# Epidurals don't affect the baby?



## Elphaba (Nov 19, 2001)

That is what my SIL's doctor/hospital told her. They said that the drugs have no effect on the baby because they don't enter the bloodstream.

I was like, "Of course the epidural affects the baby, that's why so many have problems nursing."

But I need to know for sure. What's the word, ladies?


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Yes, yes, yes! The epidural reaches the baby. Easy thing to do at almost any library or pharmacy. Look up Lidocaine. It is an analgesic sometimes used for epidurals. (Keep in mind of course, epidural is the name of a procedure that delivers drugs... there are a variety of drugs administered this way.) Under Lidocaine look up the precautions and warnings. Somewhere in there it specifically says 'When used as an epidural watch out for fetal overdose.' Why would you have to worry about the fetus at all if the drug doesn't reach them?

There was actually a study conducted in the late 60's (I believe) that I will find for you in the morning... using fetal scalp blood samples they found the drug administered to the mother by epidural in the babies bloodstream less than five minutes after the drug was given.

I am continually shocked that doctors lie in such a bold faced fashion to their patients.


----------



## Elphaba (Nov 19, 2001)

thanks chica! I just found 2 articles on Mothering that show how quickly the drugs get to the baby and how long they stay in their immature systems.









What a dumba$$ doctor eh?

I understand my SIL being scared and deciding she wants drugs, but she HAS to know that the baby is going to feel them, too. No one should make a decision with blatantly false information.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Oh... another thing or two: Are you familiar with the blood/brain barrier? It is a special filter that makes it very hard for drugs to get into your brain. When they want to use chemotherapy for brain tumors they have to go through all kinds of wild procedures to even get the drugs into the brain. You aren't born with this barrier. So a drug dosage that won't reach your brain and won't harm you at all may very well enter your fetus/newborns brain and cause damage. Also, when the baby is still inside and on the umbilical s/he is using your waste systems... your liver is filtering their blood, your kidneys are processing their urine, etc. After the baby is born they are left with an adult size dosage of drugs in their system and only their wee tiny still learning the ropes organs to filter them out.


----------



## stayinghome (Jul 4, 2002)

effects of epidural block as per "Medications used during Labor and Birth"

baby: "Low maternal blood pressure and fever can lead to fetal heart rate changes and lack or ozygen; subtle changes in reflexes, including suckling and breathing; fussiness;... observation in nursery if mother had fever in labor; septic workup, antibiotics, and 48 hours in special care nursery for observation for signs of infection if mother had fever (a common side effect in mothers who recieve epidural) in labor."

That's not to mention the side effects of pitocin, c-section, forceps, and vaccum extraction that also tend to be more common during epidurals.


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

She could ask her doctor for the patient info sheet on any drugs they want to give during labor. Even the drug manufacturers admit to risks affecting both mother and baby.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

On A Baby Story (TLC) I saw a doctor tell a woman that the epidural is "completely safe".


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*I am continually shocked that doctors lie in such a bold faced fashion to their patients.*
I don't think that most OB's are bold faced liars. I think most of them believe it. Truely.

The drug used in epidurals is bupivicaine (trade name, marcain). A more recent technique that most women get for epidurals uses this drug in combination with a small does of narcotic (usually fentanyl or sufenta). This combination allows them to use a much smaller dose of the bupivicaine while still getting good pain relief. If you have seen women on "A Baby Story" that could move their legs, get up on hands and knees, could feel to push with an epidural - they had this technique. Now compared to, say an injection of demerol, the drugs "hardly affect the baby". And doctors argue about if they affect them at all. For instance, many anesthesiologist disagree with the study that shows nursing problems/groggy babies after epidurals - and have other studies that back them up. Most also will show you research that shows that they don't affect c/sec rates either.

I personally think there are many other problems with epidurals- malpositioned babies, causing temps in labor, do increase c/sec esp. in first time moms. I'm not arguing for their routine use, just trying to show how the medical folks think.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

FOund this info on the two drugs used in epidurals. I'm showing it to show how little of the medication is used or even available to cross the placenta: "The two most common medications used are Bupivicaine (Marcaine) . 0625% - .5% and Fentanyl. Bupivicaine (an amide local anesthetic) is used because of it’s rapid onset and longer duration of anesthesia. It is also highly protein bound (95%), making only 5% available for placental transfer. Fentanyl is a short-acting narcotic (analog of morphine), that is 80 to 100 times more potent than morphine. It is used as a supplement to the Bupivicaine in labor epidurals.


----------



## PapayaVagina (May 11, 2002)

This is such a sore spot for me.

I was at a birth once where the doc (who, I swear, was called in from a golf game and came in wearing his full on tacky golf outfit) told the mom that there were "absolutely no risks whatsoever". Interesting that he said that to her bc I watched him draw up a syringe of Epi just before he gave it to her "just in case" (I wonder, just in case of what?) IMMEDIATELY after the epidural was placed and she laid down the baby's heart rate dropped to 50 and she started feeling dizzy. I think that they did end up giving her the shot and then bc she quickly dilated they did a vaccuum extractor on her. NO side effects my @$*#&!!

What I tell people all the time when we talked about epidurals is that I've been to quite a few births in the hospital but not a ton and I've seen A LOT of side effects, what does that tell you about the incidence of them? I've seen extreme itching, the epidurals not work at all or have really spotty coverage(on several women), major decels in the baby's heart rates, increased need for vaccuum extractions, lots of tearing that I always wonder if it would have been there had it not been for the epidural, increased use of antibiotics, and almost always augmented with Pitocin.

I think there's a mix of lying and truly believing what they say. Truly, their insurance companies don't ALLOW them to be honest and give full informed choice and I seriously don't think that most of them are smart enough to realize that the side effects that they're seeing are connected to the interventions that they use. They continue to believe that they're things that just normally "pop up" during labor which intensifies the fear, which leads to more interventions, which leads to more side effects, which leads to more fear..........


----------



## MelKnee (Dec 5, 2001)

When I was in labor with my first ds at 24 wks, the OB told me I couldn't have an epi because it would kill my baby. Yes, my baby was fragile. But, doesn't that imply that the epi DOES reach the baby?
I didn't want one anyway, but how can he tell me that when they claim the epi doesn't affect fullterm babies.








They need to get their facts straight. Do they really think that mothers don't share information?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I think we are so used to seeing limp, floppy babies that cry miserably at birth that we don't think it could be abnormal.

I was born awake, looking around, and not crying. My brother was born asleep. I'm sure if we had been born in hospitals the doctor would have thought there was something wrong with us and given us low apgar scores, maybe even upended and slapped us.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

This is such an interesting thread - thank you all!

Elphaba, I'm betting this won't be the last lie you learn of through your SIL's birth. It sure can't go up from here.







I'll keep my fingers crossed though.

Can't think about the babies receiving the drugs like this - hurts my heart too much.


----------



## Elphaba (Nov 19, 2001)

I just want her to have all the information she deserves. She has pretty much no choices in her care, as they live in a rural area and she is not a homebirth candidate -- not for health reasons but for emotional/mental reasons. She's very comfortable with a medical model of care, whereas I am not, so I really try to not push my views on her but rather prod her into questioning and researching for herself. She just doesn't have a lot of time to do that since she is also a full-time grad student and has an internship, and those activities all take place about 4-5 hours from their home.

I had an epidural, but I knew it wasn't the best thing for the baby. I had planned a Bradley birth, but it didn't work out. I certainly didn't go into it thinking that drugs would have no effect on the baby, and I want her to have the same chance to make informed consent, or to at least stay home a LONG time! :LOL


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Some people don't even consider the epidural to be "drugs." I ask them if they're going to have drugs during labor and they say "No, just the epidural."







:


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Wow, Greaseball, that would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Cheese and Rice.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I think we are so used to seeing limp, floppy babies that cry miserably at birth that we don't think it could be abnormal.

I was born awake, looking around, and not crying. My brother was born asleep. I'm sure if we had been born in hospitals the doctor would have thought there was something wrong with us and given us low apgar scores, maybe even upended and slapped us.*
I'm an L&D nurse. I've worked at hospital as an RN and been doula at birth center and homebirths. Limp, floppy babies are rare everywhere. Even with routine use of epidurals. Seriously.

See my post above. I think there is plenty wrong with routine use of epidurals. But let's not resort to scare tactics and misinformation in our quest to promote natural childbirth. In the end it will come back to bite "the movement" (the natural childbirth one) in the butt.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Mom2six - What do you see as the most common problem babies have as a result of epidurals?


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Some people don't even consider the epidural to be "drugs." I ask them if they're going to have drugs during labor and they say "No, just the epidural."







:*
I heard that recently, too. I asked a new mother if she had any drugs during labor and she said no, then went on to talk about how wonderful the epidural was. She actually had NO IDEA that there were drugs in the epidural. She thought that the procedure itself provided the pain relief, like acupuncture or something, and that the fluid going in was just saline or something. I know ya'll are probably thinking that she was just an idiot, but she really isn't. This girl was young, but no younger than I was when I had my first. She had no Internet access during her pregnancy, no friends who had babies, and no support from her family who stopped talking to her when she found out she was pregnant. She, like most young women, knew NOTHING about pregnancy and childbirth. It broke my heart to see the look on her face when she realized that she had not, in fact, experienced a drug-free birth.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Mom2six - What do you see as the most common problem babies have as a result of epidurals?*
Poor positioning resulting in c/sec, maternal temp, which can result in a septic work-up for baby - though we no longer do LP's (spinal taps) for them - and baby might have to stay in the special care nursery, if the baby is on the large side, esp. if it's the mother's first baby - c/sec for "CPD" which is usually caused by the fact that we can't get strong enough contractions even with the almost routine added pitocin augmentation to counter the epidural weakening the contractions. Then again, epidurals slow down labor too, so it might just be "failure to wait" with a large baby not "failure to progress". Vacuums and forceps. I know there are some studies that show that epidurals effect nursing, but that would be a hard call for me to make. Most babies latch on with a short period after birth. My guess would be that it depends on how long the mom had an epidural and I think the effects are fairly subtle.


----------



## momsgotmilk4two (Sep 24, 2002)

I just saw an episode of a baby story where the mom was having a natural birth center birth wiht her second baby because with her first she had an epidural and could not walk for six weeks







That doesn't sound like "no side effects" to me! There is always a risk with meds, the epi is no exception.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I really don't know why it's seen as such a godsend. Some women I've talked to say that it actually made the pain worse, and others say it barely helped them at all.

I like to keep foot-long needles away from me! It sounds like they would hurt.

One midwife I knew said she's had a lot of homebirth clients transfer to a hospital only for pain relief. I don't get it...didn't they know it would hurt?


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

I know I'm going to get flamed here, I just know it, but I had one epidural birth go horribly wrong and I had one that was wonderful. I don't regret getting the epidural. Both my babies had APGARs of 8-9 and nursed wonderfully within minutes of birth. My only side effect was itchiness, and it really wasn't that bad. This baby I am going to do a UC so I will tell you how it goes without any drugs :LOL


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I really don't know why it's seen as such a godsend. Some women I've talked to say that it actually made the pain worse, and others say it barely helped them at all.

I like to keep foot-long needles away from me! It sounds like they would hurt.

One midwife I knew said she's had a lot of homebirth clients transfer to a hospital only for pain relief. I don't get it...didn't they know it would hurt?*
Giving birth HURTS, at least for me. I got an epidural with my first, way too early, and there were undesired side effects. Came very, very close to a c-section. I would change a lot about that birth experience, but I can't say that I wouldn't end up with an epidural again. I had my last two with no pain relief at all, but they were fairly quick, relatively easy births. I don't know if I would endure twenty hours of back labor without any meds. I know women that have, but I don't know that I would.

I think that we start off with the epidural as the norm and go from there. I really think it should be the other way around. I think that epidurals, like most medications, have a place and I'm glad they are available to the women that need them. I just wish that women weren't told that we ALL need them, because I don't think we do.


----------



## mamallama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mothra_
*I think that we start off with the epidural as the norm and go from there. I really think it should be the other way around. I think that epidurals, like most medications, have a place and I'm glad they are available to the women that need them. I just wish that women weren't told that we ALL need them, because I don't think we do.*
I think this is right on. In my town, the epidural rate is about 95%. I think it's safe to say that the average ob in my town attends about 5 or fewer unmedicated births per year. The average L&D nurse probably attends fewer than one per month.

Hospitals here really push epidural anesthesia. By and large, they are very concerned with their patients perception of pain. On another floor, where pain relief for gallbladder surgery doesn't affect the outcome, I think that makes perfect sense. On the L&D floor, where pain is fleeting and the use of medications _do affect the outcome, of course it would be prudent to explore non-pharmacological methods of pain relief.

I'd like to think that healthcare professionals look at the evidence when giving information to their clients, but from what I have seen, clinical trials mean nothing and personal experience means everything. Given that most ob's in my town have very little experience with unmedicated birth, I take their words with the proverbial grain of salt._


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

I loved my epidural, and I'm looking forward to it this time. My baby was not born limp or floppy, though we were both sick. Pain medication is a funny thing: if you get too much of it, it can affect all kinds of things adversely. If you dont' get enough, it doesn't do any good.

My plan was to deliver all naturally, no drugs or interventions. Yes, I knew that giving birth would hurt, and probably hurt a lot. I was well aware going in that it would be painful. What I wasn't aware of was that I would spend the better part of a week in active labor, unable to rest or relax, barely able to move. Hell yes I think epidurals are a Godsend! I'm eternally greatful for mine. It was the only part of my labor & delivery that was bearable.

Yes, I think that women should have accurate information about medications during labor. (I'm a big believer in accurate information about everything.) What they don't need is to be placated by doctors (and I'm still trying to figure out where these people are practicing, because I haven't met them) or to be terrified by natural birth zealots. I would encourage your friend (SIL?) to do some research of her own on the subject, and to come to her own conclusions. There's plenty of information available, and even though some of it is confusing, once you wade through the jargon and the scare tactics there's a lot of good, useful information out there. Heck, I'll even help. I'm up for a good research project!

About the nursing problems: From what I can tell, nursing problems seem to be more closely associated with how close to/far from term the baby was born than with medications or lack thereof during labor. Eli did have some problems, but not until my milk came in. I became engorged and my breasts were so big that he just couldn't latch on anymore without major help. His little mouth just couldn't open wide enough to get enough of my nipple.







It had nothing to do with the drugs at all.


----------



## nakagain (Feb 12, 2004)

nak
I tell my clients that an epidural can be a good thing but make sure you are educated in the pros and cons. I also tell my clients that an epidural surpresses endorphines and actually causes a little harder recovery. When you go natural you get such a natural high after giving birth. I personally would rather have a natural birth with a better recovery than a drugged birth and longer recovery.

When I put it like that, my clients agree, natural birth would be much better.

One of my last clients is a post pardom nurse and she called me asking if I could help her achieve a natural birth because she wanted a recoevery like a natural patient. She's says the difference is night and day.

I think the recovery is the worst part of giving birth and if going natural will make that better...its so worth the pain.


----------



## PapayaVagina (May 11, 2002)

Thought that this was some good info. These are off of La Leche League's website

http://www.lalecheleague.org/NB/NBSepOct99p167.html

Quote:

Most of the research didn't study problems with breastfeeding associated with epidurals, so Riordan developed a study to focus on epidural anesthesia 's effect on the baby's suckling and the duration of breastfeeding. She explained the methodology of her study and its results. It clearly showed that medication during birth did negatively affect babies' suckling during the first 12 hours, and that combining medications increased the effect. Demerol was especially harmful to the baby's suckling ability. The duration of breastfeeding was not shown to be affected.
http://www.lalecheleague.org/ba/Nov99.html

Quote:

Fortunately, it is now possible to measure feedings at the breast using a valid breastfeeding assessment tool. In a recent study on epidural analgesia and breastfeeding, (25) the investigators used the Infant Breastfeeding Assessment Tool (20, 24) to assess breastfeeding scores in 127 babies. The 92 infants whose mothers had analgesia were compared with 37 babies whose mothers had an unmedicated labor and delivery. Lactation consultants in three hospitals with at least two years experience with breastfeeding dyads scored the feedings on their daily rounds on an as-they-come basis. Scores ranged from 0 to 12. Mothers were also asked to score the feeding at the same time as the lactation consultant. Not surprisingly these women evaluated the breastfeedings about the same as the LC.

Infants whose mothers had no labor analgesia scored higher (x=11.1) on the breastfeeding scale than mothers who had epidurals (x=8.5) or intravenous narcotics (x=8.5). Despite higher breastfeeding scores in neonates of unmedicated women, no difference in the duration of breastfeeding at six weeks was found between the medicated and the unmedicated mothers. The lack of a positive relationship between epidural labor analgesia and weaning before six weeks postpartum was surprising but reassuring in that the use of epidurals did not seem to be associated with early weaning.

Three other studies, all conducted before 1982, examined labor epidurals and general neonatal behavior with differing results. All used a control group of unmedicated mothers but did not measure breastfeeding as an outcome. Murray et al. (19) studied the effects of epidural analgesia on neonates whose mothers had 1) epidurals with continuous infusion of 0.25% bupivacaine (n=20); 2) epidurals in combination with oxytocin to stimulate labor (n=20); and 3) little or no medication during childbirth (n=15). Over half of the 15 mothers in the little-or-no-medication group briefly inhaled nitrous oxide and 11 received lidocaine for perineal infiltration. Infants in both epidural groups performed less well on the motor, state control, and physiologic response clusters of the Brazelton Neonatal Behavior Assessment Scale than the little-or-no-medication group. On the fifth day the babies in the epidural groups continued to show poor state organization.

Abboud et al. (1) compared fetal, maternal, and neonatal responses following epidurals that infused regional anesthetics (lidocaine, bupivacaine, or chloroprocaine). No narcotic was used. Fifty infants were in each epidural group, and 20 were in an unmedicated control group. The Early Neonatal Neurobehavior Scale was used at 2 and 24 hours of life to evaluate the babies' behaviors. Compared with the epidural groups, more infants in the unmedicated group scored lower in suckling and rooting at both 2 and 24 hours postpartum. Abboud later repeated the study (2), this time using a larger dose of lidocaine. Again, the average suckling and rooting scores were higher for the neonates in the lidocaine group at 2 hours postpartum, but the findings reversed at 24 hours postpartum and unmedicated neonates had higher suckling scores. United Kingdom babies whose mothers had no labor analgesia of any kind actually scored lower in rooting and suckling ability than infants whose mothers had epidurals, (8) but the differences were not statistically significant. Although these earlier studies are instructive, it is difficult to compare studies that were done over a decade ago with current investigations because of changes in epidural techniques and medication dosages.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I wonder if the blue floppy babies result more from the pitocin than from the epidural?


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

I had pit too. :LOL

Greasball, earlier you mentioned that you were born awake, looking around, but not crying. What makes you think you would have received a low apgar score if you'd been born in a hospital? As long as you weren't retracting or hyperventilating, you would have received a 3 in the breathing column. Niether of my nieces cried, and they both scored 10's.


----------



## dotcommama (Dec 30, 2001)

I've have had both a natural, un-medicated birth and one with an epidural (and also a c-section in between - but that's a whole other story







)

Anyway, my epidural birth was harder. Less painful maybe, but harder.

When you have an epidural you can't move and you can't feel your baby move. What this meant for me was that my son got in an odd position and I couldn't move around to get him unstuck.

Additionally my contractions weakened and I was given pitocin to increase them. I ended up with 3 1/2 hours of pushing, attempted vacuum extraction and finally delivery by forceps.

As for side effects of the epidural, I got very sick to my stomach and couldn't stop throwing up. I was told (afterwards) that isn't an uncommon side effect from the epidural. Also they put the needle in incorrectly and it had to be reinserted. After they reinserted it I got a horrible pain (like someone shoving a cold knife in my spine over and over). I have no idea why this happened, but it was so painful. It hurt so bad to be lying on my back, but I was unable to move off my back because my legs were numb This was going on while I was trying to push.

My natural birth was wonderful. Yes there were moments of intense pain, but nothing being in the tub while my dh and doula massaged and talked to me while I grunted and groaned couldn't get me through.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by eilonwy_
*Greasball, earlier you mentioned that you were born awake, looking around, but not crying. What makes you think you would have received a low apgar score if you'd been born in a hospital? As long as you weren't retracting or hyperventilating, you would have received a 3 in the breathing column. Niether of my nieces cried, and they both scored 10's.







*
If hospitals are no longer doing the "crying=healthy, serene=unhealthy" thing, that is good. It used to be that a baby had to cry or it meant it had something wrong with its lungs.


----------



## pilesoflaundry (Dec 9, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by nakagain_
*nak
I tell my clients that an epidural can be a good thing but make sure you are educated in the pros and cons. I also tell my clients that an epidural surpresses endorphines and actually causes a little harder recovery. When you go natural you get such a natural high after giving birth. I personally would rather have a natural birth with a better recovery than a drugged birth and longer recovery.

*
I loved that 'natural high' feeling after my first unmedicated birth. The nurse had to tell me to lie down for a few minutes, I was starving but at the same time felt like I wanted to run up and down the halls :LOL. I was sore the next day a bit but otherwise I felt really good.

After my 2nd and 3rd unmedicated birth (well 3rd time I got pitocin yuck! but no pain meds) I was tired because my labors hurt more and were more intense but the second day I felt better. The natural high kicked in a day late.

Greaseball, my son was born looking around the room and only cried when I tried to put a hat on his hugh head. He stuck his thumb in his mouth and sucked on it so hard he got a little blister! Got a 10 on apgar btw.

My girls were both born crying, but I wonder if that wasn't because their labors were harder on me and they somehow 'felt' my stress before they came out. They both got a 9 and a 10 and if I remember right none of them were blue or floppy







.

But I do remember reading some older stuff that it used to be if they didn't cry right away they didn't score as high or something. That's funny your brother was born asleep! I would think the pushing would wake up a kid.

As far as epi's go I wouldn't do it but that's me. I know most people are fine but the few bad experiences I heard about were enough to keep me from wanting one! Plus in general I have low blood pressure, actually I only ever hit "normal 120/80" while pregnant; so I was afraid of bottoming out if I did go for one.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I wonder if the blue floppy babies result more from the pitocin than from the epidural?*
I'm wondering where you are getting this "blue, floppy baby" bit. Where I work now, we have a between 98-99% epidural rate and almost that many get pitocin. Blue and floppy is rare, rare, rare. So what are you basing this on?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mom2six_
*I'm wondering where you are getting this "blue, floppy baby" bit. Where I work now, we have a between 98-99% epidural rate and almost that many get pitocin. Blue and floppy is rare, rare, rare. So what are you basing this on?







*
Hospital birth videos that we were shown in childbirth class. And the instructor seemed to think it was normal - she explained that after birth, that was what babies looked like.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

OK, said it once, I'll say it again. I have seen literally hundreds of births - at home, in a hospital birth center and in a hospital. The overwhelming majority (like well over 90%) of term babies have APGAR's of 8 or 9 at birth (it's a hospital thing that they don't give 10). Limp, blue and floppy is like a 5 or 6 tops. The last time in recent memory that I had a baby with low APGAR's was in Jan (so 4 mos ago) and the baby had genetic anomolies. I'm just really puzzled that you are making sweeping generalizations based on a birth video and extrapolating that to entire populations. Many babies are born rather bluish looking - until they breathe and pink up. But there is a big difference between the look of a newborn that hasn't taken his'or her first breathe and one that is "limp blue and floppy". Anyone who has been around more than a few births can tell the difference right away.

Oh - and my first (natural childbirth) *was* born quite blue (though not floppy). Had to do with the cord that he was wrapped in multiple times. As was my 5th with her tight nuchal cord and bruised face from 50 minute labor (delivered unattended).







Anyway - I'm still puzzled.


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

The following came from Joy In Birthing - Doula website (blue, floppy babies aren't on the list!) I have to agree with Mom2six here. I did not have an epidural, but I did have the last 2 hours of my labor (after I reached 10 cm on a low dose of Pit. I HATED it. I knew that it was decreasing oxygen from the baby... but I felt (at the time) it was either that or opt for a C-sec, which I did not want. My son came out screaming and furious! Hardly blue and floppy. I think he had a much harder time coming out of the birth canal







because a) I was lying flat on my back and b) on the stupid pitocin.

Quote:

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE EPIDURAL :
Will require an IV to be inserted prior to receiving the epidural.

May increase the chance of a cesarean birth instead of a vaginal birth.

Will require a urinary catheter because I may not be able to urinate with the epidural. I also understand that the catheter may increase my chances of a bladder infection or urinary track infection, requiring antibiotics, which may cause me to have a yeast infection and cause my baby to have thrush.

May increase the possibility of a vacuum of forceps delivery if I am not able to effectively push the baby out.

May increase the chance of an episiotomy because the IV may cause my perineum to become engorged and therefore not able to stretch to allow the baby to deliver easily.

Will severely restrict my mobility during labor.

Will severely restrict the position in which I can push.

If done too high mom can feel like she can't breath.

Potential allergic reaction.

May lower my blood pressure requiring more medical intervention.

May slowdown or stall my contractions, usually requiring additional medical intervention (pitocin.)

May cause extreme itching, requiring additional medical intervention which, in turn, may cause nausea and dizziness.

May increase maternal temperature especially when given early in labor, requiring additional medical intervention for the baby after birth, which may result in the baby being away from mom for a period of time.

May cause or increase nausea vomiting and shivering.

May strip me of the self-confidence that I can give birth naturally, painlessly using my God given ability.

May take away my natural ability to produce endorphins which are my body's way to naturally and chemically cope with labor pressure.

May take away my clear recollection of the birth and the first time I held my baby.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

It sounds like limp babies can be a result of oxygen deprivation, which can be caused by pitocin, among other things. (Or keeping the mother on her back.)

I wonder what is the norm for babies in other hospitals? Books written by midwives, doctors, activists and medical researchers also mention the weak babies/epidural connection, although other drugs may be involved as well.

Feminist author Adrienne Rich writes that in one city hospital, black women had babies that were healthy and alert, while white women had limp babies, even though black women were not likely to have received prenatal care. When the black women requested pain medication, they either did not get it or they got a much smaller dose than the white women got. So they ended up with better babies...although I can't say I support the reason why.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Feminist author Adrienne Rich writes that in one city hospital, black women had babies that were healthy and alert, while white women had limp babies, even though black women were not likely to have received prenatal care. When the black women requested pain medication, they either did not get it or they got a much smaller dose than the white women got. So they ended up with better babies...although I can't say I support the reason why.*
I've read this as well. The women that were getting drugs were getting IV narcotics - which can lead to depressed (read "limp, blue, floppy") babies. One of the scariest videos I've ever seen was a childbirth education film from the 50's. In it twilight sleep was still common, as was spinal for delivery with routine forcep use. THOSE were some limp, blue, floppy babies.

I would hate to think that someone is going to tell a mom "if you get an epidural, your baby won't be vigorous and alert" or worse that they will be "limp, blue and floppy". They will most likely give birth to a vigorous, alert baby and then those "natural childbirth extremest that tried to scare me out of an epidural" will have lost all credibility in their eyes.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

It's true, some epidural babies come out "just fine" even when mom has been warned of the risks. Some formula-fed babies even turn out fine, or at least they appear to be fine. Sometimes the mother uses illegal drugs, and the baby also appears to be fine. So if such a mother hears all the stories and her baby is allright, she will probably discredit us, but I don't think it hurts to warn her.

Instead what we are doing is telling these women that there are almost no risks (consent forms do not always explain risks) and then blaming the baby's condition on the mother or baby instead of the drugs.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Something I've noticed about birth is that many people generalize.

When I was practicing chiropractic and asked questions about the patient's own birth and any births the patient had had (hard to write that out), they would invariably say "oh that's just how they were doing things then".

I could have 3 50 year old women on one day tell me vastly different birth stories about their children, all born in the same year, but they would all say "that's just how it was done then".

I've noticed it in health care professionals as well. For instance, my stepmom-the-neonatal-nurse works for what seems to be a highly progressive, good hospital (although from her description they do tend to berate the "failed" homebirthers who come in; guess who doesn't know I'm homebirthing?), and she simply refuses to believe that things are different in other hospitals.

I'm not sure what the block is, but I was trying to tell her things that have happened to friends or online acquaintances, and she just couldn't hear me.

Not sure if this is relevant here, but I thought I'd mention it.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*It's true, some epidural babies come out "just fine" even when mom has been warned of the risks. Some formula-fed babies even turn out fine, or at least they appear to be fine. Sometimes the mother uses illegal drugs, and the baby also appears to be fine. So if such a mother hears all the stories and her baby is allright, she will probably discredit us, but I don't think it hurts to warn her.

Instead what we are doing is telling these women that there are almost no risks (consent forms do not always explain risks) and then blaming the baby's condition on the mother or baby instead of the drugs.*
You seem to be missing the point. I am all for warning about the risks of epidurals. What I am NOT for is telling FALSEHOODS about what will happen if you have an epidural. Telling a mom she has an increased risk of having a malpositioned baby - that is a real risk with real information. Telling her she might have a blue, floppy, depressed baby as a result of an epidural is simply NOT TRUE.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

How do you know it isn't true? Because you've never seen one? A lot of other practitioners have. What should they tell their clients?


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

What chava says makes a lot of sense. If you are really married to talking about blue floppy babies you should probably be clear that it is pretty rare. (I would also be interested in knowing if it is provably linked to epidural...) Telling people horror stories that are likely to be discounted before their very eyes is not helpful in terms of making your case.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*How do you know it isn't true? Because you've never seen one? A lot of other practitioners have. What should they tell their clients?*
Um, how do you know it is true? Because you've seen one video with a blue floppy baby in it and an epidural? How do you know it wasn't just the color scheme of the tv acting up, to say nothing of some other factor in the birth?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I've also read a lot of birth activist materials, and even books written by non-activists, including doctors. Why would they lie? For fun? They make more money with an epidural birth; why would they say things to discourage them if htey weren't true?

People who work at different hospitals have different experiences. I worked at one where every patient given a certain type of drug developed harmful symptoms. Other people at other hospitals report that almost none of their patients developed harmful symptoms. I don't think that means "it's not true." I think it means we observed different things.

Although I have not observed births, I don't see any reason why those who do would write a book full of lies.


----------



## Lucky Charm (Nov 8, 2002)

I'm with mom2six.

I have seen so many births, most of the moms had epidurals, and the instances of a blue floppy baby was incredibly rare!


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Although I have not observed births, I don't see any reason why those who do would write a book full of lies.*
In other words, you're willing to question data but only when it's not what you want to hear. You're very quick to believe what people tell you as long as it is what you want to hear. Have I got that straight?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Yes. Aren't we all?







Don't you tend to believe things that mesh more with your own beliefs as well?

That may be why no one is willing to admit that a lot of health professionals and mothers have noticed harmful side effects from epidurals, which include weakness in the baby. The literature is not hard to find, but who wants to read it when they already have their own belief? Aren't we questioning data when we say that what is written by Dr. Mendelsohn, Ina May Gaskin and other supporters of natural birth is not true?

I know people are afraid to list all the bad side effects because women don't want to hear "horror stories" (Ina May's book was criticized because it listed maternal death as a side effect of the epidural), but I think keeping people in the dark about horror stories is what allows the horror to continue. No one wants to admit that formula feeding increases the risks of infant death (yes, even in America) - it's just too horrible. Well, it's the first thing I tell people.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Yes. Aren't we all? Don't you tend to believe things that mesh more with your own beliefs as well?
*
No, not really. Just because something is what I want to hear doesn't make it true, that's why I do the research. I prefer facts to idle speculation. I don't just stop when I find something which supports my initial hypothesis; that's not logical. I feel a strong need to look at both sides of an issue (or all three, or however many there are) before I make a decision, and I couldn't call it an educated decision if I made it any other way.

I too have told people that artificial feeding methods are more likely to result in death than natural ones, and have explained the reasons for it. I also explain that it's extremely unlikely in either case. Breastfeeding is very important to me, but when you tell someone "A baby is more likely to die of SIDS if you give them formula" you're not likely to make a convert. They're going to think "I've encountered dozens/hundreds/thousands of formula fed babies, and not one of them died of SIDS. Where the heck does this freak get off telling me that formula will kill my baby?" It doesn't help, and it does take your opinions about everything down a notch or two in value, when people can immediately discount that one.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*How do you know it isn't true? Because you've never seen one? A lot of other practitioners have. What should they tell their clients?*
Can you quote a source for this? That the current technique for epidurals causes an increase in blue floppy babies? (the technique has evolved a lot over the years)

BTW - My experience is not limited to one hospital or even one country.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

It was stated in the childbirth section of the most recent "Our Bodies, Ourselves." It specifically mentions floppy babies, although it did not say they were blue.

Their source for that information was "The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth."

Ina May's new book mentions that the baby's heart rate can drop, and the baby may have breathing difficulties and trouble breastfeeding.

Cohen's "Open Season" reports an increase in fetal distress, drowsiness, poor sucking reflex, long-lasting hyperactivity, poor muscle tone (floppy?) and lower apgars. She says, "One hospital pamphlet boasts about their epidural refresher classes. If I taught epidural classes, very few people would have one, guaranteed."

How new is the new technique, and what is different about it?


----------



## Lilg127 (May 19, 2003)

This is one of my biggest pet peeves. I've had so many people tell me epidurals don't reach the baby. Than they get pissed at me when I tell them the facts otherwise. I hate it!!! I hate the mentality, I hate the misinformation out there...


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

And the thing is, a lot of OBs even know the facts but they can't bring themselves to tell their patients.

Our ped congratulated me on choosing homebirth and she said "But I can't tell anyone else here that I feel that way." Why not? Why can't she tell people the truth - that for most women, homebirth is safer?

Dr. Mendelsohn used to refuse to see patients who would not breastfeed. I wonder if there are any OBs who refuse to attend the births of women who are going to ask for drugs.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*It was stated in the childbirth section of the most recent "Our Bodies, Ourselves." It specifically mentions floppy babies, although it did not say they were blue.

Their source for that information was "The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth."*
I happen to have a copy of "Thinking Woman's Guide" right here. Henci Goer sums everything up in a "pro/con" section. Here is her pro/con section on epidurals:

"Pro: Epidurals almsot always completely eliminate pain while leaving you awake and alert. This allows you to rest or sleep. In a difficult labor, epidurals coan transform what otherwise would be a harrowing experience into a positive one. In some cases, epidurals seem to promote progress in labors that have gotten "stuck".

Cons: Epidurals slow labor, which results in increased use of IV oxytocin (Pitocin) to stimulate stronger contractions, and usually leads to higher epidiotomy rates, forcepts or vacuum-extraction rates, and cesarean rates, especially in first-time mothers. Epidurals require electornic fetal monitoring and a precautionary IB. You are also more likely to need bladder catheterization. Body temperature rises over time, so you are more likely to develop a fever."

She goes on to describe secondary problems (bladder infection from catheter, fetal distress *from overly strong contractions from the pitocin augmentation*, 3rd and 4th degree tears from forceps) which can occur. No mention of depressed (as in "limp, blue and floppy") babies and the only breathing problems mention are ones in the mother in the rare instance of a "high spinal" - when the level of anesthesia goes too high.

Quote:

*Ina May's new book mentions that the baby's heart rate can drop, and the baby may have breathing difficulties and trouble breastfeeding.*
I also have Ina May's book here, but not at hand. Yup, if the mom's BP drops, the baby's heart rate will drop. That is why you have to have an IV and get at least a liter of IV fluids before they will give you an epidural. If that doesn't work (by increasing blood volume) they give ephedrine. That is a common problem, but a highly treatable one. Again, not sure where the "breathing difficulty" part is coming from. The studies are mixed on whether they cause breastfeeding problems.

Quote:

*How new is the new technique, and what is different about it?*
The technique is combining narcotic with the bupivicaine (marcaine) so that less "numbing" medication has to be used. Not sure exactly how recent that this technique is, but within the past 10 years. Definately since "Open Season" (published in 1991 - have that one too). Bottom line, the more "numbing" medication, the more labor disfunction and higher chance of some of the rare complications.

OH - and to whomever said that doctors get paid more for births where epidurals, not exactly. First of all, the OB doesn't get paid more. The anesthesia staff gets paid, not the OB. The incentive for an OB *might* be that it is easier to control a delivery allowing him/her to make it to a delivery without having to be in hospital for hours (medication can be upped to control an urge to push, for example). Another problem is that with decreased reimbursement from insurance companies and increase in malpractice premiums, many OB's have upped the number of pts. they will take on, decreasing the amount of time they are available for each pt. Hence the incentive to "micromanage" labors to occur when they are available and not have to "labor sit" in the hospital. When a woman labors with no anesthesia, an OB can be sitting around for hours lest he miss the delivery, while if she has an epidural it is not uncommon for the OB to not even be called in until the baby is visable on the perineum.

Add to this that many hospitals want to have 24 hour anesthesia coverage so that they can handle all emergencies quickly. And if you have to staff, you have to pay them. So you see that there is a tremendous incentive on the part of many OB's and hospitals to have woman laboring with epidural anesthesia.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

The incentive for an OB *might* be that it is easier to control a delivery allowing him/her to make it to a delivery without having to be in hospital for hours (medication can be upped to control an urge to push, for example).
It also keeps the woman quiet and in one place. She probably has to be on her back too, which is an easier position for the doctor. And if she can't participate as much and needs to be coached, the doctor has the advantage of getting to control the situation more.

In Birth as an American Rite of Passage the author notices that when pain is caused by the woman's own body and birth process, the hospital staff will do anything they can to make it go away. But if the pain is caused by obstetrical procedures, they urge the woman to "bear it for the baby's sake."

The doctor doesn't get paid more (unless he has to use more intervention because of the epidural, such as forceps), but the hospital still makes money. Even nonprofit hospitals like to get all they can, to make up for the charity patients.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Epidurals do not necessarily cause "floppy babies" (I'm assuming we're talking about babies with some level of moderate to severe distress where they have experienced hypoxia - or lack of oxygen - right before birth?).

Epidurals can create a situation where the mother's blood pressure drops dramatically. When this happens, it is not uncommon to have the baby's heart rate drop as well. It's why epinephrine is usually on hand and given after the administration of an epidural.

Epidurals also put women in a position of pushing more on their back, and needing to do some very forced pushing because of the lack of sensation about when and for how long to push. This - not necessarily the epidural - can put a borderline baby into fetal distress, where the baby does not recover well after the contractions. This can lead to a baby that emerges with little tone or color.

Then again, I was just at a birth for a first-time mom where the baby had BEAUTIFUL heart tones as mom pushed her out in a squat. The baby had great scalp color as she crowned for quite awhile as the mother eased her out. When her body was born, her color was pretty gray and mottled and her tone was really bad. Her eyes also kept rolling back, like she wasn't going to come around. But, she did within the first minute or so after birth. (Her heart rate, by the way, was GREAT during this transition)

If someone had seen just that birth, they could have made assumptions that squatting or long crowning could cause a floppy baby. This is not the case. Some babies have lower tolerances to lower levels of oxygen (which can occur during pushing) and if there are position issues or forced pushing issues, this exaggerates the lower tolerance.

Hope this makes sense.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

I had both pitocin and finally, after many hours, an epidural. I didn't intend to use either drug but my water broke and I went 44 hours without going into active labor. I tried a lot of natural methods to get labor going, including herbs and shiatsu, but no dice.

I had pitocin for 24 hours, then added the epidural and more pitocin, and then pushed--another 44 hours of pharmacological "fun" at the hospital in total.

My son was born very alert and looking fine. This fit in with all the monitoring the hospital staff did--his heart rate stayed strong and he experienced no infections during the long labor. But, he didn't latch on at birth and when I finally got a lactation consultant into my room, I learned that he was sucking his tongue. Getting him to nurse was a big project. (But I am persistent and he is still nursing!)

I can't know whether the epidural was the factor that made him suck his tongue. It could have been the long labor, but as we have read upthread, epidurals increase the risk of long labors. I spoke with several lactation consultants and a local LLL leader. At least two of these bf experts thought the epidural was the deciding factor. I did not dilate until I was given the epidural, but I also found that pushing out the baby while numb from the waist down was, uh, ridiculous. I couldn't feel anything, it was undignified, inefficient, uncomfortable. Finally the epidural pump broke and I gave birth with the pitocin and no epi and that was better.

I can see from my own experience that in the midst of a crazily long, complicated and painful labor, having a method of giving anaesthetic drugs that will help a mom give birth is a good thing. But if I were planning a birth, I wouldn't plan to use it. The possible risks elucidated here are compelling, but so is my personal experience. It just makes it a lot harder to have a normal birth.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

OK, I got all my sources together so now everyone can see where I get my wacky ideas.









Birth as an American Rite of Passage, Davis-Floyd, 1992. "There are several other potential disadvantages of epidural anesthesia...dangers to the baby include oxygen deprivation, slowing of the heart rate, an increase in the acidity of its blood, and poor muscle tone..." (pg 114)

Unassisted Childbirth, Shanley, 1994. "...breathing and sucking difficulties for the baby...impaired muscular, visual and neural development of the baby; permanent brain damage and mental retardation of the baby; infant death." (pg 20)

(Shanley did not specify the epidural; she says "drugs" or "anesthesia." Her sources include Dr. Doris Haire, who writes "Recent research makes it evident that obstetrical medication must play a role in our staggering incidence of neurological impairment.")

Mal(e) Practice, Mendelsohn, 1982. "The obstetrician's benign assurance that he is going to make the mother comfortable is the prelude to the obstetrical version of chemical warfare...[The mother] should protest, because every drug she is given threatens to injure or even kill her or her child... (pg 166) "Even a full-term, healthy newborn baby is not fully developed at the time of its birth...the newborn infant is incapable of dealing effectively with the drugs that have crossed the placenta and entered its bloodstream..." (pg 168)

Open Season, Cohen, 1991. "And what effects do epidurals have on babies? Epidurals cross the [placenta] and affect the baby in both short- and long-term ways (drowsiness, poor sucking reflex, suspected hyperactivity up to seven years of age). One group of reserachers found effects on the muscle strength and tone of newborns...Compared with babies in an unmedicated group, epidural babies performed poorly on the motor, state control, and physiological response clusters, as well as their total score..." (pg 98)

Ina May's Guide to Childbirth, Gaskin, 2003. "Babies whose mothers have had epidurals soemtimes have breathing difficulties and a difficult time establishing breastfeeding." (pg 236)

Our Bodies, Ourselves For the New Century, Boston Women's Health Book Collective, 1998. "Observed behavioral changes include decreased rooting activity and increased muscular floppiness." (pg 492)

OK, so now everyone can see where I get all this stuff. Even if you don't agree with it, and can present other stuff that contradicts it, can't you see I'm not just making it up?


----------



## MamaTT (Aug 29, 2003)

Hey Greaseball, I have also read about the respiratory suppression associated with epidural births, so I don't think you're loony there. However I do think that the "blue floppy babies" term is a loaded cliche, and I wouldn't use it w/ a mom on the fence. (That said, I am sure I've used it when ranting to my dh, :LOL)

Just from recent personal experience, I have a church friend who just gave birth to her first a couple weeks ago, and oops! They gave her just a bit too stong of a dose in the epi and they almost lost the baby. No Sh*t. Even with the meds they have to reverse the effects, it was pretty scary. And the medical team acknowledged the causal relationship of the OD to the near-death of the baby.

FWIW.


----------



## Rach (Nov 11, 2003)

My brother was born blue and floppy. the doctor slapped him more than twice.
My mother's water broke at midnite, she got an epidural when it was time and had my brother by 4am.
She was so scared, that she had her next 3 without medicine, two of us being the bigger of her babiies.

When it came time for me to have my daughter, I had to be induced due to pre-e, but then kept coming in and asked if I wanted the epi or something to take the edge off. I kept telling them nothing and of course, they kept pushing it. I had a spinal because I ended up with an emergency c-section and my baby was alert and had apgars of 9 and 10.

I can't tell you how many doctors and nurses I've seen that push the epi. Even on those baby shows on TV, you'll hear them say "I don't know why women want a natural childbirth...."
awful.

I say, if you want the epi, get it. But don't try to tell anyone how wonderful and safe it is. My brother was born blue and didn't breathe right away. And my sister just gave birth to her first with an epi and he was fine! Alert and awake for over 2 hours! Of course....when she recovered, she liked the itchy feeling because she could actually FEEL something, but a week after the birth she STILL couldn't lift her right leg. She said she'd try to and it just wouldn't listen. :\
EVERYTHING has positive and negative effects. Personally, the negative seem too risky to outweigh the positive.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mom2six_
*The technique is combining narcotic with the bupivicaine (marcaine) so that less "numbing" medication has to be used. ... with epidural anesthesia.*
I had written to Dr. Robert Mendelsohn in 1985. He published my letter. It was about a discussion I had with a mother in my Mommy'n'Me group in which a mother proudly announced that the doctor told her that he had delivered her baby so fast that the epidural never reached the baby. (?)

Dr. Mendelsohn said that this was silly. That the prescribing information that the drug company shared with the doctor did not give that information. He suggested that the woman go to the PDR and read up on the drugs she received, if she knew what they were and go and ask the doctor about, "getting the baby out so fast...!"

It is my understanding that the drug is injected into the dura of the spinal column, and then is disbursed into the blood stream with the next heartbeat, gradually taking effect over the next few minutes. How doctors think this bypasses the placenta and baby I do not know.

Rmemeber, the drug is given to numb a woman who may weigh between 140-200 pounds at term; if the dose can make her numb, what does it do to a 6-8 pound baby whose liver and brain are still developing?

Dr. Mendelsohn was also mentioned in his newsletter and in his answer to me that high dose marcaine was taken off of the market in the mid-1980's because of the high incidence of cardiac arrests it caused in the mothers who received it in their epidurals.

Are you sure about this?


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by captain optimism_
*I had both pitocin and finally, after many hours, an epidural. I didn't intend to use either drug but my water broke and I went 44 hours without going into active labor. I tried a lot of natural methods to get labor going, including herbs and shiatsu, but no dice.

I had pitocin for 24 hours, then added the epidural and more pitocin, and then pushed--another 44 hours of pharmacological "fun" at the hospital in total.

My son was born very alert and looking fine. This fit in with all the monitoring the hospital staff did--his heart rate stayed strong and he experienced no infections during the long labor. But, he didn't latch on at birth and when I finally got a lactation consultant into my room, I learned that he was sucking his tongue. Getting him to nurse was a big project. (But I am persistent and he is still nursing!)

I can't know whether the epidural was the factor that made him suck his tongue. It could have been the long labor, but as we have read upthread, epidurals increase the risk of long labors. I spoke with several lactation consultants and a local LLL leader. At least two of these bf experts thought the epidural was the deciding factor. I did not dilate until I was given the epidural, but I also found that pushing out the baby while numb from the waist down was, uh, ridiculous. I couldn't feel anything, it was undignified, inefficient, uncomfortable. Finally the epidural pump broke and I gave birth with the pitocin and no epi and that was better.

I can see from my own experience that in the midst of a crazily long, complicated and painful labor, having a method of giving anaesthetic drugs that will help a mom give birth is a good thing. But if I were planning a birth, I wouldn't plan to use it. The possible risks elucidated here are compelling, but so is my personal experience. It just makes it a lot harder to have a normal birth.*
Re: the sucking tongue/breastfeeding bit: it could have just been that he learned to suck his tongue in utero. Many babies suck their thumbs in utero; why not his tongue? I wouldn't necessarily blame the epidural for this one - what would the causal relationship be?

I had a drug-free birth at 42 weeks and my ds had HORRIBLE nursing problems - it was 2.5 months until I got him on the breast exclusively. The only thing in my labor that I could possibly relate our breastfeeding problems to is that there was meconium in the waters and ds was suctioned on my perineum. He ended up in the NICU for 4 days with TTN (transient tachypnea of the newborn, i.e. his respiration rate was too high for no apparent reason).

Which is just to say that a) you can have breastfeeding problems without epidurals or drugs and b) in my experience, at least, breastfeeding problems were not related to his being early. They may or may not have been related to the suctioning - but it's so tempting to look for a reason and assign blame to an intervention, especially when one wanted an intervention-free birth and didn't get it.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Quirky_
*it's so tempting to look for a reason and assign blame to an intervention, especially when one wanted an intervention-free birth and didn't get it.*








Yeah. That's about where I am.

Though I also didn't like trying to push out a baby with an epi. So I would want someone who was considering whether to plan one into her birth to know that.


----------



## Seeking Refuge (Nov 2, 2002)

I am going to jump in here with my personal insights just because they kind of fit into this subject. I have four sisters and between us there are nine babies soon to be ten and my sprout will bring it up to eleven but the end of the year.

Five were born naturally, four were born with epidurals.

I and the next youngest sister gave birth without pain medication although I did have to have pitocin with the second daughter because my water had broken 30 hours before.

Next youngest sis tried but said she couldn't take the pain. After her first epi she couldn't walk for a week and they weren't sure if the damage was permanent or not. Youngest sis had to have ephedrine and had difficulty walking for quite a while. She was also never able to get her son to nurse properly despite working with a lactation consultant

Both of the sisters who had the epidurals say they will have them again ( one is due in June) but openly admit that the older sisters babies were more alert and nursed better than their babies did but that to them having the epidural outweighed this because their babies "got over it"

I am not making any judgements. I believe in every womans rights to make their own decision but I am glad I made the decision I did.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

I hope I don't sound defensive because I did make a fully informed decision to have epis with both my girls. I had the full strength epidural and could not feel a thing or move my legs. (I have past abuse issues, long story but I'm glad I chose the epi in my case.)

My oldest was born with APGARS of 9 and 10 and very alert. She did have nursing problems due to my flat nipples and then [email protected]#$ nurses suctioning her tummy "to make her hungry."







but she tried to nurse before they did that to her. Wish we'd known better but we were young and uninformed.

My youngest was born with APGARS of 9 and 9. She was born practically holding her head up by herself, very alert and awake. I didn't try to nurse her but she gulped down my expressed colostrum (pumped ahead of time) within minutes of birth and asked for more.

My friend's birth, which I attended, was an epi birth. Her baby was also born alert and nursed right away just fine.

Both of my labors were relatively short and I required no pit or other interventions. I got the epis immediately upon admission (at 4 and 5 cm). My first birth lasted 8 hours and my second one lasted 16 hours but I wasn't sure I was in labor (because of weeks of prodromal labor) until 9 hours before the birth.

I have no doubt that it does get to the baby. Anyone who says so is full of it. I just don't think it's that common to have a bad side effect. I'm really sorry for thos of you who did.









Darshani


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

My first child wouldn't nurse for three days.

My second was born totally blue and floppy.

They were both home births.


----------



## Ms.Doula (Apr 3, 2003)

First daughter was hospital & Epi birth and she died at birth...

Second was supposed to be a Home birth. But we went in cause she was still breech (footling actually) & Got an Epi to attemp to Turn her. (she was breech & I refused a C-sect./ it worked) She was not very alert... nursed well enough after trying for some time but was an 7/8 I believe

Then #3 was at home & was born happy, pink & very alert. was for hours & nursed all night....


----------

