbiome
The most insidious result of exposure to treated water during the water birth process is the adverse effect on gut flora. Most water births use chlorinated tap water straight out of the faucet attached to the birthing pool.
According to Dr. Zoltan P. Rona, M.D., chlorinated water destroys most strains of friendly intestinal (and vaginal) flora, known as probiotics. (2)
The compromise to bodily flora comes at a time when the baby’s gut needs to be seeded properly with the beneficial microbes that will guard the health and bolster immunity for a lifetime.
Any beneficial microbes present in Mom’s birth canal will be either weakened, destroyed, or severely damaged by exposure to the chlorinated water by the time baby passes through.
While colostrum and breastmilk also contain beneficial bacteria, there is a wider variety of strains in a healthy mother’s gut and birth canal than in breastmilk alone.
Babies born via C-section are also not properly seeded with beneficial bacteria from the birth canal, which may explain why they are 5 times as likely to develop allergies by age two as babies born vaginally. (3)
Think about it … all that work you have done with your diet for 9 months limiting sugar, consuming fermented foods and taking probiotic supplements to optimally prepare the birth canal for baby’s birth potentially wiped away (literally) by choosing water birth.
In addition, exposure of the baby’s skin to the chlorine and other chemicals in the birthing pool tap water destroys the healthy living biofilm on the baby’s skin called the vernix caseosa which should be ideally loaded with probiotics from passage through Mom’s birth canal. (4)
The vernix is protective of the baby’s delicate skin and has anti-infective and antioxidant properties. It should never be exposed to toxic chemicals like chlorine or wiped/washed off until it comes off naturally some days after birth. (5)
Moreover, the moist air in the delivery room coming off the warm birthing tub water (filled with tap water) is the first air that baby breathes, and it is contaminated with chloroform, VOCs, and carcinogenic disinfection by-products like trihalomethanes.
Not exactly the optimal air to be filling baby’s lungs with at birth, don’t you think? The picture below shows a mother nursing her baby for the first time right in the birth pool!
Remaining in the birth pool for some time after birth is very common and exposes the new baby’s fragile lungs to very contaminated water and toxic air off-gassing from the birthing pool.
What About Untreated or Filtered Water?
Unfortunately, using untreated well water for a water birth isn’t much better.
Below is a list of some of the toxins commonly found in natural well water from contaminated runoff due to dumping by the millions of pounds into soils every single year: (6)
- Herbicides (like Roundup, proven to damage beneficial flora)
- pesticides
- estrogen-mimicking hormones
- drug residues
- heavy metals
Filtering the water would be a much better alternative, but the risk of infection is increased due to the lack of chlorine as a disinfectant to maintain water hygiene.
A study in 2004 of the water in a birth pool that had been filtered and thoroughly cleaned found high concentrations of the pathogens E. coli, coliform, staph, and P. aeruginosa. (7)
One report found that a baby in Texas died from contracting Legionnaires’ Disease from a contaminated birthing pool.
The infant was born in a tub full of well water that hadn’t been disinfected and died after 19 days in the hospital. (8)
Given the unsanitary nature of the water in a birthing pool after potentially hours of labor and delivery, it is not hard to understand the risks from contamination.
Vernix Caseosa Damage
One final note on using filtered or untreated well water for water birth: this will still at least partially remove the baby’s beneficial, protective biofilm called the vernix caseosa from patting the wet baby down with a towel.
The vernix should never be compromised in any manner until it flakes away itself in the days following birth.
The vernix protects the baby from infection and has antioxidant properties affecting immunity that science does not yet fully understand. (9)
In contrast, babies born “on land” do not need to be patted down with a towel because they aren’t wet at birth except in the very rare case of a baby born in the caul, which isn’t an ideal scenario as baby doesn’t get exposure to Mom’s flora in the birth canal when born in the bag of waters.
My third baby would have been born in the caul, but I asked the midwife to break the bag of waters just before I started to push so that my daughter would get exposure to my beneficial flora and have her immune system properly seeded during birth.
Other Water Birth Dangers
Waterbirth supporter and midwife Annie Sprague, author of the book Water Labor, Water Birth, refutes the 2005 warning by the American Academy of Pediatrics on water births which states,
The safety and efficacy of underwater birth for the newborn has not been established. There is no convincing evidence of benefit to the neonate but some concern for serious harm. (10)
Ms. Sprague asserts that current research has shown that babies do not breathe underwater at the time of birth so concerns for water inhalation are unfounded.
While some studies have shown benefits to water birth, a 2003 retrospective study found little to no benefit to the infant and no clear evidence of reduced labor duration or risk of tears. (11)
In addition, a 2004 review of the medical literature found 74 articles and 16 citations of infants who experienced serious complications from water birthing. These included death, drowning, near-drowning, waterborne bacterial infections, cord rupture, and fever. (12)
Contraindications
Even under the best of circumstances, water birth is not an option for some pregnant women. Waterbirth contraindications include: (13)
- Women who do not want to be in the water when laboring or giving birth.
- Women who have a fear of the water.
- Women who are less than 37 weeks gestation.
- Women who show increased maternal pulse rate.
- Situations where maternal fever or infection (including herpes) is present.
- Decreased fetal heart rate during labor.
- Any concerns regarding the health of the fetus.
- Maternal preeclampsia.
- Complicated or overly lengthy labor.
- Less than ideal fetal presentation.
- Women who have used a narcotic analgesic within the previous three hours.
Best to Pass on Water Birthing
It is surely a pleasant experience to labor and birth in water.
Pleasant should not be confused with safe, however.
I had a very positive experience with water labor as it eased my discomfort during the transition, and I felt much more relaxed which obviously improved blood flow to my baby.
However, pregnant women need to be fully apprised of the risks to their babies’ health and their own if water birth is attempted, and as of this writing, this is occurring in few prenatal examination rooms.
The biggest risk of water birth, it seems, is the very real potential of the decimation of beneficial microbial populations in the birth canal from exposure to toxic chlorinated tap water such that the baby’s gut (via mouth contact with the birth canal) is not properly seeded at birth. Lack of beneficial flora in Mom’s birth canal means that the vernix caseosa, which is ideally supposed to be a living biofilm, will not be exposed to probiotics either.
Why so many in the natural health community are flippant about the risks to baby’s microbiota from water birthing is concerning! This is especially true given the almost daily research coming out about how CRUCIAL good gut flora is to lifelong health.
Even if filtered water is used, there is the risk of infection from contaminated water (e.g., many women defecate when pushing). The protective biofilm called the vernix caseosa on the baby’s skin would be exposed to these contaminants and then partially washed/wiped away. This protective coating has anti-infective and antioxidant properties that science believes may affect innate immunity. It should never be exposed to contamination or inadvertently tampered with via towel drying.
The second biggest risk is the absorption of dangerous and carcinogenic toxins from skin contact and breathing outgassed chlorine and other chemicals present in treated water. And what about the toxic chemical cleaners used to disinfect the tub itself by hospital or birthing center personnel? Obviously, this can be controlled in home birth, but not elsewhere. And, finally, the risks of other complications including death from drowning, while small, are very real.
If you absolutely must have a water birth because the pain management and relaxation benefits really work for you, here’s a good compromise: Labor in the water (make sure the water is filtered [this one is a good model to consider] and the tub was cleaned with non-toxic, green cleaners) and then get out when it is time to push.
This approach won’t negatively affect your vaginal flora, and you won’t expose your baby to pathogens in the filtered water that has no chemicals in it as disinfectant nor will there be any risk to the integrity of the vernix caseosa.
Author Sally Fallon Morell, author of The Nourishing Traditions Book of Baby and Child Care, summarizes it well:
“So, despite glowing reviews, water birth should be embraced with caution.”
(1) Tap Water Toxins. Is Your Water Trying to Kill You?
(2, 4) Rethinking Chlorinated Tap Water
(3) C-Section Babies 5 Times More Likely To Develop Allergies
(5) Wait! Don’t Wash That Newborn!
(6) The Quickest, Easiest Way to Help Detoxify Your Body
(7, 13) The Nourishing Traditions Book of Baby and Childcare
(8) Texas Infant Dies of Legionnaires’ Disease After ‘Water Birth’
(9) Unraveling The Mystery of Vernix Caseosa
(10) Water Labor, Water Birth
(11) Water Birth: experience at a university clinic and a district hospital in Austria
(12) The Risks of Underwater Birth
Hmm….
Labor in water, birth on land?
I’ve had an all-natural land birth and more than one at-home waterbirth with a professional midwife. I’m studying to be a midwife and have studied these issues as well. The information here is not completely accurate and all women need to do more study before making a birthing decision. Birthing at home is far different from birthing anywhere else, and is the safest environment for baby, including the good aspect of the flora and microbes baby gets exposed to at home vs. elsewhere. We used filtered water in our home and a special lead-free hose to fill our tub. Mama and baby did not spend a lot of time in the water. None of my babies had the vernix washed off by the water. When we got out of the tub, the babies were still covered with their vernix. The water in your home is the water you will drink (it goes into your breastmilk) and you will bathe baby in, so the fears over birthing in that water need to be considered in that light. The bodily fluids you expel during birth are full of your flora, which your baby has been exposed to by growing and living inside your body…mom’s flora and fluids are not toxic to baby any more than baby’s own fluids and flora are. The benefits of waterbirth at home are numerous and can be studied. I wouldn’t suggest it is a great idea to birth in the hospital whether in water or not…but the discussion of waterbirth at home is different and needs to be seen in a different light. Additionally, we all have heard about how toxic breastmilk is because of environmental pollution, and I would hope none of the natural healthy mamas would suggest we should avoid breastfeeding as a result, taking away all the benefits baby gets from mama’s milk.
And not to be nit-picking, but there is lack of clarity in the article about chlorinated water vs. filtered water… Chlorinated water is unsafe, of course, as is fluoridated water. That’s why most of us have filters in our homes. But to say that filtered water is unsafe because the water isn’t disinfected seems odd. Many micron filters and porcelain filters remove microbes as well as metals and chemicals…there are numerous filtering techniques that remove pretty much everything. But even if the filter wasn’t perfect, are we now going to suggest that we don’t have access to decent water in our homes? So what water are you giving your children to drink? In which water are you bathing your babies and children? How is the filtered water a mom uses in her home waterbirth different from the drinking water and daily bathing water? And on top of that, are we supposed to be living in a super-disinfected world? Isn’t that anathema to natural microbe theory and how balanced exposure can be good for us? The way the “water dilemma” is presented here, it’s a no-win situation…and that’s not realistic.
Also, babies don’t have the reflex to breathe when birthed into water the same temp as their previous environment (the amniotic fluid in mama). Babies breathe when they are exposed to the change in environment, into the air. The fear of baby breathing in water during a properly regulated waterbirth should not be offered as a probability.
There is so much more that could and should be addressed on this topic…but it’s best that people really delve in and research all the angles.
The filtered water is fine until the mother has fluids (water breaking for example) and/or feces etc come out in the water while laboring in it. Then, it becomes loaded with pathogens. And then she births into it and the baby is born into that??? And then, worse, she stays in the water for awhile with the baby nursing etc. Very very unsanitary water for the baby to come into.
The “pathogens” in the water are nothing more than the baby is exposed to via vaginal birth – in water or on land. Years ago it was discovered that, in trying to reduce the number of “germs” surrounding birth by enemas, shaving, draping etc, the hospitals only succeeded in creating a great environment for hospital-acquired pathogens which were far more dangerous e.g. Staph Aureus and Pseudomonas. In fact, these maternal microbes are an essential part of seeding the baby’s gut microbiome. And as for staying in the water while feeding the baby – the baby’s head is OUT of the water – so no danger of breathing or drinking said water. This article is short on fact and long on guesswork. There is a quite a body of research on water birth now which supports its use in labour and birth. Rather than scaremongering, I suggest that people sit down and read it! Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist makes the mistake of providing anecdotes and speculation in lieu of a reasoned argument.
Not true at all. Baby doesn’t get a mouthful of contaminated water during a vaginal birth.
As far as the water/membranes breaking, that really would do nothing to contaminate the water for the baby….since the baby is living in that amniotic fluid for months, swallowing it, etc.
Once that amniotic fluid and organic matter it contains is out of the woman’s body, it rapidly becomes a breeding ground for pathogenic bacteria in a warm pool of water … unless the water is spiked with chlorine like the levels that there would be in a jacuzzi.
Water was such a huge asset and pain reliever for me in labour. My question is: would an epidural be safer than labouring in the water? Are their less risks associated? Thanks.
There is no information that I could find comparing the two. But, having labored in the water and out of the water, I can say that the water did not relieve the pain enough to make a difference at least for me. It was easy to stay out of the water knowing that it wasn’t good for me or my baby.
If you find the water is great for your pain management, then labor in the water (make sure the water is filtered) and get out just before the birth. A very good compromise that won’t affect your flora and you won’t expose your baby to pathogens in the filtered water that has no chlorine in it to disinfect.
The epidural drug is a cocaine derivative, with potential negative effects on baby (and mama, too). There are multiple problems associated with epidurals, aside from the drug factor, including the impediment to mama’s ability to move about into really efficacious birthing positions, and to feel when she is ready to push out baby and go with her natural rhythms, which is best for her body and for baby. But the bigger danger is that epidurals tend to slow down the process of labor and delay progress, leading to what is termed the “cascade of interventions” that many times ends up in c-sections. You should definitely do your research on technological interventions in birth and how they can lead to unwanted birth outcomes. Check out the books by Henci Goer and Ina May Gaskin to start, and look at back issues of Mothering magazine.
Water labor slows down progress too. I know many women who had to get out of the tub because their progress kept slowing down or stopping when they were in the tub.
That is not always the case. Every woman is different. When I got in the tub in labor I was able to relax enough for labor to progress (once, after hours of no progress) and baby was born soon after. It is *sometimes* true that water slows labor but by no means all.
Also, amniotic fluid being in the water is not dangerous. The baby has been surrounded by it and swallowed it daily for months. It is not magically pathogenic when it is on the outside.
As for feces, they are often not in the water (many, many women have loose stools in the hours leading up to labor, which naturally cleans them out). And if they are in the water, unless the mother is ill, they are not pathogenic either. In fact, they’re filled with mother’s healthy gut flora.
Either way baby’s not going to get a big mouthful of water during the water birth. But if baby did, chances are, it’s not going to be an issue at all.
Any organic matter in a warm pool of water is a rapid breeding ground for pathogenic bacteria unless it is highly chlorinated like a jacuzzi. And, most women defecate at least a little during pushing. What’s more it is unpredictable whether the woman will or won’t. Since it is very common, best to assume you will and get out of the pool at the very least before the baby is born. And, to suggest that the baby won’t get a mouthful of the tub water getting born underwater? Seriously? A newborn doesn’t know to keep its lips closed underwater like a child who has learned to swim does. My children swallowed tons of water learning to swim (they all learned as toddlers) until they learned to close their lips underwater.
A newborn does indeed keep its lips closed underwater when it is born. This is a completely different situation from kids learning to swim, who are going in and out of the water and have to learn to coordinate their breathing. Newborns are buttoned up tight until their faces feel the cool air and they breathe. My birth tub was 150 gallons, so after the typical loose stools in early labor, even if a little feces was pushed out, it was incredibly diluted. The bottom line for me in an area where options are limited, is that if waterbirth can keep a mom safe from myriad other interventions, including a 42% caesarian rate, I’ll vote for waterbirth in a heartbeat.
Lynn, could you provide a source or some other citation for this claim? I would appreciate it 🙂 Even if they did keep their lips closed, which I find doubtful unless there has been a study of that, the water would get in the ears and eyes too. I can’t even fathom birthing my baby in water which contains what most birthing tubs would contain after pushing.
After my babies were born, the first thing the midwife did was suction out the baby’s mouth .. and my babies weren’t even water birthed.
yes agree! I’ve not defacated in birth before (“land” or water) as clear out in the few days before is normal, babies don’t take their first breath under the water “At birth, the baby’s lungs are filled with amniotic fluid. They are not inflated. The baby takes the first breath within about 10 seconds after delivery. This breath sounds like a gasp, as the newborn’s central nervous system reacts to the sudden change in temperature and environment” (US National Library of Medicine). Neither of my babies have had to be ‘suctioned’.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12955529
I appreciate you taking the time to write on the subject. I think we can gather that you are AGAINST water births and laboring in the water. That is your right, absolutely. I’m not here to try to change your opinion. I just want to question a few things in your blog’s article:
(1) “Any beneficial microbes present in Mom’s birth canal will be either weakened, destroyed…”
I checked your source by Dr. Zoltan P. Rona, M.D., and although his article does discuss the effects of chlorinated water on gut bacteria, it does not anywhere mention that the microbes in Mom’s birth canal will be either weakened, destroyed, or severely damaged. It does not at all discuss this subject in context to birthing or laboring in chlorinated water. I understand chlorinated water is not something one should bathe in. My family chooses to avoid this through a filtration system. I just don’t feel confident in your source as it doesn’t specifically relate to water birthing. How long would it take to birth or labor in water before some of Mom’s gut bacteria is weakened, destroyed, or damaged? How much of Mom’s gut bacteria is affected?
(2)” Filtering the water would be a much better alternative, but the risk of infection is increased due to the lack of chlorine as a disinfectant to maintain water hygiene. A study in 2004 of the water in a birth pool…”
Was this water tested before or after the baby was born in the tub of water? Did the mom and baby soak in the water for long periods of time after the birth? I do not have this book cited to check the study for specifics. And, if for some reason this was the water BEFORE baby was birthed…What filtration system was being used? If this is the fresh water coming from a high quality filtration system, then what is that saying about the overall water from this filtration system– the water one drinks plenty of daily and bathes in regularly?
(3)”In addition, a 2004 review of the medical literature found 74 articles and 16 citations of infants who experienced serious complications from water birthing. These included death…”
What is the rate of these risk factors listed above? I checked your source and it stated “the risks of these complications are likely low but are not well defined”. I would be more interested in the rates of these risks– how common are they? under what circumstances make them more common? There are risks and benefits to most everything we do in life, and just because something has a risk does not mean it is deemed as bad.
If anything, this article has encouraged me to read more about water births as a whole– benefits and risks. I have met a few different traditional and CPMs who have been practicing midwifery for 30 plus years and of those years have done primarily water births. It will be interesting to hear why they support water births.
This source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15167820) states the following: “Our systematic review did not identify an adequately controlled trial of delivery underwater (second stage of labor underwater) compared with delivery in air.”
So don’t think there are cut and dry answers at this point and any midwife who claims otherwise is incorrect. Until then, the negatives far outweigh the benefits just based on other data. In my experience laboring in a birthing tub, the reduced amount of pain (it didn’t eliminate the pain) from being in the tub was not sufficient to risk being in toxic water when my baby was born.
Of course, send me a link to a youtube video of a primate giving birth to its baby underwater and I will write a retraction 🙂
Excellent point Sarah! Reading your article I kept thinking that water births have never been the way that traditional cultures/societies had babies.
I prefer the wisdom of traditional cultures/societies.
That is quite a specious argument – no pun intended. If we birthed like other primates, the world would probably not be as messed up as it is. Other primates, probably because they have not been socialised to fear birth, nor clever enough to devise ways of alleviating the pain of birth, are obliged to get on with the job. Hence no water birth, as fa as I know. You are really grasping at straws here.
Sarah, are you aware of the aquatic ape hypothsis, that humans started to go through an aquatic phase in evolution before returning to land? Utterly compelling, it accounts for our aquiline noses compared to other apes, our large brain – all that lovely shellfish to eat and Omega 3s etc etc. In these circumstances I find it totally understandable that we might have laboured in water at some stage in our evolutionary history. This may also explain why we were able to evolved a larger head despite the potential problems in childbirth. Google Elaine Morgan or aquatic ape hypothesis for more info.
I get this to an extent. We can not live our lives in fear. I was not planning a water birth for my fourth child, I labored in the water at 9 cm to help ease my back labor and I ended up delivery him in the tub. We do have well water so that is a benefit. But after I gave birth we emptied the tub and we were both washed. I know what you will say that the vernix has to stay on, but come on. Babies born in the hospitals have their vernix wiped off immediately. So should all women have home births so the vernix can stay on??
We live in a world with lots of toxins. We can not escape them. We do our best to avoid and we just go with what we can. Honestly not everyone can do what you do. And it is not because we are lazy. You are on your journey and we are on our journey. I am not saying we should not think about this. But we need to weigh out risks. And with all my land births, baby and I were bathed after the cord was cut (which we waited for it to stop pulsating). We all do the best we can. Lets stop shaming and fear mongering. Thanks!
Yes, we live with a lot of toxins, but to avoid them for your helpless newborn is an imperative especially since babies have zero blood/brain barrier so toxins go straight to the brain. Otherwise, just go to the hospital and get the full medicalized birth experience: pitocin, epidural, antibiotics IV, fetal monitoring belt, probable C-section and whatnot right?
There is not any proven studies that prove that the blood brain barrier is not fully intact at the time of birth, only hear say. Definitely do some research and look for evidence based research on it. You will find none.
You must be a pro-vaxer. LOL. Except for the fact that young kids with brain cancer don’t need a brain port for the chemo drugs like adults do .. why? Because the chemo goes straight to the brain unlike adults with the same condition.
Rebekah, I really appreciate the information Sarah sends out in her newsletters and feel like you do in that we pick and choose our battles. Some of those battles are weighed with more importance then others. With that being said, your post comes off so defensive to the point that you sense a feeling of guilt in your decisions and then at the end you drive it home with saying ‘stop shaming and fear mongering’. Yes, we can not escape chemicals, but we can try our hardest and if that stresses some people out then don’t do it. Let’s not come down on the people who try to make a difference, from getting the word out in blogs, to participating in protests, to contacting their state representative.. this is how we can make a difference.
If we can’t try and educate each other or bring up a really good point that makes us stop and realize that something may not be as healthy as we thought it was, then we are doomed, as a species.
Our hospital didn’t remove the vernix at our request and we were given the impression this was a common request there. Also, sharing opinion and information is not “shaming and fear mongering.” If you have opposing data, share it. When someone shares information that I didn’t know when I had my sons – about something I didn’t do, etc. – I don’t get offended that they are shaming me, I think about if I agree based on research and think “dang, I wish I would have known that. NEXT time I will!” If someone were to tell me “you are a bad mom because you didn’t know this at your last birth” THAT would be shaming and sadly inappropriate. People shouldn’t be afraid to share truth because it might offend someone. C’mon. That gets in the way of progress and education.
I’ve heard the vernix is waxy, and hard to remove. I’m all for leaving it as undisturbed as possible. For me the issue is more about the chemicals in the water having open access (due to ruptured membranes and dialated cervix) to destroy the beneficial bacterial populations and prevent healthy colonization of the baby’s intestinal tract. And I can see how pregnant mothers’ routine bathing in unfiltered water would contribute to this as well (to a lesser extent). What about natural salts in the (properly filtered) birth pool water ( such as epsom salt or dead sea salt) this is how nature purifies water isn’t it as well as providing minerals? I simply won’t take a bath without epsom salt in the water. Although fluoride reduces it’s absorption (magnesium), no wonder 80% of us are deficient!
That’s a good idea … the amniotic fluid is salty which is why it can’t be compared with a water birth pool especially one filled with tap water from the tub faucet.
Where I gave birth with my 5th child , at a birthing center, right after my son was born we were all brought over to the bed. Webwaited until the cord stopped pulsating and we never washed off the vernix and there was tons of it. They drained the tub and cleaned and re filled and then i had a tea bath with my son. Its possible the lady in that picture is having an herbal tea bath like i had. I do agree with you about the chlorine and breathing in that especially when its heated.He was the only child I had in the water and honestly would have done just a natural one in bed like I did with my previous 4.
I hope she’s having a tea bath! My first thought was that the color in the photo must have been photoshopped, because that mom looks way too healthy to have hemorrhaged to the extent necessary to turn the water that color!
Nope, sorry. No drownings or near drownings. evidencebasedbirth.com/waterbirth/
Well, it seems this study was conveniently overlooked that documents drownings that was included above. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15167820
Actually, the nurse-researcher that Sarah linked to at Evidence Based Birth, Rebecca Dekker, did not overlook the study you link to.
It’s in her annotated bibliography to her waterbirth article, and the study was very poor quality.
I quote from Dekker’s annotated bibliography regarding this study:
“Review of the medical literature on water immersion during birth. The authors found 74 articles on waterbirth, but only reviewed the 16 articles that reported possible complications related to waterbirth. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles was not stated. The authors did not reference or discuss any findings from the 58 studies that reported no complications. In addition to reviewing case studies, the authors included anecdotal reports from a magazine article, letters to the editor, and a non-peer reviewed conference abstract in their findings.
The authors concluded that the review ‘failed to demonstrate any benefit to the neonate,’ but they did not include any references for this statement. The main result of the review was a table in which the authros describe the complications associated with waterbirth from 16 studies:
Gilber et al. (1993), Rosenthal, et al. (1991), Nguyen et al. (2002), Wilson et al. (2003), Rosser (1994), Zimmerman, et al. (1993), de Graaf, et al. (2000), Parker and Boles (1997), Rawal, et al. (1994), Vochem et al., (2001), Franzin et al. (2001), Nagai, et al. (2003) Hagadorn, et al. (1997), Rosevar, et al. (1993), Barry (1995), Deans and Stear (1995). All of these are individual case studies with the exception of one retrospective study (Gilbert, et al. 1993) in which Pinette, et al. misrepresented the research findings. out of the 16 individual case reports, six were directly related to hospital water supply contamination (Parker and Boles, Rawal et al, Vochem et al., Franzin et al., Nagai et al., and Hagadorn, et al.).
The case studies are described in detail in the “case report” section of the annotated bibliography, with the exception of the umbilical cord tear case reports, because they were combined into one review by Scafer (2014).
The methods used in this review were seriously flawed. Although the authors stated that they ‘systematically reviewed the literature,’ they failed to report their inclusion/exclusion criteria for articles.
The quality of the articles they included is questionable, given that the authors included a magazine article with anecdotal reports and non-peer reviewed abstracts and letters to the editor in their results. The authors only reviewed articles that showed complications (mostly case studies), while ignoring higher level evidence.
They provided no references for their statement that the literature ‘failed to demonstrate any benefit to the neonate.’
The authors included a number of questionable references in their review of the literature, including one magazine article (Rosser, et al.) that consisted of anecdotal reports of a baby who was born in the caul and drowned because the parents did not take it out of the membrane, and another unattended waterbirth in which the infant drowned after the parents left it underwater for 25 minutes. In this review they refer to the Rosser article as a report of ‘two home births with likely drowning.’
Thank you so much for this post! I also had my first baby in the water, but I heard afterwards that one of my midwives was not convinced that it was safe and it made me think more about it. I had decided that next time I’m not going to use water! I didn’t think about the toxins in the water. My midwives used salt in inflateable birthing tub I used and it had a disposable liner, which probably had a ton of toxins. Any ways, I did notice the lack of vernix on my baby since I knew not to wash it off. Thanks again for your insight and confirmation on my decision to forgo the water birth next time 🙂
Thank you 🙂 It’s important not to just jump on a bandwagon because people say it’s “natural”. Think through it for yourself and research both sides, not just the one you might WANT to agree with.