Monday, 28 November 2011

Natural Labour VS Tooth Extraction

In the wake of the recent pronouncements to allow women have elective cesarean sections without any underlying medical need as well as the studies recently released by Oxford university that claim first time mothers that chose home births are twice as likely to suffer complications than those that have their babies in the hospital, there has been a lot of debate about natural childbirth vs medicated/cesarean births.

Of particular interest to me is the recurring comparison between un-medicated vaginal birth and a tooth extraction. I've seen it on numerous websites as well as heard it bandied around in discussions. People saying, 'Oh, you wouldn't have a tooth extraction without any pain relief, so why go through childbirth/labour without pain relief'. For crying out loud! The comparison equates both pains as being unnatural and to be avoided at all cost. Whereas childbirth is completely natural, a damaged or decaying tooth is in no way a 'normal' part of human existence.

The human body is actually built to grow a little human being and bring it out into the world. Without learning or training, your body knows exactly what to do.

I am personally not anti-pain relief. I'm hoping to get high on gas and air for my labour, but I still choose a natural labour regardless (if all goes according to plan) and I have no issues with women that have other ideas about how they want to labour and give birth. If you want to have a drugged up labour that makes you completely numb to whats going on, or you want to have a c-section because you can't cope with labour pains, go ahead and do it. But please, stop berating women that choose to go through the motions as nature intended as though they are masochists.

End of rant!

No comments:

Post a Comment