Talk:Natural childbirth

Condensing the article, and removing pro vs con sentiments

There is a pro vs con style in this article that I am partly responsible for. I believe that this is bad encyclopedic style, and I am going to work at fixing it. I have rewritten the first section "Opposition to anaesthetics and medical intervention" in a more condensed and unified way. I will slowly work through the other sections. Attilitus (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you respond to my query at the bottom of the page please. You might wish to note that WP style is that you put new comments at the bottom of the page rather than the top. You will notice that there is a tab at the top of your browser that states "new section". This puts your comments at the bottom of the talk page. It is a lot clearer that way. Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The ignorant bias within this topic is infuriating

I have not editted any of the previously written material for fear of allowing my own bias to compromise wikipedia's neutrality. However, I believe that it is clear from the tone of the article that it's neutrality has already been severely compromised. I plan on adding several more sections in order to ensure that the neutrality of the article is re-established. I will keep all the old content, and will merely add my own researched findings under separate headings. Attilitus (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

Please read and understand wikipedia guidelines on appropriate use of references. One of the references you site is the book review of a book - have you read the book? If so, please reference the book directly. Just because something is published does not mean it is an appropriate reference. Lcwilsie (talk)

The book review you cite indicates that this author has a fairly extreme approach to managing labor (stating that every woman should be given an epidural before even experiencing any pain). I don't think this is the general consensus of most OB/GYNs. All make it available, and even encourage use of epidurals, but not for every single laboring woman at the onset of labor. I'm sure there are other critics of natural childbirth, surely there is a better reference than a book review? Lcwilsie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not an extreme position at all. Often by the time a woman starts experiencing significant pain, it is too late to apply the epidural. I believe that the author implies that an epidural should be applied before a woman begins to experience significant pain occurring in the mid to late stages of labor. By the way, I found your edits to my additions to be remarkably productive. Attilitus (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is that the medical community does not have appropriate medication to give women when they need it (instead of requiring pre-emptive administration), this is not the fault of the natural childbirth philosophy, but the fault of the medical community. Also, although an epidural might not be available, in other parts of the world (England, Canada) there are pain relief options that are not routinely made available in the US (i.e., gas and air (nitrous oxide) and TENS machines). Please see bottom of this page for new comments and content.Lcwilsie (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I removed a paragraph which was totally uncited and made wild claims that are contrary to accepted medical opinion. I do not understand why people somehow believe that things which are "natural" are somehow superior to things that are "unnatural." The paragraph I removed created a false dichotomy between Natural Childbirth and Caesarian sections/extreme medical interventions. So... it was biased uncited nonsense which didn't belong in the article. Attilitus (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read some of the references before you disparage them. What accepted medical opinion are you referring to? The WHO recommends a lot of what is discussed on this page ([1]), and the NHS of England also encourages minimal intervention, referring most women to midwives and encouraging home births. I am going to replace some of what you deleted, as you went a bit far in my opinion and it now appears that natural childbirth is simply anti-epidural which is not encompassing of the philosophy. If you think statements need citations, insert a "citation needed" rather than deleting the information. The claims are that one intervention leads to another, and this is well documented (though not well cited on this page). I'm afraid you are taking the stance that this page is trying to encourage women to have a natural childbirth, while it is not. In fact, it is very difficult in the US to have a natural childbirth in a hospital setting. Lcwilsie (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Countercultural movement

Natural childbirth is a "movement" that is counter to the mainstream culture of educated medical professionals. The topic should be approached with more skepticism than I am seeing in this article. I have opted not to change some of the material of questionable neutrality. However, I have added a small section on the Marketing of Natural childbirth which is more critical of its philosophies. Attilitus (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The topic of the article is "Natural Childbirth." The goal of wikipedia is to provide information. Therefore, this article should describe what natural childbirth is - giving birth without or with a minimum of medical intervention, and maybe reasons for why people may or may not choose to do so. Period. Appropriate links can be provided to the childbirth, epidural, Caesarean section pages as needed rather than repeating what is already handled well on other pages. Lcwilsie (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Natural Childbirth arose as a philosophy in response and in opposition to established medical practices. Core to this philosophy is a distrust for doctors and established medicine. In these details, it is similar to many other forms of "new age" philosophy. I believe this article should approach the topic with more distance and perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilitus (talk • contribs) 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh

Uh, I don't claim to be any sort of childbirth-expert, but what does this have to do with Category:Survival Skills? --LuciferBlack 09:07, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe there should be an emergency childbirth article. AlbertCahalan 05:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added emergency childbirth this morning Skrimpy 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This article only describes proponents and their views of natural childbirth and does not cover any other views of opponents. Also it has opinions stated as fact such as saying that natural childbirth "empowering to women" and it is not a "technique" or a "fad" and is apparently distorted by the media. Another example of this is the phrase "A woman who is allowed to labor as she instinctively wants to is a woman who will be empowered by her birth experience." Lastly, none of the other facts concerning benefits of natural childbirth like post-partum complications, easier recovery, and affect of medications on the newborn are cited. No possible complications are discussed here either such as pre-term labor or a prolonged pregnancy.

Donald Antonini 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that women have been having children naturally for thousands of years is enough evidence to state that natural childbirth is not a "fad." The statement that it is not a "technique" is also a fact - having a baby naturally is not a technique, simply a normal function of the female human body. The "techniques" are the various relaxation and breathing methods taught by different schools of chilbirth education. Natural birth is not in itself a technique, but a process of the human body. It is the norm, interventions are what change natural childbirth into something else. I believe that a discussion on "prolonged pregnancy" and "preterm labor" as complications of natural birth would be inappropriate. Preterm labor is a complication of pregnancy and not natural birth. "Prologed pregnancy" is also a complication of pregnancy, if it is even a complication at all, which is disputed. This is an entry on natural childbirth, not induction of labor, though induction of labor can intefere with normal childbirth. One moment for some citations Skrimpy 18:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC

Added citations in. Added a paragraph that medical intervention is appropriate in high-risk births. Skrimpy 18:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Research

"Research is showing that this is usually not in the best interest of mother and baby" . Does "this" refer to any medical or operative intervention? Does this mean regardless of the situation, it is better to do nothing? Are there references regarding this research? Ekem 21:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"This" refers to the interventions in the previous sentence. Read the paragraph directly underneath your second question - it states that there are situations where intervention is appropriate. 10 references have been given and several of them relate directly to intervention during labor, which can be seen just by reading the titles of the research. Nevertheless, I will search for yet more references to place with the article. Skrimpy 18:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any study about specifically "the best interest of mother and baby" - a complex topic in its own right - although in a larger sense, of course, they all are. I examined three references that seem relevant and find them to be quite specific, and to be accurate I suggest to say something like this:

“Medications given during labor may cross the placenta and affect the fetus, and it has been shown that pain medication can affect the feeding behavior of the newborn.(ref 10) Also epidural anesthesia can detrimentally affect the course of labor (ref 5). Natural childbirth tries to minimize such interventions in the normal course of childbirth.”

(replacing:"Despite what the media tends to portray, medications used during labor do cross to the newborn, and invasive procedures almost always alter the course of labor [10]. Research is showing that this is usually not in the best interest of mother and baby"). Would that be ok? Ekem 15:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds good. I made the change, look it over and see if that's good for accuracy. I cannot figure out how to code the wiki to repeat citations again (it adds new ones), so that's why I put some in parenthesis. Skrimpy 01:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Successful Childbirth Experience

God created our bodies (as women) to deliver naturally. Medicine has it's time and place. Many more babies are successfully delivered today because of medicine. Although too many women take the easier road and medicate. They need to research before hand and look into all their options. How do you think millions of women delivered before epidurals? Naturally.

I have a 22 month old and had the best experience of my life as I delivered him naturally. I am 36 weeks pregnant with my second child and I am actually looking forward to the upcoming labor and delivery experience.

"How do you think millions of women delivered before epidurals? Naturally." They also died naturally-- and until this past century, in very large numbers. Maternal and infant death in childbirth historically was always extremly high. Take a stroll in a graveyard that is older than, say, 100 years and take a look at all the tombstones of women who died young, buried next to their unnamed infants for a reference point. I congratulate you on your good experience of course, but in your own words, medical intervention has its time and place. (I guess I resist statements about God creating our bodies to do this or that because actually human childbirth is a *great* argument against intelligent design. My opinion, of course.) 38.2.108.125 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Epidurals have done nothing to lower the maternal and infant mortality rates. The research is leaning towards epidurals worsening childbirth outcomes. Though it's true that maternal and infant mortality rates were high in the past, they're also high today. It's something that nobody likes to talk about and only the UK has a comprehensive reporting system and makes a valid attempt at stopping the problem. The US underreports its maternal mortality rate by a big margin. And you only have to look at the USA's ranking on the infant mortality charts to realize that epidurals and obstetrics aren't the panacea they're advertised to be.

Traditional societies with good diets produced healthy babies and the normal, easy labors that we hear about. It's when women's diets became deficient that major childbirth problems came to light. Malnutrition causes pelvic problems, leads to weakness in the mothers and reduced vitality in infants. It also results in poor quality mother's milk. Disease and sanitation problems also lead to childbed fever and infants who can't live out their first year.

And then the obstetric trend of visiting dead bodies and then rushing to catch babies accounted for quite a few of those tombstones... The popular back-lying position for delivering babies, and strapping mothers on their backs during labor (which reduces blood flow and inhibits labor) also caused problems for women.

I think that human childbirth is a *great* arguement for intelligent design - horrible refined foods, starving social classes, ignorant doctors, poor sanitation, and ridiculous ideas on childbirth positions and controlling laboring women should have the arguements against them... Skrimpy 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Epidurals are pain management, not medical intervention in an emergency. They're a convenience, not a necessity. I don't think any proponent of natural birth would claim that, for example, an episiotomy should not be used in a *true*, absolute emergency--just that they shouldn't be used only to hasten things along. Nothing about natural childbirth refuses to allow women medical care if they need it, it argues only that these medical techniques are used in far too many non-emergencies. And I'm certainly not aware of any time that an epidural would be needed for a medical emergency! Epidurals increase other interventions--see that article for details. The historical maternal death rate was 1 per 100, but now the rate of caesarean section in the United States is 30%. Do the math; that alone gives solid evidence that medical procedures are being used when they aren't necessary. Natural birth represents only a desire to avoid being among the large numbers of people who receive these procedures without medical necessity. 65.25.107.20 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is an example of one of those empowered women running around...

Yes 38.2.108.125, many mothers died in that time, but people didn't die by getting hit by cars, or because someone flew an airplane into the building they were inside, or because someone invented the atom bomb, or because they smoked too much cigarettes or any other common reason why people die today. Modernity has it's flaws too. Cuzandor 02:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I am unable to find the reason on this page for the NPOV tag and therefore have removed it. Maustrauser 10:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Though some have portrayed natural birth as merely a "technique," or even "martyrdom," advocates dispute this characterization. Some have also criticized natural childbirth as a fad, and point out that medical advances have significantly decreased the incidence of maternal death during childbirth and infant mortality. This last point fails to consider that maternal and child deaths in the past were caused mostly by poor nutrition and hygiene, and that the dramatic improvement in maternal and child health has not been caused by the medicalization of birth, but by improved nutrition and medicine's understanding of the germ theory of disease. In Western Countries where medicalization of birth is greatest, there has been a gradual increase in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality as interventions in birth, such as caesarean sections, have increased.

This is wholly unreferenced and must qualify as OR. I have moved it here pending sourcing. TerriersFan 15:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag revert by Darcnb66

I saw you reverted the tags I added to the natural childbirth article. I believe my criticisms are valid.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Providing how-to advice is not congruent with the wikipedia style. There are many occurrences of "you should" that you added throughout the article. This is good information, but the style should be more in the order of "X million Americans participate in Lamaze classes each year in order to prepare for natural childbirth."

The "How Medicalizing Childbirth Results in Profit" section is particularly non-neutral. This is a controversial subject and it would be best to change it to say that medical interventions have increased by X % over Y time period and that some natural birth advocates attribute the change to a profit-based American health care system. Some research into the topic from an international perspective would be a great contribution as well.

I don't have the expertise to make the changes involved, but from what you've contributed, I would bet you do. Stevotower (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

G'day. I have a problem with the introduction to this article. It suggests that "Natural Childbirth" is a philosophy that is 'against' medical intervention. I'd like to suggest that is actually a positive philosophy rather than a negative one. That is, proponents of natural childbirth believe that childbirth is an physiological and psychological experience that for the vast majority of women requires no intervention (whether it be medical or 'alternative' such as homeopathic remedies, acupuncture etc). At present this article focusses on the negatives of intervention as though they define the philosophy.

Could I suggest the following revision to the introduction:

Natural Childbirth is a philosophy of childbirth that is based on the notion that women, who are adequately prepared, are innately able to give birth to their chlld, without external intervention.

If this is agreed we could then scope out that the philosophy has a variety of adherents, from those who are proponents of unassisted childbirth, to those who promote continuity of midwifery care.

I currently think that the focus on interventions as the main component of the philosophy is unhelpful. Gillyweed (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good starting point. I think it's important to include the range of what "natural" is, so that we don't only include the extreme of unassisted birth, or the idea that every intervention would be precluded, but also the women/practitioners in between. The article has taken on a much more pro/con stance due to certain recent additions. It also has taken on a much more radical sentiment (with some attributions to proponents of natural childbirth that are exagerated, inaccurate, and uncited), painting those who are proponents of natural childbirth as "wild". When I'm able, I'll try to read through some texts I have for useful material to add. Lcwilsie (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a while since I have looked at this article and sadly it seems to be worse now that it was in the past, which is quite unusual for a WP article. I wonder if we really should start again? Just joking! I'll look forward to your contributions. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed outline

How does this sound:
Introduction Gillyweed's proposal, or similar
History
Preparation Birth prep classes with emphasis on natural birth, books
Pain management for natural chilbirth As written or similar
Physical Aspects Research re: frequency of birth intervention and women's experiences (LMII study)
Psychological Aspects As written or similar
See Also Internal links
External Links
References
I think we need to drop the "proponents of" approach of this page and instead focus on facts, publications, and quotes as much as possible. Lcwilsie (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a history section, but it still is mostly focused on medical intervention - I'd like to see more on the philosphy of natural childbirth rather than just what I have written. Lcwilsie (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like this. It's a good structure. I'll try to find additional references too. I do believe that we need to have a Criticisms of Natural Birth section (perhaps this can go after the Psychological aspects). Whether we like it or not there are critics. We seem to have a large number of them in Australia and they too (the critics...not necessarily the Australians) need to be quoted for this to be a balanced article. Some of the current headings proposed suggest this might end up a "How to" article. We will need to avoid that. Thanks for the good work. Gillyweed (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

If this is going to have a criticism section, it needs to be well written rather than attacking people who promote natural childbirth. The first statement in the current section implies that natural birth advocates are by definition never obstetricians. What are the objections to minimizing medical intervention? The one I've heard is that some women might not be able to have an epidural if they try for a natural birth and later change their mind. What else? Lcwilsie (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Goodness! I've just re-read the current criticism section and it is a load of nonsense. It certainly isn't true that obstetricians are against natural birth. Take Michel Odent for example. I have a copy of David Vernon's book Having a Great Birth in Australia and the afterword for that book is written by Andrew Bisits, a prominent natural birth advocate and obstetrician at Newcastle University. The general criticisms against 'natural birth' are: (1) birth is inherently risky and thus having medical equipment/personnel available reduces the likelihood of catastrophic outcome [ignoring that unnecessary intervention leads to catastrophic outcomes - see the work of Professor Sally Tracy] (2) Death rates for mothers and babies have fallen as obstetric interventions have increased [ignoring that the lowering of death rates over the 20th Century was caused by the introduction of hygiene in childbirth and the improved nutritional status of mothers - Oh in Australia maternal death and injury rates are on the increase again as the caesarean rate rockets above 30%]. Sadly, I'm really hard pressed to find arguments against natural childbirth, which can be backed up by evidence. There is no shortage of critics of natural childbirth but when you ask them for evidence for their claims they base their views on anecdotal evidence and expert opinion. Not RCTs. I proposed the criticism section originally but if we can't have any decent criticism then perhaps we remove it? Gillyweed (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to remove what is there (as it is not appropriate and doesn't really add any information) and perhaps wait for someone to write something legitimate. I'm sure someone will insist that the article needs "balance" and will add something. As this article isn't about homebirth, the argument about lack of medical equipment/personnel doesn't always apply. Natural childbirth isn't about refusing treatment in the face of catastrophe, but about minimizing intervention - right? Likewise, I think the medical intervention stats should come down (maybe add them to childbirth or work them into the history section) as it creates the appearance of an anti-obstetrics standpoint. Lcwilsie (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a "To Do" list to the top of the discussion page one of these days Lcwilsie (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. thanks Gillyweed (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Highly Biased

This article reads like a promotional pamphlet for "Natural Birthing", there seems to be no criticism of the fact that Natural Childbirth has very little credible research to back it up as significantly better than childbirth in a hospital. It goes on and on about how it increases chance of healthy post-natal recovery, better bonding between infant and mother, quicker recovery, etc, without citing credible and unbiased sources for any of the claims.

The only alleged benefit that is both logically and medically conceivable is slightly better bonding between mother and child, the rest make no sense. Why would your chance of a successful birthing be more likely without medical intervention? I find that highly unlikely, since medical science has drastically increased successful birthing rates compared to "back in the old days". During Medieval and Ancient history, when "natural" births were commonplace, it wasn't considered out of the ordinary for a mother to die due to childbirth complications. In developed countries today, death during childbirth is much less common, I'd even go as far as to say rare.

Basically, this article needs a re-write, as currently, "Natural Childbirth" is not advised by medical practitioners, as the mother could succumb to complications during the birth before she could be taken to a hospital on time. I'm not saying the article should be rewritten in the opposite manner (attacking Natural Childbirth), but it definitely must be written in a much more neutral manner, and potential risks should be made clear. It's completely one sided, lacking any criticism, or even warnings of risks towards the infant and/or the mother. LiamSP (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - I'm shocked at what looks to me like advocacy for anti-medical stances on wikipedia. Since I'm not a doctor and don't have citations to hand, I shan't edit this page, but I will pass it on to people who do. 7daysahead (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. This is pretty dire. I'm re-adding the NPOV tag. Let's get this article some attention. Nandesuka (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made a first cut. There was some unsourced stuff about the history of birth attendants that certainly we could actually source - I'll hit the library this weekend, but if anyone else wants to jump in, be my guest. Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article needs some attention. However, it is extremely misguided to portray "Natural Childbirth" as a movement that "is not advised by medical practitioners." Certified nurse midwives (CNMs) - and many midwives with advanced medical training, knowledge, and degrees - tend to approach labor and delivery with a "natural" philosophy of birth. Many midwives are partnered with or backed by supportive obstetricians. Natural childbirth does concern itself with the safety and well-being of mother and child: it relies on scientific research as well as the woman's innate ability to birth (her natural instincts as a biological being). It must also be clear that most natural childbirth advocates are not opposed to medical intervention (such as C-sections or drugs) in the rare event that such intervention is deemed necessary for ensuring safety. There are, of course, conflicts and controversies surrounding some research, especially concerning home births. vs. hospital births. However, we should make sure that natural childbirth is defined by the setting of the home. Although many proponents of natural childbirth maintain that the home is the natural place for most births, natural childbirth is not the same as home birth. This is an important distinction. There is already a section on home birth, and a link can be provided since it is surely related to natural childbirth, but we shouldn't be redundant. I am also willing to provide substantial research backing up some claims of natural childbirth, if any specific concerns about references are presented on the talk page. (Robellina (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)).

Major edit needed- expansion and neutrality

Natural birth, for some, I believe, just means "vaginal delivery" as opposed to a c-section. However, "natural birth" as a philosophy or movement entails much more. This article should first be expanded to address the philosophical stance of natural childbirth. There can also be an evaluation of the claims that are made by its proponents in light of relevant research. There could be a criticism section added for those who feel that the article unfairly promotes natural childbirth, but as long as the article distinguishes between philosophy and actual scientific findings (while addressing both), then the neutrality issue should be solved. Here are some general comments about expanding the article, and we should do research so that the article will be properly referenced. I'm beginning my thesis in natural childbirth so I will be sure to contribute, however, I am a huge advocate of the movement myself, and I do not want to make any major edits that will make the article appear biased. Here are some notes on what I think needs expanding, in a general sense:

1. Natural birth is not just about a lack of medical interventions, although this is important to address. I think it should constitute one section. The philosophy of natural childbirth does hold that most women do not need intervention, and that all medical interventions (IVs, episiotomies, c-sections, drugs for pain management, pitocin, electrical fetal monitoring, etc) interfere with the normal process of labor and cause many of the complications they claim to prevent. I think it should be added that natural childbirth proponents and practitioners embrace emergency medical interventions, but not routine medical interventions.

2. The concept of "active birth" is not addressed, though it is related, if not integral to, the natural childbirth movement. It maintains that the woman should be an active participant of her birthing experience. Women are encouraged to change positions throughout the process of labor (to be physically active, in a literal sense). Women are also encouraged to be aware of their choices for a birthing position, and many advocates maintain that the lithotomy position (the woman on her back with her legs in stirrups) is flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robellina (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Delete new paragraph on Medicaid vs private?

I don't see its contextual relevance, and the study cited makes no conclusions, so as a reference we need to make a logical step to interpret the data. That is borderline WP:OR, more so as confounding is not addressed in the data analysis, and it is clear from what is given that the two populations are very different (e.g age and number of post terms). I've clarified terms used in the initial edit, and will delete if no objections are raised.Millionmice (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pain

I came to this article as a mildly interested male, having read some newspaper controversies. I am surprised to find little or no discussion of a subject I would expect to be prominently covered: pain. While obviously I don't speak from first-hand knowledge, I have seen childbirth credibly described as one of the most painful human experiences. Anesthesia in childbirth was introduced in Victorian times precisely for this reason. It was opposed by conservative doctors and theologians who thought that pain was natural or divinely prescribed (perhaps as a punishment for Eve's sin). Progressive Victorians, from Charles Darwin (who administered the anesthetic to his own wife) to Queen Victoria herself, greeted anesthesia with enthusiasm as a triumph of modern science. I would like to see what advocates of natural childbirth say about this. Do they claim that natural childbirth methods eliminate pain, and if so what is the evidence? 86.144.117.33 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Lede

The lede on this page is woefully inadequate and reeks of someone's personal project. I think that, at a basic level, more substance to the initial definition is required. Meg from Toronto (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. As has been alluded to in the above paragraphs, there are substantial semantic problems with the phrase "natural birth". The current article title "natural birth" appears to lack even a rough consensus definition, while "normal birth" does have a reasonably well documented set of similar definitions, some of which break up 'normal' into various domains of intervention. I think a renaming of the article to "normal birth" is appropriate, as a split into 'normal' and 'natural' would further muddy things, and would not be supportable on references. However, I would like some input on this from others before I put up a flag to change it. If no reply is given I'll just be bold and do it. Millionmice (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of misplaced textblock by unsigned

Article lacks: 1. Detail about how women went from having predominantly natural childbriths to medicalized births.

2. Definition of natural and medicalized childbirth. Ideally don't say definition is individual.

3. Comparison of intention/plan to give normal birth on infant and maternal mortality rate.

4. Summary of process of natural birth and statistics on number intending to and actually giving birth 'naturally'

5. Caution regarding generalisations regarding what women want

6. Global context

The above is a restatement of a wall of text I was tired of reading written by unsigned. It contains some rephrasing, and is now a good set of goals. Millionmice (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• An American woman giving birth at home.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate and outdated

Disappointed in the quality of this article; it's full of outdated information, as well as inaccurate information. For example, it contradicts itself when talking about the role of feminism (one section claiming early feminists were proponents of pain-free birth, and another claiming feminists were proponents of natural labor)… and there are not proper citations in the article to support statements. One particularly problematic section asserts that "some research" shows natural labor to be harmful… but the citation links to an opinion piece in The Guardian from almost a decade ago (*eye roll*). I tried to make a few minor edits to the article to correct these things (especially that last statement because jfc)… and someone almost immediately hopped on and reverted my changes! Super irritated with this whole, crap article now. Cultlikeminds (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)