When you give birth I have heard.....pulsating ambilical cord?

Question

Wondering if you can help I am 30 weeks & 1 day pregnant with my first baby, a little boy & i was watching a documentry on childbirth. Now here is my questions, when the baby is born the cord is cut immediatelty & the baby is taken away for his checks, well this program stated that the blood in the ambilical cord is very good for the new born & it is best to wait for the cord to stop pulsating (which i believe takes 10 or so minutes?) so all the good blood can pass to the baby before clamping & cutting it? Is this true, is it best to wait? Surely if this was the case it would be done as standard practice?

Thanks for the great answers so far, I can't opt for a home birth as i have tested positive for strep b & need iv anti-biotics as soon as my waters break. Plus being my first i'd feel more happy in a hospital knowing i had all the team around me if something (god forbid it) did go wrong. xx

Answer 1

A lot of docs will say it doesn't matter. I did a lot of research when I was pregnanct w/ my youngest child and decided I wanted the cord to be cut only AFTER it stopped pulsing, unless there was a serious emergency. While the cord is still pulsing, blood is passing back and forth between the placenta and the baby. This is NATURAL and NORMAL!!!! There's good evidence to believe that the baby does not get all that is necessary when the cord is clamped and cut too soon. The effects might be subtle in most babies, but it might be dramatic in others. I think only one mainstream study has been done in premies...the study showed better iron levels and clotting factors even months later in babies whose cords were left unclamped for even 5 minutes longer than normal.

If you stop and think about it, why would clamping be necessary at all? Would nature have evolved (or God designed) such a mistaken body process? If the cord remains viable for a certain period after birth, it makes sense to leave it alone unless there is substantial reason to do otherwise. This is the conclusion I came to anyways.

Many women give birth and do not cut the cord until long after it stops pulsing, sometimes not until after the placenta is delivered. There are no ill effects on the baby that I can find. Many cultures are not concerned w/ cutting the cord right away as we are.

Answer 2

I don't really have any links for you, but i do have experience :)
With my first I was determined for her to have all of her cord blood. We had the time and she was doing well enough to allow it to happen, it took only about 5 minutes or so. She has the best immune system of all 3 of my kids.

My second was an emergency c-section. The dr was not willing to let the cord stop pulsing so it was not an option.

With my 3rd we tried to let the cord stop pulsing but he was born very, very quickly and had a lot of fluid in his lungs. I think he got most of his cord blood, but his immediate well being obviously took priority.

I am now expecting #4 and I am going to ask if it's a possibility but with planning a c-section, it may not be.

As far as what I've read it's really good for them. Like I said my oldest seems to have the best immune system of the three and she had all her cord blood at birth. It may or may not have anything to do with it, but to me I would think getting the extra antibodies did help her in the long run.

One word of advice though, don't get your hopes up for it to happen labour/childbirth can be completely unpredictable. Write out a birth plan, make sure you include that in your birth plan and talk it over with your caregiver.

Good luck!!!

Answer 3

Lots of things that're best aren't done as standard practice...

Why? Well, for a start: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7342/892

You can include things like that in a 'birth plan.'

(Or, consider a home birth, where nobody would dare yank a newborn away from its mum for unnecessary fiddling.)

Edited to add: Google "lotus birth" for a different extreme...